UNHRC Resolutions against Sri Lanka

There were allegations that during the Sri Lankan Civil War, particularly during the final months of conflict, Sri Lankan military committed war crimes against the LTTE including unlawful killings, sexual violence etc. This led to a demand from within and outside the country to probe the human rights violations during the war.

To save the face, the Sri Lankan government promised of rehabilitation of victims and assurances of investigation against the alleged perpetrators and also had estanblished a LLRC { Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission}. The Northern Provincial Council sought an UN-led probe into the alleged genocide against the community by the state.

Between 2009 and 2015, UNHRC had passed around five resolutions on Sri Lanka, first in 2009, second in 2012, third in 2013, fourth in 2014 and fifth in 2015. The 2009 resolution hailed the country for its relief and rehabilitation work. But subsequently, Sri Lanka made little progress in providing accountability for wartime abuses. The US sponsored 2012 resolution sought censuring Sri Lanka for its alleged rights violations. The third resolution in 2013 suggested Sri Lanka to set up a “truth-seeking mechanism” on abuses and called for an investigation, though it did not demand for an international probe.

The next resolution came in 2014 in which a probe for war crimes was proposed. In October 2015, UNHRC passed a consensus resolution on accountability for the alleged human rights violations during the Sri Lankan civil war. This resolution demanded Sri Lanka to establish a credible judicial process, with the participation of Commonwealth and other foreign judges, defence lawyers and authorised prosecutors and investigators, to go into the alleged rights abuses.

What was India’s stance in these resolutions?

In the initial resolutions (2012 & 2013) that demanded accountability from Sri Lanka, India had voted in favour of resolutions. India initially hesitated to vote but the coalition government came under pressure from Tamil Nadu parties. This shows how in the era of coalition governments, state level politics can come to impact India’s relations with foreign countries. No country other than India from South Asia voted in favour of these resolutions because they could impact the bilateral relations negatively. It could be argued that in the absence of pressure from the state parties, India could have taken a different view on this matter. Nevertheless, India’s stand and concern was genuine look at war crimes committed by the Sri Lankan army against civilians.

In 2014 and 2015 resolutions, India abstained, thus taking a different stance.