India To Host Trilateral Talks With Japan, US

For Japan, three is not a crowd. Four may be. While it agrees that a more robust Asian security architecture will be required if China's opaque military modernization continues, for now it will be content with trilateral or three-way security dialogues involving India, Australia and the United States, without giving it the shape of a Quadrilateral or resurrecting notions of containing China.
Currently, Japan has trilateral dialogues with the US and India; with the US and Australia; and with China and South Korea. India is the third country, after the US and Australia, with which Japan has the two-plus-two talks involving foreign and defence ministers. New Delhi is expected to host the inaugural India-US-Japan trilateral dialogue later this year. It will be conducted by officials, and not by foreign ministers as was mentioned in the April 8 press release issued by the ministry of external affairs after foreign secretary Nirupama Rao's talks in Tokyo.
Antipiracy Cooperation and Maritime Security
Besides discussing antipiracy cooperation and maritime security, the talks could progressively extend to cover security and defence cooperation. China's military rise has caused concerns in the region and beyond. Without naming China, Australian defence minister Stephen Smith recently said, ‘All we ask in terms of a growth of military capacity is that one is transparent as to its strategic intentions’. That view is shared by Tokyo. ‘We keep asking the Chinese what is your intention, but unfortunately we have not received a convincing explanation,’ Akitaka Saiki, Japan's new ambassador to India, said in an interaction at the Observer Research Foundation.
‘While Japan has no intention to undermine good neighborly relations with China, I hope China will be a little more sensitive to concerns expressed by its neighbors. Actions need to match words, that is my view,’ he observed. Saiki cautioned that the future trajectory of trilateral talks would depend on Beijing's attitude. The current Japanese sentiment stands in contrast to the churning in Australia, which has instituted a Defence Force Posture Review for addressing issues such as ‘the growth of military power projection capabilities of countries in the Asia Pacific’ -- an indirect reference to China's influence.
Post-Tsunami Japan
Michael Auslin from the US-based American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, said that Australia, not post-tsunami Japan, could be the lead partner in the Quadrilateral. Dr John Lee from the Sydney-based Centre for Independent Studies, in turn, cited the increasing possibility of Australia lifting the ban on uranium sale to India to suggest that the perception of Australia drifting toward China was not true. The Quadrilateral was an initiative of Shinzo Abe, who was the Japanese prime minister from September 2006 to September 2007.
On September 4, 2007, the navies of India, Japan, the United States, Australia and Singapore conducted joint naval exercises.

Beginning of New Era in India-Pakistan Cooperation

Although nothing substantive came out of the talks between the foreign ministers of India and Pakistan, S.M. Krishna, and Hina Rabbani Khar respectively, the talks were held in a cordial atmosphere and both resolved to keep the process of dialogue alive to find solutions to various issues including terrorism.
Positive Aspect
The positive aspect of the talks held in New Delhi, is that both countries have come to realize that none of them is to gain anything by following the policy of confrontation and by making provocative speeches. Both countries are the nuclear powers in South Asia. There is urgent need that the two countries bury past bitterness and tensions and move together to improve mutual ties, to turn the region into a haven of peace and amity ensuring development and prosperity for their peoples.
Leaving behind the bitterness of the meeting held in Islamabad last July, the foreign ministers of the two countries had positive and useful talks, and resolved to carry the process further. Addressing a joint press conference after their talks, they said that terrorism today poses the greatest challenge to both countries and there is dire need of dealing with it together. Both agreed that all pending issues and disputes can be resolved through the process of dialogue only. They recognized the need of mutual cooperation, coordination and confidence building measures to improve their relations. The two ministers succeeded in putting earlier differences and disputes aside and agreed to enlarge the scope of bilateral tourism and trade. Perhaps, because of this attitude, Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao, later commented that the mist that had engulfed their relations has cleared.
Toward Strength and Stability
The foreign minister of Pakistan said that the relations between the two countries have entered a new era. Since there is a change in the mind set of the peoples of the two countries, it would be easier to carry the relations in the right direction. She asserted that it was her sincere desire that the process of dialogue should continue without any hindrance. People in official circles too feel that the relations would now smoothly move toward strength and stability. In his meeting with the foreign minister of Pakistan, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said that we would have to strive hard to bring our relations on an even keel. Hina Rabbani Khar informed the prime minister that the new generation in Pakistan is desirous of having better relations with India.
The picture that emerged from the talks of the two foreign ministers and the joint press conference is that Pakistan has now come to realize the futility of confrontation with India because of its strained relations with the United States. It feels that instead of looking toward others for getting their issues resolved, it would be in the fitness of things to hold talks with India to find solution to all outstanding issues.

India-Pakistan Talks

Pakistani Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir and his Indian counterpart Nirupama Rao stood together in Islamabad at the end of their two-day talks on 24 June to announce that they had ‘very productive and constructive engagement’ for the resolution of outstanding issues through peaceful, sustained and serious bilateral dialogue.
The joint statement issued by the two foreign secretaries following their talks could be seen as a sign of the positive outcome of the talks as both sides used to issue a brief statement at the conclusion of the past bilateral talks. But this time the two sides not only issued a detailed joint statement but also replied to questions in a rare show of understanding.
Composite Dialogue
India had suspended the composite dialogue with Pakistan in the wake of the Mumbai attacks by blaming the Pakistan-based group Lashker-e-Taiba (LeT) as a culprit behind the attacks. Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and his Indian counterpart Manmohan Singh, who had met on the sidelines of a regional summit in Bhutan in April 2010, had agreed to revive the official talks and had assigned the foreign secretaries to explore ways to bridge the trust deficit.
India had earlier regularly rebuffed Pakistani calls to resume a substantive dialogue, saying Islamabad has not done enough to tackle militants or bring the Mumbai attack organizers to justice. Pakistan admitted that the attacks were partly planned on its soil, but it denied any official involvement and has arrested several suspects including a leader of the LeT operations chief Zaki-ur-Rahman Lakhvi.
The Pakistani and Indian foreign secretaries originally planned to hold separate press briefings after the talks, but they changed the schedule at the last minute by holding a joint press conference as both sides felt satisfied over the talk results and a need to share something with the media.
Peace and Security Issue
During the talks, India and Pakistan discussed peace and security, including confidence building measures, the Kashmir dispute and promotion of friendly exchanges. Both sides agreed on the resolution of outstanding issues through peaceful, sustained and serious bilateral dialogue. The shadow of the gun and the violence it has unleashed has caused untold sufferings for our people in these years past. This needs to end. The ideology of military conflict should have no place in the paradigm of our relationship in the 21st Century,’ the Indian Secretary for External Affairs Nirupama Rao told reporters, throwing the ball in the Pakistani court to come up with a similar approach.
Rao said: ‘Indeed, this relationship should be characterized by the vocabulary of peace; on ground cooperation in the interest of our peoples, growing trade and economic interaction as well as people to people contacts, and on this let me emphasize, in an atmosphere free of terror and violence.’
Ahead of the talks, India had asked for discussion on terrorism and the Mumbai trial in the Islamabad's talks and the Pakistani side was positive to address to the issues although it was not the subject for the talks of the foreign secretaries. Sources close to the talks said the Indian side raised the Mumbai trial in Pakistan, the alleged training camps of the Kashmiri militants and infiltration into the Indian-controlled Kashmir.
On terrorism, Pakistani Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir said the issue of terrorism requires objectivity; requires to be addressed in a collaborative approach. ‘Terrorism poses a threat to the two countries and to civilized societies. It must be eliminated,’ Bashir said at the joint press conference and added that terrorism and other related issues were discussed.
Confidence Building Measures
The foreign secretaries of the two countries will meet again in New Delhi on a date to be decided through diplomatic channels to prepare for the meeting of the foreign ministers of the two sides in New Delhi in July 2011. More meetings are planned ahead of the foreign ministers' talks. Both Foreign Secretaries agreed to convene a meeting of the Working Group on Confidence Building Measures (CBMs) on the Cross Line of Control (LoC), which divides the two countries in the disputed Kashmir region. The Group will recommend measures for strengthening and streamlining the existing trade and travel arrangements across the LoC and propose modalities for introducing additional Cross-LoC CBMs.
The two countries also agreed to the need for promoting friendly exchanges between the two countries. Both sides made progress towards finalization of the Visa Agreement which will help liberalize the visa regime and facilitate people-to-people, business-to-business and sports contacts. The two sides also discussed measures for promoting cooperation in various fields including facilitating visits to religious shrines, media exchanges, holding of sports tournaments and cessation of hostile propaganda against each other.
International Community’s Role
Keeping in view the fruitful foreign secretary talks to bridge the trust gap, the foreign ministers would be in a good position to make some announcements to bring the two nuclear-armed rivals closer and to achieve the goal of peace, security and development in the South Asian region.
The international community, especially regional countries, also encourage the arch-rival Pakistan and India to end their conflict and find out solution through negotiation. It is now widely believed that the situation in Pakistan has encouraged policymakers to act to counter the threat of terrorism which has already claimed lives of 35,000 people including 5,000 security personnel since 2001. Pakistan has also suffered a loss of nearly $60 billion in the same mentioned period and it is a best opportunity for Pakistan to positively respond to the Indian quest for end to armed conflict.

Melting Ice Between India and Pakistan

What will be the nature of relationship between India and Pakistan is a mystery. These relations had almost frozen after the Mumbai terror attack. But the ice appears to melt after the foreign ministers and foreign secretaries meetings. However, Pakistan's insistence was to talk on every matter, including Kashmir. But India very rightly demanded to discuss punishment to the Mumbai terror attack perpetrators. The consensus on this was difficult. This time also at the Thimpu conference, the prevailing suspension was anticipated.

An English news channel revealed that the conference proved to be disastrous. This channel termed it a deadly sin, Pakistani Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir's statement that "India cannot control Hindu terrorism." He, however, said that terrorism should not be linked to any religion.

Restraint and Maturity
Now the picture that is emerging shows absolute restraint and maturity on the part of the Indian delegation. In reply to the media persons' query in Thimpu, whether India has agreed to resume talks with Pakistan combined on every issue, Indian Foreign secretary Nirupama Rao, quoting William Shakespeare, said: "What is in a name?" It appears that India has agreed to talk on every matter.

For confidence-building, she also suggests several steps such as interaction between people of both countries, antiterrorism steps, control of narcotics smuggling, trading across the Line of Control, peace, security, etc. She also informed about the resolve to transform these steps into practice. She said that Pakistan had been told that the developments about the Samjhauta Express investigations would be communicated to it and that it should also reciprocate in the same manner.

Mutual Cooperation Required
It is true that mutual cooperation is required for good relationship. When asked that Pakistan has denied permission to the Indian Commission to visit there in respect of the 26/11, she said that the two countries should respect each other's laws. Pakistan has replied the note India sent on 3 February, asking for some clarifications.

Collectively, it is a positive situation, but India has clearly told Pakistan that no third-party interference on Kashmir will be allowed in talks. This indicates that the External Affairs Ministry has agreed to talk on Kashmir. This all is changing for better situation.

Indian Bona Fide’s Questionable in Sri Lankan Issues

Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao recently said India stood ready with more funding for Sri Lanka's rehabilitation and reconstruction projects in the war affected northern region.

India has continued funding the northern reconstruction and economic development process ever since the war against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) was concluded on 18 May 2009. India has poured in billions of dollars for Northern Province reconstruction and rehabilitation projects undertaken by the Sri Lankan Government and recently announced more funding for the reconstruction of the Palali Airport in the Jaffna Peninsula and development of the Kankesanturai Harbor.

Victory Over LTTE
There is no gainsaying the fact that India's liberal assistance for the economic restoration effort in the Northern Province, which was completely devastated by the three-decade long war, deserves commendation. But the dominant question that begs an answer today is whether her liberal funding for the development and reconstruction projects in the north will in any way help restore an enduring peace in this war-torn nation. It is an open secret that India extended to the Sri Lankan Government her unreserved support to help bring the war against the LTTE to a decisive end.

The Sri Lankan Government would certainly have not been able to so conclusively deal a death blow to the LTTR militarily had India's unreserved support not been forthcoming on all fronts. The Sri Lankan Government celebrates the first anniversary of the military victory over the LTTE on 18 May. But the same government has not taken any credible action to resolve the enduring ethnic grievance which in the first place triggered that brutal war.

President's Personal Commitment
At the outset President Mahinda Rajapaksa publicly held out a personal commitment to unveil a solution to this outstanding issue after the holding of the presidential election. Then, after the presidential election was concluded, he modified that commitment to say he would iron out an agreement on an equitable solution through negotiations with the Tamil MPs who would be elected to parliamentary in the parliamentary general elections. When that point was reached he then said the negotiations with the Tamil MP's would begin after his return from the SAARC Summit in Bhutan.

The SAARC Summit is also past us. Instead of inviting the Tamil National Alliance for talks to explore a solution to the grievances of the Tamil community, the government seems to be instead occupied with attempts to weaken the Tamil National Alliance politically.

Implementing 13th Amendment
Earlier official commitments to implement a 13th Amendment plus solution to remedy all Tamil grievances are now in limbo and the government is guardedly tight lipped on the 13 plus topic.

At the time that the government emerged the victor in the war against the LTTE in 2009, India was actively pressing for a solution based on the 13th Amendment. India also insisted that the solution offered now should surpass the provisions of the 13th Amendment.

However, what has happened now? We see a subtle yet unmistakable change of attitude on the part of the Indian Government toward the nature of a solution to the grievances of the Tamil community. While India is at pains to compete with China and Pakistan in helping Sri Lanka on several fronts, Delhi does not now seem to be concerned about a settlement to the ethnic issue that will satisfy the aspirations of the Sri Lankan Tamils living in the north and east. Instead, India seems content to be a mere unconcerned listener to all that is said by the Sri Lankan government.

Establishing Permanent Peace
Peace and harmony cannot be ushered in purely through financial assistance extended by the Indian government to Sri Lanka. India's contribution is more direly required to bring about a lasting solution to the Sri Lankan ethnic conflict. India should understand this reality. Her current backing of Sri Lanka will never help establish a permanent peace in the country.

India should also understand that all the economic development in a country which lacks peace will not only be an illusion of a solution, but will ultimately prove to be a wasted effort.

Revival of Pakistan-India Composite Dialogue

The Prime Ministers of Pakistan and India have met on the sidelines of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) Summit in Thimphu (Bhutan) and again agreed for the revival of composite dialogue that was deadlocked after Mumbai attacks। The two leaders also held an informal meeting on the occasion of the summit, both expressed good will gestures, and also walked together for a while in SAARC village during which views were exchanged on different affairs. On the very next day the two prime ministers held formal talks, with the agenda of reviving the composite dialogue.

Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi and the Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao told that the two countries have agreed on resumption of composite dialogue। Foreign Minister Qureshi acknowledged that there is trust deficit between the two countries and the composite dialogue can help remove this trust deficit. The Indian foreign secretary said dialogue is the only course to resolve disputes.

Internal Indian Politics
Shah Mahmud Qureshi had said that Manmohan Singh is a positive person but the internal Indian politics is preventing him from establishing better relationship with Pakistan। At present, the political parties of India play the card of Pakistan-India relationship.

Every political party tries to excel others in its anti-Pakistan policy on the occasion of elections because it is believed that a party which is more anti-Pakistan can get more votes। This is a strange logic. They are unaware of the fact that majority of the Indian people are fed up with the anti-Pakistan policies of the political parties.

Impact of Madhuri Gupta's Arrest
India has arrested a woman diplomat of its high commission in Islamabad, Madhuri Gupta from New Delhi for allegedly spying for Pakistan, while monitoring of the RAW station head in Islamabad has been tightened। The Indian news agencies quotes authorities in the Indian Intelligence Bureau as saying that Madhuri Gupta was working as the second secretary in the press wing of the Indian High Commission in Islamabad and she was providing intelligence regarding India to Pakistani intelligence agencies.

The woman was called to New Delhi four days ago on the pretext of consultations about SAARC Summit। The charge on which the Indian woman was arrested is India's internal matter but the Indian authorities often level such charges against passengers and the Indian Muslims. Charges have been leveled against a high-ranking official of the Indian High Commission after a long time. The Pakistani authorities are required to be very cautious and watchful in this regard because India had coined such pretexts before starting 1965 and 1971 wars.

Demand of Situation
They are of the view that instead of stoking tensions, the political parties of India should provide relief to the people bogged down in the quagmire of poverty। If closely seen, a large number of people in India are presently forced to live a life below the poverty line. However, the rulers obsessed by war frenzy ignore education, other sectors and engaged in stockpiling weapons.

The revival of composite dialogue between the prime ministers of Pakistan and India is a welcoming step. Now, Manmohan Singh should come out of the sphere of regional politics and don't pay heed to the opposition parties. He should respect the opinion of the Indian people and extend a hand of friendship to Pakistan.

Manmohan-Gilani Meeting: Indo-Pak Talks Resume

Prime Minister of India Manmohan Singh on 29 April met his Pakistani counterpart Yusuf Raza Gilani for the first substantive dialogue in nine months during which he is understood to have conveyed India's deep disappointment over Islamabad's inaction to punish perpetrators of Mumbai attacks. Singh and Gilani met in this picturesque Bhutanese capital, Thimpu on the sidelines of the 16th SAARC Summit, their first meeting after their controversial engagement in Sharm El-Sheikh in Egypt in July 2009. Before beginning their meeting, which began almost 40 minutes later than the originally scheduled time, Singh and Gilani shook hands and greeted each other warmly.

Ahead of their 29 April meeting, the two prime ministers had shook hands twice on 28 April during the opening day of the Summit and took a stroll together at the insistence of other leaders. During the meeting, Singh is believed to have conveyed to Gilani India's strong demand for action by Pakistan against the perpetrators of the Mumbai attack.

India had suspended the Composite Dialogue process after the Mumbai attacks and has linked its resumption to action against terror. The prime minister is also understood to have sought an update on Pakistan's investigation and trial in the Mumbai attacks case in that country. While the Indian delegation consisted of External Affairs Minister S. M. Krishna, National Security Adviser Shivshankar Menon and Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao, the Pakistani delegation included Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi and Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir and others.

Joint Statement
The Joint Statement issued after the meeting had triggered a major controversy in India over reference to 'threats' in Balochistan, where Pakistan has been alleging Indian hand in terror incidents. The statement also appeared to delink the composite dialogue process from action on terrorism by Pakistan. India had suspended the composite dialogue process after the Mumbai attacks.

The Indian side is believed to have focused on the 'core' concern of cross-border terrorism and highlighted its unhappiness over Pakistan having not done enough on this front.

Singh is understood to have pointed out that the threat of terrorism emanating from Pakistan continues to loom and Pakistan had not taken any concrete steps to eradicate this to create conditions for resumption of substantive dialogue.

Pakistan has arrested seven of those accused in the Mumbai terror strikes but Singh had publicly expressed his displeasure on the mastermind of attacks against India like JuD chief Hafiz Saeed -- still roaming freely in Pakistan. The Prime Minister is also understood to have raised Hafiz Saeed issue with Gilani.

Water and Power Projects
The two leaders also had two brief encounters earlier this month in Washington where both the Prime Ministers were to attend the Nuclear Security Summit. On both occasions there were handshakes and pleasantries exchanged. Pakistan had earlier this week stated that the dossiers handed over by India during the Foreign Secretary level talks in New Delhi on 25 February did not contain any evidence to book Saeed.

The Pakistani side is also believed to raise the issue of water-sharing. Pakistan has been alleging that India was violating the Indus Water Treaty of 1960 by building a power project on Kishanganga river in Jammu and Kashmir, a contention rejected by India.

Foreign Secretary-Level Talks
During their meeting, Dr Singh and Gilani decided that the channels of dialogue between the two countries should be kept open to restore 'trust and confidence' in the bilateral relationship. Terrorism and the 'slow progress' of Pakistan's probe into Mumbai attacks formed part of the agenda of the discussions which were held at the 'Bhutan House' here on the margins of the SAARC Summit.

'The prime ministers held very good talks in a free and frank manner. They agreed that cooperation between the two countries is vital for the people of South Asia to realize their destiny. The Indian prime minister expressed India's concern over the slow progress of Mumbai trial in Pakistan to Prime Minister Gilani. The Indian prime minister told Gilani that India was willing to discuss all issues of mutual concern through dialogue but the issue of terrorism is holding back the progress.

Is India Losing Hold on Sri Lanka?

Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao's recent visit to Sri Lanka stirred hope and optimism among Tamil factions as well as in Tamil media circles to a considerable extent. However, the same cannot be said of the Sinhala people and the Sinhala media.

The question raised by most people is; what is the objective of her visit to Sri Lanka had been, especially at this time? Until someone who is well connected with the decision makers in New Delhi tell us what the true reason was, we have nothing much to do than seek refuge in speculations. Nevertheless, it is now obvious that it has nothing to do with the Tamil question. Then, of course it should be in the interest of India.

Relations With India
Since recent times, we observed, especially after the presidential election, that no one in Colombo seems to be showing any enthusiasm about the Colombo-Delhi relationship. This dreary attitude is a sharp contrast to the excited atmosphere that prevailed here a few months ago, during the latter half of 2009. Because of the affiliations in the war, both countries seemed to be very chummy during that period.

Now, it appears that the 'flirting' has suddenly ended. Some eyebrows in Delhi were raised and foreheads were creased when President Mahinda Rajapaksa went to Russia in his first visit after ending the war in Sri Lanka. Considering the volume of support New Delhi extended to Rajapaksa during the decisive phase of his war against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Ealam (LTTE), as well as the blessings bestowed by them for his controversial presidential contest, it is to India he should have paid his first visit after the conclusion of both contests.

However, even after two months of the conclusion of the presidential election, not only did the Lankan president make a goodwill visit to his closest neighbor, nor has he made any strong gesture to indicate that he has not forgotten. Of course, some statements were issued by the Presidential Secretariat to thrill New Delhi to the effect that, "Sri Lankan soil would never be allowed to be used for any action against India," and so forth. But even these kind of political lullabies have stopped since the past two months.

Considering these transformations, the million dollar question that arises now is: "Will the relationship of Colombo with New Delhi fadeout during the second tenure of Mahinda Rajapaksa's office?' The time will provide an answer to this question. It is important to note that certainly India too should have felt this sudden change of attitude of Sri Lanka.

There is another matter that should be mentioned at this juncture. India was not allowed to play any role in the gigantic development activities that are earmarked for the Hambantota District and in the surrounding areas in the south, which is the forte of Mahinda Rajapaksa.

Massive Development Projects
All the massive development projects have been granted to China. It was learned that Beijing has agreed to help build a most modern airport in south. Therefore, if there is any ebb tide in the Colombo-New Delhi 'love affair', there is a sense of urgency from the Delhi (not from Colombo) that it should be rectified as soon as possible. India's melancholy became evident by the congratulatory attitude radiated by Madam Rao during her short stay in the island. She was full of praises and applauds during her stay here. She even said India and Sri Lanka are like two sisters.

Moreover, utilizing this opportunity to please Tamil Nadu could have been another supplementary objective of New Delhi. Karunanithi had issued a statement a few weeks ago, more or les, to the effect that they will strive to win a just solution for the Lankan Tamils ethnic issue. By this, it becomes apparent that for some reason, Tamil Nadu needs the Lankan Tamils to win a political solution for the ethnic problem.

May be Chennai did turn some screws that are painful to New Delhi in this regard. May be, it could be that center wanted to please its southernmost state. It also could be that is why New Delhi chanted old lines such as "reconciliation among communities," "resolution for the ethnic issue," prior to Rao's Colombo expedition. New Delhi is well aware that statements are all that is needed to humor Tamil Nadu.

India's Objective
Probably, this could have been only an additional objective of India, while the prime objective being related with the one we mentioned earlier. However, it has become explicitly clear that India is not going to assume an offensive or punitive posture against her naughty little sister. New Delhi believes that maintaining control over Colombo, at this juncture, should be attained by radiating goodwill.

At any cost, the relationship should be maintained. That is why; Colombo was applauded and back-patted while several aid programs were announced, especially to resettle displaced people in the North and the East. Also infrastructure development was pledged for Mullattivu and Kilinochchi Districts along with financial assistance to construct railway tracks in the North. Feasibility of establishing a branch of the Indian High Commission in Jaffna too was explored.

Tamil Issue
What about the Tamil question? There is nothing significant in that direction though some persons still think wishfully that India is relentlessly pressing Sri Lanka to find a solution for the ethnic issue pronto. This is not true.

In fact, India is no longer in a position to coerce Sri Lanka. If New Delhi wishes to be 'hanging around' in the island, at least under the pretext of monitoring the aforesaid aid projects, it is important that it secures the goodwill of Colombo. If Colombo declines assistance, there is nothing the big sister could do. The only other option India has is resorting back to its old strategy of conspiring against Colombo as it did during 1980s. India presently does not relish theatrical conspiracies. Therefore, all what is left is sweet-talk Sri Lanka.

Conclusion
In a nutshell, India is not in a position to call shots for the Lankan ethnic issue. That is why the good Madam Rao kept mum with regard to this issue thus pulling the rug off Tamil factions here. May be the subject could have been skimmed and it could be that the president did not make any enticing moves. And the bitter fact is that India has nothing to do in this regard.

However, it becomes apparent when observing the potentials of the projects of New Delhi, that it has shown keen interest in tools that would give India controlling interest, not just over the North and East regions but if possible, upon the entire people of Sri Lanka. An embassy in Jaffna is nothing but a medium to control the Tamil people in the region.

Therefore, it should be comprehended without any illusions that India is not going to champion a speedy political resolve for the Tamil ethnic problem here. Also, it would not be surprising at all if we Tamils have to try to wriggle ourselves from the political pull of India once again.