Clearly, Balakumaran was seeking to widen the LTTE's more recent narrow interpretations of the 'Indian thinking' that had limited more public appeals to the Tamils in India. In doing so, his appeal, unlike the previous ones, addressed the Indian policy-maker -- and not any individual section of the Indian society, say those in Tamil Nadu, over the head of the Government of India and the Tamil Nadu Government.
______________
by N. Sathiyamoorthy
(June 23, Chennai, Sri Lanka Guardian) Is it a 'sin' for a State to put supreme national interests at the top of its agenda? The public discourse within the LTTE revolving around India would make it look as if New Delhi's Sri Lanka policy should have been based exclusively on altruist values of the kind that the LTTE wants it to follow than otherwise.
"India cannot make any healthy, fruitful contribution as long as it approached our struggle as an integral part of their national political equation," senior LTTE leader K V Balakumaran said recently, implying as if New Delhi were too keen to get involved. "Indian policy-makers are viewing the Tamil people's struggle through the lens of their country's political welfare," he said further. LTTE's demand for a separate State of 'Tamil Eelam' is based on similar perceptions.
All theories, modern and ancient, declare that securing the "political welfare" of the country is the supreme duty of a State. If that were India's only concern, there were other ways than getting involved in the 'ethnic issue', for India to have ensured its "political welfare". It had not done so, then or now.
"We have said clearly that 'Tamil Eelam' is not against India. We will uphold Indian welfare as our own," Balakumaran reiterated. "We believe firmly, our strong cultural ties to our brothers and sisters in India will help their policy-makers to select a just and fair path towards our people," he added. To the extent it indicated a shift a shift in the LTTE's approach, if not attitude, it is welcome.
Clearly, Balakumaran was seeking to widen the LTTE's more recent narrow interpretations of the 'Indian thinking' that had limited more public appeals to the Tamils in India. In doing so, his appeal, unlike the previous ones, addressed the Indian policy-maker -- and not any individual section of the Indian society, say those in Tamil Nadu, over the head of the Government of India and the Tamil Nadu Government.
Balakumaran also declared that the LTTE was "open to examine credible alternate proposals". As he pointed out, "this request has not received the attention it deserved". Though this indicated a confused mind, for LTTE to propose one thing to India, and another to the Sri Lankan Government, the very fact that the outfit was ready to consider a political solution should be welcome.
At the same time, visiting TNA parliamentarian S Jeynandamoorthy talked in Oslo about the 'Sinhalacisation in the East'. The Rajapaksa Government, he said, "is attempting to seek regional recognition, especially from India, as it attempts to seek foreign funds for implementing a colonisation agenda in the East".
It is another matter that the East now has a Tamil Chief Minister. Sivanesathurai Chandrakanthan, alias Pillaiyan, is reported to be planning a meeting with foreign diplomats based in Colombo seeking funds for reconstruction and developmental works in the Province. However, the TNA parliamentarian said it was a 'proxy administration' that was ruling the East only because it did not carry the LTTE's stamp of approval.
The current LTTE position is conditioned by the military reverses on the one hand and the increasing pressure on the LTTE-sympathetic sections of the Sri Lankan Tamil Diaspora, on the other. That the 'international safety-net' against the LTTE is widening is all too visible.
In Oslo, however, Jeyanandamoorthy said, "In the current context, the voice of Diaspora Tamil community is the only democratic voice we have." If reports from Colombo that LTTE bombers in Sri Lanka took their orders from Diaspora members settled in countries such as the UK and Malaysia are correct, the host Governments may have a different view of the Diaspora, too.
To the extent the LTTE has been reviving calls for peace negotiations from time to time, there is a clear indication that they are losing ground, not winning any. It is thus that the near-simultaneous assertion of the LTTE political wing leader B Nadesan assumes relevance. "The conventional army loses if it does not win, but a liberation movement wins if it does not lose," he said. It was a clear indication of the LTTE's near-acceptance of the ground realities.
In the same vein, Nadesan also rejected the suggestions for the LTTE to lay down or decommission weapons before recommencing peace talks. "Any approach that disturbs the balance of power and parity of status (between the Sri Lankan Government and the LTTE) is counter-productive to the peace process," Nadesan said, reassuring the Tamil community, for effect, that the LTTE would win the ongoing war. "We are presently engaging only in defensive warfare," he said, again reflecting a ground reality that has been forced on the LTTE – and not made out of choice.
The LTTE's call for 'parity' of the kind between the State and non-State actors formed the basis for CFA negotiations earlier but is unacceptable to the incumbent Government of President Mahinda Rajapaksa – at least as of now. For its part, the Norwegian peace facilitator from the CFA days has kept the peace doors open. "The policies guiding our engagement with Sri Lanka remain firm, and will not change," Norway's Deputy Foreign Minister, Raymond Johansen said in a statement.
Johansen reiterated Norwegian commitment to "respecting Sri Lanka's territorial integrity", triggering proxy reaction from the pro-LTTE website Tamilnet. "It is understandable when powers aspiring for international imperialism or regional imperialism coming out with statements guaranteeing territorial integrity of Sri Lanka," a Tamilnet columnist said, in an obvious reference to India.
" But why a country such as Norway should take sides against an ongoing struggle of a people, by officially coming out with statements on territorial integrity, is the question, that too when it is committed to peace facilitation?" the Tamilnet asked.
Norway would "support a negotiated settlement that addressed the legitimate grievances of the Tamil-speaking community and is acceptable to all communities," Minister Johansen said. This, in a way, reflected the evolved Indian position on the subject. This too could not be to the liking of the LTTE.
"There is a conflict in Sri Lanka," Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told the new batch of probationers to the Indian Foreign Service (IFS) a fortnight back.
"Tragic though it is, it has given a lot of worries because many times it happens that when ethnic tensions increase, there is a tendency of increased inflow of refugees in our country and this creates both domestic problems as well as foreign policy problems."
The message, if any, was not just to the LTTE but to the Sri Lankan Government, as well.
(The writer is Director, Chennai Chapter of the Observer Research Foundation (ORF), the Indian policy think-tank, headquartered in New Delhi. The views expressed here are those of the writer's, and not of the Foundation's.)
- Sri Lanka Guardian
(June 23, Chennai, Sri Lanka Guardian) Is it a 'sin' for a State to put supreme national interests at the top of its agenda? The public discourse within the LTTE revolving around India would make it look as if New Delhi's Sri Lanka policy should have been based exclusively on altruist values of the kind that the LTTE wants it to follow than otherwise.
"India cannot make any healthy, fruitful contribution as long as it approached our struggle as an integral part of their national political equation," senior LTTE leader K V Balakumaran said recently, implying as if New Delhi were too keen to get involved. "Indian policy-makers are viewing the Tamil people's struggle through the lens of their country's political welfare," he said further. LTTE's demand for a separate State of 'Tamil Eelam' is based on similar perceptions.
All theories, modern and ancient, declare that securing the "political welfare" of the country is the supreme duty of a State. If that were India's only concern, there were other ways than getting involved in the 'ethnic issue', for India to have ensured its "political welfare". It had not done so, then or now.
"We have said clearly that 'Tamil Eelam' is not against India. We will uphold Indian welfare as our own," Balakumaran reiterated. "We believe firmly, our strong cultural ties to our brothers and sisters in India will help their policy-makers to select a just and fair path towards our people," he added. To the extent it indicated a shift a shift in the LTTE's approach, if not attitude, it is welcome.
Clearly, Balakumaran was seeking to widen the LTTE's more recent narrow interpretations of the 'Indian thinking' that had limited more public appeals to the Tamils in India. In doing so, his appeal, unlike the previous ones, addressed the Indian policy-maker -- and not any individual section of the Indian society, say those in Tamil Nadu, over the head of the Government of India and the Tamil Nadu Government.
Balakumaran also declared that the LTTE was "open to examine credible alternate proposals". As he pointed out, "this request has not received the attention it deserved". Though this indicated a confused mind, for LTTE to propose one thing to India, and another to the Sri Lankan Government, the very fact that the outfit was ready to consider a political solution should be welcome.
At the same time, visiting TNA parliamentarian S Jeynandamoorthy talked in Oslo about the 'Sinhalacisation in the East'. The Rajapaksa Government, he said, "is attempting to seek regional recognition, especially from India, as it attempts to seek foreign funds for implementing a colonisation agenda in the East".
It is another matter that the East now has a Tamil Chief Minister. Sivanesathurai Chandrakanthan, alias Pillaiyan, is reported to be planning a meeting with foreign diplomats based in Colombo seeking funds for reconstruction and developmental works in the Province. However, the TNA parliamentarian said it was a 'proxy administration' that was ruling the East only because it did not carry the LTTE's stamp of approval.
The current LTTE position is conditioned by the military reverses on the one hand and the increasing pressure on the LTTE-sympathetic sections of the Sri Lankan Tamil Diaspora, on the other. That the 'international safety-net' against the LTTE is widening is all too visible.
In Oslo, however, Jeyanandamoorthy said, "In the current context, the voice of Diaspora Tamil community is the only democratic voice we have." If reports from Colombo that LTTE bombers in Sri Lanka took their orders from Diaspora members settled in countries such as the UK and Malaysia are correct, the host Governments may have a different view of the Diaspora, too.
To the extent the LTTE has been reviving calls for peace negotiations from time to time, there is a clear indication that they are losing ground, not winning any. It is thus that the near-simultaneous assertion of the LTTE political wing leader B Nadesan assumes relevance. "The conventional army loses if it does not win, but a liberation movement wins if it does not lose," he said. It was a clear indication of the LTTE's near-acceptance of the ground realities.
In the same vein, Nadesan also rejected the suggestions for the LTTE to lay down or decommission weapons before recommencing peace talks. "Any approach that disturbs the balance of power and parity of status (between the Sri Lankan Government and the LTTE) is counter-productive to the peace process," Nadesan said, reassuring the Tamil community, for effect, that the LTTE would win the ongoing war. "We are presently engaging only in defensive warfare," he said, again reflecting a ground reality that has been forced on the LTTE – and not made out of choice.
The LTTE's call for 'parity' of the kind between the State and non-State actors formed the basis for CFA negotiations earlier but is unacceptable to the incumbent Government of President Mahinda Rajapaksa – at least as of now. For its part, the Norwegian peace facilitator from the CFA days has kept the peace doors open. "The policies guiding our engagement with Sri Lanka remain firm, and will not change," Norway's Deputy Foreign Minister, Raymond Johansen said in a statement.
Johansen reiterated Norwegian commitment to "respecting Sri Lanka's territorial integrity", triggering proxy reaction from the pro-LTTE website Tamilnet. "It is understandable when powers aspiring for international imperialism or regional imperialism coming out with statements guaranteeing territorial integrity of Sri Lanka," a Tamilnet columnist said, in an obvious reference to India.
" But why a country such as Norway should take sides against an ongoing struggle of a people, by officially coming out with statements on territorial integrity, is the question, that too when it is committed to peace facilitation?" the Tamilnet asked.
Norway would "support a negotiated settlement that addressed the legitimate grievances of the Tamil-speaking community and is acceptable to all communities," Minister Johansen said. This, in a way, reflected the evolved Indian position on the subject. This too could not be to the liking of the LTTE.
"There is a conflict in Sri Lanka," Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told the new batch of probationers to the Indian Foreign Service (IFS) a fortnight back.
"Tragic though it is, it has given a lot of worries because many times it happens that when ethnic tensions increase, there is a tendency of increased inflow of refugees in our country and this creates both domestic problems as well as foreign policy problems."
The message, if any, was not just to the LTTE but to the Sri Lankan Government, as well.
(The writer is Director, Chennai Chapter of the Observer Research Foundation (ORF), the Indian policy think-tank, headquartered in New Delhi. The views expressed here are those of the writer's, and not of the Foundation's.)
- Sri Lanka Guardian
Post a Comment