States can't interfere with Centre-BJP

Indian Foreign Policy is the exclusive preserve of the Central Government and we expect the political parties in Tamil Nadu to formulate their opinions in line with the realities of the situation, BJP Foreign Policy Cell National Convener and BJP's National Executive Member Dr. Seshadri Chari said in an interview with Daily Mirror.

“We strongly feel that foreign policy should not be interfered with by state governments. They can advise but not influence the outcome,” he said.  

Dr. Chari who is visiting Sri Lanka to participate in a panel discussion on ‘India under Modi’ organised by the Bandaranaike Centre for International Studies said although political parties in Tamil Nadu formerly used their political clout to pressure the Central government on foreign policy matters, the Modi government because of its strong position would not depend on any regional party.

He said they believed that the crises between Colombo and its Tamil population were an internal matter and was convinced that these issues could be best solved between New Delhi and Colombo instead of internationalising the process.

Dr. Chari said he strongly believed that both India and Sri Lanka should work together to resolve the issue and collaborate with each other to get the resolution on Sri Lanka completely withdrawn.  

“Gone are the days when one or two countries can gang up against an individual country and go for punitive resolutions. These resolutions and the idea of sanctions do not work -- they have become counterproductive as we have seen in the case of India’s second nuclear explosion and in the cases of Iran and Myanmar,” he added.

Dr. Chari said unless answers to the questions of who decided the failure to address concerns of human rights and the best methodology to address the issue; one or two countries however powerful they may, could not be allowed to dabble in the internal affairs of any other country.

He said meanwhile India also expected Sri Lanka to deliver on the concerns raised by the Tamil population. (Lakna Paranamanna)

---

Q: Various speculations have been put forward with regard to the Foreign Policy of the Modi Government. Will it be a continuation or will it differ from that of the former UPA government?

A: In India, the foreign policy usually does not undergo major changes with government changes. The broader parameters of foreign policy - safe guarding India’s national interest and fruitfully engaging with our neighbours and all other countries in the world, remain more or less the same.

But yes, certain aspects, particularly the implementation and response mechanisms in FP will change. Swifter implementation will be sought in order to preserve the intrinsic values of the relevant agreements and responses mechanisms will be better handled in our dealings with other states.

Q:  But if we move to country specific policies, China has been viewed as India’s geo-strategic adversary. Will this power rivalry continue or will Prime Minister Modi’s close relations with China during his tenure as the Gujarat Chief Minister create a shift?

A: India’s policy towards China has undergone many phases - from being a friend and an ideological partner in the early stages of our independence, to having serious differences following Sino-Indian territorial disputes.

In the post 90 era, China has emerged as an economic power, so much so that it is being viewed as a challenge to the Economic power centres of the world. India too is emerging as an economic power centre and over the last two decades, the economic power centres have shifted from the West to the East, in which, China and India are leading players. Today, the two countries are partners as well as competitors in progress, which we perceive a very healthy development. So we look at Sino-Indian relations from that prism. As our former PM said, there is enough space in the world for both India and China to grow.

Q:  But can it be expected of the two countries to develop closer ties, given PM Modi’s close relations with China?

A: Individual relationships do not necessarily matter as far as the relationships of the two countries are concerned. But yes, it gives a little bit of an opening so the understanding is better and clearer. But there is a larger section in India that is appreciative of the way China has grown economically. But again, a sizable number of people in the strategic thinking community also caution the government on the security and strategic aspects of China’s growth.

Q:  But the rivalry between China and India seemed to have simmered during the recent BRIC summit on hosting the Headquarters of the proposed BRICs joint development bank?

A: The agreement on setting up the bank was underway since 2009, and it has finally been succeeded in this particular summit. It is called the New Development Bank - the name that was suggested by India and accepted by all the states involved. But for all practical purposes, I think it will be called the BRICs bank and that is a different issue.  

But certain concerns were raised on the capital partnership and currency, which have been resolved through negotiations. Similarly, concerns were raised over which country should host the headquarters and Shanghai was agreed upon finally, owing to its excellent infrastructure facilities. As a quid-pro-quo, its first President will be from India, and China has agreed not to contest for the Presidential position for the next two decades. These are usual occurrences and are not contentious issues. The fact that solutions have been reached through discussions, is proof enough that there is a greater level of commitment towards resolving issues.

Q:  Will the Modi government take a stronger stand against the terrorist attacks that emanate from Pakistan and border incursions by China?

A: What we have conveyed to the Chinese is that, since negotiations of the border are ongoing, we need to remain committed to the border negotiation mechanisms that were agreed upon during the first Indian government under former PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee. We wish China to respect the border positions currently held, but if incursions occur, we will take serious note and pressurize the Chinese authorities to impress upon the PLA (China’s People’s Liberation Army) to withdraw.

It is unfortunate that Pakistan has turned into the epicentre of all terrorist activities worldwide. Terrorism is posing a grave threat to countries and societies across the world - so much so that Pakistan itself has become the victim of it. So we urge the global community to take the threat of terrorism emanating from Pakistan more seriously unless, there is a world resolved to tackle the issue of terrorism through a fool proof mechanism, this menace cannot be easily resolved.

Q: India has been criticized over its failure to emerge as a regional balancer. Will the Modi government make any difference with concern to these criticisms?   

A: As an emerging power, India has had our own share of economic issues ranging from unemployment to poverty as well as on integrating our economy with the world economy.

But, with the kind of political stability that we had, we should have done better. Again, India’s conduct of FP does not envisage a superpower role. We have believed in the development of a benign power; it was we, who gave the idea of panchasheel (Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence) to the world. We have been looking at the Asian region from a different perspective and, this is one reason why India is respected, not feared.

Q: Speaking of superpowers, how will the US-India relations play out considering PM Modi’s history with the US? On the other hand, will the present government be compelled to adopt a ‘softer policy towards rich countries’ due to the election campaign that stressed on economic revival?

A: Even during the run up to the elections and even afterwards, Modi has made it very clear that personal treatment of an individual by a country, should not become an impediment on the relations between two countries. But having said that, India has always been looking at the West, particularly the US as a natural as well as a strategic partner on three aspects: economic growth, peace and conflict resolution. Terrorism has emerged as the single largest threat to peace, conflict resolution and economic progress globally, and we expect the US to work with India on all three aspects.

Q: Former government has at times been criticized over their submissive attitude towards Western policies. Will the Modi government take more of an assertive role?

A: The Modi government believes in a more assertive role as far as the engagement with the West is concerned, India can no longer be taken for granted.

Q: What are your comments on India’s abstention from voting at the US-backed resolution on Sri Lanka at the 25th UNHRC session this year?

A: The BJP has always held views contrary to the former government of India on the voting on the matter at the UNHRC in 2012. In 2014 however, good sense prevailed and India abstained.

We have always believed that the issues between Colombo and the Tamil population is an internal matter of Sri Lanka. It is a subject of bilateral relationships between India and Sri Lanka, and agreements to that effect are existent between the two countries, and we believe these issues can be best solved between New Delhi and Colombo, rather than making it an international issue.

India has always opposed any internalization of domestic problems and we strongly believe this problem can best be solved through negotiations between India, Sri Lanka and other parties involved.

As far as human rights violations are concerned, India strongly believes that Sri Lanka is seized of the matter; LLRC is active, it has submitted a report and now the question lies on the implementation aspect. I strongly believe that both India and Sri Lanka should resolve this issue and collaborate to get the resolution completely withdrawn.  

Q: Given that victims of these alleged HR violations have fled Sri Lanka, isn’t the internationalization of the issue inevitable?

A: The activities of the Tamil diaspora are a subject matter for the Government of Sri Lanka to tackle. India is against the kind of negative lobbying carried out by the diaspora and I hope they would better engage on the economic development and confidence building measure of post-war Sri Lanka.

Q: It was however expected by some, for the Modi government to take on a different position on the accountability process and the international investigation on Sri Lanka than the presently expressed stance?

A: The BJP has always maintained that international probes are not in keeping with the times. Gone are the days when one or two countries can form a gang against an individual country and go for punitive resolutions. These resolutions and the idea of sanctions do not work and they have become counterproductive as we have seen in the cases of India’s second nuclear explosion, Iran and Myanmar. What is important is the creation of an atmosphere where these issues can be resolved through negotiations and democratic processes.  

Q: But in situations where democratic processes and negotiations have failed, do you still view sanctions and resolutions to be futile exercises?

A: Who is to decide that there is a collapse of the democratic process? Which country can decide and what are the parameters on which you decide? India has never agreed that there is consensus on the issue. This was the idea that was mooted sometime ago, even with reference to R2P, which has never worked so we have not yet supported the third pillar of R2P.

Unless we are able to answer the questions of who is to decide the failure to address concerns of HR, and the best methodology to address the issue, we cannot allow one or two countries irrespective of how powerful they may be, to dabble in the internal matters of any other country. We strongly condemn this process. But at the same time, India also expects Sri Lanka to deliver on these concerns.

Q: BJP allies, including PMK, had expressed shock on the Central’s decision on the international probe on Sri Lanka, and it was reported in Indian media that Vaiko had gone to the extent of writing letter to the PM containing ‘undertones of secessionism’ over the stance. Will the domestic politics allow India’s current stance to continue?

A: Parties in Tamil Nadu have been using their political clout to pressurize the central government on FP matters. But the Modi government is in a position of strength and is not dependent on any regional party. We strongly feel that FP is the exclusive preserve of the central government, and it should not be interfered by state governments. They can opine and advise, but not influence the outcome. Therefore, we expect the political parties in Tamil Nadu to formulate their opinions, in keeping with the realities of the situation.

Q: Promises made by the Government of Sri Lanka to implement the 13th amendment are yet to be realized. How will India proceed to ensure the promise is not limited to mere promises?

A: 13A is the product of a particular situation that existed at the time when it was originally drawn up. Much water has flown since then, so in the changed circumstances, all the stakeholders need to look at 13A and implement its provisions in a phased manner.
If Colombo is able to set a particular time frame on the implementation, it would help build bridges between various communities. It is up to Colombo to reap the peace dividends by implementing 13A.

Q: How does India perceive Sri Lanka’s rapidly developing association with China?

A: Sri Lanka is free to deal with any country in the world, including China. As far as economic development and infrastructure projects are concerned, if Sri Lanka decides to use the competitive edge of China, there should be no objection.

But we strongly believe that Sri Lanka is conscious of the security and strategic aspects of Chinese influence in Sri Lanka and the Indian Ocean region. We are very confident that the relationship between India and Sri Lanka is such, that these challenges will be the prime concern of Sri Lanka before they enter any kind of partnership with another country.

Q: What measures do you believe should be adopted with concern to addressing the continuous Indo-Lanka fishermen issue?

A: The matter is being seriously negotiated between New Delhi and Colombo, and apart from the international rules governing maritime borders and fishing activities, it is important for the two countries to evolve a more stable and practical mechanism to settle these issues. They cannot be left to the fishermen or the respective Naval forces and would have to be handled from a more humanitarian perspective.

Q: What will the stance of the Modi government be, concerning the issue on Katchatheevu; given that few years ago the present External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj herself promised Jayalalithaa to raise the issue on the island, in the Lok Sabha?

A: Katchatheevu agreement is a very old one and it has a number of clauses, which I think should be upheld by both countries. It is not a contentious issue and it can be resolved.

Q: An Indian Head of State has not visited Sri Lanka for decades. Will PM Modi make break the ice?

A: Yes, the PM has reiterated his appreciation of Sri Lanka and is very keen to visit, since he values the strategic importance of Sri Lanka. He believes in enhancing relations with Sri Lanka and he will be visiting at the earliest available opportunity.