      |
|
|
|
A reply to Dr. Gunadasa
Amarasekera At least our adulthood, our advancing age, should restrain us from doing things that could cause irreparable harm to societies and mankind in general. Read, for instance, what Dr. Gunadasa Amarasekera has written in "The Island" issue of May 20 about India’s attitude towards Sri Lanka in ‘the last two decades’. It is as damaging as India’s Defence Minister George Fernandes saying that China is India’s biggest potential danger. Reading Dr. Amarasekera’s article, we wonder whether this is the same eerie anti Indian blasphemy that characterized the two youth revolts. The massive posters cautioning us of ‘Indiyanu Vyaptavadaya’ still sound shrill in our memory. The writer’s image of India as an inherently conquering nation takes him back to the pre-Christian era of Indian history, where he discovers Kautilya’s Ghost, and to this ghost he traces the origin of territorial aggrandizement alleged to have been followed by Indira Gandhi and her son, Rajiv Gandhi. He wants his readers to skip the vast changes that took place during twenty and half centuries of Indian history, the context of contemporary geo-politics in Asia, the real politik of the Indian Republic, and believe that Kautilya’s strategy of conquest plus the British policy of ‘divide and rule’ guide the rulers of India. An awe inspiring metaphysical feat, indeed. However, in an unguarded moment, he says that these Indian variations of conquistadors appeared only during the last two decades. In political history as in everything else, time is significant. For, when Dr. Gunasekera says, ‘during the last two decades’, he is exactly setting the period after the fall of the SLFP Government in 1977. So, the Indian Government’s aggressive attitude towards Sri Lanka came into effect after the return to power of the UNP with J. R. Jayewardene as its head. That the government of Indira Gandhi and that of her son materially supported the Northern terrorists, chiefly the LTTE, is a fact. But the significant question is why India behaved in the way it did, and the circumstances that led her to abruptly shift her stance vis-a-vis Sri Lanka. To Dr. Amarasekera this is flatly a continuation of Kautilya’s politics of conquest, and not any ‘personal animosity towards J. R. Jayewardene’. However, other than adding that India adopted the ‘divide and rule’ tactic of British imperialism, he does not draw any material analogy or a parallel to show that the strategy of Indian imperialism was aimed at the same goal. Instead, he unleashes a tirade against India, Indira Gandhi and her son Rajiv Gandhi, without heed to the grave consequences it can have on Indo-Sri Lanka relations and on geo politics of the region. He is not even concerned with the developments that underpinned Indian intervention in Sri Lanka’s ethnic conflict. We have already learnt from Dr. Amarasekera that the aggressive stance of India towards Sri Lanka was witnessed only during the last two decades and not before J. R. Jayewardene came to power with the missionary zeal of giving effect to the US Policy towards South Asia, in particular, to undermine the Sri Lanka-India-USSR axis. This triumvirate and the non-alligned movement were the chief obstacles to US designs on this region. Conversely, they were considered vital for the survival of India and Sri Lanka. That was why the Indian Ocean Peace Zone proposal was so critically important to them. Indian foreign policy in Asia was mainly directed towards preventing the Indian Ocean becoming an American Lake. In such a context what would have been the embarrassment to India when at a Non-Aligned Summit J. R. Jayewardene, with biting sarcasm, threw at Ms. Gandhi’s face the retort: ‘our concern should be not about peace zones but about our external debt’. He also displayed his utter contempt towards India by refusing to give the Trincomalee oil tanks to India even at the highest bid, and by inviting Voice of America, admittedly for US propaganda against India. Let us recall that VOA had to quit India following mischievous broadcasts with potential violation of peaceful co-existence in Asia. In the eyes of Indian officials Sri Lanka would have appeared like a gun directly trained at India. India now found herself besieged from three fronts; China from the North East, Pakistan from the North West and Sri Lanka from the South. And the latter threat was the most immediate because of Sri Lanka’s location in the Indian Ocean. Given this context, India did what any person in that condition would do, although in her anxiety Indian conduct was irrational. It sought to destroy the Jayewardene government by materially supporting the LTTE. A very short-sighted approach indeed! But, once Rajiv Gandhi succeeded in forcing Jayewardene into signing an agreement, which included certain clauses that bound Sri Lanka from taking certain steps, he had no stake in Sri Lanka’s ethnic issue. It was of no consequence to him and once his objective was achieved, and J. R. Jayewardene succumbed, he not only dropped the LTTE hot potato, but sought to destroy it, which cost him his life. India, having accomplished her avowed mission of preventing Sri Lanka from becoming an outgrowth of US diplomacy in South Asia, wanted to preserve the status quo for which purpose the LTTE had to go. May be, betrayal of the worst order, but that was real politik. How come, Dr. Amarasekera did not see this side of the story. How come he did not pause to think of the difference in India’s attitude towards Sri Lanka before and after 1977? There was a time when Katchativu was given to us on a platter and the Sirima-Shastri Agreement was signed without much effort. There was also no arrest and detention of Sri Lankan fishing vessels with their crews by Indian authorities. Where was this Kautilyan Ghost then? Among the many harsh things Dr. Amarasekera had to say, there was the truth that the British colonist set in motion the forces of disintegration. But strangely, he skips over the creation of Pakistan and Hindu Muslim riots, and comes straight to the assault on the Golden Temple. A close look will show that the target of attack was not the temple but the fortress of Sikh militants. Dr. Amarasekera’s sources had revealed that the ‘third agency’ suppressed information about the impending destruction of 43 railway stations in order to find an excuse to attack. Perhaps, on the same argument, information on the impending assassination of Indira Gandhi must have been suppressed by the ‘third agency’ in order to continue the war against Sikh militants. So we see that India is pre-occupied in trying to keep its own states intact, rather than embarking on adventures of conquest. Between the Lines Many may not appreciate it, but will understand Pakistan’s stand that it had to go nuclear when India decided to take the lead. There is also some validity in the argument by Pakistan army chief General Jehangir Karamat that Islama-bad had to re-establish the strategic balance in the region if Pakistan does not indulge in the arms race. But what is not understandable is Pakistan foreign minister Gohar Ayub’s diatribes. One day he says that India has many populated cities, as if the criterion is who can kill more. Another day he boasts that Pakistan has attained superiority over India. Someone should make him understand that there are no victors in a nuclear war. And there is no device invented so far which, if detonated over Punjab, Delhi or UP, will not kill people from the fallout in most parts of Pakistan. Gohar is a hawk who was earlier divested of his portfolio because of irresponsible statements. He was waiting for another job when the bomb was detonated and he stayed back. His statements, like the ones by Home Minister L. K. Advani, have pushed the two countries to the brink. The situation would have looked less dangerous if they had not indulged in sabre rattling. To a lesser extent, both Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and Nawaz Sharif, have also not helped the situation. They are mixing the two different issues, the bomb and Kashmir. At a meeting where he defended India’s explosion, Vaj-payee said that the entire Jammu and Kashmir was an integral part of India. Nawaz Sharif, while announcing to his nation that Pakistan had conducted five nuclear tests, said that the dialogue between India and Pakistan should include the core issue of Kashmir. Kashmir Therefore, both India and Pakistan must immediately come to an understanding on how to avert the collision. Hot lines function between the two prime ministers and the two army chiefs. They must be used if there is any unidentified object crossing the border from either side. A clear command and control structure should be working on both sides. Vajpayee’s principal secretary Brajesh Mishra and Pakistan’s army chief Karamat have gone on record to say they have each established command and control mechanisms. Casual and careless as New Delhi and Islamabad are, one hopes that there is no ambiguity or slackness on this issue. However, rickety the command and control on the Indian side, it is very definitely in political hands. One hopes that the same is true in Pakistan. Significantly, the statement about control has come from General Karamat. He has claimed that Pakistan has already ‘established a firm control regime to monitor its missile and nuclear programmes.’ Were someone from the political leadership to say so, there would be relief. Deception The inevitable conclusion in this situation where there is already so much mistrust is that the two sides must sign the NPT and the CTBT. Both treaties provide for international inspection and verification procedures by experts whose bonafides are not and will not be questioned. In such ways realistic confidence building measures can be put in place so that the dangers of an accident nuclear exchange are substantially reduced. Till such agreements are negotiated, Vaj-payee’s offer of no-first use can straight-way ward off nuclear holocaust. But Gohar’s rejection keeps the danger alive. But the Clinton administration is going about it in the wrong way. One it is making its bias against India too blatant. Two, it wants to retain the monopoly of the Big Five and does not fix the time limit when all the nuclear weapons will be destroyed throughout the world. Why this fixation with nuclear when they have agreed to eliminate stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons? Both India and Pakistan are now nuclear weapons states. The Five have to accept them as equals, however deficient they may be economically. To compare India and Pakistan with Ukraine or Kazakhstan, where the former Soviet satellites’s nuclear weapons were withdrawn under international control, makes little sense. It is not a matter of simply removing a few warheads. The issue is also sensitive because of the national pride involved. Chirac Once the immediate fears of nuclear confrontation are allayed, Kashmir should be taken up because this is not an issue that can be solved in a jiffy. The Simla agreement of 1972 enjoins upon the two governments to find ‘a final settlement on Jammu and Kashmir.’ The approach suggested was bilateral. Unfortunately, New Delhi has focussed international attention on the question. Were it to start negotiations directly with Islamabad, it would still be possible to keep out others who have their own axe to grind. Already the ice has been broken. Foreign Secretaries of both countries have met and listed all pending issues between the two countries under six heads, each with a separate working group. Both can pick up the thread where it was broken. The problem at that time was that Pakistan wanted one working group devoted exclusively to Kashmir. Since this is one question on which Pakistan feels strongly, there is no reason why a separate working group should not discuss the problem in depth. Sharif Still it is not understandable why India and Pakistan continue to ignore the world trends, which are obliterating political borders and bringing the countries together as economic blocks. Between them India and Pakistan represent a vast market, about three times as big as that of Europe. Sadly, the European example of economic and political integration has been lost on the subcontinent. But that is like putting our heads in the sand. If they want to move forward and deal with the rest of the world on something approaching an equal basis, conciliation between the two countries is a must. What they are not even ashamed of is that nowhere in the globe are so many poor as there are in the sub continent. And between them, the two countries continue to spend 250 billion on arms. Sri Lankan Agriculture in the
next decade Continued from yesterday However these studies appear to have not benefited a single farmer in Sri Lanka, although we continue to import nearly Rs. two billion worth of nitrogenous fertilizers annually. The potential of this crop is vast a plan for development of the Sugar Industry in Sri Lanka prepared by the Sugarcane Research Institute as early as June 1992 has been shelved. In 1995, discussions were held to formulate a sugar development policy without any success. As in many other sub-sectors, lack of a sound sugar sector development policy and relevant strategies are glaring shortcomings in the sugar sector too. In view of the tremendous potential of the sugar sector in the economic and social development of Sri Lanka, it is essential that atleast now, the relevant authorities especially the Ministry of Plantation Industries and Sugaraane Research Institute take a more concerted effort to make the sugarance industry in Sri Lanka more productive. Potential for increased crop production As is well known, Sri Lanka has a wide variation in soil and climate. There are 24 agro ecological zones, each characterized by specific climate and soils. This makes it possible the cultivation of different types of crops. Out of the 6.5 million hectares of land, around 2.0 million hectares are in the wet zone and about 75% of it is cultivated. Of the 4.5 million hectares in the Dry Zone, only about 2 million hectares are effectively used. Thus, there is a large extent of potentially cultivable land, especially in the dry zone where most of the soils are relatively more fertile than those in the wet zone. Non-availability of adequate rainfall during the yala season is one of the limiting factors of crop production in the dry zone. However, the various major irrigation projects such as Mahaveli, Kirindioya, Muthukandiya and Inginimitiya are expected to provide irrigation to about 200,000 hectares in the dry zone. The numerous minor irrigation projects too would increase the irrigable area in the dry zone. Further, there is a substantial supply of human resources in this area. Thus, there is considerable potential to increase the level of crop production in Sri Lanka. Promoting Investments in the Agricultural Sector The 2 million farming families, if they are provided with better marketing facilities etc. discussed above, would be able to contribute significantly towards increasing agricultural production in Sri Lanka. However, to meet the future demands it is essential that the presently uncultivated lands are also cultivated for which a significant investment is necessary. Hence, the Board of Investments need to pursue a rigorous and effective programme to promote investment in sustainable agricultural enterprises, which will provide more employment opportunities and also promote growth. National Policy and Pans: One of contributory factors for the present parlous state of the agricultural sector in Sri Lanka is the absence of an integrated, long-term, viable national policy and an effective action plan. For example, there is no effective programme to obtain the services of agriculturally trained personnel in the country. Around 300 agriculture graduates and Diploma holders pass out annually from the University Faculties of Agriculture and Agricultural Schools respectively. But, most of these graduate are unemployed or underemployed, and there is no proper plan to make use of their training in increasing crop/animal production in the country. However in many institutions of national importance, agricultural related activities are handled by personnel without any appropriate training. For example, the rubber nurseries of the Rubber Development Department are managed by officers of the Sri Lanka Administrative Service. The agriculture sector in Sri Lanka will continue to be the cornerstone in economic and social development of the country in the foreseeable future. Hence, the authorities need to take a realistic approach to revive this sectors if they are committed to make the country a better place to live. It is often said that farmers are the backbone of the country. If they face ruination, the country too will fall into the same plight. The author of this article is the Director (Agriculture Development) of the Samurdhi Authority, a former Professor of Agronomy and a United Nations Consultant) Concluded |
|
 |