Goodwill from India for truce talks

Lynn Ockersz

PEACE PROCESS: The launching of ceasefire talks in Geneva between the Lankan Government and the LTTE is a positive indication that the peace process is continuing and that the ice has finally been broken between the parties after a three year break-down in negotiations. Although no quick results or "miracles" could be expected in Geneva, the country could be happy that continuity in the conflict-resolution process is being maintained with these talks.

It is with these encouraging words that Dr. P. Sahadevan, Associate Professor of South Asian Studies and Review, Editor of the 'International Studies' journal of the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, welcomed the resumption of the Government-LTTE peace effort in Geneva. He was in Sri Lanka at the weekend to feature as keynote speaker at a forum organised by the Colombo-based Foundation for Community Transformation, and was expected to comment on a number of topical issues including Indian perspectives on the Lankan peace process.

Sahadevan said in comments to this writer that the Lankan ceasefire talks had won the full endorsement of the Indian State.The Indian approach to the talks was positive and India did not want to see a resumption of hostilities here.

India had full faith in the actors in the deliberations but preferred to remain in the "background" at the moment in view of the long drawn out nature of such negotiatory processes. India's "involvement" is not going to change anything when the lengthy character of the process is taken into consideration, Sahadevan explained. However, it is vitally important that the parties to the conflict continue to talk on a sustained basis because this helps in conflict-containment.

Dismissing speculation in some local quarters of India being behind the Karuna faction, as "wild imaginings", Sahadevan said that there is no evidence at all of such an involvement. The Indian strategy, he explained, is broad and not focused on "micro issues." There is no evidence of "who is doing what" in this context.

India would, however, like to see the legitimate aspirations of all of Lanka's communities being met through a political solution. India, Sahadevan explained, "looks forward" to constitutional changes in Sri Lanka which would facilitate equitable power-sharing among its communities. It, of course, leaves to Sri Lanka the task of dealing with the specifics of such a constitutional order but sees the current system "as not conducive" to equitable power sharing.

When asked why no quick, positive results could be expected from negotiations aimed at ending ethnic conflicts, Sahadevan explained that such conflicts related to group identities and the ambitions, self-interest, and perceptions of such parties. It is difficult on account of these factors, to get such conflicting groups to recognize each others identities. There is a "problem of compromise".

It is an uphill task to get these antagonistic groups to make compromises and recognize each others legitimate needs because of the primacy of self interest. Third World politics in general thrive on divisions and this makes the resolving of inter-group, identity-based conflicts difficult. Sri Lanka's language issue is a case in point.

If the language rights of the Tamil community were granted long ago the country's ethnic conflict may have been defused. But the fact that there were political forces which thrived on creating antagonisms on the language question, contributed to the worsening of the ethnic conflict here. In countries such as our's, ethnicity intermingles with politics. This aggravates ethnic tensions.

Drawing on the Indian experience Sahadevan said that space has been created within the Indian state for the co-existence all its communities. There is the concept of the "joint ownership" of the State which facilitates this.

The State does not identity with any one ethnic group and there is a great determination among the State's stakeholders to defeat divisive forces.

Answering the question, how a climate could be created within our countries for the resolving of ethnic tensions, Sahadevan said that civil society could prove an important change agent. Society should put its foot down and call for peace and positive change. If society is politicized on interest-oriented lines this could prove difficult but civil society has to work hard and emerge as a major force.

National societies, Sahadevan pointed out, should undergo a change of heart. Ethnic groups should achieve a greater appreciation of each other through inter-cultural dialogue. Negative images of each other should be removed.

These are long term projects which could be achieved through a "restructuring of mindsets". A value-based education among the people could prove an important tool in bringing about these changes. Likewise, positive co-existence too can be taught. The process could begin in school.

Getting onto Indo-Lanka relations, Sahadevan said that there are many positives in this sphere. Trade turnover, for instance, in these relations is more than $ 1.5 billion. The Comprehensive Indo-Lanka Partnership is working fine.

The Indo-Lanka Free Trade Agreement is beneficial to both countries. Indian investment is growing in Lanka. Likewise, some Lankan companies are investing in India. "Gradual but steady" progress is noticeable on this front. It must be remembered that economic factors drive political relations.

On the Indo-Pakistani peace process, Sahadevan said that this too is long drawn out but there is a willingness to talk. Here too a sustained dialogue should be maintained for conflict-containment.

On SAARC, Sahadevan said that this process is slow but not disappointing. The Indo-Pakistani conflict once resolved could speed-up the SAARC process. However, SAARC is the only forum which gives our countries a South Asian identity.

***

Sahadevan explained that such conflicts related to group identities and the ambitions, self-interest, and perceptions of such parties. It is difficult on account of these factors, to get such conflicting groups to recognize each others identities.

There is a "problem of compromise". It is an uphill task to get these antagonistic groups to make compromises and recognize each others legitimate needs because of the primacy of self interest.

Third World politics in general thrive on divisions and this makes the resolving of inter-group, identity-based conflicts difficult. Sri Lanka's language issue is a case in point.

If the language rights of the Tamil community were granted long ago the country's ethnic conflict may have been defused. But the fact that there were political forces which thrived on creating antagonisms on the language question, contributed to the worsening of the ethnic conflict here.

In countries such as our's, ethnicity intermingles with politics. This aggravates ethnic tensions.
