INDIA IN THAT EQUATION

In these pages today we carry the ongoing exchange between Dayan Jayatilleka and HLD Mahindapala on the issue of devolution of power and the 13th Amendment. That debate is as they say in the newspaper jargon, a stand-alone happening. But, the so called Indian issue and some of the arguments made vis-a-viz the Indian involvement in Sri Lanka, are of much wider import and scope than what could be gone through in one exchange, between just two people.
In this context, it is the entire raison de entre of the Dayan Jayatilleka thesis that seems to be more than a little curious. Jayatilleka says for instance that devolution as per the 13th Amendment is the only way to avert disruptive Indian intervention, though he doesn't put it across in just those words.
It incrementally becomes curiouser --- never mind Mr. Jayatilleka - this position taken in various quarters that India should be the pivotal factor in Sri Lanka's decision on the 13th Amendment and devolution.
Some newspapers are full of it. Their op-ed and editorial pages are replete with articles about the Indian threat and the Indian imperative. None of this analyses so much as looks into the pros and cons of devolution and power sharing per se, however, and this is where things begin to go from curious to the patently ridiculous.
By the sheer volume of articles that appear to dwell on the so called Indian factor, all that can be inferred is devolution per se is not favoured by Sri Lankans in the main. If they did, they would not have needed the Indians to justify so-called power sharing at the peripheries.
Besides, there is something that is rather absurd about tying devolution of power to India and the 13th Amendment on the rationale than the Indians introduced the Amendment. This presupposes that devolution and its efficacy under the political circumstances that obtain is not the issue - its India that is the issue.
We need to stop these people on full tilt when they go on about India and ask them one pointed question -- is devolution per se good for Sri Lanka or not, forget about India, because if that's not the question, there is fundamentally something very wrong about how these people view a polity, its function, and the social contract between people and rulers. A country is about her people, and if anybody doesn't think so, never mind their political science - or their political leanings -- there is something wrong about their values.
The second tack that the 'India addicts' among the analysts take is the one on foreign policy. They say without bothering to explain their statements in any way, that India may be 'angered' or may react adversely if the Sri Lankans do not implement fully the provisions of the 13th Amendment. The fact that they almost never accompany this gem of wisdom with any kind of an addendum that there is a local demand for devolution as well, shows clearly that there is no such demand that exists. Cut to the bone, isn't this situation ridiculous?
It means that we are supposed to decide domestic policy exclusively on the basis of what another country tells us to do. Now, there may be what's called hard reality, and the inability to ignore the regional power but if that's the only consideration in deciding on domestic policy -- shouldn't we remind ourselves that there is nothing noble about being this servile, and we'd better perish on our feet r