News/Comment


16th November 1997

Business

Home PageFront PageOP/EDPlusSports


Dixit throws book at critics

India's former High Commissioner Jyotindra Nath Dixit-unpopular and controversial but acknowledged as a master diplomatic strategist during the most crucial years in Indo-Lanka relations - is in the news again with his book "Assignment Colombo". In an interview with The Sunday Times, Mr. Dixit who had been slammed by some critics as a self-styled Viceroy, said he remains convinced that what he did was for the well being of both India and Sri Lanka.

Mr. Dixit, in Colombo to promote sales of the book, gave candid replies to the questions posed to him.

By Frederica Jansz

Q: There is criticism against you that your book "Assignment Colombo" has been written after most of its chief actors are dead, thus preventing verification of facts. Also that this is a book any good journalist could have written.

A: If the insinuation is that I deliberately waited for people to die before writing the book, it is a peculiar criticism to make. If you read my introduction I have said that I am sorry that many of the chief actors have passed away. However certain inborn prejudices will continue. Why hasn't any good journalist written such a good book so far? I have no doubt that any good journalist could have written such a book if accessibility to such facts was available. Basically why I wrote this book was because I thought there was a lot of misunderstanding about India's motivation. So I thought it necessary to give a proper perspective to the people both of India and Sri Lanka. This too from a person who was a witness to events and controversies of this period.

Q: You laud the attempt made by India to solve Sri Lanka's ethnic conflict, blaming President J.R. Jayewardene for failing to implement key clauses in the Indo-Lanka Accord. Is this the main reason that why the attempt at peace failed?

A: It was the most important reason. Apart from that, also a lack of co-ordination, a lack of comprehension, Prabhakaran's motivations were all contributory factors. However Mr. Jayewardene from 1983 to 1987 did not do much to address Tamil aspirations. He was slow to address Tamil grievances, giving the LTTE a chance to get back. President Chandrika Kumaratunga however has made a substantially good set of proposals. It is more than what was envisaged in the Indo-Lanka Accord.

Q: In the context of the situation then, do you still believe the Indo-Lanka Accord was the best way to resolve Sri Lanka's ethnic conflict?

A: Well, your opposition leader Ranil Wickremesinghe says the Indo-Lanka Accord was the best solution offered so far. What better proof do you want?

Q: You have been heard to say that if there is a next time where India may possibly intervene in Sri Lanka's conflict, India would not leave as it did the last time. What do you mean by that?

DixitDixit: "I acted strictly according to the brief and instructions given to me by my prime







A: It is my earnest hope that India never would have to go into Sri Lanka again. But I am speculating when I say that if India gets involved again it will not come away leaving its job half done. My initial feeling is that India will be cautious about getting involved again but in the event of some extraordinary circumstances, if any such situation arises, India will act on the basis of its previous experiences and exercise extreme caution.

Q: You have referred to Prabhakaran as one whose commitment to the creation of Eelam is unalterable, also that the rebel leader is an accomplished political strategist and military tactician. Isn't that contrary to the perception you had of him when you were the envoy here?

A: This is the benefit of hindsight. The way Prabhakaran has managed things has led me to this conclusion. After ten years I do have a different perception of the man. However the only point which I maintained at the time and do so even now is his commitment to Eelam which is unalterable. Prabhakaran reluctantly agreed to the Indo-Lanka Accord at the time because he did realize the need to be realistic and not fall out with India. But yes, my judgment of the man has changed within the past ten years, after reading many reports and newspaper items on Prabhakaran and the LTTE.

Q: You say that India stepped in to protect the rights of the Tamil people and safeguard the unity of Sri Lanka? But many doubt the sincerity of that claim.

A: If we were not sincere it was easier to simply support the LTTE's claim and let the LTTE divide Sri Lanka. The Indian armed forces lost some 2000 men because of which Sri Lanka is still a united country. India also was gracious enough to withdraw when Mr. Premadasa insisted.

Q: Was India at the time using Sri Lanka's ethnic conflict to extend its political domination over the South Asian region?

A: That is baseless. If India wanted to extend political domination over the region, our tactics would have been to weaken Sri Lanka, and to divide it. Our withdrawal when we were asked to go is proof that we had no intention of imposing ourselves on the Sri Lankan people or the Government. There is not a single case where India has gone to any country in the region and outstayed its welcome.

Q: Don't you think it natural that the Sinhalese people should have had concerns and fears regarding India's role in 1987 and thereafter? You seem to have ignored this factor in your book.

A: I have not. My book is focused on explaining the whole context in which India got involved in Sri Lanka's ethnic conflict, and the motivation for India's policies. I take it for granted that the Sinhalese people did not like it very much. If you refer to the chapters on the JVP, I have acknowledged the fears of the Sinhalese people regarding India's role at the time.

Q: Why have you not referred to the Indira Doctrine which said that no foreign power could go to the assistance of another small power in the region if it was inimical to India's interest?

A: If you read the whole chapter on motivations, I have given every detail of the considerations which led Indira Gandhi to get involved in Sri Lanka. I may not have called it the 'Indira Doctrine' in my book, but the Israel's, US, and Jayewardene factor, all led to India's involvement in Sri Lanka. If any small or big country in our neighbourhood creates a situation which threatens India's interest shouldn't India intervene? Do India's neighbours expect it to indulge in self-destruction? Will Sri Lanka do that? Will Pakistan do that? Any country will take action to safeguard it's interest.

Q: Whom are you referring to when you refer to India's fears about a 'hidden hand' tending to destabilize India with Sri Lanka as a base? What real evidence do you have when you make this allegation?

A: At that time the Pakistani involvement, Israeli and American involvement supporting Sri Lanka's anti-Tamil campaign, caused considerable concern for India.

Q: But wasn't India being hypocritical? After all India soon had secret talks with Israel and established diplomatic relations with it?

A: That was after the Soviet Union collapsed. Then the whole picture changed. How could it be hypocritical? The Cold War was a reality upto 1990. Our adversarial relationship with Pakistan still continues. We established relations with Israel only after we had hard evidence that the PLO and other Arab countries were negotiating with the Israelis. It was only in late 1991 that India overcame its concern over the United States.

Q: During your controversial term as India's High Commissioner in Sri Lanka, some observers felt that you at times stepped outside your line of duty or acted as a Viceroy.

A: My line of duty and my responsibilities were defined by the Government of India. My responsibilities are not subject to definitions by any extraneous agency or individual. I acted strictly according to the brief and instructions given to me by my Prime Minister and Government. I am not a politician. I am a career officer and I have no desire to answer questions on my role in Sri Lanka. I know I wasn't a very popular envoy, but one lives and survives and let me say this, that I am not for half a second defensive about what I did as India's High Commissioner in Sri Lanka. I remain convinced that whatever I did was for the well being of both India and Sri Lanka.

Q: How do you read the situation in Sri Lanka today? Are you hopeful of peace being achieved?

A: Going by what I have read it does not give me much hope. I don't wish to say more about the internal situation in Sri Lanka.


Continue to the News/Comment page 4

Return to the News/Comment contents page

Go to the News/Comment Archive

| BUSINESS

| HOME PAGE | FRONT PAGE | EDITORIAL/OPINION | PLUS | TIMESPORTS

Please send your comments and suggestions on this web site to
info@suntimes.is.lk or to
webmaster@infolabs.is.lk