Indian National Interest v Tamil Survival - Part 1

Indian National Interest v Tamil Survival - Part 1

(Analysis) Indian National Interest v Tamil Survival - Part 1
Nov 23, 2008, 07:11 Digg this story!
By S.Visvanathan

In February 2002 when the LTTE negotiated a ceasefire agreement, through the Norwegian intermediaries, with the Ranil Wickremasinha Government, their main concern was to ameliorate the sufferings of the people and seek a final settlement to the ethnic conflict with the majority Sinhalese that would pave the way to peace and prosperity.

Within months the Tamil leadership realized that this was not to be. Ranil did not want to go down in history as a person who allowed the Tamils to live in Sri Lanka as equal citizens in their country, which they had called their home for 2,500 years. At the time of the ceasefire the LTTE had an upper hand in the battle field and the Sinhalese armed forces were on the retreat and Ranil was in urgent need of ceasefire. Moreover, Ranil concluded that the best way to tame the Tigers was to trap them in an international safety net with the help of US and India.

As soon as he signed the Ceasefire Agreement of 2002, he paid two quick visits to Washington and Delhi. Obviously, he was setting up the safety net to prevent the LTTE from breaking out of that ceasefire. He was planning to put them in a vice, where the Tigers had no choice but to agree to a Sinhalese settlement. The Ceasefire Agreement set out a time table for the civilians to return to their homes, fishermen to fish in the sea freely and schools and other buildings to be returned to civil society so that normalcy would return to civilian life.

Unfortunately, time lapsed while most of the clauses in the agreement remained unfulfilled. Both parties had several meetings overseas, but none of them materialized. Moreover, two LTTE ships were sunk in the international waters in spite of the ceasefire, while these negotiations were going on. The Tamil leadership realized that they had been led into a trap, but they could not break the Ceasefire Agreement as Bush's 'War on Terror' was on.

There was nothing much the Tamils could choose between President Rajapaksa and Ranil. Both had no intention to come to an honourble settlement with the Tamils; Rajapaksa made his intentions clear, but Ranil harboured hidden agendas. For that matter every Sinhalese leader was dishonest when it came to meeting the Tamil aspirations. The first President Jayawadena, after the July 1983 Holocaust when five thousand Tamils were slaughtered, made a radio announcement as follows:

"I am not worried about the opinion of the Tamil people .now we cannot think of them, not their life or their opinion .the more you put pressure in the north, the happier the Sinhala people will be here, really if I starve the Tamils out, the Sinhala people will be happy".

The third president, D.B.Wijetunga compared the Tamils to creepers clinging on to a Sinhalese tree and they had no existence beyond that tree. In 1995, the fourth President, Kumaratunga, won a landslide victory with Tamil votes. She stood on a platform to bring the civil war to an end. She even took her presidential oath in Tamil. Trusting her, the Tigers declared a ceasefire to which she reluctantly agreed, but that truce came to naught. As soon as the ceasefire ended, she invaded and captured Jaffna and created more miseries for the Tamils. Thereafter she conducted a 'War for Peace' that brought more death and destruction to the Tamil homeland.

Today Sri Lanka is a full-blown national security state. Under the continuing emergency regulations and the prevention of terrorism law, most of the political and civil rights remain suspended. Emergency law has actually become the normal law of the land.

Unlike in the past, the defence establishment now controls all aspect of the war, including how it is reported in the media, and how it is even commented on by professional analysts. As a result journalists, like J.S.Tissainayagam, are arrested indiscriminately and subjected to long terms of imprisonment and torture. Cordon and search in the middle of the night is common. Abduction by the military and police and subsequent disappearances are daily occurrences. White Van abductions by paramilitary are done for three reasons.

One is for recruitment for their armed forces. The next is for elimination of perceived enemies. The third is abduction of rich merchants for ransom. All these are done with the connivance and patronage of Sinhalese politicians, who made millions of dollars. The Tamils are told to get out of Tiger controlled areas into the so-called safe government controlled areas. In the LTTE territory they are subjected to aerial and multi-barrel rocket bombardments; in the government controlled areas their lives cannot be guaranteed. What is their choice?

India, after the IPKF debacle and the death of Rajiv Gandhi, adopted hands off policy on the ethnic problem. Yet Erik Solheim, the Noweigian diplomat, who negotiated the Ceasefire Agreement 2002, kept India informed on the progress of the negotiations between the Sri Lankan government and LTTE. He said at that time that no settlement could be reached in Sri Lanka without Indian support. Many now understand what he meant by that. While adopting hands off policy, India had no desire to see any settlement in Sri Lanka that would eventually allow the Tamils to go free. Settlement with the LTTE would not guarantee that eventually. While the negotiations were going on between the two parties, India was training the Sri Lankan army officers. She supplied arms and radar to the Sri Lankans and claimed them to be non-lethal weapons. She loaned Sri Lanka US100 million to purchase arms elsewhere.

Why is India behaving in this manner? Is the death of Rajiv Gandhi the crux of the problem? If this be the case the death of the revered Mahatma Gandhi in the hands of RSS, or the death of Indira Gandhi in the hands of Sikhs should also be avenged. So this cannot be the case.

The statement by the former Indian Defence Minister and later President of India, R.Venkattaraman gives us the clue to the whole matter. India sent its troops into Sri Lanka to protect its southernflanks. The creation of Tamil Eelam would give rise to Tamil nationalism and this would in turn incite Tamil Nadu to break off from the Indian Republic. The other reason often cited is that it gives room to disgruntled communities in India to agitate. If this be the case, how was it possible for India to send in troops into East Pakistan to create Bangladesh? Were these considerations not prevalent then?

The whole matter boils down to the decadence of Gandhian principles, which were the cornerstones of Indian foreign policies at the time of independence. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Indian Prime Minister, tried to create a world guided by moral principles where righteousness would prevail. He wanted to see a world free of wars where everyone lived in peace and harmony. He sacrificed Indian interest and fought for the independence of all the African and Asian states that were still living under the colonial yoke.

In 1946 he went on a swirl wind tour of Sri Lanka and Malaya to have a first-hand view of the plight of Indians, most of whom were Tamils, in these countries. In 1948 when the Indian Tamils were disfranchised and made stateless in Sri Lanka, he sent a serious protest note to the then Prime Minister of Sri Lanka, D.S.Senananayake, demanding the restoration of the rights of the Indians. Senanayake's reply was blunt and rude.

He told India that Ceylon, as it was then called, was a sovereign state, and he had no right to interfere in its internal affairs. Helpless Nehru refused to take back the disfranchised Indians and insisted that their rights be reinstated.

When the Sinhalese leaders denied the rights of Tamils, who had been living in Sri Lanka long before the Sinhala states were created, Indira Gandhi was very sympathetic to the Tamil cause. During the 23-24 July 1983 riots, she sent her foreign minister, Narasimha Rao to Colombo to persuade President Jayawardene to safeguard the interest of the Tamils, Jayawardene's response was exactly what Senanayake's was.

He gave Narasimha Rao a lecture on Sri Lankan sovereignty and asked India to mind her own business. Indira Gandhi was already annoyed with Jayawardene for being too close to the West and thus posing a threat to Indian security. She was not the kind of a lady, who would accept that type of a rebuke from him.

Extremely annoyed, she took the next option that was available to her to bring him to books; she instructed RAW, the Indian intelligence service, to recruit Tamil youths and train them in Indian military academies, and send them back. These youths, some of whom had already undergone Palestinian and Israeli training, turned out to be extremely resourceful and highly motivated. This disturbed RAW, as they could not manipulate them to serve their ends. However, RAW could not oppose Indira Gandhi's decision. So they did the next best - created fissures among these groups, so that they could be brought into line. This led to the creation of the various groups, who were often hostile to each other.

After the death of Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi came to the helm. On the advice of RAW and other officials, he reversed his mother's decision on the support for the militant groups and tilted Indian policies towards an understanding with President Jayawardene. Dixit, the Indian ambassador in Sri Lanka and the Sri Lankan officials drafted the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord. The LTTE chief, Pirabhakaran and his delegation were taken to Delhi to endorse the accord, but they were shocked to discover that many of the clauses in the agreement were against Tamil interest and they wanted them modified. In spite of the threats and intimidations, they did not buckle up. In the end Rajiv spoke to them and agreed to take their views into consideration. Subsequent events proved that Rajiv failed to keep his word. That was the beginning of the conflict between the Tigers and India.

Military aid given by Pakistan and China can be explained. Both of them look upon India as their arch enemy. Having a foothold in Sri Lanka, tantamounts to holding a dagger at India's soft belly. During the Indo-Chinese War in 1962, and the Indo-Pakistan wars in 1965 and 1971, Sri Lanka supported India's enemies. On the other hand during these three wars the Tamils were on the side of India. When India exploded its first atomic bomb in 1974, Tamil leaders from Sri Lanka sent congratulatory messages to Indira Gandhi.

The heart and soul of Eelam Tamils had always been with India. Even after his traumatic experience in Delhi in 1987, Prabhakaran, on his return to Jaffna delivered 'I love Mother India speech'. India's insistence that the Tamils live as second class citizens in a unitary state are based on very ill conceived logic.

India realized that the supply of military equipment, radar, aerial surveillance and money to the Sinhalese was not sufficient to defeat the Tamil Tigers. So she trained the armed forces in its prestigious military academies. That too was insufficient and she had to sent 256 military personnel to advise the Sinhalese on the conduct of the war. Why has India gone to this extent to help the Sinhalese defeat the Tamils?

The answer lies in the paradigm shift in the Indian foreign policy. Up to the time of Indira Gandhi's death, India was interested in not only the welfare of the Indians in India, but also the Indians overseas. After Indira's death, western style real politics took centre stage.

However, western real politics has certain moral principles and guidelines, but the Indian on had none of these. Now the only overseas Indians, India is interested in, are the Non-Resident Indians (NRI) These are the rich Indians, who could invest in India. The poor Indians overseas do not fall into this category. The Western powers are merciless with people who are a threat to their citizens, country or interests, but they are sympathetic to the rest. This was the case when they went into Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda and now Sudan.

They also protect their friends, who could be relied upon. Israel is a typical example of this. In 1948 when Israel came into being, the Russians and some of the Europeans were the only ones supporting her. US was dead against her creation.

The Jewish lobby in US and the subsequent tilt of Israeli policy towards America cemented US-Israel relationship once and for all. If US foreign policy shifts against Israel today, her relationship with Arabs and Muslims will improve tremendously overnight and her oil supply will be permanently assured; but, US will not abandon the six million Jews in US or the four million Jews in Israel. India, on the other hand, will not listen to the appeals of the sixty million Tamils in Tamil Nadu or the four million Tamils in Sri Lanka. This is so because the real politics in India is in the hands of Sonia Gandhi.

If in the unlikely event of the LTTE being defeated in Sri Lanka and the Tamils subjugated, what is the position of India then? The Sinhalese will be free to do what they had done in the past. They will build up relationship with all the countries that are enemies of India. There is nothing that India could do about that, because Sri Lanka has a prized possession called 'sovereignty'. They know that no country is allowed to interfere in the internal affairs of another. At that point of time, the Tamils will have no more appetite to pick up arms again.

The repercussions in Tamil Nadu will be beyond control. The anti-Northern Indian feelings will be on the rise and the separation of Tamil Nadu from the mainstream Republic of India will be complete, if not physically at least psychologically. CPI chief, Pandian's letter to Manmohan Singh has made this point amply clear.

"Delaying and dodging to resolve the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka, will lead to fissiparous tendencies to grow in various parts of India. As Indians, we feel, that the Sri Lankan ethnic conflict should he resolved amicably or else, the negative impact on India will have long term repercussions."

end:

The information is inaccurate because the author has received second
and third hand information from a few in the Tamil Dispora.
Do not or unable to comment in detail, as there are more important
matters to do to bring peace and prosperity to the amalgamated
province of North East.

The sole representatives do not reespect politically appointed
decisions of Supreme Court judges who retroactively dishonor
and cancel international agreements accepted by the international
community and the United Nations for 20 years.

The supreme court decision was political and not judicial, or international law signed by two countries, and accepted by Parliament, and all courts fr 20 years.

The Petitioners were former Singhala Terrorist, and buddhist.