Dishonouring A Word

I like the way M. Karunanidhi has stuck to his guns. Admittedly, he made a suggestion (that Sri Lanka should consider a Czech and Slovakia-type separation if all else fails) that was diplomatically outrageous. But he made it at a private function, at his own home, not in the state assembly and not at a press conference. Even chief ministers have a right to their own private opinion, so the most he can be accused of is indiscretion.

But it may not even have been that. Newspaper reporters are known for their capacity to pull a remark out of context. What Karunanidhi apparently said was that if the Sri Lankan government and the ltte can find a solution that gives the Tamil minority genuine equality under the Sri Lankan constitution, then that would be the best of all possible solutions. But if they can't, and Colombo is unable to subdue the ltte by force of arms, then a separation by agreement is a lesser evil than a violent and bloody separation through war, terrorism and ethnic cleansing.

Karunanidhi's statement should be read in conjunction with his carefully-worded official statement a few days after the attack on Jaffna began. In it, he reminded his people that it was not the dmk but the aiadmk that had originally supported the ltte; that the dmk did not regard the ltte as the representatives of the Tamil people of Sri Lanka as it had systematically eliminated all other Tamil nationalist leaders from those of plote, telo and eprlf to those of the tulf; that to do so it had not hesitated to enter India and carry out its murders on Indian soil. Finally, he had fully supported New Delhi's refusal to countenance a partition of Sri Lanka and warned in not very veiled terms that an ltte victory could pose a secessionist threat in Tamil Nadu.

There was nothing in all this that any leader in Colombo could have possibly taken exception to. Why then is the Sri Lankan government so openly showing its displeasure? Why has prime minister Chandrika Kumaratunga referred so openly to the large amounts of military help that her country is getting from Pakistan, Israel and China? And why has her information minister warned India that the course Karunanidhi proposes will lead to the balkanisation of India?

The answer is that after weeks of hoping against hope and grasping at crumbs (such as India's renewal of the ban on the ltte), Sri Lanka has at last despaired of receiving any help from India in its hour of need. Its leaders therefore feel that they have nothing more to lose by speaking out plainly, by expressing their disappointment, or criticising Indian leaders openly. It is not Karunanidhi that they are angry with. They know that he has to tread carefully so as not to give other Tamil political parties the chance to play the Tamil nationalist card against him. Their anger and disappointment is aimed at New Delhi.

It is the Vajpayee government, not Chennai, that has let them down in their hour of crisis. It has let down not only Sri Lanka but also India, for it has reneged on the Rajiv Gandhi-Jayawardene accord of 1987. That accord committed India to preserving the unity of Sri Lanka within a federal framework that would give equal rights to all Sri Lankan citizens and a measure of self-government to the Tamils of the north and east. This obliged India not only to prevent Colombo from imposing a purely military solution to the Tamil problem within a unitary state (something that it had already done), but to prevent the ltte from vivisecting Sri Lanka by force of arms. That is the commitment that India is now refusing to honour.

New Delhi of course denies all this. Jana Krishnamurthy, the bjp's vice-president, dismissed Colombo's remarks as 'over-reactions to a situation that does not exist'. But what is the situation that does exist? To quote Krishnamurthy again: "The sovereignty and integrity of Sri Lanka should be preserved... The rights of the Tamils should be protected and preserved and they should be given equal status... The question of arms and ammunition to Sri Lanka does not arise... India will play a mediator's role only if both the warring groups seek its help." And to quote Vajpayee and sundry official spokesmen, "There can be no question of intervening militarily in Sri Lanka... India is prepared to give humanitarian assistance (and) will help to evacuate Sri Lankan troops from Jaffna, but only if there is a ceasefire."

Even a child can see what all this adds up to: India will do nothing at all in Sri Lanka without the ltte's prior consent - the consent of a party that has repeatedly invaded India to commit murder, that has assassinated a former Indian head of government on Indian soil and for whose leader there is a warrant of arrest waiting to be executed. Thus has a party that revels in being described as nationalist brought shame to India.

Countries that renege on their treaty - not to mention their moral - obligations automatically forfeit their position in the hierarchy of nations. India wants to be the regional hegemon; India wants to be recognised as such; India aspires to a permanent seat in the Security Council and is trying to lead an international crusade against cross-border terrorism. None of this will be possible if it does not recognise that rights are inalienable from obligations. To demand one you must fulfill the other.

It is not too late to repair the damage. All India has to do to fulfill its commitments to Sri Lanka and its Tamils is to replace the word 'should' with the word 'shall'. India shall not allow the vivisection of Sri Lanka by force; and shall, if necessary, do whatever is necessary to ensure an orderly evacuation of soldiers and civilians from the peninsula.