While Indians paid more attention to cricket and Uttar Pradesh elections than the regionally significant 14th SAARC Summit held in New Delhi 10 days ago, for Sri Lanka, realities remained very different.

For the small island nation, it was more decisive than for the others. The question before Sri Lanka today is whether her strong advocacy for crushing regional terrorism would draw actual support from the other seven nations and to what extent in a post summit scenario.

Sri Lanka’s lone call for a joint mechanism to crackdown on regional terror during the summit sounded more like a cry for help -- and one that might regionally isolate the island nation as Sri Lanka only managed passing superficial references to a negotiated political solution. And this does not go down well with New Delhi.

Given SAARC’s diversity and individual domestic compulsions, a sympathetic India and SAARC’s latest addition, Afghanistan contained themselves to varying degrees on this issue of regional terror. Only the traditional joint statement included a commitment to curbing it.

If much of Sri Lanka’s hopes got dashed during the SAARC Summit as other nations did not wish to join the bandwagon, rocket scientists are not needed to find out why.

The Sri Lankan delegation arrived in New Delhi at a decisive time for the region. It was a period during which many a SAARC nation was experiencing significant political transitions. Two monarchies, Nepal and Bhutan were taking giant strides in establishing multi party democracies whereas Sri Lanka remains bogged down by its own advocacy of war for peace.

With a flagging human rights record, military engagements that record casualties on a daily basis, abductions, extortions on the increase with general human security being a huge concern, there was a pall of gloom, as the other member states naturally remain skeptical about Sri Lanka’s approach to the plaguing ethnic question.

The island’s mapped out strategy of the ambitious plan was two- pronged. First, to highlight the danger posed by the entire region in the aftermath of the LTTE aerial attack on the SLAF base in Katunayake and then to push for a collective regional mechanism to combat terrorism.

Foreign Minister Rohitha Bogollagama set the pace early and did his best to get the formation of such a mechanism into the summit agenda. His efforts proved futile leaving Sri Lanka only with a final joint statement advocating a collective resolve to curb regional terror where the call was for a "comprehensive international convention on terrorism" than any region specific mechanism.

Sri Lanka’s other significant interest was to promote joint patrolling of the Palk Straits as criticism mounted with regard to Indian fishermen becoming targets of the Sri Lanka Navy (SLN), leading to a renewed called from South India to require Katchatheevu Island which was ceded to Sri Lanka in 1974 under a bilateral agreement.

The original mooting of the idea for a joint mechanism was strongly advocated by Foreign Secretary, Dr. Palitha Kohona during the foreign secretaries meeting just prior to the summit.

During a press meet in New Delhi, it was Kohona who was most vocal about cracking down on regional terror and made elaborate attempts to make the LTTE’s growing military might a regional concern.

However, he drew little or no support, as other foreign secretaries were not inclined to fall in line with a single nation’s programme largely to quell a domestic issue, particularly in the absence of a political thrust to it. Indian Minister of External Affairs, Pranab Mukherjee it is learned, was quite direct in stating that a regional mechanism needed to address concerns of all member states and not of a single nation.

The other foreign secretaries, The Sunday Leader learned were not impressed as the idea did not envisage the diverse concerns of different nations, not even Afghanistan that has an axe to grind with Pakistan on similar lines.

What was more, when India proposed an extradition clause for a potential Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT), Pakistan’s stance differed and the MLAT too failed to see the light of day. However, Pakistan is not averse to having a treaty for combating narcotics trafficking, money laundering and other trans-border crimes.

"This is an issue which we have discussed with Pakistan and other neighbouring countries for years. Obviously we don’t have identical views on it," Menon said. He added that India has offered to circulate a draft of a possible regional mutual assistance treaty while Sri Lanka has offered to host a meeting to assists deliberations.

"Once we circulate the draft, then we will see how to work through our positions and see whether these can be reconciled or not. We have the means within SAARC to deal with the issue," said Menon, sounding hopeful.

But that is not where Sri Lanka’s chief concerns lie. Sri Lanka, throughout the summit was ambitious about joint naval patrolling of the seas. India that originally favoured the idea hastily backtracked as the Tamil Nadu administration mounted pressure. The only proposal of Sri Lanka that may have seen fruition too withered with New Delhi adopting a non-committal stance.

Meanwhile, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi referred to the proposed joint patrolling by the Indo-Sri Lanka navies as a "rat and dog exercise" which would naturally be viewed with suspicion.

Indian Foreign Secretary, Shiv Shankar Menon at a pre summit briefing was clear what India expected from Sri Lanka.

"India’s position with regard to Sri Lanka’s ethnic question is to remain supportive of peaceful negotiations. Minister Mukherjee has advocated devolution of powers within a united Sri Lanka," he said.

When persistently questioned for a view on ‘terrorism,’ Menon noted that there was no question about seeking to define terrorism at the SAARC level as all countries opposed terrorism.

Menon also observed that it was absolutely correct to assume SAARC to be the region worst hit by terrorism and added, "We need to address it, deal with it and address all this manifestations and forms at the earliest."

Despite having pushed the regional terror issue relentlessly and having worked hard to have it included in the SAARC agenda and failed, Sri Lanka could make only elaborate yet confusing statements about the growing concern.

In doing so, there was serious undermining of the CFA and a stoic refusal to address the need for an urgent dialogue process.

Palitha Kohona speaking to the media was a victim of his own verbose. He declared that all countries suffered from "the scourge that has holds us back from development."

Calling upon the region to treat it as a common concern, Kohona emphasised that this meant dealing with terrorism in all related aspects such as drug trafficking, human trafficking, arms smuggling etc.

When pointedly asked as to how these issued could be addressed as a region given the many flavours of terrorism, Kohona said it should be done through giving effect to domestic, regional, UN and other multi lateral treaties.

"We have to give effect to these obligations as separate nations with domestic legislation and regulations. Individual roles have to be enhanced. No country can be complacent. It can creep up on you when you least expect it" he said.

But the acid test was the questions on the Cease-Fire Agreement (CFA) that had the Sri Lankan Foreign Secretary foxed. When asked whether the CFA is valid, he claimed that "even during the height of the CFA’s" existence, it was continuously violated by the LTTE. Aircraft that were used in the Katunayake aerial attack were smuggled in at a time when the CFA was supposedly effective," he said, adding that not a day passed without people being killed.

Whilst seriously undermining the CFA’s role, Kohona added that Sri Lanka has entered the next phase of war which paved the way for urgent queries whether Sri Lanka admitted to the existence of a "full-scale war" in Sri Lanka as of now. Kohona was seen striving to extricate himself from a difficult situation by saying he was only borrowing "LTTE terminology," but added that there was more terrorism in the island than war.

Foreign Minister Rohitha Bogollagama was more articulate and did not tear the CFA apart though he emphasised that the truce was observed in the breach by the LTTE.

"My predecessor Lakshman Kadirgamar was killed in 2005. The CFA prevails, but is regularly breached by the LTTE," he said.

Next he tried to showcase the need for a regional approach and specially sought to highlight the vulnerability of India. He said, "Over 1000 IPKF members were killed and Indian Premier Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated which made India also a victim of LTTE violence. Sri Lankan refugees continue to arrive on the shores of Tamil Nadu. There is a need for India to be careful. We require a counter mechanism and SAARC is the correct vehicle," he claimed.

When further questioned whether this included individual handing of terrorism and military assistance to SAARC nations, Dr. Kohona insisted that there were obligations to assist each other. Expanding, Minister Bogollagama said that there was a need for greater vigilance by each country.

He also emphasised that the government considered that the peace process had multi stakeholders. "There are Tamil political leaders sitting in government, some in opposition, those outside parliament and then the LTTE. We want to make them all stakeholders to give representation to their views and do not wish to confine ourselves to the LTTE alone," he added.

As for Sri Lanka, the issue of regional terrorism some how failed to surface significantly given the diversity of the members’ needs.

All along, Sri Lanka wanted terror curbing in the region and that to be linked to the LTTE as part of the existing SAARC charter. But New Delhi remained severely constrained due to domestic political compulsions emanating from Tamil Nadu.

As for Sri Lanka, seeking to regionalise its anti terror call sounded hollow, given its absolute lack of political initiative to resume the negotiating process. Naturally, its lofty calls made little impact at the regional summit except to draw the traditional responses dipped in diplomatic parlance.