Connect with us

Features

India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka

Published

on

By Uditha Devapriya

Pope Francis was everyone’s favourite papal figure, a progressive who differed considerably from his two predecessors. The first Latin American to hold the post, and the first from the Global South, he was the first to break ground on subjects that had polarised the church, including homosexuality, child sexual abuse, and of course Gaza. Reports indicate that until the last he was in touch with church leaders in Palestine. He was more forthright on the issue than Western leaders, who hesitated to invoke words like genocide. Francis did, and in doing so won the love and the respect of the world.

The world since his death has witnessed a considerable escalation of tensions, including in Gaza and between India and Pakistan. The latter continues to cause much worry. Since Wednesday’s attacks in Pahalgam, Kashmir, Narendra Modi has said he will go “to the ends of the earth” to find the perpetrators. Pakistani authorities have spoken of the attack being “orchestrated” and part of Delhi’s “disinformation” campaign.

Last week, the two countries exchanged retaliatory measures, including the closure of airspace and India’s withdrawal from the Indus Waters Treaty. Meanwhile, Kashmiri students have been facing attacks from far-right groups in India.

India has always prided itself on its power moves, and its suspension of the Water Treaty shows that, when provoked, it can and will withdraw from resource sharing agreements. This has been so whatever the party in power, but it has become a convenient fait accompli for the BJP government, which thrives today on anti-China and anti-Islamabad sentiment. While its border dispute with China has, at least on paper, and at least for now, been resolved, its declaration of retaliation against Pakistan indicates that such issues run deep and, for the Indian political establishment, there can be no backing away.

From India’s perspective, these moves are justified. The Resistance Front (TRF), the terrorist outfit initially thought to have led the attacks, have been linked by Indian officials to Lashkar-e-Taiba, an armed group in Pakistan. Designated as a terrorist outfit by the UK and US in 2001, Lashkar-e-Taiba has since come to encompass several organisations, including Jama’at-ud-Da’wah, thought to be responsible for the Mumbai attacks in 2008. Pakistan has since expressed its willingness to proscribe such outfits, but this does not seem to have assuaged India’s suspicions about their links with the country.

At a press conference soon after the recent attacks, Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri said that the Water Treaty will be “in abeyance” until Pakistan “credibly and irrevocably abjures its support for cross-border terrorism.” The suspension, though temporary, would restrict water flows from Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab to Pakistan. It has been noted, however, that a complete suspension would be impossible: India has politicised water in ways few countries have, but water levels from May to September are so high as to make it impossible for any country, even India, to stop them from flowing into Pakistan.

Yet all this is peripheral. As with the US, there is a strong bipartisan consensus in India over security and defence issues. The Indian Congress Party is doing all it can to appear calm and calculated, but when in power, it responded in much the same way, deploying a series of power moves intended to wrest as many concessions from its rivals and neighbours while granting few concessions from its side.

Sri Lanka’s diplomatic encounters with New Delhi during the 1980s are a case in point: while India pushed Sri Lanka to negotiate with Tamil militants, as K. M. de Silva has noted it did little to make things easier for the country’s government. The result was that Delhi pushed too hard, leading to the inevitable pushback from the south (the JVP) and the north (the LTTE) after 1987.

Where India is concerned, there is, of course, a difference between Sri Lanka and Pakistan. India’s rivalry with Pakistan, and China, has been ordained by geography: it has become almost inevitable, a sine qua non of inter-state relations in South Asia and the wider Indian Ocean. Its interventions in Sri Lanka during the 1980s showed that Delhi was capable of extending its hard power beyond the subcontinent. While India has shied away from direct confrontations with Colombo since – not least because New Delhi cannot afford another Vietnam here, as it did with the IPKF fiasco in 1987 – it has tried to make up for its lack of connectivity through a series of initiatives to literally and metaphorically bridge the gap. This has been resisted by many Sri Lankans, as well as foreign policy experts who have, not unjustifiably, argued it will give India the upper hand that India has vis-à-vis its neighbours over resources like water – as its dispute with Pakistan shows.

India’s response to the Pahalgam attacks raises questions about what that country is capable of in situations of war and direct military confrontation. I find it unlikely that this country will face such a confrontation with Delhi, at least any time soon.

And yet, as Rathindra Kuruwita suggests in a recent piece to The Diplomat, Sri Lanka cannot afford connectivity that gives the upper hand to the other party. This will be contested by the Indian political elite, who constantly dwell on India’s good, brotherly intentions and instincts. Those intentions came to the fore in 2022, when Delhi did what no other country could, in assisting Sri Lanka towards recovery. Yet even such assistance has not assuaged the fears which Sri Lankans have about India’s intentions and motives. Delhi’s response to the attacks in Kashmir will reinforce such fears, while evoking among most Sri Lankans sympathy for the victims of those attacks, and their families.

Uditha Devapriya is a regular commentator on history, art and culture, politics, and foreign policy who can be reached at udakdev1@gmail.com. Together with Uthpala Wijesuriya, he heads U & U, an informal art and culture research collective.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

US’ drastic aid cut to UN poses moral challenge to world

Published

on

An UN humanitarian mission in the Gaza. [File: Ashraf Amra/Anadolu Agency]

‘Adapt, shrink or die’ – thus runs the warning issued by the Trump administration to UN humanitarian agencies with brute insensitivity in the wake of its recent decision to drastically reduce to $2bn its humanitarian aid to the UN system. This is a substantial climb down from the $17bn the US usually provided to the UN for its humanitarian operations.

Considering that the US has hitherto been the UN’s biggest aid provider, it need hardly be said that the US decision would pose a daunting challenge to the UN’s humanitarian operations around the world. This would indeed mean that, among other things, people living in poverty and stifling material hardships, in particularly the Southern hemisphere, could dramatically increase. Coming on top of the US decision to bring to an end USAID operations, the poor of the world could be said to have been left to their devices as a consequence of these morally insensitive policy rethinks of the Trump administration.

Earlier, the UN had warned that it would be compelled to reduce its aid programs in the face of ‘the deepest funding cuts ever.’ In fact the UN is on record as requesting the world for $23bn for its 2026 aid operations.

If this UN appeal happens to go unheeded, the possibilities are that the UN would not be in a position to uphold the status it has hitherto held as the world’s foremost humanitarian aid provider. It would not be incorrect to state that a substantial part of the rationale for the UN’s existence could come in for questioning if its humanitarian identity is thus eroded.

Inherent in these developments is a challenge for those sections of the international community that wish to stand up and be counted as humanists and the ‘Conscience of the World.’ A responsibility is cast on them to not only keep the UN system going but to also ensure its increased efficiency as a humanitarian aid provider to particularly the poorest of the poor.

It is unfortunate that the US is increasingly opting for a position of international isolation. Such a policy position was adopted by it in the decades leading to World War Two and the consequences for the world as a result for this policy posture were most disquieting. For instance, it opened the door to the flourishing of dictatorial regimes in the West, such as that led by Adolph Hitler in Germany, which nearly paved the way for the subjugation of a good part of Europe by the Nazis.

If the US had not intervened militarily in the war on the side of the Allies, the West would have faced the distressing prospect of coming under the sway of the Nazis and as a result earned indefinite political and military repression. By entering World War Two the US helped to ward off these bleak outcomes and indeed helped the major democracies of Western Europe to hold their own and thrive against fascism and dictatorial rule.

Republican administrations in the US in particular have not proved the greatest defenders of democratic rule the world over, but by helping to keep the international power balance in favour of democracy and fundamental human rights they could keep under a tight leash fascism and linked anti-democratic forces even in contemporary times. Russia’s invasion and continued occupation of parts of Ukraine reminds us starkly that the democracy versus fascism battle is far from over.

Right now, the US needs to remain on the side of the rest of the West very firmly, lest fascism enjoys another unfettered lease of life through the absence of countervailing and substantial military and political power.

However, by reducing its financial support for the UN and backing away from sustaining its humanitarian programs the world over the US could be laying the ground work for an aggravation of poverty in the South in particular and its accompaniments, such as, political repression, runaway social discontent and anarchy.

What should not go unnoticed by the US is the fact that peace and social stability in the South and the flourishing of the same conditions in the global North are symbiotically linked, although not so apparent at first blush. For instance, if illegal migration from the South to the US is a major problem for the US today, it is because poor countries are not receiving development assistance from the UN system to the required degree. Such deprivation on the part of the South leads to aggravating social discontent in the latter and consequences such as illegal migratory movements from South to North.

Accordingly, it will be in the North’s best interests to ensure that the South is not deprived of sustained development assistance since the latter is an essential condition for social contentment and stable governance, which factors in turn would guard against the emergence of phenomena such as illegal migration.

Meanwhile, democratic sections of the rest of the world in particular need to consider it a matter of conscience to ensure the sustenance and flourishing of the UN system. To be sure, the UN system is considerably flawed but at present it could be called the most equitable and fair among international development organizations and the most far-flung one. Without it world poverty would have proved unmanageable along with the ills that come along with it.

Dehumanizing poverty is an indictment on humanity. It stands to reason that the world community should rally round the UN and ensure its survival lest the abomination which is poverty flourishes. In this undertaking the world needs to stand united. Ambiguities on this score could be self-defeating for the world community.

For example, all groupings of countries that could demonstrate economic muscle need to figure prominently in this initiative. One such grouping is BRICS. Inasmuch as the US and the West should shrug aside Realpolitik considerations in this enterprise, the same goes for organizations such as BRICS.

The arrival at the above international consensus would be greatly facilitated by stepped up dialogue among states on the continued importance of the UN system. Fresh efforts to speed-up UN reform would prove major catalysts in bringing about these positive changes as well. Also requiring to be shunned is the blind pursuit of narrow national interests.

Continue Reading

Features

Egg white scene …

Published

on

Hi! Great to be back after my Christmas break.

Thought of starting this week with egg white.

Yes, eggs are brimming with nutrients beneficial for your overall health and wellness, but did you know that eggs, especially the whites, are excellent for your complexion?

OK, if you have no idea about how to use egg whites for your face, read on.

Egg White, Lemon, Honey:

Separate the yolk from the egg white and add about a teaspoon of freshly squeezed lemon juice and about one and a half teaspoons of organic honey. Whisk all the ingredients together until they are mixed well.

Apply this mixture to your face and allow it to rest for about 15 minutes before cleansing your face with a gentle face wash.

Don’t forget to apply your favourite moisturiser, after using this face mask, to help seal in all the goodness.

Egg White, Avocado:

In a clean mixing bowl, start by mashing the avocado, until it turns into a soft, lump-free paste, and then add the whites of one egg, a teaspoon of yoghurt and mix everything together until it looks like a creamy paste.

Apply this mixture all over your face and neck area, and leave it on for about 20 to 30 minutes before washing it off with cold water and a gentle face wash.

Egg White, Cucumber, Yoghurt:

In a bowl, add one egg white, one teaspoon each of yoghurt, fresh cucumber juice and organic honey. Mix all the ingredients together until it forms a thick paste.

Apply this paste all over your face and neck area and leave it on for at least 20 minutes and then gently rinse off this face mask with lukewarm water and immediately follow it up with a gentle and nourishing moisturiser.

Egg White, Aloe Vera, Castor Oil:

To the egg white, add about a teaspoon each of aloe vera gel and castor oil and then mix all the ingredients together and apply it all over your face and neck area in a thin, even layer.

Leave it on for about 20 minutes and wash it off with a gentle face wash and some cold water. Follow it up with your favourite moisturiser.

Continue Reading

Features

Confusion cropping up with Ne-Yo in the spotlight

Published

on

Ne-Yo: His management should clarify the last-minute cancellation

Superlatives galore were used, especially on social media, to highlight R&B singer Ne-Yo’s trip to Sri Lanka: Global superstar Ne-Yo to perform live in Colombo this December; Ne-Yo concert puts Sri Lanka back on the global entertainment map; A global music sensation is coming to Sri Lanka … and there were lots more!

At an official press conference, held at a five-star venue, in Colombo, it was indicated that the gathering marked a defining moment for Sri Lanka’s entertainment industry as international R&B powerhouse and three-time Grammy Award winner Ne-Yo prepares to take the stage in Colombo this December.

What’s more, the occasion was graced by the presence of Sunil Kumara Gamage, Minister of Sports & Youth Affairs of Sri Lanka, and Professor Ruwan Ranasinghe, Deputy Minister of Tourism, alongside distinguished dignitaries, sponsors, and members of the media.

Shah Rukh Khan: Disappointed his fans in Sri Lanka

According to reports, the concert had received the official endorsement of the Sri Lanka Tourism Promotion Bureau, recognising it as a flagship initiative in developing the country’s concert economy by attracting fans, and media, from all over South Asia.

Nick Carter: His concert, too, was cancelled due to “Unforeseen circumstances

However, I had that strange feeling that this concert would not become a reality, keeping in mind what happened to Nick Carter’s Colombo concert – cancelled at the very last moment.

Carter issued a video message announcing he had to return to the USA due to “unforeseen circumstances” and a “family emergency”.

Though “unforeseen circumstances” was the official reason provided by Carter and the local organisers, there was speculation that low ticket sales may also have been a factor in the cancellation.

Well, “Unforeseen Circumstances” has cropped up again!

In a brief statement, via social media, the organisers of the Ne-Yo concert said the decision was taken due to “unforeseen circumstances and factors beyond their control.”

Ne-Yo, too, subsequently made an announcement, citing “Unforeseen circumstances.”

The public has a right to know what these “unforeseen circumstances” are, and who is to be blamed – the organisers or Ne-Yo!

Ne-Yo’s management certainly need to come out with the truth.

However, those who are aware of some of the happenings in the setup here put it down to poor ticket sales, mentioning that the tickets for the concert, and a meet-and-greet event, were exorbitantly high, considering that Ne-Yo is not a current mega star.

We also had a cancellation coming our way from Shah Rukh Khan, who was scheduled to visit Sri Lanka for the City of Dreams resort launch, and then this was received: “Unfortunately due to unforeseen personal reasons beyond his control, Mr. Khan is no longer able to attend.”

Referring to this kind of mess up, a leading showbiz personality said that it will only make people reluctant to buy their tickets, online.

“Tickets will go mostly at the gate and it will be very bad for the industry,” he added.

Continue Reading

Trending