India better than Sri Lanka in negotiating peace: experts

Chennai:

The accords signed by India with ethnic groups to usher in peace may not have satisfied all ethnic groups but the country is far better than its South Asian neighbours, including Sri Lanka, in facilitating peace, according to experts.

Addressing a event to discuss “Governing systems and internal conflicts”, which is organised by Centre for Security Analysis, Dr P Sahadevan, professor of South Asian Studies, School of International Studies Jawaharlal Nehru University said that that process of signing the accord may be democratic in India but the peace does not satisfy all the ethnic groups.

Warning of using violence as means of coercion against ethnic force, Sahadevan says that it could create peace but not reconciliation. He says India is far better than Sri Lanka in this regard. It uses coercion but never renounces political settlement unlike Sri Lanka.

“India is not a illiberal democracy like Sri Lanka. It is accountable to people and is questioned for its actions unlike Sri Lanka,” he added.

Interestingly, Sahadevan also highlights that all internal conflicts in India, Sri Lanka, Nepal and Myanmar may have external backing but when it comes to signing the accord the role of external factor is missing. This is because the nations think peace process is more of internalized matter.

Independent researcher Sudha Ramachandran highlighted how Indian democracy is far better than the three states. She said India recognizes linguistic diversity and never imposes any one language on its population unlike Sri Lanka  or even the Liberation Tigers of Tamil ealam which excluded the Tamil Muslims from the struggle.

“Coercive hegemony has negative impact on nation building exercise,” she added.

Interestingly, she also highlighted on one end the ethnic groups fight against state seeking rights but a closer look at the rebels bring to fore that they are illiberal. Sudha says that various outfits like LTTE, Naga rebels while championing for the cause of their rights could never tolerate dissent in their ranks.