Sometimes, the loudest sound can emanate from the sidelines. At the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva last week, India’s abstention vote — in a United States sponsored resolution in the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) against Sri Lanka for an international probe into alleged rights violations in the last leg of the civil war — was perhaps its boldest expression of external policy in recent years, signalling several shifts in decision-making in South Block.
Behind the shifts in stance
To begin with, the Indian decision corrects the aberrations of the past few years. India has an old policy of not voting on country-specific resolutions, much less on one against a neighbour. The fact that India voted in 2012 and 2013 against Sri Lanka was not just a departure from this practice; it was a departure based on political considerations. The United Progressive Alliance’s (then) ally, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) and other parties in Tamil Nadu had claimed that if India didn’t vote for the resolutions, the State would erupt in violent protests. Since India’s decision on Thursday was to abstain from the vote, there’s been no such spontaneous reaction from the streets, laying that claim bare. It also means that any violence that breaks out now will be the result of political instigation. It is unfortunate that the government didn’t try to test that claim in earlier years, instead bowing to the threat from its former allies in Tamil Nadu.
The next shift has been India’s acknowledgement of progress in the Sri Lankan reconciliation process, with India’s permanent representative to the U.N. in Geneva, Ambassador Dilip Sinha calling the elections in the Northern (Tamil) Provinces held in 2013 a “significant step forward.” Elections in the Northern Provinces were something Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had laid stress upon in numerous meetings with the Sri Lankan leadership, and it was important to acknowledge the outcome of that pressure. To have voted against Sri Lanka despite the elections having being held would have rendered these efforts meaningless; to have acknowledged the progress is a valid assertion of India’s regional influence.
The third shift, the decision to abstain on a resolution after having voted with the United States and the European Union in the past two years, was because of the language of the resolution itself. The setting up of an “international inquiry mechanism” to inquire into alleged war crimes in Sri Lanka during the final offensive against the LTTE is a departure from the texts of the past. For India, that holds the question of sovereignty so dear, to have supported such an “intrusive” resolution would have set another precedent. Moreover, the resolution seems to follow a dual principal: exhorting Sri Lanka to adopt the findings of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) — (it was appointed by Sri Lankan President Rajapaksa in May 2010, to look into allegations of human rights violations by Sri Lankan forces) — while at the same time ordering another inquiry into the same allegations.
The text of the UNHRC resolution (A/HRC/25/L.1/Rev.1) even goes so far as to recount the recommendations of the LLRC report, that minces no words about its findings when it says: “Recalling the constructive recommendations contained in the Commission’s report including the need to credibly investigate widespread allegations of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances, demilitarize the north of Sri Lanka, implement impartial land dispute resolution mechanisms, re-evaluate detention policies, strengthen formerly independent civil institutions, reach a political settlement on the devolution of power to the provinces, promote and protect the right of freedom of expression for all persons and enact rule of law reforms. — From the final resolution of the UNHRC#25.”
If the LLRC is in fact “constructive” and noteworthy, according to the sponsors of the resolution, where is the need for another investigation? Instead, the resolution could have proposed punitive measures against the Sri Lanka government until it adopts and acts on the LLRC’s recommendations. In any case, strong measures like having an international inquiry are normally reserved for countries that refuse access to U.N. delegations. While U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay had many complaints about her week-long visit to Sri Lanka in August last year, she was accorded, by her own admission, access to “any place she wished to see” on what was the longest official visit by the HR High Commissioner to any country.
More about political signals
While all these points should have been reason enough for India to make the shift in voting on the resolution, the unfortunate truth is that it was political consideration rather than principle and precedent that decided it. As noted earlier, the UPA government and the Congress party didn’t have to worry about alliance partners in Tamil Nadu withdrawing support this time. That worst case scenario had already been played out in 2013, when the DMK withdrew support to the government, not because of India’s vote, but because India had not enforced more stringent measures against Sri Lanka in the resolution. India also sought comfort in numbers, bolstered by the new entry of two powerful countries, Russia and China, in the composition of the UNHRC who would clearly have voted with Sri Lanka and against the West. Had India voted with the western bloc this time, it would have been an Asian exception: while countries like Japan and Indonesia abstained, others like Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Pakistan voted against the resolution.
Perhaps, the most notable shift has come from within South Block itself, where recommendations of the External Affairs Ministry have been sidelined over the past few years. The unhappiness among diplomatic officials was evident last year over Dr. Singh’s decision not to travel to Colombo for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) summit. In an interview, Union Minister of External Affairs Salman Khurshid had told CNN-IBN, “It would be very disappointing if the Prime Minister doesn’t go to Colombo,” later admitting that the decision was forced by “domestic politics”. Now, with India’s abstention vote, it would seem that South Block is wresting back control of its decision-making authority from that domestic sphere that has ridden roughshod over several foreign policy decisions including stopping the Teesta agreement with Bangladesh, dealing with China, or restarting talks at a technical level with Pakistan.
Gauging the move
Criticism of India’s abstention vote includes this — that it would have better suited India’s stature as a regional leader of 1.3 billion people to have voted a firm ‘yes or no’ instead. Amnesty International’s official statement says India had chosen to “sideline itself.” Even so, the significance of India’s vote has been lost on no one. President Rajapaksa’s decision to free all Indian fishermen in Sri Lankan custody as a sort of “goodwill return gesture” is testament to how important the shift is being seen in Colombo. The importance can also be gauged from the fact that international human rights organisations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have issued statements specifically critical of India’s position. One organisation tweeted that India’s abstention denoted this — “a few steps forward and now several backward” for its record on human rights. Others will see it as India’s foreign policy having come full circle; an important reset just before the election brings the next government to power.

Sri Lanka will not assist international probe: Peiris

Sri Lanka will not participate in any investigation carried out by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), Sri Lanka’s Foreign Minister G.L. Peiris said here on Monday.
“Nobody can come here without the cooperation of the Sri Lankan government,” Mr. Peiris told the Foreign Correspondents’ Association here. The country would however continue with its national process and remain engaged with the U.N., he added.
Following the U.S.-backed resolution — adopted on March 27 by the Human Rights Council in Geneva — that calls for an international probe in Sri Lanka, the Sri Lankan government immediately rejected it. Explaining the decision, Mr. Peiris said Sri Lanka decided not to participate on account of reasons pertaining to the legality of such a probe, issues of fairness and equity and questions over the budget required for the process.
Legally, it was not within the scope of the OHCHR to carry out an investigation in a particular country, he said. “One of the basic requirements of any enquiry is that the person conducting it should be able to come with an open mind — it must be an independent and objective mind free from bias or prejudgment,” he said.
Sri Lanka was not convinced that was the case with the OHCHR, he said, pointing to U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay’s call for an international probe a week after her visit to Sri Lanka concluded in August 2013.
Observing that there was no budgetary provision available with her office, Mr. Peiris said the motives of countries which may fund the process were questionable for much of the funding was likely to come from countries that were accusing Sri Lanka of rights abuse and war crimes.
On India’s abstention at Geneva, Mr. Peiris said it had strengthened avenues for dialogue. “If you go on supporting resolutions against Sri Lanka then a dialogue becomes more difficult because of the coercive nature of the means that are required… it [India’s abstention] is certainly helpful and we appreciate it.”
Asked to respond to how Sri Lanka sees its ties with India should a BJP government led by Narendra Modi come to power in New Delhi, he said: “I don’t wish to speculate on a speculation.”


Within touching distance

India and Sri Lanka are within touching distance of each other— positively and negatively — in their tending of their democratic ecologies. A valid electoral mandate creates and celebrates a political majority. But, if that political majority has been gleaned not from political logic but from apolitical emotions, the democratic text gets grossly distorted by an undemocratic subtext. An electoral verdict political in name but ethnic in nature, democratic in name but majoritarian in character, constitutional in name but manipulative in its operation, is a travesty. When a democratically valid electoral majority is teased out of a democratically invalid ethnic majoritarianism, we get democratic deception, democratic tyranny.
The India of Gandhi, Nehru, Ambedkar, Periyar, Jayaprakash Narayan and the Sri Lanka of D.S. Senanayake, the Ponnambalams, Ramanathan and Arunachalam, G.G. Ponnambalam, of S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike, who, in courage and faith, signed the ill-fated Pact with S.J.V. Chelvanayagam only to be forced by hard-liners, to retract of, Philip Gunawardene, Colvin R de Silva, N.M. Perera and the Lanka Sama Samaja Party, would not have countenanced such tyranny.
We are living on a different planet now.
Five years after the war

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam’s macabre methodology choreographed its own destruction. The time comes now, five years after the war, to ask if in this, its fifth post-war year, Sri Lanka is at peace with itself. And to introspect on what has followed the end of ballistics. Peace with justice? Peace with trust?
The end of the war, unacceptably bloodied as it was, opened an opportunity for a new beginning, a great leap forward toward a millennial reconciliation. Is that taking place? In a situation that calls for reparation, it is the one who needs reparation that must report satisfaction, not the reparation-giver.
The insensitive thwarting of moderate Tamil Lankan leaders’ legitimate aspirations, decade after decade, by narrow ethno-linguistic nationalism, grew into the nightmare that ended five years ago. That vicious cycle must not be repeated.
South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) has had and continues to have its critics, but its work rested on credibility and that came from two things: it was chaired by a man of the veracity of Bishop Desmond Tutu and, even more importantly, it was powered by the vision of Nelson Mandela, nowhere as well expressed than in his statement “I am against White racism”… “I am against White racism?” …What is the big deal in that? The whole world was against apartheid. But the ‘point’ came in the next sentence. “And I am against Black racism”… Now that was a Big Deal, a Very Big Deal indeed. That showed the difference between democracy and majoritarianism, between Justice and Victor’s Justice, between Trust and Fear.
The TRC could have done more, better, but others on the Reconciliation Route cannot do better than follow the TRC where intentions are concerned.
Thanks to the determined efforts of the late S. Thondaman and the démarches of High Commissioner Thomas Abraham in the period 1978 to 1982, and of those being followed up later, the plantation Tamils’ issue of statelessness is now over. But statelessness is one thing; a sense of belonging is another. There remains an unfinished agenda about these ‘Cinderella people,’ as Professor Suryanarayan describes them, namely, the agenda of post-integration habilitation in terms of education and careers beyond the plantations.
The edge of the verge

Within touching distance that we are, India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh and the Maldives must do something pioneering about the effect of global warming on our coastlines. The rise of seawaters cannot be seen by us as a Maldivian imperative, a Bangladeshi criticality and then, for India, Sri Lanka and Pakistan, a theoretical possibility. We are all within the circle of danger.
The trouble is that we have political philosophers in our part of the world, of the Left and the Right, and political leaders, but we do not have ecological philosophers and ecological leaders. Amitav Ghosh’s amazing novel “The Hungry Tide,” foresaw the tsunami of 2004. It is the creative exception which tells us we need an Arthur C. Clarke to tell us in fictional-real terms what we face by way of our planet’s hidden moods.
Littoral South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) ought to have a foolproof blueprint for facing and the handling of natural disasters peculiar to the region. We need a joint coastal SAARC plan for ocean disaster management. That we do not have one is a wonder. Not to make one now would be a disaster in itself.
The stalled Cetukalvai Thittam or the Sethusamudram Project needs to be seen not just through the lenses of giant fishing corporates but through the fisherman’s ancient instincts that know those waters better than any giant conglomerate ever can.
We hear of our fishermen only when they are apprehended and locked up and often shot at for doing what their DNA has trained them to do, namely, follow fish instinctively as they follow plankton unblinkingly. Fish are stateless, fishermen restless. Fishing on the high seas is one of the most instinct-driven livelihood avocations of human civilisation. We should devise a system where trespassing by fishermen becomes impossible by definition.
Sarojini Naidu’s “The Coromandel Fishers” has this exquisite line: Row, brothers, row to the edge of the verge, where the low sky mates with the sea.
The future

Not a flaky consanguinity, but a frank friendship can keep the touching distances between India and Sri Lanka connected. We are a distinct people, but a connected peoplehood; a distinct citizenry, but a connected civilization. This is no romanticism but a hard anthropological, historical, cultural, civilisational, political fact.
We do not have the right to interfere, but we do have the duty to be concerned. And to ask of each other questions, not in pride, arrogance, conceit, and certainly not in an air of sarcastic interrogation, but in honest anxiety to make better societies of our present, deeply flawed ones.

Bridging the narratives in Sri Lanka


In the hot plains of the Vanni, a larger-than-life stone soldier emerges out of a block of concrete, an AK-47 in one hand and the Sri Lankan flag in the other. Hardly visible from the ground, a dove sits on the machine gun. This is a “victory memorial” created by the Army after the end of the hostilities between the Tamil Tigers and the Sri Lankan Army in May 2009. Beneath it, two plaques commemorate its creation. They are in Sinhala and in English, but not in Tamil, the majority language there.
Travelling through Sri Lanka, five years after the end of hostilities in May 2009, I was confronted with starkly different perspectives. For many people in the South and West, the defeat of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) brought an end to a constant climate of fear. It was a time when parents would take different buses to the same destination in case one blew up. The last few years have also jumpstarted economic development, notably in industries such as tourism, transport and construction, according to the Central Bank of Sri Lanka. In Colombo, construction sites for new luxury hotels compete with each other. Consequently, many Sinhalese do not see urgency in addressing allegations of war crimes.
Leftovers of war
Among those in the North and East, the leftovers of war still dominate daily life in various ways. The economic boom after the war is particularly pronounced here. New roads, rail links, administration buildings and private investments including Jaffna’s first mall demonstrate an impressively quick development. Still, the newly refurbished Kandy and Mullaitivu roads are dotted with military cantonments. Checkpoints are often manned by the military instead of civilian police forces. The dominant war memory in this area is not of any victory, but of the bitter loss of husbands, children and siblings to the forced recruitment of the LTTE or the indiscriminate firing of the Sri Lankan Army, as human rights organisations consistently allege.
These narratives continue to divide Sri Lankan society. The first step in effective communication is finding a common language. In post-conflict reconciliation, this common language has to bridge those diverging narratives about the nature of the hostilities. Shrill claims of Western imperialism by Sri Lankan ministers and Sinhalese neo-colonialism by Tamil diaspora activists cannot provide the fertile ground for constructive engagement on outstanding allegations and reports of human rights violations on both sides of the conflict.
Overcoming the most extreme narratives and moving closer to reconciliation does not require either the Sri Lankan government or the Tamil leaders to abandon their political identities. The Rajapaksa brothers have built a significant domestic legitimacy around their defeat of “terrorism,” as the memorial plaques say. Admitting that Sri Lankan soldiers and officers committed “excesses” (a formulation used, for example, by the Congress manifesto) at the end of the war would only taint the already discredited notions of a “zero-civilian-casualties policy” during the “humanitarian operation” purported by the Sri Lankan Army. A proud victor with strong electoral support among the Sinhalese can afford to admit mistakes, and punish those responsible (even if the very top will be spared for now).
The Tamil National Alliance should ensure that its members and elected officials make a credible cut with any Tamil Tiger history. If it really wants to lead “the Tamil people through a painful process of introspection,” as a statement on the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights’ recent report said, it should speak more frequently about the grief of Sinhalese and Muslim families that lost family members to LTTE attacks.
Building a memorial in Colombo for all persons killed during the war and those still missing would be a good start. Even if it is too early to agree on many other aspects, Sri Lankan communities should acknowledge the realities of grief, no matter for which ‘side’ the person fought or died. It would be important to erect such a memorial in the capital to underline its central importance for the “new Sri Lanka” that billboards boast about. It could even include shrines of all four major religions in Sri Lanka, as a recent photo exhibition in Colombo showed how Buddhists and Hindus revered the same goddess under different names.
Beyond the high diplomacy in chic Geneva, where the UN Human Rights Council mandated an independent investigation in March into war crimes allegations, this should help expand the public space for an open, transparent and respectful political debate in Sri Lanka. It should build on strong international support for the trilingual policy as well as people-to-people exchanges between different communities. With these initiatives, the exchange between the Sri Lankan government and South Africa on a truth-seeking mechanism should lead to an institution as independent as possible from state influence.
Taking reconciliation seriously would also help the Sri Lankan government deflect international pressure. Already, members of the business community fear repercussions in terms of decreasing investments, terms of trade and even sanctions if Sri Lanka continues to ignore these calls. The recent Provincial Council elections, where the government United People’s Freedom Alliance coalition lost seats to the opposition despite retaining its majority, seemed to demonstrate that the Rajapaksas’ anti-Western rhetoric is failing to cover up remaining economic and political problems.
What India should do
If India finds that its recent abstention in the Human Rights Council has given it renewed leeway in Sri Lanka, it should use it to press the government on tangible reconciliation efforts. This should also help to achieve India’s long-standing goal of political devolution in Sri Lanka, as the government would take the Northern Provincial Council, elected last year, more seriously. Progress on reconciliation would also make both the government as well as Tamil leaders more amenable to negotiations on increased powers for the provincial councils under the 13th amendment.
Owing to consistent international pressure, the Sri Lankan government has started to address some problems, however imperfectly, including by appointing a missing persons commission, investigating a case where (Sinhalese) female recruits appeared to have been mishandled by their superiors, and gradually releasing land from high security zones. Many of these actions go back to the government’s own action plan on the implementation of the recommendations of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission.
Serious reconciliation requires mutual acknowledgement of past abuses and mistakes in an atmosphere of trust and forgiveness. Glorious victory memorials and a sole focus on economic development will not be able to heal the country’s wounds.

A mandate for the UNHRC

In adopting a country-specific resolution against Sri Lanka that calls upon the United Nations Human Rights Commissioner to “undertake a comprehensive investigation into alleged serious violations and abuses of human rights and related crimes by both parties in Sri Lanka,” the UN Human Rights Council has again brought the focus as much on the killings in the last phase of the civil war in Sri Lanka, as on the international investigation into issues in a sovereign state. No progress has been made to fix responsibility for the mass killings in the last phase of the civil war in 2009. The resolution, co-sponsored by 41 countries and piloted by the U.S., contended that Sri Lanka has failed to achieve reconciliation following the end of the three-decade long civil war. But it does not build on the earlier resolutions against Sri Lanka; it rather marks a worrying point of departure. So far, the emphasis has been on ‘encouraging’ and ‘urging’ Sri Lanka. The new mandate of the international investigative mechanism is open-ended. Opponents of the resolution were against the imposition of an international investigation by expanding the role of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), and the Special Procedures of the HRC. The resolution includes many prescriptive elements. The U.S. sees the vote as an act that seeks to push Sri Lanka into pursuing lasting peace, and wants to drive home the point that justice and accountability cannot wait.
India was in the limelight at the 25th session of the HRC. It had unconditionally backed Sri Lanka in the 2009 session, soon after the end of the war. It went to the other extreme and voted against Sri Lanka in 2012 and 2013. In fact, in 2013 it even worked to make the language of the resolution harsher. The same conditions as in 2013 exist now: elections to the Northern provincial council were held in September 2012. The Tamil Nadu factor that had influenced India’s vote the last time round seems to have lost steam with the Congress and the DMK parting ways. In any case, it is debatable if even at its height it would have overcome India’s long-standing opposition to intrusive international investigations as envisaged by the latest resolution. By voting twice against Sri Lanka in the past years, India had already antagonised the majority Sinhala community. With India abstaining this time, the northern Tamils seem to have lost faith in India. Not many believe anything will change for Tamils in Sri Lanka if the OHCHR carries out the investigation. An intrusive investigation has so far not yielded genuine reconciliation, and a life of dignity and self-respect for people anywhere. Sri Lanka can’t be any different.

Dealing with Sri Lanka

India faces a crucial decision-making moment at the United Nations Human Rights Council on the U.S.-sponsored resolution that urges Sri Lanka to address rights violations alleged against its army in the final phase of the war against the LTTE in 2009. At one level, this decision should be easy to make — New Delhi does not support country-specific resolutions at the HRC in Geneva. Sri Lanka, however, poses a special challenge. All this time, quiet diplomacy rather than grandstanding has been New Delhi's preferred path in prodding Sri Lanka towards reconciliation with the island's Tamil minority. That this has not produced the desired outcome, especially in the matter of a forward-looking political solution to the Tamil question, is evident. Three years after winning the war against the LTTE, Sri Lanka is yet to cement a peace with the Tamils. Instead, the triumphalism about the military victory, unaddressed human rights violations and the overwhelming presence of the Army in northern Sri Lanka, have deepened the political alienation of the Tamils. But if quiet diplomacy hasn't worked, India must carefully assess whether the HRC resolution will get the Sri Lankan government to move in the right direction. Western powers seem to believe it can shame Sri Lanka into doing this. In fact, the proposed censure might work in exactly the opposite way, by further fuelling Sinhala nationalism and rendering the possibility of political reconciliation even more distant.
As for the “feelings” of the political parties in Tamil Nadu, it should be clear by now that for them, the Sri Lankan Tamil issue is an opportunity for cynical one-upmanship, and nothing more. There was no clearer evidence of this than at the time of the UPA victory in 2009, which coincided with the last stand of the LTTE. After creating a furore over the war in Sri Lanka during the elections, the DMK's only concern after the results was how many and which cabinet positions the party would get in the new government. The Sri Lankan High Commissioner's suggestion that the members of parliament from Tamil Nadu are unwitting propagandists of the LTTE shows poor understanding of the dynamics at play in the State; his comment can only worsen the din. However, it should be clear to all concerned that a decision by India not to support the resolution cannot be seen as backing for Sri Lanka's record on human rights; Colombo would be mistaken if it interprets it thus. Indeed, an Indian decision to abstain or vote against the resolution would place an even bigger responsibility on New Delhi to ensure — through more effective and even hard-edged diplomacy — that the Rajapaksa government delivers on the commitments it has made on the political and human rights front.



Sri Lanka arrests 33 Indian fishermen

A day after the 45-day ban on trawling in Tamil Nadu ended, 33 Indian fishermen were arrested by the Sri Lankan Navy on Sunday, on charges of poaching.
According to sources with the Sri Lankan Navy, the fishermen were arrested off Thalaimannar and seven trawlers used by them were seized.
The arrest assumes significance, as it is the first instance of Indian fishermen allegedly engaging in bottom-trawling on the Sri Lankan side of the International Maritime Boundary Line (IMBL) after the second round of talks between fishermen of both countries.
Leaders of fishermen from the two countries could not reach a consensus at the May 12 meeting in Colombo, with Indian fishermen unwilling to meet the demand from their northern Sri Lankan counterparts that they stop bottom-trawling immediately.
The Indians agreed to stop using pair-trawling ( rettai madippu valai ) and purse seine ( surukku madi valai ) nets — which are banned in Sri Lanka — but asked for three years’ time to phase out trawling. Sri Lankan fishermen, however, said allowing bottom-trawling — Indian fishermen are charged with crossing the IMBL and engaging in illegal fishing activity — any longer would further endanger marine resources, causing permanent damage.
The Palk Bay conflict has been a challenging issue in bilateral relations. At the recent meeting between Prime Minister Narendra MOdi Manmohan Singh and President Mahinda Rajapaksa, the leaders emphasised the need to address the issue affecting the livelihoods of fishermen in both countries, particularly those in the war-torn Northern Province.

Jayalalithaa seeks strong response from Modi

Anguished over the arrest of 33 Indian fishermen Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa urged Prime Minister Narendra Modi to take firm steps to end the problem plaguing the State’s fishermen.
In a strong letter to Mr. Modi on Sunday, a day ahead of her visit to New Delhi to meet him, Ms. Jayalalithaa called upon the Prime Minister to put in place a “strong and robust diplomatic response” and ensure that India registered the strongest disapproval of the “belligerent actions of the Sri Lankan Navy.”
The Chief Minister urged Mr. Modi to initiate “appropriate and calibrated set of actions” to bring about a permanent solution to the perennial problem plaguing the livelihood of the fishermen community of the State.
There was high expectation in Tamil Nadu that the NDA government at the Centre would act decisively in the sensitive issue, Ms. Jayalalithaa said and sought the Prime Minister’s personal intervention in a concrete and decisive manner to secure the immediate release of the arrested fishermen and their boats. In Rameswaram, community leaders said the meeting between Mr. Modi and Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa failed to create a better environment.

IDSA COMMENT

India-Sri Lanka Fishermen Problem: Some Solutions

The problems of Indian and Sri Lankan fishermen in the Palk Bay appear everlasting. 
CONTEXT:
The attributable causes are the instances of Indian fishermen being prevented from fishing, facing harassment and arrest by the Sri Lankan Navy (SLN), and also the nearly 200 deaths resulting from SLA operations involving interdictions and firings on suspicion of the Indian trawlers aiding LTTE and gun running while fishing in the area, as reported over the past decade. 
However, nothing substantive has emerged till date, in terms of a consensus on evolving a framework of response from the Indian side from Tamilnadu on how to deal with the situation or how to enable different central governments to do so. 
India and Sri Lanka had concluded a maritime boundary agreement which became effective from 8 July 1974. The agreement of 1974 was followed by an exchange of letters  and a supplementary agreement was signed in 1976. 
The maritime boundary between the two countries was delineated in the Gulf of Mannar from the south-western edge of the Bay of Bengal to a point further down in a south-western axis up to the point where the boundaries of India, Sri Lanka and Maldives met in the Indian Ocean. As per these international instruments, both countries enjoy sovereign rights over the waters, the islands, continental shelf and sub-soil of the maritime area on their respective side of the delineated boundary. Indian fishermen and pilgrims have also been permitted access to Kachhativu island which falls on the Sri Lankan side of the maritime boundary. The 1974 and 1976 agreements have not put an explicit embargo on fishing by Indian fishermen beyond the Indian maritime zone, though the sovereign rights of Sri Lanka in its part of the zone are unquestionable.
There are, at present, nearly 1,900 Indian trawlers fishing in the Palk Bay within the Indian maritime zone (some venture beyond into the Sri Lankan zone). This is against less than half the number of Sri Lankan fishing boats normally operating in the area, and generally confined to the Sri Lankan side. The Indians mostly fish at night for shrimp, with the trawlers originating from Rameshwaram, Mandapam, Kottaipattinam, Jagadipattinam, Kodikkarai and Nagapattinamin coastal Tamilnadu. Moreover, their use of gill nets and synthetic nets has caused severe damage to the ordinary nets of Sri Lankan fishermen. The Indians have not been fishing at long distances deep in the Indian Ocean away from the contentious Sri Lankan maritime zone because they do not possess multi-day fishing crafts.
Sri Lankan Tamil fishermen from the country’s northern province could not freely fish during the last three years of the Fourth Ealam War (2006-09) because the SLN had imposed security restrictions, particularly on night fishing. It was during this period that the area of activities of the Indian fishermen is alleged to have increased. The capacity of Indian trawlers, use of synthetic nets and the extended area of their operations seem to have adversely affected the livelihood of nearly 30,000 fishermen families of Mannar, Kilinochhi, Mullaitivu and Jaffna districts of Sri Lanka’s northern province. While approximately 50,000 fishermen households primarily depend on the existing pattern of fishing for their daily earnings the dependence of Sri Lankan fishermen on fishing in their maritime zone area is significantly more acute because, the present overall economic conditions in that country`s northern province, is still quite adverse.
WHAT SHOULD BE DONE:
Given the prevailing situation, intervention by India seems unavoidable in order to gradually resolve the problem. New Delhi should work out an arrangement with the Rajapakse government wherein the rights of both the countries’ fishermen are protected within the respective territorial jurisdiction. If this is not done, the welfare of the Sri Lankan Tamils, which different governments of India have endeavoured to promote as part of a decided long-term policy, will be compromised. 
As a concomitant measure, the incumbent Tamilnadu government has to be taken into confidence and induced, albeit with a modicum of pressure, to reign in its fishermen from encroaching into the Sri Lankan zone. It is relevant to mention here that Tamilnadu’s fishermen are not allowed to freely operate in the coastal waters of adjoining (newly created) Andhra Pradesh state either. It is the same situation vis-à-vis Andhra fishermen’s conventional jurisdiction off the Orissa coast. Indian fisher folk normally observe such territorial limitations and there is no reason why they should not do so apropos northern Sri Lanka.
A restriction is also required on the number of Indian trawlers that are allowed to operate beyond the median line specifying the maritime boundary. Restrictions on the number of fishing craft and their technical capacity as well as the nature of the fishing nets will be more of essence than merely specifying the permissible period of fishing.
 However, for such measures to be effective, they have to be a part of an institutional framework in which the fishermen’s cooperatives of both countries are involved and committed, and there is an oversight body empowered with arbitral powers to resolve disputes. 
At the working level of the suggested mechanism, involvement of the District Collectors of Tamilnadu`s coastal districts concerned and the government representatives of Mannar, Killinochhi, Mullaitivu and Jaffna districts in Sri Lanka, will be a sine qua non for effective operability. The oversight body will necessarily have to be at the national level consisting of a limited number of suitable administrators or political leaders of repute with a track record of promoting friendly relations between the two countries.
India could provide technical advisory support with some financial commitment to Tamilnadu to help formulate suitable Centrally-sponsored welfare schemes, which could facilitate the setting up of processing units for fishery products and promote other income generating activities in the agro-allied sectors. A beginning was made in 2011-12 when the present AIDMK government enhanced the compensation to their fishermen for restricted fishing. Furthermore, the state government has also put in place a subsidy scheme for fishermen to procure deep-sea tuna liners. This should gradually reduce the dependence of Tamilnadu’s fishermen on trawling in the Palk Bay waters off the Jaffna coast, at least within the maritime zone of Sri Lanka.
It is of essence that the source of discord between the Tamil fishermen folk of both countries be addressed. As part of a bilateral initiative, New Delhi and Colombo may even consider instituting a Palk Bay Authority for devising an integrated solution to the fishermen’s problems encompassing their livelihood issues and commerce in the area.

Gotabaya warns of strong action

Sri Lanka’s Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa, brother of President Mahinda Rajapaksa, on Saturday warned that stern action would be taken against those who espouse racial and religious hatred on social media, news agency Adaderana reported.
The announcement comes about a fortnight after violent clashes broke out in Aluthgama and Beruwala — along the country’s southeastern coast — leaving four persons dead and nearly 80 injured. Several stores, belonging mostly to Muslims, were torched and homes attacked.
The June 15 clashes followed a rally organised by the hard-line Buddhist organisation Bodu Bala Sena (BBS), an outfit that, many allege, has the support of the government, particularly the Defence Secretary. The Defence establishment has periodically denied the charges.
Sri Lankan police have arrested 80 persons, 66 Sinhalese and 14 Muslims, according to spokesperson Ajith Rohana.
“We [the police] granted bail to 26 of them. Fifty four were produced in court and the court granted bail to 14 and the remaining 40 are in prison,” he told The Hindu on Sunday.
News agency AFP reported that eight persons linked directly to anti-Muslim riots were arrested this week and that gems and jewellery worth over LKR 1.5 million were recovered.
Meanwhile, the Muslim Council of Sri Lanka, an umbrella organisation of 48 Muslim groups, has sought enhanced security for the period of Ramadan beginning Sunday.

Sri Lanka shuts terror door on Pak
New Delhi:


Bans Visas On Arrival As Probe Shows India-Bound Jihadis Using It As Stopover
Sri Lanka has banned visas on arrival for Pakistanis after investigations showed that jihadi groups targeting India were using Sri Lanka as a transit point. Lanka is also one of the few countries that extended such a facility to Pakistani nationals.A bomb blast in a Chennai train in May revealed new plots against India by Pakistan-based jihadi groups using Sri Lanka and Maldives as transit points. A multi-national investigation including Malaysia zeroed in on a Lankan national, Shakir Hussain, who confessed that he had visited India over 20 times on reconnaissance trips. He told inves
tigators, as was reported by TOI, that he was facilitating militants from Maldives who were tasked with attacking American and Israeli consulates in Bangalore and Chennai, critical infrastructure like airports and power plants in Chennai among other targets.The investigation, sources
said, also pointed to involvement by Pakistani officials at their mission in Colombo. Indian officials confirmed that Sri Lanka and Maldives have been red-flagged by Indian security establishment for some time.The new Maldives president Abdulla Yameen, too, has been sensitized to the growth of fun
damentalism among youngsters who may be traveling to Pakistan for religious studies.Modi, in his first conversations with Lankan president Mahinda Rajapaksa, had raised this issue which he said was of particular sensitivity to India. On his return, Rajapaksa is believed to have launched an investigation.
The results of the probe have contributed to the decision.
In a related development, Sri lankan authorities have been rounding up Pakistani asylum seekers -almost 1,500 of them will be deported back to Pakistan. This has invited sharp criticism from human rights activists and the UN, because many of them are Ahmadiyas ( a banned sect in Pakistan) and Shia Muslims.
The Pakistani foreign office has also been informed that its nationals would henceforth need pre-departure visas to travel to Sri Lanka. The Lankan government probe revealed that many Pakistanis are arriving as tourists by taking advantage of easy visas on “electronic travel authorization“ but staying on as “refugees“. In 2013, the UNHRC recorded almost 1,500 Pakistani asylum seekers. Lanka has now decided to deport all Pakistanis who have overstayed their visas.
While Indians have traditionally focused on north India as points of infiltration by Pakistan-supported elements, south India poses a particular danger.


Katchatheevu a settled issue: Centre tells the High Court

The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) has reiterated before the Madras High Court that the maritime boundary issue between India and Sri Lanka, and consequently sovereignty over the Katchatheevu island, is a settled matter.
The previous Congress-led UPA government had taken a similar stand on the issue.
In an affidavit filed in response to petitions by a fishermen organisation, Vishwesh Negi, a Deputy Secretary of the Ministry, said that under the 1974 and 1976 agreements between the two countries, fishermen were allowed to fish on their side of the IMBL, and they should not cross over to the waters of the other country for exploiting the resources.
Fisherman Care of Pallavaram filed the petitions in 2012, seeking a directive to the Centre to clarify the then External Affairs Minister’s statement in Parliament on August 22, 2013 on Tamil Nadu fishermen crossing the IMBL.
The Minister had said that under the agreements, Indian fishermen were allowed to fish on the Indian side of the IMBL, but not to cross over to the waters of the other country for exploiting resources. However, he said, Sri Lanka had alleged that a large number of Indian fishing vessels entered its waters.
The organisation also sought a directive to the Centre to take diplomatic steps to secure the release of Tamil Nadu fishermen languishing in Sri Lankan jails.
It also wanted the authorities to take up the issue of frequent attacks on Indian fishermen by the Sri Lankan Navy with the island government and find a permanent solution to the problem.
The Ministry said no fishing rights in Sri Lankan waters were bestowed on Tamil Nadu fishermen under the agreements.
They provided for access to Katchatheevu for rest, drying of nets and for the annual St. Anthony’s festival.
The 1974 agreement spoke only of the “traditional rights of vessels, not fishermen.”
Untenable
To interpret this provision to include the fishing rights of Indian fishermen around the island was untenable, the MEA said.
The First Bench, comprising Acting Chief Justice, Satish K. Agnihotri, and Justice M.M. Sundresh, posted the matter for further hearing after two weeks.

File revised affidavit on Katchatheevu: Jayalalithaa

“It has always been the stand of my government that Katchatheevu is an integral part of the territory of India,” she said, referring to the issue that she had specifically raised in the memorandum submitted to Mr. Modi recently. 
She added that India’s sovereignty over the island had to be retrieved.
Urging the Centre to take active steps to “abrogate” the 1974 and 1976 agreements (that ceded the small island in the Palk Straits off Rameswaram to Sri Lanka), “retrieve” Katchatheevu and restore the traditional fishing rights of fishermen of Tamil Nadu, the Chief Minister recalled the steps taken by her in this regard. 
These included a resolution in the Tamil Nadu Assembly as early as 1991 and the writ petition filed by her in the Supreme Court in 2008 seeking restoration of Katchatheevu. Ms. Jayalalithaa cited the Supreme Court ruling in the ‘Berubari case’ of 1960, which said any territory owned by India could be ceded to another country only through a Constitutional amendment. In the case of Katchatheevu, it was done without such an amendment and hence it was unlawful and invalid, she stressed. 

These circumstances had emboldened the Sri Lankan Navy to resort to frequent attacks on “our innocent fishermen who fish in their traditional fishing grounds,” she said.


U.N. urges Colombo to stop promotion of ‘faith-based hatred’

United Nations experts on Wednesday called on Sri Lanka to adopt urgent measures to stop promotion of racial and faith-based hatred, and violence against Muslim and Christian communities by Buddhist groups with extremist views, and bring perpetrators of such violence to justice.
The U.N.’s call for religious tolerance from the U.N. experts comes a fortnight after the hard-line Bodu Bala Sena (BBS) staged a large protest rally in Aluthgama that resulted in inter-communal violence, during which four people died and about 80 were injured.
Homes and shops owned by Muslims, as well as mosques were vandalised and some set ablaze. Amid allegations that the BBS was backed by Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, President Mahinda Rajapaka’s brother, the Defence Secretary in a recent interview to Daily Mirror , a local newspaper here, denied any involvement with the BBS and said he would resign if the alleged association is proven.
Sri Lanka has been witnessing incidents of violent attacks against religious minorities in the last couple of years. Over 350 violent attacks against Muslims and over 150 attacks against Christians have been reported in Sri Lanka in the last two years, according to a press release from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Muslim and Christian communities are reportedly subjected to hate speech, discrimination, attacks and acts of violence throughout Sri Lanka frequently, it said.
“This violence is fuelled by the atmosphere of impunity in Sri Lanka,” the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Heiner Bielefeldt, said.
Mr. Bielefeldt urged Sri Lanka to guarantee the right to freedom ‘of religion or belief of members of minority religious communities and stop any advocacy of racial and religious hatred.
Alongside the BBS, other groups promoting extremist views in Sri Lanka, such as the Sinhala Ravaya and the Hela Bodu Powura, purport to be the protectors of Sinhala Buddhism.
These extremist groups reportedly proclaim the racial superiority of Sinhala Buddhists and spread fear among local population, for example, through allegations that Buddha statues are being bulldozed by religious minorities, or that evangelical Christians are forcibly converting youths and sick patients in their hospital beds, or that Muslims are smuggling drugs and birth control pills in order to destroy Sinhalese people and prevent their reproduction.


‘Attacks on Sri Lankan Muslims not isolated incidents’

Sri Lanka’s Justice Minister and Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) Leader Rauf Hakeem said the recent anti-Muslim attacks in the island were part of a “virtual holocaust” against Sri Lankan Muslims.
Observing that the attack was not an isolated incident but one that pointed to a clear pattern part of a “larger national project”, Mr. Hakeem said the underlying reason for the attacks on Muslims was economic.
“Also, they need an imagined enemy,” he said, addressing the Foreign Correspondents’ Association here on Friday.
Last month, at least four persons were killed and nearly 80 seriously injured in a violent clash that broke out between Buddhists and Muslims in Aluthgama and Beruwala, along Sri Lanka’s southern coast. Earlier on Friday, Muslim parliamentarians issued a joint statement condemning ongoing propaganda in some quarters that some terrorist groups existed among the Muslims of Sri Lanka. “We really deplore that an arrest in India of a person of Sri Lankan Muslim origin, reportedly for espionage, or a related crime should lend itself to such a spurious claim by sections of media and groups,” the statement said. “These elements, specialised as they are in stereotyping of Muslims, smack of a clear mindset which either supports, or condones by reticence, the violence unleashed by racist groups,” it added.