tamilweek.com/news-features

Former Canadian Minister, appointed today as UN Special Advisor

Highlighting allegations of “grave violations” against children by all parties in the conflict, United Nations Special Representative for Children affected by armed conflict said today she was appointing a Special Adviser to undertake a fact-finding mission to Sri Lanka.

Alan Rock, the erstwhile Canadian UN Ambassador and Justice Minister in the Chrétien Government, was appointed today to this task by Radhika Coomaraswamy, UN Special Representative.

Radhika Coomaraswamy said LTTE “continues to recruit and use child soldiers and the office has also received reports that the Karuna faction has abducted and recruited children under the age of eighteen.”

She added, “besides recruitment of child soldiers, there are also allegations of other grave violations against children by all parties to the conflict,” expressing deep concern about the deteriorating situation in Sri Lanka.

Ambassador Rock has served as the Canadian Ambassador to the UN from 2004 to June 2006. During his short term in New York, Rock has built a solid reputation as a mediator and problem-solver who helped to push through such contentious issues as the responsibility to protect people who are subjected to atrocities, disciplinary measures for countries that force children into their armies as soldiers, and the creation of a new Human Rights Council.

Early in the spring when Ambassador Rock was asked about his intentions to run for the Federal Liberal leadership, he said “I’ve considered it and discussed it with my family, and we’ve decided that there are many ways to serve Canada and I am not going to take part in the leadership race.”

On the eve of his departure from his current position as Canada’s UN Ambassador, Allan Rock told the Toronto Star: “The UN is in trouble on many fronts, we have to find a way to address the North-South gap, to encourage the big powers to abandon unilateral approaches and work collectively — that’s in the interest of everyone, including them.”

According to a UN news release the dates of Ambassador Allan Rock’s trip would be finalized in consultation with Sri Lanka’s Government, UN partners and others.

______________________________________________

The children of Muttichchenai watch as their mothers being trained on self-defence [More Pictures: HA]

By K Godage

When I first heard that India had sponsored a Resolution in the UN General Assembly to hijack from the Security Council the selection of the next Secretary General I read more into it than an intention on the part of India to ‘democratize’ the process of selection.

I asked myself the question “Surely India could not be intending to field a candidate? India the emerging superpower, India that is aspiring to become a member of the Security Council? ( not that she has no right to do so but it does seem that such an act would fall into the category of “simply not done things). “No it just can’t be” thought I.

But I was wrong. India has indeed put forward a candidate, Sashi Tharoor who is an Under Secretary General of the UN.

The Resolution tabled at the General Assembly stated that the GA was the chief deliberative, policy making and representative organ of the United Nations and implied that the present process of selection of the SG lacked legitimacy and transparency and to enhance both these factors it was suggested that the Security Council forward three names of prospective candidates for selection by the UNGA.

The reason for India seeking to have the choice made by the GA is of course obvious; India, as one of the founding fathers of the Non- Aligned Movement enjoys much support among the countries of NAM and certainly has a better chance than most other candidates if there is a vote in the GA. Fortunately the big powers saw through this most ‘transparent’ of moves and this effort at performing a rope trick appears to have failed.

In the fifty plus years of the UN not only have super powers not fielded candidates but even the big powers have not fielded candidates for the post of SG. There was good reason for this, an SG from one of their countries would have found it extremely difficult to take a position contrary to that of his country on an important international issue in which his country’s interest was involved.

However fairly the man acted, allegations of bias would have been made and this would have undermined the credibility of the UN itself; this possibility of a conflict of interests and the fact that the SG could be compromised, led to the major actors on the international scene not putting forward nominees.

Does India not consider herself to be in the major league and an important player on the international scene? If she aspires to sit at the High Table to decide on the destiny of our planet then how could the Chief Executive also be from India?

This effort to secure the post of Secretary General will without doubt compromise her bid for a permanent seat on the Security Council. The Secretary General of the UN needs to have credibility in the interest of the organization itself.

All Secretaries General other than Boutros Ghali of Egypt have been from small countries, Dag Hammarskjold was from Finland, Javier Perez D Cuellar from Peru, U Thant from Myanmar and Kofi Anan from Ghana. This precedent must be followed in the interest of the UN itself.

In 1996 India contested a non permanent seat in the Security Council and suffered a humiliating defeat — on that occasion Japan along with some countries of far less importance than India were elected, she certainly got egg on her face. India has yet to forgive Japan for that humiliation; most recently India indicated to Japan her objections to Japan playing a leading role in our peace process though she herself is making every excuse under the sun for not even joining the Co-Chairs. I doubt very much as to whether Japan would support India’s candidate; we must remember that Japan does have influence.

The humiliation India suffered was ten years ago but much has happened since, India has grown in stature, she is now a nuclear power (Japan’s protests over the Pokran N tests have not been forgotten by India) and is being described as an emerging super power and far more confident. This is perhaps why she is now floating a candidate for the top job at the UN but she is running the risk of another similar humiliation or is it that she expects her new-found friend the US to back her candidate and also expects her old friend Russia to also support her nominee in addition to France. Is India not taking China for granted? Is it in Pakistan’s or China’s interest to have an Indian as SG ?

If China supports India would China not be incurring the wrath of her old and trusted friend Pakistan? Would an Indian as SG be acceptable to the Islamic world? Would they not now request Pakistan to nominate the affable, capable and experienced Diplomat Munir Akram as a nominee or Dr Ms Lodhi former Ambassador to the US or Nafia Sadiq who also has the advantage of being a woman. Munir Akram would be more than acceptable to the Islamic world.

Further the Hindu – Muslims riots which have become an everyday feature in India in recent times will also not lend to Islamic countries supporting the Indian nominee. Then there is the unresolved Kashmir issue; a UN Observer Mission is stationed in Kashmir; what would Tharoor’s position be if a fifth war broke out between Pakistan and India over Kashmir?

Incidentally what would be his position if Baluchistan seeks to break away from Pakistan? Would he, as an Indian, find satisfaction in the further dismemberment of Pakistan and would this influence his judgment? He would no doubt have supported the creation of Bangladesh and found satisfaction in seeing Pakistan dismembered.

As for China a consideration that would attend them would be as to whether Sahshi Tharoor can ever be his own man in the light of the close relationship that has developed between India and the US.

Tharoor could become a puppet at the hands of the US and the likes of anti Third World Bolton, the US Ambassador to the UN, who is opposed to the reform of the UN and the millennium goals.

When India did not declare its support for our candidate it was perceived here as another unfriendly act; I was under the impression that we not only shared history but also have common norms, shared values and interests and considering her frequent statements regarding the close relations that exist between our two countries, (”our two countries are inseparable, your territorial integrity and ours are one” etc) to have enthusiastically supported our eminent candidate as if he was their own candidate but now we realize that India had her own agenda and the close friendship they profess to is confined to mere words.

It is also a matter of interest as to how Tharoor’s name came to be announced only now. Tharoor has been living all of his adult life abroad, not in the service of his country but attached to the UN, understandably to pursue his own interests (incidentally would he, after having lived for over two decades in that country, by any chance be an American citizen?) so how did he come to be nominated?

He would of course have wanted the nomination for this opportunity will not come again in his lifetime; and perhaps he had India’s Permanent Representatie, Nirupam Sen’s support, for it was the latter who floated the Resolution referred to earlier to hijack the selection procedure so that India with her old Non-Aligned connections could facilitate his selection and swing it, but I wonder as to whether the sophisticated Indian Ministry of External Affairs would have approved of it, particularly because they would have weighed the consequences of failure and seen the risks involved.

Perhaps, as in this country India too has capitulated to the politicians and the politicians have got involved and have for once overruled the Ministry of External Affairs. This is not an improbability given the culture of politics on the sub-continent, the disease could have spread to India also.

If this has indeed happened I am frankly disappointed for I have the greatest respect for the professionalism of the Indian Foreign Service which in many respects is the guardian of their national interest and this candidature I feel is in Tharoor’s interest and not in the national interest of India.

If India wishes us and the world to accept her as an emerging super power and as the regional power then she should act like one

I do hope that India would test the waters and then gracefully withdraw her candidate if there is even the smallest possibility that he would not make it. She should save herself the embarrassment of rejection by the international community. India should then support Dhanapala as a consensus South Asian candidate or is this too much to expect?

This is where we miss the likes of men of the stature of Inder Kumar Gujral. He was indeed a visionary and a man before his time. [DailyMirror]

[K.Godage is formerly Sri Lanka`s Associate Foreign Secretary]

Related:

- Jayantha Dhanapala: “Apey Kolla”

Pledges to contain Karuna group

President Mahinda Rajapakse has moved to strike a secret deal with the LTTE to halt all violence for a two-week trial period with a pledge to contain the Karuna group, reports Colombo’s Sunday Leader.

The President has made his move bypassing the Norwegian facilitator and called for absolute secrecy from the intermediaries used.

The President sent his proposal to the LTTE through the Editor, Uthayan newspaper, N. Vidyakaran and its Publisher, E. Saravanabhavan.

The Sunday Leader says the President had on Tuesday, June 20, met with Vidyakaran and Saravanabhavan at Temple Trees and made his proposal.

President Rajapakse had told them that both the LTTE and the army were poised for war and that the economy would be severely affected if full-scale war erupts.

The President has further said the people too would have to pay a heavy price if war breaks out and it would have far reaching consequences to all communities.

President Rajapakse has further said that without depending on Norway, if the two parties could come to an initial agreement to halt all violence for two weeks, they could build on that achievement for further progress.

The President had also said he will ensure the Karuna group also does not carry out any attacks during that period.

Rajapakse further requested the LTTE to respond with their demands to come to an agreement on the two-week ceasefire proposal.

The Sunday Leader learns the President’s proposal was communicated to LTTE Political Wing Leader S. P. Tamilselvan on Wednesday.

Tamilselvan, it is learnt, had informed Vidyakaran, the LTTE would make known its reaction to the President’s proposal within a few days. And Vidyakaran had communicated Tamilselvan’s response to President’s Secretary Lalith Weeratunga on Wednesday, June 21.

Further details of this “secret pact” from the Sunday Leader:

President seeks secret pact with LTTE in the face of imminent war:

Under siege all round and completely flummoxed, President Rajapakse made a desperate call Tuesday morning to the Uthayan newspaper office in Colombo, a media organisation that came under brutal attack few moons ago in Jaffna, now believed to be at the hands of a paramilitary group linked to the state.

It is through the channel of this newspaper the President hoped to sideline Norway and reach out to the LTTE directly and made no bones about it that Tuesday.

The telephone call which emanated from Temple Trees first asked for Chief Editor N. Vidyakaran and when the sub-editor who answered the phone inquired who the caller was, the operator politely said the President wishes to speak with the Editor.

And moments later Rajapakse was on line turning on his charm, asking Vidyakaran how he was keeping.

With the pleasantries out of the way, President Rajapakse told Vidyakaran, the country was facing an imminent war with both the LTTE and the army poised for attack and that urgent steps needed to be taken to prevent such an eventuality.

“Both the LTTE and the army are preparing for war and the people and I are caught in between. We don’t have to work through Norway, why don’t we deal directly?” the President told the Editor who was momentarily nonplussed.

However, Vidyakaran was quick to gather his wits and inform the President such sensitive matters cannot be discussed over the telephone, only to be told by Rajapakse to see him at 4 p.m. the very day to discuss the proposal.

With the stage thus set, Vidyakaran and his brother-in-law, E. Saravanabhavan, who is also the publisher of the Uthayan Group of Newspapers, made their way to Temple Trees at the appointed hour and were met by the President who was in the company of his Media Director Lucien Rajakarunanayake. Two women staffers also sat in on the discussion, which was joined halfway through by President’s Secretary Lalith Weeratunga.

And no sooner the meeting started, the President said the security situation was getting out of hand and it was important for the government and the LTTE to work together to prevent the outbreak of war.

The President said just as much as the LTTE was preparing for war, so was the army and it was the civilians and he who were sandwiched in the middle and called to pay the price for the deteriorating situation.

The economy will be severely affected if war breaks out and all the people will suffer, Rajapakse also said.

President’s proposal

Having said that, the President told Vidyakaran and Saravanabhavan, if the LTTE and the government can agree to put an end to all violence for two weeks, they could make a fresh start and develop the rapport from thereon.

“We don’t have to do it through Norway or be dependent on them, we can deal directly,” the President went on to say.

Rajapakse further said he was in a strong position to meet any challenge but wanted to avoid bloodshed, hence the offer to the LTTE.

Not stopping at that, the President said if civilians are killed by the LTTE, he will find it difficult to control the army and there would be more chaos and it was therefore to the advantage of both parties to come to an agreement.

Having listened to the President, Vidyakaran said he will communicate the proposal to the LTTE and revert.

Added Vidyakaran, “Your Excellency, I told Mr. Balasingham before coming for this meeting what you said on the phone about you being sandwiched between the army and the LTTE. He laughed and asked me to tell you that you are the army. That you cannot be caught in between because you are the Commander-in-Chief and the Defence Minister and your brother is the Defence Secretary.”

Taken by surprise, the President quickly shifted gear and broached the issue of prior contacts he had with the LTTE both before and after the presidential election and inquired what went wrong.

The President made particular reference to the Airport Authority Chairman Tiran Alles, who he said was the intermediary used to keep a dialogue going with the LTTE and told the Uthayan duo, he had even acted on the Tigers’ request when it came to certain appointments.

“Tiran was dealing with a person called Pooannan and I had in mind a particular person for the RADA chairman’s post but at the LTTE’s request I did not make that appointment,” the President declared.

However, Vidyakaran burst the President’s bubble stating that issue was earlier discussed with Tamilselvan and he had denied the LTTE made any request with regard to such appointments.

“Tamilselvan said Pooannan only deal with administrative matters such as those involving the kachcheri and he has no say in political decision making,” Vidyakaran said.

Misled

Surprised, the President said Alles had brought him several messages from the LTTE earlier but with Vidyakaran insisting there was no such contact maintained with the LTTE at a decision making level, Rajapakse conceded he may have been misled.

The discussion shed further light on Rajapakse’s style of operation when Vidyakaran also reminded him of the reasons for the failure to keep a dialogue going with the LTTE to the exclusion of Norway in the backdrop of the failed Geneva talks.

Said Vidyakaran, “You will remember sir that before the Geneva talks, you called me and Minister Jeyaraj Fernandopulle for a discussion. At that discussion you told Minister Jeyaraj while official talks take place at the table, to keep an unofficial dialogue going with Mr. Balasingham through me. Then when talks ran into trouble in Geneva, Jeyaraj contacted me three times and wanted to meet with Mr. Balasingham saying he had a message from you. But Mr. Balasingham said he cannot meet with Jeyaraj since it will get Pirapaharan very angry. Later, maybe after consultations, he agreed to meet and they met at Mr. Balasingham’s room for almost two hours.”

Added Vidyakaran, “At the end of the meeting, Minister Jeyaraj asked Mr. Balasingham how they can continue to maintain direct contact. Mr. Balasingham said Vidyakaran is in Colombo and if there was a need to contact him or Mr. Tamilselvan, to tell me. But you did not follow up and we thought you were using some other channel. Mr. Balasingham also said after speaking to Mr. Jeyaraj that he had nothing in his head.”

After listening to Vidyakaran’s explanation, the President said they should make a fresh start and to inform him of the LTTE’s decision to his proposal for a two week ceasefire.

He said the LTTE should inform him at the earliest what they expect from the government’s side in exchange for an agreement by the Tigers to stop all attacks for two weeks.

But the President had one other message for the LTTE with a carrot temptingly attached and that was in relation to the Karuna group.

Said the President, “Tell the LTTE not to ask for the disarming of the Karuna group straight away and have them thrown on the road. Then the LTTE will kill them.”

Responded Vidyakaran, “But the LTTE will insist on that. The Karuna group will have to be taken out of the north east theatre. That will be their basic demand.”

Having dangled the carrot, the President toyed with Vidyakaran stating they could consider such options after the initial two week trial run is agreed to and enforced.

The President further said he will ensure that during the two week period there will be no attacks by the Karuna group.

LTTE stance

The loud thinking at the meeting was for the Karuna group to be initially confined to barracks and then systematically disarmed if the deal between the President and the LTTE runs smoothly.

Confident he had a deal in the making given the carrot on offer, the President was to also brief the security council of him meeting with the newspaper duo.

The following day, Wednesday, June 21, Vidyakaran made contact with Tamilselvan and communicated the President’s proposal and was told he will speak with the LTTE leadership and revert in a couple of days.

But the LTTE leadership when informed of the President’s proposal scoffed at it as an attempt to drive a wedge between the organisation and the international community in general and Norway in particular.

The thinking of the LTTE leadership was that with Rajapakse getting isolated internationally due to this failure to honour the agreements reached in Geneva, he was looking to use the LTTE as the cat’s paw to wriggle out of the tight corner by opening a direct dialogue to the exclusion of Norway.

Further, the LTTE took the view Rajapakse was merely trying to buy time for a military offensive and would therefore not deal with him directly.

In fact, Pirapaharan had expressed surprise to Tamilselvan that President Rajapakse could adopt such childlike strategies to get Norway out of the peace process.

Nevertheless, how the JVP for all its breast-beating rhetoric sees the President’s move to deal with the LTTE directly and secretly when it has called for the organisation to be banned remains to be seen.

Oblivious to the Presidential moves to sideline Norway, the facilitator was attempting to salvage the security situation and prevent all out war by using its good offices with the LTTE.

Deadlock

Towards this end, Ambassador Hans Brattskar met with Tamilselvan on Wednesday and urged the LTTE to reconsider its position on the SLMM monitors from EU countries, stressing the devastating impact the organisation’s decision will have on the CFA.

Unable to break the deadlock, Norway has decided to speak with the government as well on the issue and give its response on June 29, which itself may be decisive.

Interestingly, at the time Brattskar met Tamilselvan, the LTTE Political Wing Leader was already in the know of the President’s move, having been told by Vidyakaran, but chose to keep it to himself.

What Tamilselvan did do however was tell Brattskar the LTTE had the fullest confidence in Norway’s role as facilitator and that they would not agree to deal through any other agency or individual.

And the LTTE’s thinking on the President’s proposal also came to be reflected in the Sudar Oli editorial written by Vidyakaran himself the same Wednesday, which stated thus, inter alia, “We need a leadership that is receptive to diverse thoughts and that can, in the light of those views, execute its discretion with courage for the larger interest of the country. That is what the country lacks and the present stalemate in the peace process is due to that.”

The editorial goes on to state as follows: “It is appropriate here to refer to the statement made by LTTE Leader Pirapaharan immediately after Mahinda Rajapakse became Executive President last November – ‘Mahinda Rajapakse is said to be a pragmatist. Let us wait and watch how he proceeds towards peace.’”

Then comes the punch paragraph – “What needs to be addressed here is to find out whether the President is a chauvinist or not, whether he is committed to a negotiated settlement of the ethnic issue or not, whether he is in a position and in a conducive political environment to arrive at a reasonable decision or not. The answer obviously would be, ‘No!’”

And the final paragraph of that editorial summed up the LTTE’s response to the President in these terms: “Since the government media and the government spokesmen relate reports submitted by authorities justifying acts of violence let loose by the security forces and paramilitary groups, the President does not have the benefit of access to realities there. As a result, the President is groping in the dark being unable to grasp the core issues. That is the present sorry plight.”

Mind you, that editorial was written by Vidyakaran just 24 hours after the meeting with the President and within an hour after communicating Rajapakse’s proposal to Tamilselvan.

Childish manoeuvre

And you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to, on the reading of it, understand the LTTE thinking on the President’s proposal – even to Rajapakse the message was loud and clear.

But what the President has done through this childish manoeuvre is once again signal to the international community his word cannot be trusted, considering all the commitments he made to the various diplomatic heads of his abiding commitment to the CFA and agreements reached through Norwegian facilitation.

No doubt even the USA and Japan, two countries that have bent over backwards to accommodate the President’s view point, would be aghast at this manoeuvre and Rajapakse has to be a man of kindergarten thinking if he thought such a ploy would not reach the ears of the Co-Chairs.

And now Rajapakse will also have to explain his ploy to both the JVP and UNP, with it very likely they will raise issue on the secret deal, a failure though it may have been.

India has always played a decisive role in the Sri Lankan political arena and has paid special attention to the country’s ethnic conflict.

From sending peace keeping forces to training youth for an armed conflict in the country, India’s role in the Sri Lankan ethnic conflict saw a drastic decline with the assassination of former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi.

Indian involvement

With his death, although India continued to keep a close watch on Sri Lanka, it reduced its involvement in trying to solve the ethnic conflict. India’s early involvement was evident by the course of action adopted by it when late President J.R. Jayewardene decided to militarily resolve the conflict.

The Indian government immediately dispatched its air force to fly over the Jaffna peninsula and drop bags of parippu and within a short period thereafter the Indo-Lanka Agreement was signed and the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) made its entry into the country at the invitation of President Jayewardene.

President Mahinda Rajapakse too, having initially looked to India for help, has since veered towards Pakistan, especially to purchase arms and ammunition. Although disturbed by the news, India decided to keep mum until its state elections concluded.

Since Gandhi’s death, the people and government of South India did not play a major role in the affairs of the north and east of Sri Lanka. Interestingly, though there was anti-Indian sentiment in the late 1980s with the JVP even going on a killing spree to get the IPKF out, today the mood is different and there is a yearning for Indian involvement. Having learnt their lesson, it was India that did not want to get actively involved in Sri Lanka’s affairs this time around.

Vaiko’s stance

And there was no reason for India to get involved directly either since the issue of refugees flowing into Tamil Nadu was no longer a problem. But all that changed with the recent civilian massacres and the aerial bombardment in the north east

Firing the first salvo two weeks ago was a pro-LTTE South Indian political leader, Vaiko who wrote a letter to Indian Premier Manmohan Singh.

In his letter, Vaiko requested the central government to adopt a strong policy against the Sri Lankan government saying it was harassing the Tamils in the north east.

With the letter, the plight of Sri Lanka’s people in the north east took centre stage in South Indian politics.

It wasRamdoss, a pro-LTTE representative of the Karunanidhi Alliancewho got activated next. He told Singh that India should fight for the rights of the Tamil people in Sri Lanka.

The surprise however was when South Indian Opposition Leader Jayalalitha Jeyaram issued a statement saying she would take to the streets if the central government kept quiet over the problems faced by the Tamil people in Sri Lanka.

The third force in South Indian politics, Vijayakanth also released a statement in favour of the Tamils in Sri Lanka.

With almost every South Indian politician fighting for the rights of the Tamil people in Sri Lanka, Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi could no longer remain silent.

He summoned a meeting of all political parties represented in South India last Monday. The meeting was aimed at finding a way to address the plight of Tamils in Sri Lanka.

Plight of civilians

The plight of the Tamil civilians following the air raids carried out by the Sri Lankan forces after the massacre in Kebithigollewa was discussed at length. Also, the list of names of the Tamils killed in the north east during the last few months prepared by Indian security officials was taken up for discussion.

The plight of Sri Lankan refugees who have fled to South India following the attacks carried out by the Sri Lankan security forces was also discussed at length.

Several vital decisions were reached at the end of the discussion.

It was decided to push for the central government’s involvement in stopping the harassment of Tamil civilians in the north east by the Sri Lankan security forces.

The next decision was to send a special government representative or representatives to gather information on the present situation in Sri Lanka, based on which the next course of action would be adopted.

Karunanidhi was tasked with communicating to the Indian Prime Minister the decisions made at the meeting.

Soon after the meeting, Karunanidhi called Premier Manmohan Singh and informed him of the meeting that was held to discuss the plight of the Tamil civilians in Sri Lanka following the attacks carried out by the government security forces.

He then informed Singh of the decisions arrived at the meeting.

After paying attention to what Karunanidhi had to say, Singh observed that the central government would pay special attention to the situation. Singh promised to send a representative to meet with the South Indian political leaders to further discuss the matter.

Accordingly, the Prime Minister’s National Security Advisor, M.K. Narayanan was sent to Chennai.

Rajapakse activated

Rajapakse heard of the latest developments in South India and New Delhi on Monday (19) night.

He then held several discussions with confidants on the matter. Realising the consequences of the Indian government sending a representative to Sri Lanka on a fact-finding mission, Rajapakse decided to take necessary action to avoid such an eventuality.

The President immediately informed the Indian High Commissioner that he wouldsend a representative from Sri Lanka to India and sought an appointmentfor the representative to meet with Singh.

Rajapakse also requested the High Commission to make the necessary arrangements for the representative to meet with the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister.

When the President was informed that a top level minister had to represent the country to make appointments with the Indian Prime Minister and the South Indian Chief Minister, Rajapakse immediately asked Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera, who at the time was in London, to make the trip to India.

Samaraweera, who was planning to make a trip to Paris from London, was asked to change plans and make a trip to India following the latest developments there.

Samaraweera’s visit

Upon hearing of Samaraweera’s visit to India, Singh requested Narayanan to postpone his visit to South India.

Narayanan was asked to take part in the discussion Singh was to have with Samaraweera and then make his trip to Chennai.

And when Samaraweera called on Singh, the Indian Premier made it clear that the human rights situation was a matter of serious concern, especially the aerial bombardment which was affecting the civilian population. He also said tension was rising in South India following these developments in the backdrop of refugees also flowing in and that it was important for the government and the LTTE to get back to the table.

The Indians also made it clear that the legitimate grievances of the Tamils should be addressed within a united Sri Lanka, indicating some new thinking would have to be infused in relation to the devolution of power. What Samaraweera was told in diplomatic language was that the concept of a unitary state would just not fly.

Understanding the seriousness of the message communicated, Samaraweera said the government was committed to a negotiated settlement and that war was not an option. He also blamed the LTTE for the escalation in violence, highlighting the Kebithigollewa massacre as an example.

APC initiative

But to establish the government’s bona fides with regard to a negotiated settlement, Minister Samaraweera adverted to the All Party Conference (APC) initiative and the appointment of an All Party Representative Committee (APRC) to draft a devolution package but what he did not say is that the exercise has been made redundant with the UNP opting out of it and asking the government to first state clearly its stand on the Oslo Communiqu and the Tokyo Declaration.

With Karunanidhi to be now briefed on the situation, it remains to be seen what the next move by South India will be. [PotShots - SundayLeader]

By S. Sellathurai

The world has not realized the true nature of the ongoing armed conflict in Sri Lanka. The assumption that it is essentially political, as a result of racial discrimination and denial of equal sovereign rights to minority Tamils since independence, has led to the belief that it could be settled through negotiations. The LTTE is not at all concerned about the rights, privileges, safety and security of the people in different communities and regions, let alone those of the Tamils living outside the Northern and Eastern Provinces. About 54 percent of Sri Lankan Tamils (excluding the upcountry Tamils) live outside the North-East region with the Sinhalese and Muslims. Any settlement for lasting peace must not ignore this fact.

It is true that the problem that started with the Sinhala Only language policy intensified later as a result of other discriminatory policies such as the admission to universities based on media-wise standardization of marks and preferences to Sinhalese in the recruitment and promotion in the government service. There was discrimination with regard to development policies too with regions occupied largely by the minority ethnic communities receiving less attention. Thus the ethnic problem was created by the discriminatory ways governments controlled by the majority Sinhalese under a unitary system functioned. The system itself ignored the island’s diverse ethnic and regional features.

Failure to settle the ethnic problem since the late 1950s and the arrogant thoughtless perception that the minorities could be sidelined and silenced by intimidation resulted in the uprising of organised Tamil youth. When the revolt against the State started, there were some 30 different militant Tamil groups and the LTTE came to prominence after eliminating or marginalizing others. As the only dominant force fighting against the State, the Tamil Tigers have claimed themselves to be the ‘sole representatives of the Tamil people’. Their assertive role in the armed conflict increased after the Indian government in 1987 intervened to stop the violence in Sri Lanka. The basis for the political settlement to the conflict was specified in the 1987 Indo-Lanka Agreement. The rejection of this Agreement and the elimination of moderate Tamil leaders, who took a conciliatory and pragmatic line to conflict resolution considering the importance of sustaining the resulting peace for future generations, signalled the ideological shift from Tamil nationalism to cultism.

Cult mentality

The LTTE leader’s belief in a separate Tamil state (Eelam) has remained unshaken despite the huge losses and immense sufferings incurred since the beginning of the war. He is also determined to achieve the devout objective notwithstanding the opposition of the powerful foreign countries, notably neighbouring India. The world has not taken seriously the command he has given to his followers to shoot him dead, if he departs from his Eelam goal. He reaffirmed the decree at a media conference in April 2002 at Kilinochchi. The Cease-Fire Agreement (CFA) was reached on 22 February 2002. The contradiction between the LTTE’s real aim and the declared CFA’s final aim, namely, negotiated political settlement was overlooked by the government and others who believed the CFA would lead to permanent peace. To the LTTE, the negotiations were intended for settling other matters and not the final Eelam aim.

The various gruesome acts despite the strong condemnation by the United Nations, human rights organizations and foreign governments carried out in pursuit of the cherished goal also showed that the principle ‘the end justifies the means’ was influencing LTTE’s ways of operation. Political killings and other violent activities that caused considerable civilian losses, suffering and fear have induced some powerful countries to label the LTTE as a ‘terrorist’ organization. Sizeable numbers of Sri Lankan Tamils are settled in Canada, Great Britain, European Union and the U.S.A where the LTTE is banned.

Regardless of the extensive opposition to the unacceptable methods used in the struggle for separate Eelam, these continued to be used in view of the sacred nature of the goal. To the LTTE, Eelam is not just a political goal that parties seek by persuasion; it is their vision of the way of living. Although the single-mindedness of the leader has been clearly evident, both the SL government and the world chose to ignore it.

Cultism is generally identified with a religious sect considered to be extremist or fictitious. The followers accept faithfully the speeches, advices and directives of an assertive charismatic leader. It could also exist in a non-religious form when there is obsessive, especially faddish devotion to or veneration for a principle or aim and/or a person propagating it devotedly. After the emergence, subsequent spread of devotion to the aim depends on the conditions prevailing in the region. In Sri Lanka’s case, the Eelam aim arose because of the failure to solve the ethnic problem in the early stages and even now the absence of a sense of urgency to restructure the State as desired by moderate Sri Lankans and the international community, especially India is lending support to the Eelam idea. This is what the Sri Lankan government and many others seeking genuine peace have ignored. They still continue to ignore the causes without realising the implications. The more the cult mentality strengthens, the more difficult it will be to bring ethnic harmony, national unity and country-wide peace.

Cult followers

Like followers of particular religion, the Sri Lankan Tamil cult followers regardless of their education and occupation believe blindly the leader’s aim. They are blind to the economy, resources, demography, regional setting, internal and external relations and a host of other factors that will determine the practicability of the desired aim. It has to be promising to sustain peace and lay the foundations for a better future from political, social, cultural, economic and human rights considerations.

The cult followers not surprisingly seem to be concerned only about their sect’s aim. They are not interested in considering factors that hinder the peace efforts and settlement of the twin conflicts – Tamil grievances and the separatist conflict. They will talk about the atrocities committed against the Tamils but not those committed by their fellow members against innocent Sinhalese civilians. Planned attacks against the opponents are not crimes but any retaliatory attacks are serious offences. An inhuman act allegedly carried out by a member is ignored when he remains in the movement but after he has deserted it, he is accused of being responsible for the same punishable act. One has to be seen as a follower of the faith to be considered as a Tamil. In short, they cannot look at the happenings with an open mind. There is good reason to believe the proportion of cult followers is high amongst the Diaspora. People who are enduring the agony of ‘no peace’ and ‘no freedom’ in the mother land will want a pragmatic solution to the problem.

According to Shanie (The Island Columnist), the Tamil Diaspora’s readiness to believe disinformation is due to two reasons. One is that they have no access or are not willing to obtain access to alternate sources of information. Another reason is the indiscriminate and inappropriate response of the security forces to LTTE brutality. Indiscriminate bombing and shelling is a godsend to the LTTE. There are in fact other reasons too which the columnist has failed to mention. Additionally, in many cases ingrained prejudice from past experiences is compelling them to think the Sinhalese and not the Tamils are responsible for all the dastardly acts! Generalization based on few bad cases is also evident. The imagined or self-satisfying thinking is also contributing to the wrong conclusion.

Cultism encouraged by default

Despite the known problems in negotiating with the LTTE on the main issue of a separate independent state, which as mentioned earlier is an article of faith founded on hate, distrust and prejudice promoted by the repeated failures of governments to implement policies for uniting the divided communities and sharing power with the minority communities. This required significant changes to the present constitution. Attempts made by former President Chandrika Kumaratunga between 1995 and 2000 to devolve powers to the regions failed because of the damaging competitive party politics. The bipartisan approach to the resolution of national problems is alien to Sri Lanka’s political culture. The mutual support for the extreme positions of the Sinhala and Tamil nationalists has increased recently. This development helps the extremists to obstruct any sensible political settlement that is inconsistent with their rigid positions.

The present confusion seen from the utterances of government leaders on their approach to conflict resolution is due to either their reluctance to accept the true nature of the armed conflict or knowing the difficulties in negotiating with the Tigers, they still want to negotiate in order to dodge making any bold moves to settle the ethnic problem. This national problem is not the chief concern of the Tigers but a valuable tool for achieving their goal. Thus, the effective way for the government to stop encouraging cultism is to get rid of the conditions that led to its emergence. Constitutional reform for ‘maximum’ devolution as promised by the President is no doubt necessary but the actions to convince the people of a better future in a united Sri Lanka need not wait until such time.

Unable or unwilling to take quick action to change the present structure of the State, the government is trying to mark time by making utterances about its intended efforts to settle the conflict peacefully. The appointment of the Advisory Committee to assist the All Party Conference (APC) is also intended to demonstrate the government’s commitment to political settlement. Since it has not disclosed its road map to peace and the nature of the political system being sought to secure lasting peace, there is the feeling the present government too is going to make the same mistakes of past governments. This will certainly strengthen the reason currently being advanced by the LTTE supporters for separation.

A recent statement from the government Peace Secretariat said it wants to “engage the LTTE in talks so as to address the root causes of the conflict that may have contributed to it to take to arms and the path of terrorism”. The lack of understanding of the cultic nature of the conflict is clearly evident. Independent Tamil Eelam is an article of faith and what happened in the past is history to the advocates. The head of the Peace Secretariat, Dr. Palitha Kohona was even certain that the government would “get the LTTE involved in the process of drafting a new constitution.” It is difficult to believe such statements are made because of the failure to understand fully the nature of the armed conflict against the State. On the other hand if these are made for tactical reasons, then the effectiveness is zero.

The following statements made recently by ministers indicate the prevailing confusion over the approach to political settlement and lasting peace. Leader of the House and Senior Minister Nimal Siripala de Silva told Parliament on June 21 that a final solution to the national question has to be reached between the two parties at the negotiation table and therefore it is still premature for them to lay down the structure of it. With regard to devolution Minister de Silva said that “the final solution would be a power devolution arrangement to be agreed upon by the parties involved in the conflict, depending on the deciding factors such as the degree of power to be devolved, and the geographical location etc”. It is, therefore, “premature to reveal it right now”. The government was being asked what its solution was going to be when peace talks resumed but the LTTE itself had not so far informed the government what they seek as a solution to the conflict, he told Parliament! This clearly shows that the government is waiting for the LTTE to negotiate with the government a political settlement on the basis of what they want as a basis for final settlement. LTTE’s ISGA proposal gives an idea of their preferred basis for negotiations. If this is the approach to end the conflict, the people longing for peace will have to wait for many more years. In the mean time the cult movement would have grown and its aim would have got firmly fixed in the minds of the followers.

Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera, addressing the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs in Norway, during his recent visit to the country touched on the key issues relating to final settlement of the protracted conflict in Sri Lanka. His visit to Norway came after the June 8th fiasco when the LTTE delegation refused to sit with Sri Lanka delegation to discuss issues that concern the monitoring work of the SLMM. By the way, the Government delegation went for the talks at the invitation of the Royal Norwegian government and had every right to be present at the scheduled meeting.

Although the contents of the speech indicated a clear understanding of the inherent difficulties in seeking a negotiated settlement with the intransigent LTTE, the main reason being their firm belief in separation, the Minister repeated the call for a negotiated political settlement. If the Government’s strategy is to put the blame on the Tigers for delaying the long overdue settlement, then this ignores the difference between a lawfully elected government of a country responsible for the present and future welfare of all the people and the LTTE a rebel organization concerned mainly about its aim. The LTTE has not failed to blame the government for the continuing deaths and suffering of the people, though they too are responsible for the tragedy. It is the government that will pay a heavy price for allowing the present stalemate in the peace process to continue.

Mahinda Samarasinghe, Minister of Disaster Management and Human rights at the inaugural session of the UN Human Rights Council held in Geneva said: “The Government is of the firm conviction that solutions to the issues at hand have to be sought only through political means and not through military means. As articulated by President Rajapaksa, I wish to assure you that the Government of Sri Lanka will continue to press ahead with its search for a political solution to the conflict, based on democracy, pluralism and human rights that meet the aspirations of all communities in Sri Lanka”. This is a very sound principle but has no practical value in certain cases if it cannot be applied to settle problems. The peaceful approach cannot be the same in all cases. It has to take note of the prevailing conditions and the ideological differences between the parties to the conflict.

The Minister also hoped the international community will “encourage all parties to the conflict to engage in a sincere dialogue towards finding a political solution acceptable to all communities in Sri Lanka”. The LTTE which has now become known as an illiberal movement committed to an ideology that is at odds with “democracy, pluralism and human rights,” the “peaceful approach” has to be indirect. The support of the international community would help in realizing the objective.

No Tamil will deny the fact that the LTTE played a significant role in regaining the dignity of Tamils and ending the fear of living in Sinhalese areas. But now the very same LTTE is keen on recreating the hostile conditions for its advantage! Enormous damage will be caused to the peaceful co-existence of different ethnic communities in Sri Lanka if there is widespread backlash. Tamils in the Diaspora have nothing to worry but those in Sri Lanka will have a terrible life. If the Tamils want to prosper, some will have to live in other regions as well.

Alternative approach

Many rational Sri Lankans as well as India the closest neighbour deeply concerned about the developments in the island has suggested the approach that requires the government to take the initiative for devolving powers. This will give confidence to the people in the different communities that they can live without the fear of discrimination, ethnic cleansing and oppression by the majority community. There have to be inbuilt safeguards to prevent any manipulation of the system for performing such disturbing acts. India has repeatedly urged Sri Lanka to prepare a devolution package that has the support of the southern polity. This was conveyed to Sri Lanka’s Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera when he visited New Delhi earlier. But this time for some reason the Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh had told the visiting Minister June 22, “the two sides should work towards a devolution package that could command a consensus among major political parties and restore ethnic harmony”. Does India really think Prabhakaran will agree to devolution of powers as an alternative to his sacred Eelam goal? Will India, unlike in 1987 succeed in forcing him to accept a regionalized administrative system?

This time too the general statements such as “the Prime Minister affirmed India’s commitment to the unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of that country” and that “the legitimate aspirations of all sections of the Sri Lankan society need to be addressed expeditiously,” were repeated. It is unclear whether India wants this to be done before or after the constitutional change incorporating the agreed devolution package. It seems not only Sri Lanka; India too is confused over the realistic approach to a final political settlement. Their dilemma is in finding ways to convert words into matching deeds!

Professor Mahinda Werake in his timely article – “It’s time for a solution” – has said: “It appears that the present circumstances favour a move by the Sri Lankan government to come up with a proposal that could eventually pave the way for a final solution to the NE problem. …… the government needs to act quickly and come up with a blueprint to solve the NE problem acceptable to the democratically minded Tamils and to India whose support is critical…. The onerous task for President Rajapaksa is to rise to the occasion and propose a formula acceptable to democratic parties in the North and the South that aims at solving the NE problem”.

The veteran politician and TULF leader V. Anandasangaree reiterated on June 20 in Colombo that the Government should propose a solution that would be endorsed by the international community which the LTTE would be unable to reject. This approach has a better chance of succeeding, provided the proposed solution is not cosmetic but fundamentally different as to eliminate lingering doubts that the Sinhalese political leaders will not implement fully what they have promised or will manipulate the system later to the disadvantage of the Tamils. This distrust should be dispelled by confidence building deeds that will confirm the sincerity of the proposed changes.

By N. Sathiya Moorthy

By asking the Central Government in India to take “appropriate steps” to restore peace in Sri Lanka, and calling for efforts to halt the “loss of innocent lives through mine blasts and serial bombings, which in turn has led to the influx of refugees”, octogenarian M.Karunanidhi, the DMK Chief Minister of the south Indian State of Tamil Nadu, has done the kind of ‘balancing act’, whose message is far-reaching. Through another resolution, the six-party meeting of the ruling combine, called by him on return from a week-long sojourn in the neighbouring Karnataka State capital of Bangalore, on Monday, 19 June 2006, touched upon the problems being faced by the Tamil Nadu fishermen, at the hands of the Sri Lankan Navy, now that violence has erupted in the island-nation all over again. Only a day earlier, a Tamil Nadu fisherman was injured in a shootout by the Sri Lankan naval personnel, it was reported.

Karunanidhi’s approach to the ‘Sri Lankan issue’ is both cautious and comprehensive. His invitees on Monday included not only the Congress and the Communist allies who have a definite disinclination to backing the LTTE, or any separatist/militant group of the kind nearer home. There was also the leaders of the Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK) and the Dravidar Kazhagam (DK), two pan-Tamil outfits that have often been over-enthusiastic in their espousal of the ‘Sri Lankan Tamil cause’ and their support for the LTTE’s line of thinking. It was not an all-party meeting called by the State Chief Minister, but an alliance meeting called by the octogenarian leader in his capacity as president of the DMK party. To the extent, Karunanidhi managed to ensure that the State Government was not seen as parroting any particular line on a sensitive issue affecting bilateral relations with Sri Lanka on the one hand. It was also a reminder of the scars left behind by the purported pro-LTTE stand of the DMK in the past. It was the ‘pro-LTTE image’ of the party that gave the DMK its worst-ever electoral drubbing in the aftermath of the ‘Rajiv Gandhi assassination’ in 1991. The LTTE stood accused of the assassination of the former Indian Prime Minister. With the result, today, neither is Karunanidhi the leader, nor is the DMK the party, to stake all on issues, over the solution of which they have no control any more.

The twin resolutions are significant precisely for the same reason – of Karunanidhi wanting to separate the ‘Sri Lankan issue’ from the problems being faced by the Tamil Nadu fishermen in the aftermath of renewed action in Sri Lanka. Within the ‘Sri Lankan issue’, three clear distinctions too have approached in the approach of major political parties in Tamil Nadu since the ‘Rajiv Gandhi assassination’ in particular. This pertained to their respective position on the problems faced/caused by refugee-influx, the larger issue of ‘Tamils rights’ in Sri Lanka, and support/sympathy for the LTTE and its line. That way, the DMK-inspired resolution did not refer to the ‘Sri Lankan Tamils’ by name, but stopped with mentioning ‘loss of innocent lives’ (on either side), instead. What more, by referring to the ‘mine blasts’ (by the LTTE?) and ‘aerial bombings’ (by Sri Lankan armed forces?), and to the ‘loss of innocent lives’ in both, the DMK-led initiative equated the Tamils and the Sinhalas, and their lives in equal terms. It was possibly for the first time since ‘ethnic violence’ broke out in Sri Lanka in 1983 that any political party in Tamil Nadu, particularly ‘pan-Tamil outfits’ like DMK, PMK or the DK, were taking a similar stand. Obviously, participation in the Union Government, that too, one led by Rajiv Gandhi’s Congress Party, of which his widow, Sonia Gandhi, is the president, has tempered and moderated the past stance of the PMK, too.

Yet, there seems to be a misconception ruling many Sri Lankan minds on the role and influence of ‘pan-Tamil’ politics in Tamil Nadu, and its impact and influence on the Indian Government’s approach towards the ‘Sri Lankan issue’. It was thus that a section of the Sri Lankan media and political opinion linked the pan-Tamil MDMK’s alliance with the then ruling AIADMK in the State for this year’s elections to the Tamil Nadu Assembly as capable of influencing New Delhi’s decisions on the Sri Lanka front. At the end of the day, neither the alliance, nor the elections, influenced the Government of India in the matter. If anything, it was possibly for the first time since the early Eighties that elections in Tamil Nadu passed without any reference to the ‘Sri Lankan issue’ during campaign time. The AIADMK under then Chief Minister Jayalalithaa needed to weaken the morale of the rival DMK-led alliance, which looked invincible. The MDMK needed to send members to the State Assembly for the first time since inception in 1993, though it has had members in the national Parliament since 1998. Their common stronghold in the southern districts of Tamil Nadu gave the AIADMK a chance to improve its tally, and the MDMK open its. In the final analysis, the MDMK could sent six members to the State Assembly though its backing did not exactly improve the tally of the AIADMK.

Though the symbols of the State Government were not appended to the DMK-initiated resolution on the Sri Lankan issue, it was also the first time that a collective appeal was made from the State, for the Government of India to take “appropriate steps” to restore peace in Sri Lanka. It implied a call for a ‘pro-active’ approach by India in helping to solve the ‘Sri Lankan issue’, but Karunanidhi, with his years of political experience, made sure that New Delhi’s hands were not forced by extreme positions, or more direct suggestions, flowing from the ruling dispensation in Chennai. Earlier references to Indian help in the matter in recent weeks had stopped with appeal to individuals. Visiting former Prime Minister of Sri Lanka, Ranil Wickremesinghe, who is also the Leader of the UNP Opposition in the national Parliament, for instance, had called upon philosopher-guide, Sri Sri Ravishankar, when he called on the guruji at Bangalore, again last week.

Karunanidhi also used the occasion to reiterate his position that the “Centre’s stand is also the stand of the Tamil Nadu Government” on the ‘Sri Lankan issue’. He had made this observation while on his maiden visit to Delhi after taking over as Chief Minister earlier this month. On the occasion, he referred to his meeting with former Sri Lanka Minister and leader of the ‘Tamils of Indian Origin’, Arumugan Thondaman in Chennai a week earlier. Sri Lankan diplomats stationed in Delhi and Chennai accompanied Thondaman to the meeting. Earlier, TULF leader, Anandasangaree had written to the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, and the pro-LTTE Tamil Nationalist Alliance (TNA) also appealed to him for intervention in the ‘ethnic issue’ in Sri Lanka, but Karunanidhi chose not to respond to either. In contrast, Karunanidhi spoke about his meeting with Thondaman, for the first time while in Delhi. “I told him as much,” he said on the occasion, seeking to synchronise the State Government’s views with that of the Centre. To the extent, the six-party resolution is an ‘improvement’, as it seeks, if not hints at, the need for ‘Indian involvement’ in helping to restore permanent peace in Sri Lanka – without outlining any parameters of any kind.

For all this however, Karunanidhi is only on a tight-rope walk on the ‘Sri Lankan issue’. A week earlier, a statement by the Opposition AIADMK in the State had provoked the residual pan-Tamil sentiments in him, to rebut the charge that he was ‘against the Tamils in Sri Lanka’. Carrying the image of the senior-most leader of the “Tamils of the world” and also the scars left behind by the ‘Rajiv Gandhi assassination’ at the same time, he is also faced with more direct political demands for ‘Indian intervention’ in the island-nation. While pan-Tamil MDMK leader, Vaiko, was quick to ask the Centre to despatch an all-party delegation of Parliament members from India to Sri Lanka, equally LTTE-sympathetic leaders like Thol Thirumavalavan of the Dalit Panthers of India (DPI) joined Vaiko in organising State-wide demonstration in the second week of June. That the demonstration was a tame affair in most places, when it came to public participation or emotional involvement was one thing. Both Vaiko and Thirumavalavan also have to carry the AIADMK leader of their common alliance with them ahead of the local government elections in the State, due in October. AIADMK leader Jayalalithaa, as is known, carefully delineated the interests of the Sri Lankan Tamils from those of the LTTE when she first became Chief Minister, riding the electoral wave caused by the ‘Rajiv Gandhi assassination’.

Against this, the political novice that he is, film-actor Vijayakanth, having obtained close to nine per cent votes in the Assembly polls for his infant DMDK party, went overboard the first time that he is confronted with the issue, to urge the Government of India, to despatch ships as it did, twice in the past, to ensure safe passage for Tamil refugees wanting to come to India, from Sri Lanka. That way, even the Tamil media has begun making a distinction. For the first time since the fresh bout of violence erupted in Sri Lanka last December, all major Tamil newspapers carried the air-strikes on Tamil localities in Sri Lanka last weekend, as their ‘lead story’. A day earlier, they had given adequate coverage to the Anuradhapura bus-blast, in which the Sinhalese were the victims. None of them however chose to play up the week-long fast by Nalini and her husband Murugan, both convicted in the ‘Rajiv Gandhi assassination case’ and in prison still, during the same period. They carried the news story after an English language newspaper had ‘scooped’ them to it. The fast was to press the demand for an Indian visa for their daughter (born in prison) to pursue her higher studies in the country.

Though separated, the four issues relating to the Sri Lankan problem pertaining to Tamil Nadu have the dangerous tendency to get submerged in one another without anyone noticing it, if the ground situation does not improve on each one of them, across the Palk Strait. Constant excesses against Tamil Nadu fishermen by the Sri Lankan Navy, or stories of excesses brought to India by the Tamil refugees, or even the increasing number of refugees in the coming weeks and months, could pressure the Chief Minister and the State Government into reviewing their present position. For now, the State Government has urged the Tamil Nadu fishermen not to cross the international boundary into Sri Lankan waters, whatever the reason. The Chief Minister has reiterated that the State police has been given “clear instructions to allow only genuine refugees” into Tamil Nadu… Severe action will be taken if any militant tries to sneak in, despite our vigil”. Yet, neither the State Government, nor the Centre, could ensure 100-per cent compliance against a trained and determined terrorist group like the LTTE, which in turn will require to keep the innocent Tamils away from the battle-front, and also provide medical help to injured ranks, if and when war revisited the island-nation in a big way, all over again. [DailyMirror]

The author is the Director of the Chennai Chapter of the Delhi-based policy think-tank, Observer Research Foundation