The Indian dilemma is clear: Whether to intervene in
Sri Lanka
which had humiliated it? At the same time, is it prudent for
India
to adopt a "hands off policy"? If
India
must involve itself, what type of involvement should it be?
The pro-interventionists argue that if
India
does not
Pakistan
or
China
might send in; that will undermine Indian security. If
Jaffna
falls it could result in an exodus of refugees to
India
. The refugee flow could include a Tamil exodus due to fears of Tiger persecution and Tamils settled in the Sinhalese majority areas fleeing a possible ethnic backlash. An increase in smuggling activities along the Indian coasts could also be expected.
Some argue that the Tigers' victory will send a strong message to other separatist and terrorist groups in the region, like the North East insurgents, Kashmiri militants and Naxalites. Hence the need to check the Tigers. Besides,
India
, which is spearheading the need for anti-terrorism co-operation in international fora, cannot afford to ignore a terrorists' triumph in the neighbourhood.
The most ironical aspect of the present crisis is that the same Sinhalese hard liners who opposed Indian intervention in 1987 are vociferous in asking
India
to intervene. Their assumption could be that since LTTE is a banned organisation in
India
, any Indian involvement in
Sri Lanka
will be against the rebels.
For historical reasons,
India
does not want to go on the IPKF path. The huge loss of men is still fresh in public memory, especially since the mission was an prematurely terminated. One can argue that the scenario changed with the Sinhalese themselves calling for Indian intervention. The fact of the matter is that the clergies' call is a "marriage of convenience". The ultra-nationalist JVP has already expressed its opposition to any type of intervention into Sri Lankan "internal" affairs. It will not take much time for the JVP to make the Sinhalas anti-Indian to capture seats in the coming parliamentary elections in August.
The Tamil allies of the NDA and the right wing Shiv Sena are strongly against any action against the Tigers. The fear of political instability would have made the Central leadership think twice before taking any "risky" decision. The opposition also comes from its own Defence Minister, who has a soft corner for the Tigers. As of now, though the support base for the LTTE is minimal in Tamil Nadu, civilian casualties in
Jaffna
might arouse Tamil sentiments.
In the past,
India
did save the Bandaranaike government from JVP subversion in 1971 and helped
Sri Lanka
deal with the second JVP revolution in 1988-89. At the moment, however,
India
does not apprehend any great threat to the Sri Lankan government. Besides, the Indian government cannot afford to ignore public opinion which is not in favour of losing even a single soldier "in another's war"?
This does not mean that
India
should turn a Nelson's eye towards the
Jaffna
situation. It should extend a helping hand to
Colombo
to overcome the immediate crisis.
New Delhi
has already accepted providing "humanitarian aid", including the evacuation of Sri Lankan troops from the
Jaffna
peninsula, under three conditions--fall of
Jaffna
, some sort of ceasefire, and an invitation being received from the Lankan government. The first two conditions seem ambiguous. Why
India
has to preempt the fall of
Jaffna
? This would bring down the morale of the Sri Lankan troops. On the ceasefire, who will bring it about? The Indian policy makers should come out clearly on this. Before that the Centre should bring about a much needed political consensus on the issue.
| Views from Various Quarters
In
India
:
Congress(I): Rejection of military assistance and conditions for evacuation unrealistic.
BJP: No negative fallout in Tamil Nadu if
India
intervenes to help
Sri Lanka
against the LTTE.
Shiv Sena:
India
should help the LTTE which is a Hindu force.
The Left: The LTTE is not waging a class war and hence it is not harm to intervene against it.
The political forces in Tamil Nadu: The DMK, which distanced itself from the LTTE, left everything to Centre's choice. The MDMK and PMK are in favour of
India
helping the LTTE militarily.
In
Sri Lanka
:
Sri Lankan government:
India
is unable to intervene militarily because of the IPKF debacle.
The LTTE: Has so far not spelled out its stand on the issue.
The UNP:
India
should intervene militarily not considering the past.
The Sinhalese hardliners: As a responsible democratic country,
India
should help another democracy (
Sri Lanka
) against a ruthless terrorist organisation (LTTE).
The JVP: Which used the IPKF involvement as platform for its resurgence, is opposed to "interventions" of any nature into
Sri Lanka
's internal issues..
Moderate Tamil parties: It is
India
's moral obligation to intervene in some form to secure the legitimate intrests of the Tamils.
The Moors (Sri Lankan Muslims): Against Israeli involvement, but did not spell out their stand vis-à-vis
India
|
|
Facebook
Blink
Del.icio.us
Digg
Furl
Google
Simpy
Spurl
Y! MyWeb
