New Delhi: A day before Sri Lanka got a two-year extension from the UN human rights body, India reminded Colombo that it has to also complete the devolution of powers to provincial councils in order to take forward the reconciliation process.On Thursday, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) gave an extension till March 2021 for Sri Lanka to implement its commitments, which include setting up a domestic mechanism to prosecute alleged war crimes. The resolution, which was co-sponsored by Sri Lanka, was adopted by consensus – that is, without a vote.This is the second extension obtained by Sri Lanka since the original resolution was passed in October 2015. The Wire had reported that India had been supportive of the move to draft a resolution that would give a breather to the embattled Sri Lankan government.A day before the resolution was adopted, the UN human rights commissioner Michelle Bachelet led a discussion on the report submitted.In the interactive discussion, India was largely supportive of the Sri Lankan government’s “progressive implementation” of commitments and listed out the various steps taken so far.However, India’s permanent representative to the UN in Geneva, Rajiv Chander also mentioned the 13th amendment twice in the statement.In recent years, the 13th amendment – which is a result of the 1987 India-Sri Lanka accord – has largely been absent from Indian diplomatic statements.The two mentions of the amendment in India’s remarks at the UNHRC were both in connection with “full implementation” of the statute.Also read: UNHRC Resolution, Guided by India, to Give Breather to Sri Lankan Government“We are supportive of the process of reconciliation in Sri Lanka and in the spirit of partnership, encourage it to dialogue and engage with all stakeholders so as to arrive at a solution, including implementation of the 13th Amendment, that meets the aspirations of the Tamil community,” Chander said on Wednesday.In her statement, Bachelet had said that while there was progress in certain areas, the implementation of the 2015 resolution needs to be “more consistent, comprehensive and accelerated”. She specifically noted “lack of progress in setting up a special judicial mechanism to deal with the worst crimes committed during the 2009 conflict”.Bachelet identified a “lack of common vision among the country’s highest leadership” as a contributing factor for the delays. “Deadlock on those important issues was an additional and avoidable problem, with damaging impact currently on victims from all ethnic and religious groups and on society as a whole”.Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe have famously not seen eye-to-eye over most policy decisions, but especially on implementing commitments made in 2015.Even ahead of the UNHRC taking a decision on the extension, Sirisena had proposed effectively sending a separate delegation which would insist that Sri Lanka would not co-sponsor the resolution.This was resolved with many foreign countries, including India, discretely conveying to Sirisena that if Sri Lanka did not co-sponsor the resolution, then it would go for voting and may get amended with stricter provisions.Sirisena’s disenchantment with Wickremesinghe had peaked last year, when he ‘fired’ the latter and gave an oath of office to former President Mahinda Rajapaksa as prime minister. The constitutional crisis was resolved only after Sri Lanka Supreme Court ruled Sirisena’s decision on parliament as illegal.Bachelet alluded to this estrangement as contributing to Sri Lanka’s slowdown in meeting commitments. “The events leading to the declaration of a state of emergency in March 2018, and the constitutional crisis in October 2018, had created a political environment not conducive to the implementation of reform measures”.The UK-based Global Tamil Forum has expressed disappointment that there were no timelines for the implementation of the 2015 resolution. “While the need for a time-bound implementation strategy is acknowledged, it is disappointing that the resolution lacks specificities of how it will become operational. It is our earnest request that such an operational arrangement be worked out as an urgent priority with the full involvement of the OHCHR,” said GTF spokesperson Suren Surendiran.