08-17-2005, 01:05 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Sri Lanka and the big brother called India
Rasheeda Bhagat
The relationship with India can tend to be a love-hate one. When we perceive India to be not too involved, we decry India. But once it gets involved, there is this perception of the big brother syndrome.Â
Colombo , Aug. 14
THE question mark against India and the kind of subservient role that Sri Lankans think India wants the small island country to play in South Asia continues to come in the way of the people in Sri Lanka wholeheartedly embracing India as a regional leader. A leader that can take up the cause of the entire South Asian region on global platforms.
In Colombo, there is undoubtedly admiration for the kind of strides the Indian economy has made in the last few years. Its emergence as a technology giant that is altering the global services scene, particularly on the IT front, is discussed and acknowledged too in Colombo.
But the problem comes in seeing the `India hand' when things do not go too well for Sri Lanka. For an Indian visitor it comes as a shock to find that for things as diverse as the rebellion by the LTTE leader Karuna in the East and something as crucial as the fall of the Ranil Wikremesinghe government, an `Indian hand' is seen here.
Voicing this suspicion Mr Jehan Perera, Media Director of the Colombo-based National Peace Council says that in the East there has been "continued murder of the LTTE cadres which the LTTE blames on the Sri Lankan military, but I don't think the Sri Lankan military could achieve all this unless there was some significant support from the Tamil people themselves."
He says the LTTE is placed in a difficult situation because it does not want to acknowledge there is something called the `Karuna group'. Ideologically, they cannot accept this reality because "their position is they represent all the Tamil people in the North and the East and there is no breakaway faction of the LTTE led by Karuna. The LTTE says the killings are done by the Sri Lankan Government and the paramilitary forces."
While this is the situation in the North and the East, in the South, most people believe that the Karuna group is supported by India, says Perera.
"Sri Lankans believe that the Indians had a hand in it and that Karuna wouldn't have broken away from the LTTE if he did not enjoy the support of... if not the Indian Government, at least that of the Indian intelligence. In Sri Lanka, if something happens that is bad for the country, many Sri Lankans think that India had a hand in it."
Perara points out that even in the fall of the UNP Government of Ranil Wickremesinghe last year, in some Sri Lankan circles the "suspicion was that India had a hand in it. But India has not featured in the public discourse for at least a year now. But when the Ranil government fell, those in the government and a section of the media were very critical of India. They felt India had helped to put together the coalition against the UNP by supporting and funding the JVP (the Sinhala hardliner Janata Vimukhti Peramuna that earlier this year withdrew support from the Chandrika government on the issue of joint administration of post-tsunami relief with the LTTE) and helped bring it and the SLFP together."
He adds that some people felt that India had given a false assurance to the then PM Wickremesinghe that the President Chandrika Kumaratunga would not dissolve Parliament.
"Now, this may not be true but there is a strong belief to this effect here and, that is why, there is a lot of hostility to this so-called Indian intervention.
"But I must add that, of late, there has been a strong and conscious attempt by the Indian embassy in Colombo to change that image. So now, such stories are not being heard in Colombo."
On the perception of India in Sri Lanka, Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu, Executive Director of the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) in Colombo, says the public opinion surveys carried out by the CPA clearly show a love-hate relationship with India.
"We find a general feeling that India must play a much more proactive role in the whole peace process. There is not only this feeling but also an across-the-board recognition and acknowledgement that if any international actor has a stake and legitimate interest in the resolution of this conflict in Sri Lanka, it is India. But the relationship with India can always tend to be a love-hate one in the sense that when we perceive India to be not too involved in the ways we'd like it to be, we decry India.
"But once it does get involved, there is this perception of the big brother syndrome because after all some of the people who are asking for India's involvement are also the people who have vociferously demonstrated against Indian involvement in the past."
But, adds Saranavanamuttu, there is a general consensus in Sri Lanka that "when we do move to serious consideration of political alternatives in the negotiation process with the LTTE, the Indian involvement will increase." But the feeling of suspicion refuses to go away. Perara adds that more recently he had come across "a general feeling that India wishes Sri Lanka to be subservient to India's interest and we have to learn what the Indian parameters are, how far we can go. We have to study more about India and India's thinking. But unfortunately that is not happening."
He feels the intellectuals in Sri Lanka need to study and learn more about India. "But unfortunately, we do not have any think-tanks or experts who study India and can explain India to our policy-makers. And that is a serious lacuna at our end."
Interestingly, there is no interest whatsoever in Sri Lanka on the progress made in the Indo-Pak peace process. Says Perera, "For one, we're caught up in our own civil war and that is the most important issue for us and our interest is devoted to resolving that issue.
"Also, we are a closed people and maybe our being an island has got something to do with it. We don't look outside!"
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2005/0...81500881400.htm<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Rasheeda Bhagat
The relationship with India can tend to be a love-hate one. When we perceive India to be not too involved, we decry India. But once it gets involved, there is this perception of the big brother syndrome.Â
Colombo , Aug. 14
THE question mark against India and the kind of subservient role that Sri Lankans think India wants the small island country to play in South Asia continues to come in the way of the people in Sri Lanka wholeheartedly embracing India as a regional leader. A leader that can take up the cause of the entire South Asian region on global platforms.
In Colombo, there is undoubtedly admiration for the kind of strides the Indian economy has made in the last few years. Its emergence as a technology giant that is altering the global services scene, particularly on the IT front, is discussed and acknowledged too in Colombo.
But the problem comes in seeing the `India hand' when things do not go too well for Sri Lanka. For an Indian visitor it comes as a shock to find that for things as diverse as the rebellion by the LTTE leader Karuna in the East and something as crucial as the fall of the Ranil Wikremesinghe government, an `Indian hand' is seen here.
Voicing this suspicion Mr Jehan Perera, Media Director of the Colombo-based National Peace Council says that in the East there has been "continued murder of the LTTE cadres which the LTTE blames on the Sri Lankan military, but I don't think the Sri Lankan military could achieve all this unless there was some significant support from the Tamil people themselves."
He says the LTTE is placed in a difficult situation because it does not want to acknowledge there is something called the `Karuna group'. Ideologically, they cannot accept this reality because "their position is they represent all the Tamil people in the North and the East and there is no breakaway faction of the LTTE led by Karuna. The LTTE says the killings are done by the Sri Lankan Government and the paramilitary forces."
While this is the situation in the North and the East, in the South, most people believe that the Karuna group is supported by India, says Perera.
"Sri Lankans believe that the Indians had a hand in it and that Karuna wouldn't have broken away from the LTTE if he did not enjoy the support of... if not the Indian Government, at least that of the Indian intelligence. In Sri Lanka, if something happens that is bad for the country, many Sri Lankans think that India had a hand in it."
Perara points out that even in the fall of the UNP Government of Ranil Wickremesinghe last year, in some Sri Lankan circles the "suspicion was that India had a hand in it. But India has not featured in the public discourse for at least a year now. But when the Ranil government fell, those in the government and a section of the media were very critical of India. They felt India had helped to put together the coalition against the UNP by supporting and funding the JVP (the Sinhala hardliner Janata Vimukhti Peramuna that earlier this year withdrew support from the Chandrika government on the issue of joint administration of post-tsunami relief with the LTTE) and helped bring it and the SLFP together."
He adds that some people felt that India had given a false assurance to the then PM Wickremesinghe that the President Chandrika Kumaratunga would not dissolve Parliament.
"Now, this may not be true but there is a strong belief to this effect here and, that is why, there is a lot of hostility to this so-called Indian intervention.
"But I must add that, of late, there has been a strong and conscious attempt by the Indian embassy in Colombo to change that image. So now, such stories are not being heard in Colombo."
On the perception of India in Sri Lanka, Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu, Executive Director of the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) in Colombo, says the public opinion surveys carried out by the CPA clearly show a love-hate relationship with India.
"We find a general feeling that India must play a much more proactive role in the whole peace process. There is not only this feeling but also an across-the-board recognition and acknowledgement that if any international actor has a stake and legitimate interest in the resolution of this conflict in Sri Lanka, it is India. But the relationship with India can always tend to be a love-hate one in the sense that when we perceive India to be not too involved in the ways we'd like it to be, we decry India.
"But once it does get involved, there is this perception of the big brother syndrome because after all some of the people who are asking for India's involvement are also the people who have vociferously demonstrated against Indian involvement in the past."
But, adds Saranavanamuttu, there is a general consensus in Sri Lanka that "when we do move to serious consideration of political alternatives in the negotiation process with the LTTE, the Indian involvement will increase." But the feeling of suspicion refuses to go away. Perara adds that more recently he had come across "a general feeling that India wishes Sri Lanka to be subservient to India's interest and we have to learn what the Indian parameters are, how far we can go. We have to study more about India and India's thinking. But unfortunately that is not happening."
He feels the intellectuals in Sri Lanka need to study and learn more about India. "But unfortunately, we do not have any think-tanks or experts who study India and can explain India to our policy-makers. And that is a serious lacuna at our end."
Interestingly, there is no interest whatsoever in Sri Lanka on the progress made in the Indo-Pak peace process. Says Perera, "For one, we're caught up in our own civil war and that is the most important issue for us and our interest is devoted to resolving that issue.
"Also, we are a closed people and maybe our being an island has got something to do with it. We don't look outside!"
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2005/0...81500881400.htm<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->