By Express News Service - CHENNAI
24th March 2013 07:57 AM
The accords signed by India with ethnic groups to
usher in peace may not have satisfied all of them 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 was organised by the Centre for Security Analysis,
Dr P Sahadevan, professor of South Asian Studies, School of International
Studies Jawaharlal Nehru University said that the 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 said that it could create peace but not reconciliation. India, he
said, was far better than Sri Lanka in this regard, since 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. Sahadevan also highlighted 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 internalised matter.
Independent researcher Sudha Ramachandran highlighted
how Indian democracy was far better than the three countries.
She said India recognises linguistic diversity and
never imposes any one language on its population unlike Sri Lanka or even the
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Ealam (LTTE), which excluded the Tamil Muslims from
the struggle.
“Coercive hegemony has negative impact on the nation
building exercise,” she added.
While the ethnic groups fight against the State
seeking rights, a closer look at them suggests that they are illiberal. Sudha
said that various outfits like the LTTE and Naga rebels, while fighting for
their rights, could never tolerate dissent in their ranks.
