Sri Lanka: India’s latest security nightmare

[Lankan Ranger]

 

[Lankan Ranger]

 

[Lankan Ranger]

 

[Lankan Ranger]

 

[Lankan Ranger]

 

[Lankan Ranger]

 

[Lankan Ranger]

 

[Communist]

Thanks for posting such beautiful and politically significant photos, brother.

 

[Conqueror]

Motive of Chinese presence in SriLanka is crystal clear. There is nothing SL can do about it than to accept them. Will you reject an offer from a country when it comes with mouthwatering proposals.

But i don't understand the friendship with Pakistan. I don't quite sure how far that friendship will go.

Friendship with Sri Lanka is decades old, ever since India started to interfere with its security by backing terrorist organizations. Pakistan provided all the logistics, armer and support they needed to handle them. Pakistan helped them in more than one ways to re-gain their control over their pride territory. Sri Lanka is still one of the major purchasers of small Arms from Pakistan.

 

[samv]

But i don't understand the friendship with Pakistan. I don't quite sure how far that friendship will go.

The friendship is not hard to understand. Pakistan supported Sri Lanka both politically and militarily in its war against the LTTE over the last three decades. India, on the other hand, was lackadaisical - at one time openly training, arming and funding the LTTE, then sitting on the sidelines, and then coming into the field during the last stages of the war on the side of Sri Lanka.

I agree that there is far more cultural and religious similarity between India and Sri Lanka in comparison to that which exists between Pakistan and Sri Lanka, but friendships aren't built only on those markers. I think the friendship will continue to grow as far as Pakistan and Sri Lanka take it. Now that the war in Sri Lanka is over, I envisage the relationship to go down the paths of trade and tourism.

 

[samv]

The recovery of the body of LTTE leader V. Prabakaran from near a lagoon in north-eastern Sri Lanka on May 19, 2009, signalled the end of a militant campaign for a separate Tamil state, which resulted in the death of tens of thousands of civilians, the assassinations of a former Prime Minister of India, and numerous high-level politicians in the island nation, the ruthless silencing of moderate voices that spoke for the same cause, and the gunning down of even the one-time comrades-in-arms of Prabakaran. At the end of it all, the cause of Tamil Eelam is dead and the possibility of a Tamil state with a semblance of autonomy appears elusive.

Death of a dream

 

[abbasniazi]

India is directly responsible for terrorism in Sri Lanka. If India did not arm, train and fund the Tamil Tigers, Sri Lanka would have been spared a lot of violence and bloodshed - including the lives of more than 70 000+ civilians.

India's support for the LTTE was a policy blunder which resulted in the death of more than 1200 Indian soldiers and the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi. So when India points fingers at neighbouring countries about "cross border terrorism" it rings quite hollow, because if truth be told India is the grandmother of terrorism sponsorship in South Asia. Like the USA it has used its power to bully, push and dominate its smaller countries. Like the USA it sponsored insurgent groups that have turned around and taken huge bites out of the hand that fed them.

The carnage in Mumbai which outraged many Indians was visited many times over in Sri Lanka, courtesy of the Indian government and its erstwhile policy. Even today several Indian politicians mostly from the southern state of Tamil Nadu openly support the LTTE and its ideology. India took little action against the smuggling of arms and ammunition from Tamil Nadu to Sri Lanka during the war. So it is understandable that many Sri Lankans are suspicious of its giant neighbour; it is very justified given the past history. Now India is grappling with its own insurgencies, including the threat posed by Maoists while Sri Lanka has defeated the LTTE which was thought by many to be invincible.

Despite India's blunder in funding, arming and training the greatest threat to Sri Lanka's existence as one nation the relationship between the two countries has never been closer. India's policy towards Sri Lanka has changed ever since the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi. I don't think the policy change came about because of any guilt about funding terrorism, but rather cognisance of the fact that the LTTE was also a threat to India and that the west was using the conflict to destabilise India. India's policy change helped Sri Lanka a great deal in destroying the LTTE, although Tamil Nadu continued to guide parts of it. Thus India's defence relationship with Sri Lanka has been half-baked. India refused to sell offensive equipment to Sri Lanka. As such, Sri Lanka went shopping elsewhere.

Pakistan, throughout the conflict has been steadfast in its support for Sri Lanka. When the LTTE was rolling in on Jaffna, while India balked at helping Sri Lanka, Pakistan did not. As the saying goes, "friends in need are friends indeed." It was Pakistan's help, and not India's that prevented the LTTE from taking Jaffna and perhaps changing the balance of the war. Pakistan was instrumental in the defeat of the LTTE and this will always be remembered. Unlike India's flip-flop policy on Sri Lanka, Pakistan has taken a consistent stand throughout the conflict. I think it is a sign of character. China's stand was no different. So why would Sri Lanka spur them?

Nevertheless, India's help in the last stages of the war was instrumental in the defeat of the LTTE as well. Indian intelligence input was crucial towards destroying LTTE ships. However I think it was more a case of "backing the wining horse" rather than a principled stand. Indian (and Chinese) support during crucial international debates on the war in Sri Lanka staved off possible western intervention that wanted to save the LTTE. The rest is history. It is true that the extent of India's help in the final stages will remain in the mists because of the fallout it may have in Tamil Nadu.

A few Indian commentators seem miffed that Sri Lanka has developed relations with Pakistan and China. Well perhaps it is time to shine a mirror inward and think about how official Indian policies have effected that situation. Why shouldn't Sri Lanka have gone elsewhere to purchase arms when India refused to sell it any? Why shouldn't Sri Lanka develop a close relationship with an up and coming world power such as China? Why should Sri Lanka refuse Chinese investments when India says "no" to them? Case in point: Hambantota Port. The development of this port was first offered to India and India alone. The higher echelons of the Indian government wanted nothing to do with it. Then China stepped in. And now we hear about how it is a "threat" to India and how China is increasing its influence in the Indian Ocean. No one else is to blame for this situation except the netas in Delhi. It is unfair for Sri Lanka's development to be held hostage to India, and it is unfair to blame the Chinese for their initiative. Try and look at this from Sri Lanka's point of view. Given the past history, Sri Lanka has cause to be suspicious of India but no cause to be suspicious of China or Pakistan.

HAMBANTOTA PORT, UNDER CONSTRUCTION. It's development was first offered to India. India refused. China stepped in. Is it Sri Lanka's fault?

However, like I mentioned earlier, despite all the "bad blood" that has flown under the bridge the relationship between India and Sri Lanka has never been better. Infact, I would say it is the most progressive relationship India has with any of its neighbours. The central government has distanced its Sri Lanka policy away from the politicians of Tamil Nadu, and in my opinion is certainly more enlightened than that which existed during the Indira Gandhi era. I feel that the end of the LTTE has removed one of the biggest obstacles towards Indo-Lankan co-operation and South Asian stability. India now has a chance to interact and further its relationship with Sri Lanka, not by funding and supporting terrorism, but by establishing and consolidating economic, religious, cultural and sporting contacts. Let's hope the military bit can be added here as well. Perhaps now India can have a full defence relationship with Sri Lanka. I already see this happening and I hope it continues both for the stability of South Asia and for Sri Lanka's (and India's) interests. Unlike other countries, Sri Lanka has not challenged India's dominant role in the region and Sri Lanka's closest cultural contact is India. A stable and prosperous Sri Lanka is in India's interests, just as a stable and prosperous India is in Sri Lanka's interests. India will always be Sri Lankan foreign policy's number one priority. The reasons are obvious. One thing that must be remembered however is that Sri Lanka will not sacrifice its relationship with Pakistan or China. It is Sri Lanka's right, as a sovereign country to have its own foreign policy. India's foreign policy can never be Sri Lanka's foreign policy. I think this is a fair statement.



I think Sri Lanka should develop close relationship with ALL its neighbours. Because I don't think Sri Lanka has "enemies." And Sri Lanka does have good relationship with Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Maldives, Nepal, Iran, Burma... as well as relatively distant China. Whatever the bungling of Sri Lanka's governments past and present and their flaws of Himalayan proportions, I think they have worked on this aspect quite well. It ought to continue; it is in Sri Lanka's interests. How Sri Lanka balances them will be a test of her skill.

And finally, I think all South Asians can learn quite a few things from the China and the Chinese, including discipline, dedication and national conciousness.

Great Post, Reality based and Complete analysis, one of the best i,ve ever gone through on this forum on any topic.

I couldn't take my eyes off your post unless untill i went through it completly.

I am so impressed by your skills brother, Hats off to you...

 

[TheBraveHeart]

The friendship is not hard to understand. Pakistan supported Sri Lanka both politically and militarily in its war against the LTTE over the last three decades. India, on the other hand, was lackadaisical - at one time openly training, arming and funding the LTTE, then sitting on the sidelines, and then coming into the field during the last stages of the war on the side of Sri Lanka.

I agree that there is far more cultural and religious similarity between India and Sri Lanka in comparison to that which exists between Pakistan and Sri Lanka, but friendships aren't built only on those markers. I think the friendship will continue to grow as far as Pakistan and Sri Lanka take it. Now that the war in Sri Lanka is over, I envisage the relationship to go down the paths of trade and tourism.

I disagree with u on this!! In your previous posts u hv quite clearly mentioned that India had changed its stance after the killing of prime minister Rajiv Gandhi which was about 18yrs back....
It had realized its folly and tried to keep away from the war as much as it can by not being partial to any of the sides for political reasons at home....although it did help in a covert manner by providing intelligence and supplying helos, training, warships and other logistics in a way such that political circles at home remained silent......so guess u shud not call it lackadaisical approach rather u may call it a cautious one...

Also, although its true LTTE was funded and trained by Indian govt. initially, it didn't do so after IPKF forces got involved.....the LTTE did receive certain arms from TN but it was more of a work of smugglers than the state.....guess u must be knowing more of this than any Indian on the forum, that LTTE in its post India stages received most of the arms from scandivian nations and a few rogue ones, there were also reports that jihadis had contacts with them.....also it must also be accepted that some atrocities were/are committed against the Tamils which makes the Srilankan gov/army one of the guilty parties.... so think u shud rather appreciate a fact that India changed its policies long back and not blame everything on India itself......

Another point...if I go with the recent past, the more the chinese and pakistanis get involved in sri-lanka militarily, more are the chances that it will turn a battlefield/playground for intelligence agencies involving these countries as it has happened in Nepal/Bangladesh...it will be a nightmare for ur security....Indians as far as I understand have no problems with economic relationships but we are very skeptic as far as military relations are concerned and thats quite obvious why......ur country is as sovereign as India but when its mentioned that a naval base is to be set-up that comes in doubt...

Rather than fighting among ourselves, guess we shud come over the past events and rather be sympathetic to each others concern....India being the big brother will hv to take initiative which I guess has been certainly done by providing aid(i guess a few millions have been earmarked), medical(guess Indians were the only foreigners allowed to enter those affected areas), investments and also to a certain degree militarily (a few bomb disposal squads were sent)..The Srilankans in response shud never allow any foreign entity (china/pak/US/any other) to operate from its soil and rather be a party to India's economic development which is still nascent...

 

[samv]

I disagree with u on this!! In your previous posts u hv quite clearly mentioned that India had changed its stance after the killing of prime minister Rajiv Gandhi which was about 18yrs back....
It had realized its folly and tried to keep away from the war as much as it can by not being partial to any of the sides for political reasons at home....although it did help in a covert manner by providing intelligence and supplying helos, training, warships and other logistics in a way such that political circles at home remained silent......so guess u shud not call it lackadaisical approach rather u may call it a cautious one...

Also, although its true LTTE was funded and trained by Indian govt. initially, it didn't do so after IPKF forces got involved.....the LTTE did receive certain arms from TN but it was more of a work of smugglers than the state.....guess u must be knowing more of this than any Indian on the forum, that LTTE in its post India stages received most of the arms from scandivian nations and a few rogue ones, there were also reports that jihadis had contacts with them.....also it must also be accepted that some atrocities were/are committed against the Tamils which makes the Srilankan gov/army one of the guilty parties.... so think u shud rather appreciate a fact that India changed its policies long back and not blame everything on India itself......

Another point...if I go with the recent past, the more the chinese and pakistanis get involved in sri-lanka militarily, more are the chances that it will turn a battlefield/playground for intelligence agencies involving these countries as it has happened in Nepal/Bangladesh...it will be a nightmare for ur security....Indians as far as I understand have no problems with economic relationships but we are very skeptic as far as military relations are concerned and thats quite obvious why......ur country is as sovereign as India but when its mentioned that a naval base is to be set-up that comes in doubt...

Rather than fighting among ourselves, guess we shud come over the past events and rather be sympathetic to each others concern....India being the big brother will hv to take initiative which I guess has been certainly done by providing aid(i guess a few millions have been earmarked), medical(guess Indians were the only foreigners allowed to enter those affected areas), investments and also to a certain degree militarily (a few bomb disposal squads were sent)..The Srilankans in response shud never allow any foreign entity (china/pak/US/any other) to operate from its soil and rather be a party to India's economic development which is still nascent...

You make some good points here. Did the Sri Lankan military commit atrocities during the last 30 years or so of war? Yes, I have no doubt about it. But so did the IPKF during its sojourn in Sri Lanka. And so has the Indian military in Kashmir, and in its latest move against the Maoists. The point is, war is a horrible thing, and bad things happen. This is not something unique to the Sri Lankan situation, but common to many if not all wars. Has the Sri Lankan state made bad policy decisions? Oh yes, definitely!

You seem to be claiming that India was justified in arming, training and funding the LTTE at one time because of the 'plight' of the Tamil community in Sri Lanka. Well, in that case you must then accept that neighbouring countries have the right to arm, train and fund insurgent groups in India, if, for example, they feel that the Muslim community or the Dalit community, or the Christians in India are being oppressed.

You say that India "tried to keep away from the war as much as it can by not being partial to any of the sides for political reasons at home." I agree that India has domestic compulsions. But do you see how this may appear on the other side of the Palk Strait? India was willing to give - free of charge - offensive arms and training to a terrorist group, but was not happy to sell weapons to a democratically elected government which with it had good relations and which was fighting a group that was banned India.

As I have mentioned before, end of the LTTE has made Sri Lanka especially, and South Asia in general a more stable place. As far as Sri Lanka is concerned, I think that this has actually made the island less of a "battleground for intelligence agencies." You point to Pakistan and China, but historically it is India's RAW that has caused most damage to the island. You mention a "naval base" but please don't forget it was India itself that did not want to develop Hambantota. It was India that missed the bus here and Sri Lanka should not be responsible for bad Indian policy decisions. Once again, from Sri Lanka's perspective, China's investment in the port is a boon to the country.

I agree with your last paragraph. I look forward to an increasing relationship between Sri Lanka and India. I have no doubt that all ready good relationship between the two countries is going to be taken to a higher level. Being sensitive to others' concerns is something all South Asian countries can be cognisant of. But as long as Tamil Nadu and anti-Sri Lankan elements in India's intelligence community have a say on India's Sri Lanka Policy, I think Sri Lanka ought to build its political, economic and military links with all the countries it can. Depending only on India would be a mistake for Sri Lanka; a policy blunder. For example, if Sri Lanka had depended only on India during the last decade, the LTTE would still be alive and well.

Sri Lanka has no benefit from antagonising any of its neighbours. I think Sri Lanka's policy makers are aware of that. While India may have reason to be suspicions of Pakistan, Bangladesh and China, Sri Lanka does not. Whilst India's relationship with Pakistan and China may be frosty, Sri Lanka's relationship with those two countries is warm and friendly. As I mentioned earlier, it will be a test of Sri Lanka's skill how she will manage all these relationships without jeopardising one or the other.

 

[samv]

Great Post, Reality based and Complete analysis, one of the best i,ve ever gone through on this forum on any topic.

I couldn't take my eyes off your post unless untill i went through it completly.

I am so impressed by your skills brother, Hats off to you...

Thanks for your comments