| by Upul Joseph Fernando
( March 20, 2013, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, in his speech made in Parliament pertaining to the US resolution to be tabled at the UN Human Rights Council, made no mention of the photograph of Prabhakaran's son or the war crimes allegations against Sri Lanka. He only stated his government was committed to safeguarding the rights of the Lankan Tamils by ensuring devolution of power under the 13th Amendment to the Constitution.
Some are of the view India is not evincing much interest regarding the war crimes allegations, because it fears permitting an international investigation into Sri Lanka's war crimes allegations would open the flood gates, and there could well be a resolution against India on a future date with a request to the human rights commission for an investigation into the human rights violations in Kashmir on a future date. Hence, India's apprehensions.
Susceptible to being incriminated
However, it is the view of some others, that as India also made a major contribution during the period of the Sri Lankan war and to ending it, the country stands susceptible to being incriminated, should the war crimes allegations being levelled against Sri Lanka be investigated by an international body. Or, that it is afraid that in the course of the international war crime investigation, the Sri Lankan Government might disclose India's involvements in the war.
Yet, another group is of the opinion if India shows support for a strong resolution against Sri Lanka, the latter might get pushed towards China.
That said, this fear that India has is not something that can be easily comprehended or explained. During the government of former President J. R. Jayewardene, when Sri Lanka was pampered by both America and the western countries, a resolution drafted by India to the UN Human Rights Commission was brought forward by Argentina in 1987. Given hereunder is the speech made by J. S. Teja, the High Commissioner of India to the UN Human Rights Commission at that time supporting the resolution against Sri Lanka.
Intervention by the Indian Ambassador, J.S. Teja, 4 March 1987 – in reply to the statement of the Sri Lankan representative.
Mr. Chairman, my delegation wishes to exercise its right of reply to the statement made by the distinguished representative of Sri Lanka last night. Had there been an opportunity to speak yesterday, my delegation would have done that immediately.
Mr. Chairman, let me say straightaway that we share the sentiment that India and Sri Lanka are friendly countries with many common values and aspirations and with a common stake in peace, stability, progress and development in the world, particularly our region.
We have repeatedly said that we would like a peaceful, negotiated solution of the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka, within the integrity and unity of Sri Lanka. India has been doing all it can to bring the two sides of this ethnic conflict together to resolve the issue through negotiations. It was therefore painful to hear the unfounded, unsubstantiated and unwarranted utterances of the representative of Sri Lanka yesterday.
The representative of Sri Lanka said yesterday something to the effect that India has destroyed its credibility with the Sri Lanka Government and that India has no capacity to play the role of an honest broker because of what he called having no control over the militants. He also quoted approvals from some newspapers.
I do not know what the representative of Sri Lanka means by 'control'. The militants are not Indian nationals; they are Sri Lankan. If they were active, that activity too would be on Sri Lankan soil. How can India exercise control over citizens of another country in that country itself?
As for credibility and capacity as a mediator, our clear impression is that the Government of Sri Lanka would like India to continue its mediatory role. That is what the President of Sri Lanka has said in public and through official channels. We would prefer to go by his statements and that of the Government of Sri Lanka. For example, just before leaving for Maldives, President Jayewardene told the High Commissioner of India on 2 March this year that he considers India's good offices important. As late as 12 February, the President gave formal indication to India that if the LTTE is prepared to attend the talks with the representatives of the Government of Sri Lanka towards a peaceful solution of the ethnic problem, appropriate talks may be held in New Delhi with the assistance of the representatives of the Indian Government. The Government of Sri Lanka expects the Indian Government to underwrite implementation of any agreement so reached. In all these proceedings, the mediatory role and the good offices of the Government of India are relevant.
Conflicting signals
On 22 February, President Jayewardene sent another letter to the Prime Minister of India, which was handed over to the Prime Minister on 2 March. The letter was along the same lines. It is precisely the sort of remarks made yesterday and which are at variance with what we are told officially, which cause serious impediments to the negotiating process, because they send conflicting signals. The problem is not between India and Sri Lanka, but between two sections of its citizens. It is disingenuous to drag India into it.
Mr. Chairman, this is not the forum for discussing political matters, but permit me to say briefly that if violence continues unabated, if recourse is taken to the military option, if civilians get killed by hundreds, if no adequate response is made to proposals designed to bring about a political settlement, how can the peace process be restored? The Sri Lankan representative said yesterday something to the effect that only one question remained to be resolved in the negotiations. It is precisely on that point that India made certain proposals on 9 February and asked for an adequate and more positive response, which has not come so far. Meanwhile military operations continue in the North. These facts speak for themselves!
The Human Rights Commission is concerned with human rights directly and we would prefer to keep the discussion within its four corners.
The representative of Sri Lanka stated that security operations in the Northern and Eastern Provinces were intended to restore not only law and order but to maintain supplies and services. The facts on the ground however speak otherwise.
There has been a massive military build-up on the Jaffna peninsula where several thousand troops have been deployed in an area with an extremely high density of population. If the anticipated military offensive takes place, there are bound to be very high civilian casualties, thereby adding to bitterness and seriously complicating the efforts towards a negotiated settlement.
The imposition of economic and communications blockade is not only an action against Tamil militants but against the entire civilian population. This unprecedented blockade is already in its third month. More than 200,000 people have been affected. Schools and factories have been occupied by armed forces and hospitals starved of essential drugs. Telephone lines remain cut off and transportation severely disrupted. If the blockade continues, there are likely to be starvation and deaths in the peninsula. Should the innocent Tamil civilians be made to suffer in the process of the government's operations against any particular militant group?
False propaganda
The representative of Sri Lanka suggested in his statement that the outflow of refugees from Sri Lanka has been manipulated on the basis of false propaganda about a consistent pattern of gross human rights violations to justify what has been described by the Sri Lankan representative as 'illegal immigration'. The main reasons, for which refugees from Sri Lanka are leaving the country, have been well-documented and established by a number of governments, international organizations and respectable human rights organizations. Refugees flee from their hearths and homes only in the face of violence visited upon them, not because they are looking for economic gains. There is a very clear difference in international law between refugees and immigrants whatever their legal status. The exodus of refugees has continued and there are now over 130,000 Tamil refugees from Sri Lanka in India, not to speak of more than 40,000 refugees who have sought shelter in distant countries. Economic blockade and military operations by security forces could well lead to an increase in that number.
The representative of Sri Lanka said in his written statement that the cause of human rights is not advanced by polemics because polemics serve propaganda purposes. We too do not wish to engage ourselves in polemics or propaganda. It is precisely for this reason that we have confined ourselves to stating the factual position only.
The authenticity of reports of human rights violations by the Sri Lankan security forces is quite transparent. Even from the government's accounts, the number of civilian casualties appears very high. Gross and systematic violations of human rights including arbitrary arrests, detentions, disappearances, torture and inhuman treatment, extra judicial killings, air attacks and shelling of civilian areas have been well-documented by reputable international organizations including International Alert, Amnesty International and the International Commission of Jurists. We could cite specific instances but that would only take more of the Commission's time.
( The writer is a senior journalist works for the Ceylon Today, where this piece was originally appeared)
( The writer is a senior journalist works for the Ceylon Today, where this piece was originally appeared)
 Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, in his speech made i...){kind=link}