India's meddling in Sri Lanka is what Pak's resolution on Afzal is to us

20 March, 2013

The mask finally came off. It became clear to everyone within India and outside that this Indian government handles its diplomatic relations on the basis of internal politics and aspirations. The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) has withdrawn support to the UPA government led by Manmohan Singh over the issue of alleged killing of Tamils by the Sri Lankan establishment. The open secret lies unravelled now.

It would be interesting to listen to those voices, which questioned the validity of Pakistan's National Assembly in passing a resolution condemning the hanging of parliament attack convict Afzal Guru. Our Parliament wasted no time in giving a befitting reply by passing another resolution condemning the resolution of Pakistan's National Assembly. And, everyone including this citizen journalist has reliably learnt that the DMK under M Karunanidhi voted favouring the resolution passed by Parliament. Now, where is the so-called ethical or moral difference between the equations?

We generally elect our leaders on the basis of our ability to believe or disbelieve in them, and we judge our leaders on the basis of their past (the most recent) performance. Sometimes, their intent also plays a significant role in the election process. Now, let's think separately on the intent and performance of our political class in the aforesaid two cases, and then have a look at the real diplomatic and political spectre.

The Afzal Resolution

National Assembly of Pakistan passed that resolution because of two broad reasons: one, Afzal's connection to Kashmir (and attack on Indian Parliament) and two, religious appeal, which played the main role in partition of the sub continent and subsequent political confusion over the status, standing and stature of Jammu and Kashmir.

First of all, Pakistan feels that Kashmir, with which it shares the religious proximity, is an unfinished agenda of the partition and hence, it has its stake in deciding the fate and future of the state. It has fought not less than three wars on this issue, and has been supporting, helping, channelizing, designing and propagating insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir.

So, when someone from the same school of thought carries out or allegedly helps carrying out an act of terror, Pakistan is bound to have some hand in the act and stake in the future of the same person. It may present a different face to the world but within, it knows the reality. Hence, Pakistan’s resolution on Afzal Guru, who was executed and buried in secrecy in Delhi’s Tihar Jail on February 9 this year.

The resolution was viewed as an affront on India by millions of electors or stakeholders in our democracy. Sensing their mood, the elected ones showcased their intent in snubbing Pakistan with a counter-resolution asserting that "Jammu and Kashmir has been and shall always remain the integral part of India", that hanging of Afzal Guru was an internal matter of India, and also that Afzal Guru was a part of the conspiracy hatched in Pakistan and sponsored by Pakistani establishment that saw attack on Parliament. Isn't there some inherent contradiction in our approach?

The Tamil Affair

Now, consider the government's stand on Sri Lanka's approach in dealing with remnants of LTTE, which was a proscribed outfit in India till it existed in force. The island nation's government has been accused of committing war crimes on the surrendered members of LTTE and the Tamil population of the Elam region. It is a serious human rights issue of international importance. But, it is happening within the sovereign boundaries of Sri Lanka and hence, an internal matter of that country. But then, the population involved is Tamil, which evokes emotional appeal across the international waters in an Indian state.

Tamil Nadu is under AIADMK rule while DMK is in opposition and so, quite naturally it feels the pulse of Tamil people's emotion and anger. The same DMK has been a partner in all crimes with other UPA partners at the centre. It could easily dictate the matters vis-a-vis India's southern neighbour in past nine years. But, in the wake of Italian marine goof up, better sense has started prevailing over the UPA government.

So, after going far ahead of expressing concern over human rights' issue in Sri Lanka, the Manmohan Singh government has finally decided to see whether antagonizing the island nation is in India's favour given the Chinese propensity in the region.

If India genuinely felt that Pakistan's National Assembly's resolution on Guru was an attack on India's sovereignty, can it forget the same principle in dealing with Sri Lanka simply because DMK is part of the ruling coalition? And, if India can interfere in Sri Lanka (to safeguard its strategic interest) why can't Pakistan do the same with India? Also, why should India choose/ pick the nation with which it has to interfere; simply put, why does India choose not to apply pressure on Maldives, Italy, Nepal or Bangladesh for that matter to safeguard its strategic interests, while it goes on to interfere with an essentially (going by India's own definition) internal matter of Sri Lanka?

The present politico-diplomatic-strategic state of affairs of the UPA-2 points to utter indecision. The government seems to be so indecisive that it has failed to realize that indecision was its earlier decision. Under the circumstances, can India be taken seriously on the matters of external affairs, outside or within?

Congress propaganda of vendetta fully exposed says Sukhbir Singh Badal

Goons assault my brother and father: Is anybody listening?

COMMENTS (1)

Guest

nagaraj

Exactly.. if we move the resolution , it will provide an oppurtunity to other countries to start interfering in the internal affairs of India. that would be real bad situation.