India boasts of professional competence and conduct of its peacekeeping forces. But, the facts tell a different story. Take Republic of Congo. In view of elusive ceasefire (1998-2003) between rival groups, the United Nations deployed a multinational 8,000-strong force there. The force evinced sterling-clean conduct, except for two groups of Indian `soldiers’. One group indulged in gold trafficking and gun running. And, the other committed `sexual exploitation and abuse’ in Congo’s North Kivu province.
The local commander tried to cover up the incidents for fear of beclouding UN peacekeepers’ image. But, Human Rights’ Watch (HRW) somehow managed to get an inkling of the Indian troops’ moral infarctions. When Indians’ misconduct surfaced in the HRW report, the United Nations’ Secretary General Ban ki Moon, had to order an inquiry through the Office of Internal Oversight Service.
The Service confirmed several allegations. As such, the secretary general had to demand from India `disciplinary action to the maximum degree permitted by Indian law’ against Indian peacekeepers’.
India’s defence minister, A. K. Antony and vice chief of army staff, M. L. Naidu, had to carry out a time-bound probe to punish the offenders. Aside from moral turpitude, Indian peacekeepers regard gun running as a lucrative pastime. They do so, not as individuals, but as state-sponsored-policy agents. Indian peacekeepers in Sri Lanka amply bear out this policy role.
India forced Sri Lanka to accept its `mediation’ and `peacekeeping’. During peacekeeping, its forces never made a sincere attempt to eliminate the LTTE. They were more interested in establishing a pro-India administration in northern Sri Lanka than exterminating armed rebels.
Prabhakarn was India’s prodigal son. He received political, financial, and military support from India’s central government during 1978-87. He enjoyed patronage of not only the Tamil Nadu’s state government, but also the politicians from all shades of opinion in that state Prabhakaran lived in Tamil Nadu for several years. His Ambassador car used to be escorted by Tamil Nadu state police. He sustained his outfit’s warfare through supplies of arms, ammunition, explosives, medicines, etc from Tamil Nadu, his base of operations.
The position of the LTTE vis-à-vis India was total cooperation until Rajiv Gandhi began to compel it to negotiate outside Eelam context in late 1986. The Indian agencies the RAW, and Q Branch of the Tamil Nadu police not only armed and funded the LTTE but also provided logistical as well as intelligence support for their operations. The Sri Lankan government realised that Indian forces were actually perverting, not keeping peace by avoiding confrontation with the LTTE. So, it considered it wise to initiate negotiations with the militants. It directed Indian peace keepers to pack up and leave Sri Lanka.
India reluctantly left Sri Lanka. But, look, what it did before leaving! She decided to punish the LTTE for its conciliatory attitude towards the Sri Lankan government. It expressed its ennui at the LTTE by raising, arming, training and funding another militant force, Tamil National Army.
The Indians conscripted `volunteers’ from the refugee camps, and trained them in handling weapon and explosives. For easy identification, lest they should slip out, the young men drafted were shaved and their eyebrows plucked.
On June 23, 1989, president Premadasa asked the IPKF to remain in their barracks, if they could not withdraw by end-July, as he earlier directed. Judging the government’s mood, Indians decided to withdraw. But, before doing so they heavily armed the TNA to pave way for gory clash between the LTTE and the TNA.
Rohan Gunaratna points out: “Most of the Indian troops were airlifted on board Soviet-built Ilyushin-76 transport aircraft. Accompanying these planes were Antonov-32 transport planes carrying arms and ammunition for the TNA” (Indian Intervention) in Sri Lanka, p. 3560. To India’s ill fate, the TNA was wiped off in a few months.
The Sri Lankan experience reflects that Indian peacekeepers do not keep peace. They pervert it. They are morally bankrupt. In view of Indian government‘s ulterior motives in peacekeeping in foreign lands, these forces should never be deployed anywhere in the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment