CLASSIFIED | POLITICS | TERRORISM | OPINION | VIEWS

How uncomfortable it is to lie next to an elephant

By Lanka Herald

Mr. Bandu de Silva, a former Sri Lankan Ambassador writing to the Island News paper on the subject of Mr Anura Bandarnaike’s request to the Indian High Commissioner Ms Nirupama Sen not to interfere in Sri Lankan internal affairs, recollects his conversation with a member of the Indian foreign service on the above subject. He has told how uncomfortable it was to lie next to an elephant.

After a period of cordial relationship with Sri Lanka, India began to assert its position in the South Asian region perhaps mainly due to the pressure it felt from the U.S.A and the West in the earlier phase, and later from China and Pakistan .

India expected Sri Lanka to be a ‘dumb’ neighbor so that her Southern flank will not pause any difficulties. In her policy formulations the main concern in Sri Lanka was the issue of the Indian Tamils and the Tamils in general as the ‘We Tamil’ movement began to stir in the South India. In short , like an elephant looking at a rabbit India saw Sri Lanka through very narrow and parochial eyes. India never appreciated that Sri Lanka with very close cultural and historical relationship existed as a sovereign country and preserved its own identity for more than 2500 years. In fact, Sri Lankan historical records such as Mahavamsa and inscriptions were some of the sources which were instrumental in providing clues to unravel some aspects of Indian history. Sri Lanka’s continuous struggle against the Western powers exhibits its resilience and should not be ignored in evaluating responses to Sri Lanka by the Indian neighbor.

However, India completely ignored the good neighborly relationship when it chose to train and finance the LTTE which is now considered as the world’s most brutal terrorist organization, and, in regard to defense co-operation agreement, Sethu Samudra project, recent vacillation in the training of Police personnel, outbursts about close defense ties with Pakistan, shabby treatment given to Sri Lankan exports in spite of huge trade surplus of India in her trading with Sri Lanka.

Mr De Silva in his article says..” What we heard in 1980s was “ India has a right to interfere in Sri Lanka” That is exactly the correct Consular Law usage as far as I recall, or intervention behalf of one’s nationals…’No” then India was not interfering on behalf her

Nationals; but Tamils as they were relatives of Tamils of Tamil Nadu. What did the Nazis say of Germans in Austria, Switzerland and those scattered behind the Iron Curtain countries? Did they appeal to them in the name of ‘Fatherland”? ISN’T THAT ALSO TAMIL NADU SONG?”

“If Minister Bandarnaike ‘s statement had any effect….AT LEAST IT IS THAT SRI LANKA PROTEST HAD BEEN HEARD LOUD AND CLEAR: AND THAT SRI LANKANS COULD ALSO BE SENSITIVE PEOPLE (AND THERE ARE STILL A

FEW LEFT WITH GUTS TO DEFEND THIS COUNTRY’S HONOUR) AND THAT OUGHT TO BE TAKEN STOCK OF.

However, being next to an elephant even in this age and time is problematic as we read

exchanges between the Australian Prime Minister and the Solomon Island’s Prime Minister. The Solomon Island Prime Minister has expelled the Australian High Commissioner as a ‘persona non grata’.for interference internally. But, the Australian

Prime Minister says ..” We don’t accept for a moment the expulsion of our High Commissioner…..He was doing the right thing”

India says that she endorses the statement of the Co-Chairs and insists that Sri Lanka should sit with the terrorists who continue with their killing spree. Is this for the benefit of the sovereign Sri Lanka or to show that the relatives of her Tamil Nadu people that they are being looked after properly by the central Indian Government.?

Whither South Asia?

Whither U.N principles?

What Times! What Morals!

BACK TO LATEST NEWS

DISCLAIMER