brand logo

Why Tamil Nadu, why not India?

22 Feb 2022

It was reported recently that the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) and the Global Tamil Forum (GTF) had expressed fears about the possibility of a new Constitution further weakening the status of the Tamil people by abolishing or weakening the provincial councils, which, according to them, is the only constitutional power devolution arrangement Tamil people achieved with direct Indian involvement. They have also said in a statement that they are expecting the guidance and support of India, especially Tamil Nadu, and that they are looking forward to engaging directly with the Tamil Nadu Government to strengthen engagement with the Indian Government. This news comes in a context where Sri Lankan political parties representing the Tamil community have on many occasions stressed the importance of the support they receive and should receive from Tamil Nadu-based politicians with Tamil Nadu being a stronghold of Indian Tamil people.  As seen in the past and as mentioned in the above-mentioned statement, Sri Lanka’s Tamil politicians are expecting the support of Tamil Nadu to get the Indian Government’s support, because Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka’s Tamil population are close in so many ways. However, seeking support to influence a country’s Constitution-making process, regardless of the magnitude of the influence and the purpose, is a serious matter. A single State of India being involved in highly sensitive political and social affairs of another country is not something India’s Central Government should ignore, especially given the friendly relations the two countries have at higher levels of political, economic, and cultural affairs. It is important to clearly understand what support a State of India can extend and what support another country should seek from one State of India, because although a state can represent a country, it cannot represent the overall stance of the country. India is so much more than Tamil Nadu. That is not to say that a certain community should not have the freedom to seek support or a partnership with a group of another country. However, there should be a clear understanding as to what those affairs mean to the two countries, especially when those affairs do not represent the overall interests of the two countries and are based on subjective matters. First and foremost, India should have a proper policy based on some kind of consensus among its leaders as to what India’s stance on Sri Lanka’s affairs and affairs with Sri Lanka should be like, and it should be that country’s official position. This policy can extend to any aspect of Sri Lanka in which India is already, or interested in being, involved in. Most importantly, while giving smaller groups such as political parties, various organisations, and groups representing various states the democratic freedom to express their opinions about and to be involved in Sri Lanka’s affairs, such policies should always be the official stance of the Central Government, or India, and should be able to supersede the stance of the smaller groups when the two countries deal at the diplomatic level.  The responsibility of getting the Indian Government to do that before it is too late is in the hands of the Sri Lankan Government. At the same time, in the overall domestic context, there should be some attitudinal changes too with regard to interpreting acts against the country’s rule of law, democracy, freedom of expression, religious freedom, human rights, and governance. Irrespective of ethnicity, language, religious belief, or other identities, acts against one person should be considered an act against the entire citizenry, and through such attitudinal changes, Sri Lanka should refrain from limiting certain issues such as human rights violations or restrictions on free speech to just one community. Put simply, a violation of human rights of a Tamil person should be considered by Sinhala persons as a rights violation against a fellow citizen whose identity is Sri Lankan, and vice versa.  It is true that in some instances in recent memory, people of certain ethnic, religious, and social backgrounds faced more disadvantageous situations than others. However, during the same period, Sri Lanka has seen myriad incidents that show that no one, be it Sinhalese, Tamil, Catholic, or Muslim, is safe from those who have the power to violate human rights, and that not all of the harassments against minority ethnic groups can be interpreted as issues unique to them. During the past decade or so, there were many incidents where Sinhala and English journalists were attacked, abducted, and murdered, Catholic community and religious leaders were unfairly arrested and questioned, and Muslim activists were arrested and detained for years with no evidence. To resolve this matter, the country’s leaders – political leaders that represent certain ethnic communities, groups that represent certain cultural or religious ideologies with no direct relationship to political parties, academics, and civil society activists – need to be open-minded to see national-level issues as national-level issues, and be careful about what they interpret as acts against a certain community.  At the end of the day, we should acknowledge that while any party has a right to seek any support that they think is necessary for a legitimate reason, it should take place in a transparent manner, and both India and Sri Lanka have a responsibility to allow that process while also ensuring that domestic affairs of the two countries do not affect Indo-Sri Lanka ties.


More News..