- Timeline of Events
- Resolution game: sometimes yes, sometimes No
- Why India abstained from Voting?
- #1: same thing can happen to us
- #2: Pakistan-China
- #3: Abstain = line open both sides
- #4: US/EU can go the hell
- #5: Congress won’t win Tamilnadu anyways
- #6: Desi Tamils & Lankan Tamils are not “BEST” friends
|2009||Prabhakaran killed. LTTE-Sri Lankan Civil war ends. Total >1 lakh died in a civil war that lasted more than 25 years.|
|2010||India gives 8000 cr. for rehabilitation of Tamils in Northern Sri Lanka. Projects for housing, powerplant and HRD.|
|Year||UNHRC resolution said||India’s vote||USA|
new fertility drug like clomid success This 2014 resolution wants
- Investigation into war crimes / human rights violation during 2002-09 period (when LTTE-Government war was on peak.)
- Office of the High commissioner of Human rights (OHCHR) will conduct this investigation.
- Although that Sarkari-LLRC (Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission) investigated this period (2002-09) but still fresh investigation will be made.
best buy generic levitra online in last two resolutions, India voted in favour of USA backed resolutions against Sri Lanka. (Mind the wording: IF you’re voting in “favour” of resolution= you are voting “AGAINST” Sri Lanka).
- India opposed to this resolution because it would undermine sovereignty of Shri Lanka. (In the long run, some other country may want to invoke similar resolution on India, saying your army “violating” human rights in JK / NE; or CRPF violating human rights while fighting Maoists, so we want to setup an “International” inquiry).
- None of our neighbours have voted in favour of this resolution.
- None of Asian countries have voted in favour of this resolution. [Except South Korea].
- Because ^everyone has similar “Domestic” problems- no one wants “international” inquiry on human rights.
- So there was no need for India become “human rights champion” by voting in favour of this resolution.
- Besides, India has never voted in favour such international-inquiries. We respect the “sovereignty“ of every nation.
- Even, in past when we voted in favour of resolutions that were “against” Sri Lanka, we had tried to persuade UNHRC to water down the criticism/censures against Sri Lanka.
- So by abstaining this time, we haven’t dramatically made U-turn in our stand on issue. All we want is Sri Lanka to rehabilitate Tamils.
- Neither Pakistan NOR China voted in favour of this resolution. (= they also don’t want international inquiry).
- So, IF we vote in favour= unhappy Sri Lanka would grow closer ties with Pak and China.
- USA, its allies – in Latin America and Africa, voted in favour (of setting international inquiry for Sri Lanka).
- Voting in Favor / Against = lines are drawn, you know who is the enemy, who is the friend.
- But Abstained = space available for future manoeuvring (India can get close to Sri Lanka or Close to USA- depending on how Chinese wind blows in Arabian sea and whether Sri Lanka dances on their tunes).
- Recall the Dushmani4Devyani angle under Fed Tapering article.
- When American regulatory bodies (Aviation, Trade, Pharma) are hellbent on teaching Indians a “lesson”, we don’t need to keep USA in good humour by voting in favour of America sponsored resolution against Sri Lanka.
- Besides, US/EU needs India anyways, for economic reasons and as a counterweight against China.
- Therefore, India’s stand on this resolution = unlikely to create bitterness in our relationship with US/EU.
- In past, UPA government had ‘political’ pressure from its allies in Tamilnadu. So, till last minute, Government will not show its cards (Whether we want to vote in favour OR against.)
- But this time, Congress also knows their game is over, Tamils are not voting them back in power anyways. Both Karunanidhi and Jailalitha have their own plans (either third front OR Modi depending on how the wind blows.)
- Given these reasons, government saw no reason to vote in FAVOUR of this resolution. (mind the “reasoning”= voting in favour of resolution = we are voting against Sri Lankan government)
- At the same time, didn’t vote AGAINST this resolution = to keep our diplomatic options open for future.
- + the next reason:
|2014 month||Lankan Navy arrested ___ Indian Fishermen.|
- It was the Lankan Tamil fishermen who had been requesting Lankan NAVY to arrest Indian (Tamil) fishermen hunting in their (Lankan) territorial waters.
- Indian and SriLankan Tamil fishermen are increasingly becoming hostile to each other for fishing right.
- For lip service, the political parties and business organizations of Tamilnadu – they demand rehabilitation of Sri Lankan Tamils.
- But in real life- they hardly contribute any money or manpower for this.
- In other words, ground reality is different. The plight of Sri Lankan Tamils = gradually becoming a political rhetoric in South India (just like Ram Mandir in North India). Juntaa has moved on- the issues of the day are- employment, growth, inflation, corruption and women security. So, what Union does on Lankan issue- unlikely to affect poll outcome.
Given above reasons: India has made the right diplomatic move by abstaining from this voting.
quanto costa Viagra generico 50 mg online a Roma PS: Chindu said we should have voted in favour.
http://cinziamazzamakeup.com/?x=viagra-generico-italia-pagamento-online Mock Question: watch Discuss India’s stand on the latest UNHRC resolution against Sri Lanka. Do you agree that India has fully changed its foreign policy on Sri Lanka with this? (200 words)
Key points to include
- What recent resolution wants: international investigation on Human rights violation during LTTE-Government war between 2002 to 2009.
- Why India abstained: Sovereignty, China-Pak angle, Abstain=both lines open; Ignore Congi angle.
- Why it is not a full ‘U-turn’ of our Sri Lankan policy: (i) even when we voted, we tried to water down previous resolutions (ii) have always respected “sovereignty” (iii) still giving aid to Sri Lanka for Tamil rehab.
- For the latest resolution: Although India abstained from voting, still resolution was passed because 23 favour.
- Official name of this resolution: ‘Promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka’.
- Navi Pillay: UN Commissioner to Human rights. She visited Sri Lanka in 2013, unhappy with progress on Tamil rehab. Told Sri Lankan government to setup a credible inquiry by 2014. Government didn’t comply, hence this new resolution in March 2014.
- Navi Pillay is not an Indian citizen. She was born in South Africa, has Tamil roots in India.
- HQ of UNHRC = Geneva
- Total members = 47
Visit Mrunal.org/Diplomacy for entire list articles on Diplomacy & International relations (IR) for Mains GS2 paper of UPSC Civil service IAS/IPS Exam.