Way Forward Can Be Through Revamped PSC
Jehan Perera
The outcome of President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s meeting with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been a let down to the Sri Lankan government. There was a general expectation in Sri Lanka, fueled by the optimism of government leaders that a new era of relations would open up when the President of Sri Lanka met the new Prime Minister of India. In particular there was the hope that the vexatious international pressure on the government to proceed with a political solution on the basis of the devolution of power to the Tamil-majority areas of the country would subside. But this did not happen. On the contrary, Prime Minister Modi was uncommonly blunt and precise in calling on his Sri Lankan counterpart to begin delivering on his oft-repeated promise to the international community of a political solution that goes beyond the 13th Amendment.
It was believed that because both President Rajapaksa and Prime Minister Modi come from nationalist traditions, there would be a meeting of hearts and minds and that they would understand and empathise with each other as they were thought to be on the same wavelength. The Sri Lankan government was hoping that Prime Minister Modi’s nationalist inclinations would make him focus on economic ties with Sri Lanka rather than on minority rights. This might have been possible if the two leaders were not from neighbouring countries, where the actions of one spilled over into the other country. For instance there could be a meeting of minds between the leaders of Sri Lanka and Russia where it concerns dealing with separatist insurgencies. Both countries ended up dealing with their separatists with military force and finally succeeded in crushing them.
Inasmuch as President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s nationalism is in relation to Sri Lanka, so would the Indian Prime Minister’s nationalism be in relation to India’s national interest.
However, there is less reason to believe that two nationalisms that are next door to each other could cooperate. Those who are nationalists tend to look at issues from the perspective of their own countries and the interests of those they deem to be their own. It is generally universalists or liberals who think of the larger picture and the wellbeing of all that transcends their own nationality. The boycott of the swearing in ceremony by the main political leaders of Tamil Nadu state and the emotional reaction in Tamil Nadu over the invitation extended to the Sri Lankan president would have sent a message to the Indian policymakers that the issue of Sri Lanka has to be handled carefully. Inasmuch as President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s nationalism is in relation to Sri Lanka, so would the Indian Prime Minister’s nationalism be in relation to India’s national interest.
Jehan Perera
The outcome of President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s meeting with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been a let down to the Sri Lankan government. There was a general expectation in Sri Lanka, fueled by the optimism of government leaders that a new era of relations would open up when the President of Sri Lanka met the new Prime Minister of India. In particular there was the hope that the vexatious international pressure on the government to proceed with a political solution on the basis of the devolution of power to the Tamil-majority areas of the country would subside. But this did not happen. On the contrary, Prime Minister Modi was uncommonly blunt and precise in calling on his Sri Lankan counterpart to begin delivering on his oft-repeated promise to the international community of a political solution that goes beyond the 13th Amendment.
It was believed that because both President Rajapaksa and Prime Minister Modi come from nationalist traditions, there would be a meeting of hearts and minds and that they would understand and empathise with each other as they were thought to be on the same wavelength. The Sri Lankan government was hoping that Prime Minister Modi’s nationalist inclinations would make him focus on economic ties with Sri Lanka rather than on minority rights. This might have been possible if the two leaders were not from neighbouring countries, where the actions of one spilled over into the other country. For instance there could be a meeting of minds between the leaders of Sri Lanka and Russia where it concerns dealing with separatist insurgencies. Both countries ended up dealing with their separatists with military force and finally succeeded in crushing them.
Inasmuch as President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s nationalism is in relation to Sri Lanka, so would the Indian Prime Minister’s nationalism be in relation to India’s national interest.
However, there is less reason to believe that two nationalisms that are next door to each other could cooperate. Those who are nationalists tend to look at issues from the perspective of their own countries and the interests of those they deem to be their own. It is generally universalists or liberals who think of the larger picture and the wellbeing of all that transcends their own nationality. The boycott of the swearing in ceremony by the main political leaders of Tamil Nadu state and the emotional reaction in Tamil Nadu over the invitation extended to the Sri Lankan president would have sent a message to the Indian policymakers that the issue of Sri Lanka has to be handled carefully. Inasmuch as President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s nationalism is in relation to Sri Lanka, so would the Indian Prime Minister’s nationalism be in relation to India’s national interest.
