"
If there is one thing that the average Sri Lankan, the Tamil in particular, will have to note about the US Ambassador to India Nancy Powell's meeting with BJP's prime ministerial candidate, Narendra Modi, ahead of the upcoming parliamentary polls in the country, it is this; for countries such as the US, or any other in its place, 'supreme national self-interest' comes first.
It should be so, as well, looked at from their individual national perspective, going beyond their altruist agenda on other global fronts like human rights, ecology, etc.
The US has explained (away) the Powell-Modi meeting, making out that it is a part of the continuing process for diplomats of another nation to study and understand the political processes in the host-country - part of the 'out-reach' programme, as they call it. If that were so, the question would arise why over close to a decade now, no US envoy in Powell's place had sought out the Gujarat Chief Minister, despite his three successive wins in State Assembly elections and when international institutions and investors too have been citing 'development-markers' and 'good governance' yardsticks of the west Indian State under Modi's care as worthy of emulation elsewhere in the country and outside, too.
If that alone were the yardstick, then the US should have no problem working with President Mahinda Rajapaksa, either. To be fair to the US and the rest of the West, none had marked out the Sri Lankan leader as not worthy of hosting him - hence granting a visa, or questioning the diplomatic immunity enjoining on him as the Head of the Sri Lankan State. If anything, President Rajapaksa had visited the US even while interest groups had approached local courts for subpoenaing him for facing 'war crimes' charges flowing from 'Eelam War IV'. Newspaper reports had indicated that the US may have also ensured that the courts notice was not served on the Sri Lankan President while on American soil.
As Ambassador Powell was setting up the meeting with Modi in his home-turf of Gandhi Nagar, the US State Department back home was working overtime to stress that it did not mean that the US was reconsidering the visa-ban imposed on the Chief Minister after the 'Gujarat riots'. Owing to the visa-ban, as may be recalled; Wharton Business School had to settle for an interactive video-conference with Modi, but gave it up almost at the last minute after civil society groups in the two countries protested loudly on the riots issue.
Diplomatic ban and diplomatic immunity
It would be interesting to note how the US and Harvard would react if and when Modi became Indian Prime Minister after the April-May parliamentary polls in India. Whether the US would officially withdraw the visa-ban, and if Wharton (or another internationally-reputed US academic institution) would continue to keep the 'Indian Prime Minister' off its premises and podium, would remain to be seen. Americans are practical people, and that is also the reason behind their all-round success, and for decades now.
The US Administration, however, would not have to bother much on the visa-ban, if Modi became Prime Minister, or even the Leader of the Opposition (with Cabinet rank) in the Lok Sabha, the more-important Lower House of the Indian Parliament. He would then be entitled to a 'diplomatic visa' after all, and would hence have 'diplomatic immunity' without anyone having to offer him the same. Under those circumstances, it would be interesting to see how the game plays itself out.
All through, Modi has projected himself as a 'tough' man. It would hence be interesting to note if he would shoo away inevitable American entreaties post-poll, or would he be more accommodative than his tough-dealer public image could afford. That he did not make an issue of meeting with Ambassador Powell would indicate that he would not be as much uncompromising, but in the final analysis what would be the price he would demand/extract, will remain to be seen until such time the issue assumes greater and more immediate relevance.
It is not without reason that such questions have to be asked. Between fellow-Gujaratis and leaders of rival Congress Party at that, Modi has often compared himself not with Mahatma Gandhi, the apostle of peace but with 'Sardar' Vallabhai Patel, India's first Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister, for whom the Chief Minister is in the process of erecting the world's tallest 'Unity statue', at 182 m (597 ft). It is another matter that Patel even while displaying a tough exterior, be it in his handling of the post-Partition riots or heading the integration of princely States with the Indian Union, would follow Gandhiji's words and ways as gospel truth.
Mahinda's mandate
It is one thing for an Indian mandate for Modi influencing the US in one direction. It will be another for a fresh Sri Lankan mandate for President Rajapaksa the same way. For now, the Mahinda leadership has been continuing to win one Provincial Council election after another after 'accountability issues' hit the roof at the UNHRC-Geneva, time and again. Yet, it was no way near making any mark on the crucially important Tamil-majority Northern PC polls.
Whenever the presidential polls are held, supporters of President Rajapaksa would cite (any) victory for him as a national endorsement of his Government's line and lingo on 'accountability issues'. Shriller the international voice(s) on charges against the Government, greater are the chances of President Rajapaksa winning. Independent of the 'surprise' contestant in outgoing army commander, Sarath Fonseka, the 'military hero' of the war victory, the 'political hero' won the 2010 poll, after all.
It is most likely that the Rajapaksa campaign would try and extract more mileage from any UNHRC initiative against his leadership - and thus of the Sri Lankan nation - than any domestic issue(s). The latter comes with the possibility to unite the political Opposition against the Rajapaksa leadership and candidacy. The former has the potential to unite the voters (minus the minority Tamils) against an 'international conspiracy' aimed at encouraging 'Tamil intransigence' and weakening the Sri Lankan State and the 'Sinhala-Buddhist nation' all over again.
It would suffice if a whisper or not-so-whispering campaign flags such points, without the ruling leadership even having to endorse it. Then, it could well be the turn of the already dispirited and even more divided political Opposition to run for cover. It is another matter that alleged 'Tamil intransigence', (even) after the Northern Provincial Council polls, coupled with the international initiatives on 'accountability issues' —as loosely and not-always-rightly interpreted —seem to be taking away some of the off-and-on accumulating fizz from the national Opposition's concerted campaign to keep the electoral focus on domestic issues like price rise and inflation, law and order and corruption.
Propriety and legality
Media reports indicate that Modi in his meeting with Ambassador Powell had enquired about the 'Devayani issue', after a serving Indian woman diplomat in New York was arrested in public view and strip-searched in a police station, with her American visa withdrawn, pending the continuing court case against her. Independent of the predicament facing him, it is clear on which side his sympathies lie - whether with the official and even more officious American version, or the hurt and discomfort faced by the Indian diplomat and shared by 1.2-billion Indians back home.
It would be the kind of question that the BJP leadership in India would be asking itself, now and later. It will also be the kind of question that the Government of India in general - and the Foreign Office in particular —should also be asking itself if Narendra Modi were to become Prime Minister and thus acquire 'diplomatic immunity' for the period in office: Will Modi be exempt from the US visa-ban only during his continued tenancy in office, or will it mean that Washington would lift the ban, as quietly or as noiselessly, as Modi would want it treated, if and when in office?
Any continued US 'visa-ban' on Modi means more than the obvious. It is not just about his not being able to visit the US without 'diplomatic immunity'. It would imply that the US has also not exonerated him for his perceived role in the 'Gujarat riots' that reportedly claimed the lives of 2000 Muslims, whether or not he is in power. Barring a possible prime ministerial visit to address the UN General Assembly this year, if he were Prime Minister, Modi in office may not have to cross the bridge until he came to that. The diplomatic immunity would then suffice for him to go to the UN and even meet up with leaders from other nations out there. The list could include the US President, too.
The next round of bilateral summit entails a US presidential visit to India. Incumbent Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was in the US for the summit in September last. Should Modi become Prime Minister, and should a summit continue to remain the hallmark of bilateral relations at the highest-level, then both the incumbent and the Government in India would expect the visiting US President to make the choice and lend greater clarity than Ambassador Powell's meeting now would entail.
The question would then be about the propriety and legality of the US President personally doing government business with an elected leader of a friendly nation, whom his own US Immigration Department was fighting shy to grant a visa, still. Either way, both could then expect howls of protests from Sri Lanka —though not necessarily from the Government but definitely from the custom-made anti-India elements, who for reasons of moribund ideology and political convenience are also anti-American from the very start!
(The writer is a Senior Fellow at Observer Research Foundation, Chennai Chapter)
Courtesy: The Sunday Leader, Colombo, February 16, 2014
"
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
PREV
