One may justifiably argue that India’s vote in favor of the US Resolution against Sri Lanka happened to be the main reason behind its adoption in Geneva. India has been regarded as the undeclared moral leader of the Global South so that the countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America usually take into note what position India holds on important global and regional issues. I am sure that India’s vote surprised Sri Lankan delegates in Geneva and India’s explanation why It had decided to vote in favor of the US Resolution has not been clear and Indian Prime Minister’s letter to the President Mahinda Rajapaksa was apologetic, and not explanatory. If one reminds what the Indian External Affairs Minister said at a press conference after ending his recent visit to Sri Lanka, it was hardly to see any indication that India had an intention to take such a decision in March 2012. He was not critical at all over the lack of a time frame on the part of the Government of Sri Lanka for the implementation of power-sharing mechanism, that was depicted as 13 +. On the contrary, he shared the view that it was not possible to develop a time frame on issues of this nature. Even prior to the Indian PM’s statement at the Lok Sabha, the indication that was given was that India had not voted and would not vote for country specific resolutions. Intelligent foreign policy analysts also argued that India should not vote with and in favor of the US initiated resolution. This is what B Raman wrote on March 16, 2012: “Despite India’s justified dissatisfaction against the Rajapaksa government, it would be counter-productivefor it to join the US and other countries in having Sri Lanka condemned before the UN HRC. It is totally incorrect and unwise on the part of the Tamil Nadu political parties to exercise undue pressure on an increasingly weakening Manmohan Singh government to join the US and others in having Sri Lanka condemned”. This is somewhat similar to what I wrote in my article just before the vote was taken in Geneva.