Opinion One nation or many
The issues at stake in the DMKs withdrawal from the UPA are not just ephemeral; not just about the survival of the UPA.
The issues at stake in the DMKs withdrawal from the UPA are not just ephemeral; not just about the survival of the UPA. (It will survive in any case.) They have to do with whether India is a single nation with a single foreign policy or is she a collection of many nations some of whom have diaspora for which they care more than for the nation as such.
There is no doubt that feelings run high in Tamil Nadu about the events towards the end of the civil war in Sri Lanka. There have been human rights violations by the Sri Lankan army,but no doubt also by the Tamil Tigers. After all the Tamil Tigers were the first to use the suicide bomber,often a young man or woman. (Who,after all,killed Rajiv Gandhi?)
Even so,one may say that the way in which the Tamils as the largest minority were deprived of their rights by the Sinhala majority and its leader Solomon Bandaranaike was the initial trigger for the quarrel. The Tamils tried every way of reconciling peacefully but failed. Then in 1983 the civil war began. For 25 years the Tigers challenged Sri Lankan sovereignty to establish their own nation. The end of civil war has confirmed the status of Sri Lanka as a single country.
Would India tolerate such a rebellion on her own soil? Did India not take the Khalistan challenge seriously enough to move troops into the holiest of Sikh shrines,losing Indira Gandhi as a consequence? Has India not fought a continual war since independence in Nagaland just to establish its territorial integrity? What is the whole issue of Jammu and Kashmir about? Is it not the primary duty of any sovereign nation to defend the integrity of its territory?
To seek severe condemnation of the Sri Lankan government,as the DMK and no doubt the AIADMK want,would be to leave India open to similar international demands. Is that what the DMK/AIADMK want? Human rights violations happened in East Pakistan/Bangladesh,in Punjab during the Khalistan agitation and the decade following of pacifying Punjab and no doubt in Sri Lanka. Is the DMK advocating all such events be re-examined or does it only care about Tamils in Sri Lanka?
India has to look at its international interests in forming its foreign policy. The TMC opposed the Teesta river agreement and the UPA surrendered to the blackmail. If now it surrenders to the DMK on its Sri Lanka policy,will India have a foreign policy at all or will it have only state-level vetoes on foreign policy? India has to keep an eye on what China might do in Sri Lanka as it did in Myanmar. That is also the thought behind the USA modifying its resolution before the UN Human Rights Council. It would be a folly to have a resolution which satisfies the DMK/AIADMK and loses India any influence on Sri Lanka as the Chinese move in.
International relations is not a pretty subject and the logic of realpolitik has to be followed. For India,it is imperative that it has a realistic foreign policy stance which speaks from the vantage point of a regional power and not as a champion of any and every diaspora whom the citizens of one or another region love. India has wasted enough years pursuing non-alignment beyond its sell-by date. The time has come to have a policy which puts Indias interests first and vague idealism way below the list of priorities.
Since coalitions are now a permanent feature of Indian politics,there ought to be a Common Minimum Code which concedes that foreign policy cannot be used by a coalition partner for its regional electoral agenda. It should be one area which is beyond party politics within a coalition and across all parties. If this is not done,India will begin to look weak in the face of its own internal divisions. This is how it must have seemed to Bangladesh when the Prime Minister on his visit to Dhaka was not allowed to pursue the Teesta issue.
However fragmented the domestic politics,India has to be a single nation at home and abroad.
Share
