Features
Why does India not have a Geneva game-plan?
by Kumar David
Why is there uncertainty, even at this late stage, about the stand India will take on the Human Rights resolution on Sri Lanka’s long ended civil war and overlapping allegations that the current regime harbours authoritarian ambitions? India’s silence is both curious and significant. There are three substantive players in the game in Geneva. Team 1 is the core group (UK, Canada, Germany and three other ninnies) supported by the new US Administration; they work as a unit. Team 2 is China; the only other important team member is Russia. Team 3 is India and India alone, an important outlier. Everyone else (there are 47 voting members on the Council) is small change led by the nose by one or other of the big teams and this goes for the Muslim states and Pakistan. America-Europe or China, Teams 1 or 2, will tell them what to do, and these nobodies will docilely follow – give or take some mild concern among Muslim states about the plight of fellow Sri Lankan Sons of the Prophet. The caveat is that if Team 3 (India) takes a strong position one way for the other it will swing five-plus votes which will be a deciding factor on whether Sri Lanka is treated harshly.
The motivations of Team 1 and Team 2 are known and consist of an international and a domestic concern. The international or strategic aspect has been much commented on. China’s concern in a safe maritime concourse in the East China Sea, Straits of Malacca and the Indian Ocean. Friendly states and harbours along the way are much prized. Team 1, behind which stands the Quad (US, Australia, Japan and New Zealand) has an interest in blocking China’s upswing. All this you read in the newspapers daily. Then there is the domestic imperative. Team 1 and the West has a popular ethos of democratic and human rights in public spaces – whether deemed bogus or not, it exists as a political force. If a British or an American government seems soft on human rights – Burma, Sri Lanka, Belarus etc. – the domestic opposition (Labour, Republicans, Churches and NGOs) will go to town. The unpopularity and setback will be substantial. China too has its internal dimension. Its chorus is “Non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries” which says: You slaughter your Rohingyas or Tamils, or whatever, and leave us free to do likewise to our Uyghurs. This is crudely stated, but that’s the essence of it. The motivations of Team 1 & 2 are therefore transparent, their behaviour is predictable.
But India is an enigma. Why so undecided even so late with only two weeks to go to the vote? What is the Indian Government weighing up that makes it so flatfooted? Not a single reputed commentator has stuck his neck out and said confidently “This is what India will do”. I too will make no predictions as it is abundantly clear that Narendra Modi and GoI are themselves clueless which way they are pointing. The fears that have got India flatfooted in order of importance are as follows.
a)
India needs to mull the China factor judiciously. If the Lankan regime cosies up to China too much, such as allowing Chinese bases, it will be punished, but how does punishing Lanka benefit India? It’s better to balance the cards and avoid a showdown.
b)
India does not want to beat the Double-Rajapaksa regime over the head with a big stick, nor does it wish to starve Lanka and be seen as a bully. This is not 1983, the military-political crisis is not even remotely as critical. Rightly, the big stick has been put away.
c)
There is concern in the BJP about Tamil Nadu and worry of an anti-BJP electoral backlash among Tamils in India if their brethren in the Island are let down.
The only good Muslim in the Hindutva-Bible is a dead Muslim but Lanka’s less than two million Muslims are too insignificantly small for Modi and the BJP to worry about. What I am saying is that the BJP’s and the Lankan Gotabaya Executive’s shared hatred is unlikely to be a factor in GoI decision making. Some commentators draw have drawn attention to this shared prejudice but I don’t think it will be a factor in Modi’s decision making on the UNHRC issue.
Finally in this Geneva Season: Though the LTTE, and 30 years ago the JVP were terrorist, a clear distinction must be made between the following categories: Deaths in armed encounters, persons belonging to these outfits who are taken prisoner or arrested outside the conflict zone, and thirdly of course civilian. Under no condition can killing, torture or beating of prisoners, arrestees or civilians EVER be justified. The Lankan police and military, the LTTE, and briefly the JVP in 1989, are guilty of these crimes. Now even former minister Patali Champika (PC) seems to concede that there is a blithering, blooming imbroglio that needs fresh thinking – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giurcb7RsXc&t=1s in Sinhala.
I doubt if the Double-Rajapaksa government, as a unit, has the flexibility to think out of the box like PC. Though I don’t agree with some of what he says, he does concede that a fresh approach is timely. Sinhala-Buddhists are numerically a huge majority, but the remaining 30% won’t accept inflexible single-community hegemony. But there is room for a new deal and for accountability. If PC can be flexible, why not the smarter than Gotha fox Mahinda, be more flexible? India, to be helpful, must exploit these opportunities.
Features
Amid Winds and Waves: Sri Lanka and the Indian Ocean – references Prof. Gamini Keerawella
The following are the references for the four-part article, Amid Winds and Waves: Sri Lanka and the Indian Ocean byProf. Gamini Keerawella, published in The Island on 10, 11, 12 and 13 Nov.
Acharya, Amitav. 2014. The End of American World Order. Cambridge: Polity Press
Amrith, Sunil S. 2013. Crossing the Bay of Bengal: The Furies of Nature and the Fortunes of Migrants. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Baldwin, David A. 2016. Power and International Relations: A Conceptual Approach. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Brewster, David. 2014. India’s Ocean: The Story of India’s Bid for Regional Leadership. London: Routledge.
Blanchard, Jean-Marc F., and Colin Flint. 2017. “The Geopolitics of China’s Maritime Silk Road Initiative.” Geopolitics 22 (2): 223–245.
Bose, Sugata. 2006. A Hundred Horizons: The Indian Ocean in the Age of Global Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Browning, Christopher S. 2006. “Small, Smart and Salient? Rethinking Identity in the Small States Literature.” Cambridge Review of International Affairs 19 (4): 669–684. https://doi.org/10.1080/09557570601003536
Buzan, Barry, and Ole Wæver. 2003. Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Campbell, Kurt M., and Iain H. Houlden, eds. 1989. The Indian Ocean: Regional and Strategic Studies. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Chacko, Priya. 2021. “Sri Lanka and the Indian Ocean: Geopolitical Crosscurrents.” Third World Quarterly 42 (8): 1647–1665.
Chaturvedi, Sanjay, and Michal Okano-Heijmans, eds. 2019. Connectivity and the Indo-Pacific: Concepts, Challenges, and Prospects. Singapore: Springer.
Chaudhuri, K. N. 1985. Trade and Civilisation in the Indian Ocean: An Economic History from the Rise of Islam to 1750. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crawford, Neta C. 2000. Rethinking International Relations. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Cordner, Lee. 2010. “Rethinking Maritime Security in the Indian Ocean Region.” Journal of the Indian Ocean Region 6 (1): 67–85
Das Gupta, Ashin, and M. N. Pearson, eds. 1987. India and the Indian Ocean, 1500–1800. Calcutta: Oxford University Press.
de Silva, Colvin R. 1953. Ceylon under the British Occupation : 1795-1833. Colombo: Ceylon Apothecaries
Finnemore, Martha, and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. “International Norm Dynamics and Political Change.” International Organization 52 (4): 887–917.
Gunasekara, T. 2021. Maritime Diplomacy and Small State Strategy: Sri Lanka in the Indian Ocean. South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies 44(2): 275–292.
Hey, Jeanne A. K., ed. 2003. Small States in World Politics: Explaining Foreign Policy Behavior. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Holmes, James R., and Toshi Yoshihara. 2008. Chinese Naval Strategy in the 21st Century: The Turn to Mahan. London: Routledge.
Hourani, George F. 1995. Arab Seafaring in the Indian Ocean in Ancient and Early Medieval Times. Rev. ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Ingebritsen, Christine. 2006. Small States in International Relations. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Kaplan, Robert D. 2010. Monsoon: The Indian Ocean and the Future of American Power. New York: Random House.
Keerawella, Gamini. 2024. India’s Naval Strategic ascent ane the Evolving Natal Security Dynamics of the Indian Ocean-BCIS Research Monograph Series 2024/1. Colombo: Bandaranaike Centre for International Studies.
Kuik, Cheng-Chwee. 2008. “The Essence of Hedging: Malaysia and Singapore’s Response to a Rising China.” Contemporary Southeast Asia 30 (2): 159–185. https://doi.org/10.1355/cs30-2a.
Li, Mingjiang. 2018. China’s Maritime Silk Road Initiative, Africa, and the Middle East. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mahan, Alfred Thayer. 1890. The Influence of Sea Power upon History, 1660–1783. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Marx, Karl. 1952. The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. New York: International Publishers.
Medcalf, Rory. 2020. Indo-Pacific Empire: China, America and the Contest for the World’s Pivotal Region. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Mignolo, Walter D. 2011. The Darker Side of Western Modernity: Global Futures, Decolonial Options. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Pearson, M. N. 2003. The Indian Ocean. London: Routledge.
Rothstein, Robert L. 1968. Alliances and Small Powers. New York: Columbia University Press.
Schweller, Randall L. 1994. “Bandwagoning for Profit: Bringing the Revisionist State Back In.” International Security 19 (1): 72–107. https://doi.org/10.2307/2539149.
Strange, Susan. 1988. States and Markets. London: Pinter.
Thorhallsson, Baldur, and Robert Steinmetz, eds. 2017. Small States and Shelter Theory: Iceland’s External Affairs. London: Routledge.
Till, Geoffrey. 2013. Seapower: A Guide for the Twenty-First Century. 3rd ed. London: Routledge.
Walt, Stephen M. 1987. The Origins of Alliances. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Wilson, Ernest J. 2015. Hard Power, Soft Power, Smart Power. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
(Author is a former professor of Modern History at the University of Peradeniya. He could be contacted through Keerawellag@gmail.com)
Features
Vision of Dr. Gamani Corea and the South’s present development policy options
The ‘takes’ were numerous for the perceptive sections of the public from the Dr. Gamani Corea 100th birth anniversary oration delivered at ‘The Lighthouse’ auditorium, Colombo, by Dr. Carlos Maria Correa, Executive Director of the South Centre in Geneva on November 4th. The fact that Dr. Gamani Corea was instrumental in the establishment of the South Centre decades back enhanced the value of the presentation. The event was organized by the Gamani Corea Foundation.
The presentation proved to be both wide-ranging and lucid. The audience was left in no doubt as to what Dr. Gamani Corea (Dr. GC) bequeathed to the global South by way of developmental policy and thinking besides being enlightened on the historic, institutional foundations he laid for the furtherance of Southern economic and material wellbeing.
For instance, in its essential core Dr. GC’s vision for the South was given as follows: sustainable and equitable growth, a preference for trade over aid, basic structural reform of global economy, enhancement of the collective influence of developing countries in international affairs.
Given the political and economic order at the time, that is the sixties of the last century, these principles were of path-breaking importance. For example, the Cold War was at its height and the economic disempowerment of the developing countries was a major issue of debate in the South. The latter had no ‘say’ in charting their economic future, which task devolved on mainly the West and its prime financial institutions.
Against this backdrop, the vision and principles of Dr. G.C. had the potential of being ‘game changers’ for the developing world. The leadership provided by him to UNCTAD as its long-serving Secretary General and to the Group of 77, now Plus China, proved crucial in, for instance, mitigating some economic inequities which were borne by the South. The Integrated Program for Commodities, which Dr. G.C. helped in putting into place continues to serve some of the best interests of the developing countries.
It was the responsibility of succeeding generations to build on this historic basis for economic betterment which Dr. G.C. helped greatly to establish. Needless to say, all has not gone well for the South since the heyday of Dr. G.C. and it is to the degree to which the South re-organizes itself and works for its betterment as a cohesive and united pressure group that could help the hemisphere in its present ordeals in the international economy. It could begin by rejuvenating the Non-aligned Movement (NAM), for instance.
The coming into being of visionary leaders in the South, will prove integral to the economic and material betterment of the South in the present world order or more accurately, disorder. Complex factors go into the making of leaders of note but generally it is those countries which count as economic heavyweights that could also think beyond self-interest that could feature in filling this vacuum.
A ‘take’ from the Dr. GC memorial oration that needs to be dwelt on at length by the South was the speaker’s disclosure that 46 percent of current global GDP is contributed by the South. Besides, most of world trade takes place among Southern countries. It is also the heyday of multi-polarity and bipolarity is no longer a defining feature of the international political and economic order.
In other words, the global South is now well placed to work towards the realization of some of Dr. GC’s visionary principles. As to whether these aims could be achieved will depend considerably on whether the South could re-organize itself, come together and work selflessly towards the collective wellbeing of the hemisphere.
From this viewpoint the emergence of BRICS could be seen as holding out some possibilities for collective Southern economic betterment but the grouping would need to thrust aside petty intra-group power rivalries, shun narrow national interests, place premium value on collective wellbeing and work towards the development of its least members.
The world is yet to see the latter transpiring and much will depend on the quality of leadership formations such as BRICS could provide. In the latter respect Dr. GC’s intellectual leadership continues to matter. Measuring-up to his leadership standards is a challenge for BRICS and other Southern groupings if at all they visualize a time of relative collective progress for the hemisphere.
However, the mentioned groupings would need to respect the principle of sovereign equality in any future efforts at changing the current world order in favour of all their member countries. Ideally, authoritarian control of such groupings by the more powerful members in their fold would need to be avoided. In fact, progress would need to be predicated on democratic equality.
Future Southern collectivities intent on bettering their lot would also need to bring into sharp focus development in contrast to mere growth. This was also a concern of Dr. G.C. Growth would be welcome, if it also provides sufficiently for economic equity. That is, economic plans would come to nought if a country’s resources are not equally distributed among its people.
The seasoned commentator is bound to realize that this will require a degree of national planning. Likewise, the realization ought to have dawned on Southern governments over the decades that unregulated market forces cannot meet this vital requirement in national development.
Thus, the oration by Dr. Carlos Maria Correa had the effect of provoking his audience into thinking at some considerable length on development issues. Currently, the latter are not in vogue among the majority of decision and policy makers of the South but they will need ‘revisiting’ if the best of Dr. GC’s development thinking is to be made use of.
What makes Dr. GC’s thinking doubly vital are the current trade issues the majority of Southern countries are beginning to face in the wake of the restrictive trade practices inspired by the US. Dr. GC was an advocate of international cooperation and it is to the degree to which intra-South economic cooperation takes hold that the South could face the present economic challenges successfully by itself as a collectivity. An urgent coming together of Southern countries could no longer be postponed.
Features
Attitude development: Key to national progress
In a developing country like Sri Lanka, one of the main challenges, is developing attitudes and social values of its citizens. Attitudes are the behaviours and beliefs that shape an individual’s or society’s actions. These attitudes have a significant impact on personal and societal development. Therefore, developing the right attitudes is crucial for the progress of a nation.
Why is Attitude Development Important?
Attitude development has a profound impact on various aspects of society. For instance, promoting efficiency, creativity, and innovation can accelerate economic growth. When citizens have a positive attitude towards work and entrepreneurship, they are more likely to contribute to the country’s economic development. Similarly, preserving and promoting social and cultural values can strengthen social harmony and cohesion. A society with a positive attitude towards diversity and inclusivity is more likely to be peaceful and prosperous.
Role of Education in Attitude Development
Education is a key factor in shaping attitudes. A well-educated population is more likely to have a positive attitude towards life, work, and society. Education helps individuals develop critical thinking skills, which enable them to make informed decisions and solve problems effectively. Moreover, education can promote values such as tolerance, empathy, and respect for others, which are essential for building a harmonious society.
Impact of Media on Attitude Development
The media plays a significant role in shaping attitudes. With the advent of social media, people are exposed to a vast amount of information, which can influence their attitudes and behaviours. The media can promote positive attitudes and values, such as kindness, compassion, and social responsibility. However, it can also perpetuate negative attitudes and stereotypes, which can be detrimental to society.
Role of Community Participation in Attitude Development
Community participation is essential for attitude development. When individuals participate in community service and volunteer work, they develop a sense of social responsibility and empathy towards others. Community participation can also promote values such as teamwork, leadership, and communication skills. Moreover, it can help build stronger, more cohesive communities.
Importance of Leadership in Attitude Development
Leadership plays a crucial role in shaping attitudes. Leaders can inspire and motivate individuals to adopt positive attitudes and behaviours. They can promote values such as integrity, accountability, and transparency, which are essential for building trust and confidence in institutions. Moreover, leaders can create a positive work culture that encourages innovation, creativity, and productivity.
Role of Parents and Teachers in Attitude Development
Parents and teachers play a vital role in shaping the attitudes of children. Children learn by observing and imitating adults, so it’s essential for parents and teachers to model positive attitudes and behaviours. They can promote values such as respect, kindness, and responsibility, which are essential for building a positive and productive society.
Benefits of Positive Attitudes
Positive attitudes have numerous benefits for individuals and society. They can improve mental and physical health, increase productivity, and enhance overall well-being. Positive attitudes can also promote better relationships, improve communication skills, and increase resilience. Moreover, they can inspire individuals to achieve their goals and pursue their passions.
Challenges of Developing Positive Attitudes
Developing positive attitudes can be challenging, especially in the face of adversity. It requires effort, commitment, and perseverance. Moreover, individuals may face resistance from others who are not supportive of change. However, with the right mindset and support, individuals can overcome these challenges and develop positive attitudes that benefit themselves and society.
Role of Technology in Attitude Development
Technology can play a significant role in attitude development. Online platforms and social media can provide access to information, resources, and support that can help individuals develop positive attitudes. Technology can also facilitate communication, collaboration, and networking, which are essential for building positive relationships and communities.
Future of Attitude Development
The future of attitude development is promising. With the increasing awareness of the importance of mental health, well-being, and social responsibility, more people are recognising the need to develop positive attitudes. Moreover, technological advancements and innovations can provide new opportunities for attitude development and social impact.
The attitude development is crucial for the progress of a nation. It requires a collective effort from individuals, institutions, and leaders to promote positive attitudes and values. By working together, we can build a society that is more harmonious, productive, and prosperous. By developing positive attitudes, we can overcome challenges, achieve our goals, and create a brighter future for ourselves and future generations.
Recommendations
To promote attitude development in Sri Lanka, we recommend the following:
* Integrate attitude development programmes in schools and universities
* Provide training and resources for parents and teachers to promote positive attitudes in children
* Encourage community participation and volunteer work
* Promote positive attitudes and values through media and social media
* Recognise and reward individuals and organisations that demonstrate positive attitudes and behaviours
By implementing these recommendations, we can create a society that values and promotes positive attitudes and behaviours. This will enable us to build a brighter future for ourselves and future generations.
By Jayantha K. Pathirana (M.A)
(Former Principal of Katuwana National School)
-
Features6 days agoRolls – Royce in Ceylon
-
News6 days agoTeachers threaten strike against education reforms and ‘bid to shut down more than 1,500 schools’
-
Features2 days agoFavourites for the title of Miss Universe 2025
-
News6 days agoSri Lanka: Fewer births, rapid ageing mark a new demographic era
-
Business5 days agoRajaputhra Foundation, Nawaloka Hospitals partner for free breast cancer awareness and screening
-
News4 days agoJSC removes 20 officials including judges
-
Opinion6 days agoA Royal tribute to a true Royalist — Lorenz Pereira
-
Editorial6 days agoEstablishing courts, closing schools
