The Liberation Tigers this week called on the India government to put their mutual acrimonious past behind and to take a fresh approach to the Tamil question in Sri Lanka.
In an extensive interview with an Indian television channel, the LTTE’s theoretician and Chief Negotiator, Mr. Anton Balasingham, sought a ‘new relationship’ with India so that the south Asian giant could play an ‘active role’ to resolve the Sri Lanka’s ethnic conflict.
In comments that sparked a frenzy of media interest in India and not a little controversy, Mr. Balasingham said that the assassination of former Premier Rajiv Gandhi, which India blamed on the LTTE, was “a great tragedy, a monumental historical tragedy.”
Saying “we call upon the Government of India and people of India to be magnanimous to put the past behind and to approach the ethnic question in a different perspective,” Mr. Balasingham said the event has to be seen in its political and historical context of the time, involving the military intervention of India and a war between the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) and the LTTE in the late eighties.
Mr. Balasingham’s comments came in extracts of a lengthy interview to NDTV, a privately owned Indian channel which interviewed the LTTE ideologue on Sunday. The full interview is to be broadcast in the coming days, but an extract broadcast Tuesday carried both the LTTE’s expression of regret over the Gandhi assassination and its call for Delhi to take a more evenhanded and active role in Sri Lanka.
Mr. Balasingham also welcomed the Manmohan Singh government’s tough stand against the killing of Tamil civilians by Sri Lanka’s armed forces and Delhi’s support for autonomy for the Tamils of Sri Lanka as a solution to the island’s conflict.
Saying India had “played a detached role” in Sri Lankan affairs since the assassination of Mr. Gandhi, Mr. Balasingham said “what we feel is India should actively involve in the peace process.”
“India has been silent for the last 15 years and adopted a detached role. Now (that) there is possibility of war emerging [in Sri Lanka], so she can’t keep quiet but she has to face challenges... and to adopt ... orientate a new foreign policy towards her neighbour for which the relationship between the LTTE and India is crucial.”
In response to a question by NDTV correspondent Noopur Tiwari on whether the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord led to Rajiv Gandhi’s death, Mr. Balasingham said: “No. It happened later on. What has happened is, since we rejected the Sri Lankan accord there were a lot of events that took place creating a gulf between the LTTE and the Govt of India and the Indians later sent an IPKF to disarm the LTTE and eventually broke out into an open confrontation. We fought a guerrilla war against the Indian army for 2 years and finally the Sri Lankans. We had a negotiation with Sri Lanka and secured the withdrawal of the Indian troops in the 90’s and of course finally it was followed by the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi.”
“As far as that event is concerned, I would say it is a great tragedy, a monumental historical tragedy for which we deeply regret and we call upon the Govt of India and people of India to be magnanimous to put the past behind and to approach the ethnic question in a different perspective.”
Asked if the LTTE could promise that it would not commit such acts again, Mr. Balasingham went on: “We have made pledges to the government of India that under no circumstances we will act against the interest of the government of India.”
“I think we are prepared to build up a new understanding... a new relationship with the government of India provided she makes a positive gesture and it is up to the government of India because we have already pledged that we will never to do anything or act anything inimical to the geo-political interest of India.
“So if the past is put aside and if a new approach is made, then there is possibility of India playing a positive active role in bringing a resolution to this conflict.”
But Mr. Balasingham underlined that the LTTE did not want from India any “military intervention as has happened in the past” and made it clear nor India cannot play the mediator’s or facilitator’s role as long as it keeps the LTTE outlawed.
He said without “a relationship ... a working relationship between the government of India and the LTTE ... it would be difficult for India to have a mediator’s role.
“The only role which she can play is diplomatically and politically persuading Sri Lanka and LTTE to seek a negotiated settlement rather than involving in a military confrontation. That is what she is doing now.”
“So this kind of intervention ... diplomatic intervention is crucial. It would help to protect our people from (being) subjected to genocidal operations by the Sri Lankan armed forces and also help both the parties to go for a negotiated settlement.”
He agreed that a mass exodus of Tamils from Sri Lanka to India triggered by fresh fighting “will create far-reaching political consequences”. He also referred to appeals from Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Muthuvel Karunanidhi to New Delhi to intervene in Sri Lankan affairs.
“India is responding in that aspect. Therefore as you say India has genuine concerns, geopolitical and national interests in the resolution of this conflict.”
The LTTE ideologue described India as “the regional superpower in South Asia” and said she just cannot ignore “this conflict” in her backyard.
“India has genuine national and geopolitical interest in that region. She has to insure that there is peace and stability in the environment.”
Delhi has not formally responded to the LTTE’s overtures.
Analysts said a snap reaction by a junior minister was not reflective of Delhi’s considerations, particularly given that India’s Junior Foreign Minister Anand Sharma also denied a well known truism: that India had trained and armed the LTTE in the early 1980s.
“The people of India cannot forget the dastardly crime committed by the LTTE or at their behest,” Mr. Sharma told reporters.
“Seeking our forgiveness would be tantamount to endorsing their philosophy of terror, violence and assassination,” said Mr. Sharma, who was a close aide of Gandhi.
The LTTE’s expression of regret is not new - at the April 2002 press conference in Kilinochchi, LTTE leader Vellupillai Pirapaharan also described the Gandhi killing as a ‘thunbiyal’ (sorrowful event).
However, it is the first time that the LTTE has directly called on India to take a pro-active role in resolving the island’s conflict.
Avowed opponents of the LTTE in India reacted furiously to the LTTE’s olive branch, heaping vitriol on the movement and saying it’s expression of regret ‘was nothing new.’
One frequent and vocal critic of the LTTE, Dr. Subramaniam Swamy, took the opportunity, to attack Rajiv Gandhi’s widow and now Congress Party leader, Sonia Gandhi, describing her as “the prime beneficiary” of her husband’s death.
“The widow of Rajiv Gandhi and the prime beneficiary of his assassination, Ms. Sonia Gandhi, have legitimized pro-LTTE political parties in India by openly allying with them in elections and sharing power in government. It is time for the Congress Party to prove it’s bonafides in the assassination by dispatching a commando unit with GPS locator to hunt for Prabhkaran and his associates, and bring them to trial in India,” Dr. Swamy said.
Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated by a suicide bomber in 1991, a year after the withdrawal of Indian troops that he as Premier in 1987 had despatched to enforce the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord.
The LTTE refused to accept the Accord, but agreed not to oppose it. But after several of its leaders were arrested by the Sri Lanka Navy in defiance of the Accord and committed suicide in military custody, the LTTE halted its surrender of its weapons.
The Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) was then ordered to disarm the LTTE by force. The IPKF failed to crush the LTTE and was ordered out by Sri Lankan President R. Premadasa in 1990. By then over one thousand Indian soldiers and 1500 LTTE fighters had died – along with a staggering five thousand Tamil civilians.
Elaborating on the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord itself, Mr. Balasingham told NDTV on Sunday: “We were not very happy with the political solution proposed by India because it did not satisfy the political aspirations of our people. If India has offered a federal solution as she has in her own country then we would have definitely responded positively but the provincial administration suggested by India was totally inadequate to meet the demands of the Tamil people so that’s why we did not support the accord.”
In an extensive interview with an Indian television channel, the LTTE’s theoretician and Chief Negotiator, Mr. Anton Balasingham, sought a ‘new relationship’ with India so that the south Asian giant could play an ‘active role’ to resolve the Sri Lanka’s ethnic conflict.
In comments that sparked a frenzy of media interest in India and not a little controversy, Mr. Balasingham said that the assassination of former Premier Rajiv Gandhi, which India blamed on the LTTE, was “a great tragedy, a monumental historical tragedy.”
Saying “we call upon the Government of India and people of India to be magnanimous to put the past behind and to approach the ethnic question in a different perspective,” Mr. Balasingham said the event has to be seen in its political and historical context of the time, involving the military intervention of India and a war between the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) and the LTTE in the late eighties.
Mr. Balasingham’s comments came in extracts of a lengthy interview to NDTV, a privately owned Indian channel which interviewed the LTTE ideologue on Sunday. The full interview is to be broadcast in the coming days, but an extract broadcast Tuesday carried both the LTTE’s expression of regret over the Gandhi assassination and its call for Delhi to take a more evenhanded and active role in Sri Lanka.
Mr. Balasingham also welcomed the Manmohan Singh government’s tough stand against the killing of Tamil civilians by Sri Lanka’s armed forces and Delhi’s support for autonomy for the Tamils of Sri Lanka as a solution to the island’s conflict.
Saying India had “played a detached role” in Sri Lankan affairs since the assassination of Mr. Gandhi, Mr. Balasingham said “what we feel is India should actively involve in the peace process.”
“India has been silent for the last 15 years and adopted a detached role. Now (that) there is possibility of war emerging [in Sri Lanka], so she can’t keep quiet but she has to face challenges... and to adopt ... orientate a new foreign policy towards her neighbour for which the relationship between the LTTE and India is crucial.”
In response to a question by NDTV correspondent Noopur Tiwari on whether the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord led to Rajiv Gandhi’s death, Mr. Balasingham said: “No. It happened later on. What has happened is, since we rejected the Sri Lankan accord there were a lot of events that took place creating a gulf between the LTTE and the Govt of India and the Indians later sent an IPKF to disarm the LTTE and eventually broke out into an open confrontation. We fought a guerrilla war against the Indian army for 2 years and finally the Sri Lankans. We had a negotiation with Sri Lanka and secured the withdrawal of the Indian troops in the 90’s and of course finally it was followed by the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi.”
“As far as that event is concerned, I would say it is a great tragedy, a monumental historical tragedy for which we deeply regret and we call upon the Govt of India and people of India to be magnanimous to put the past behind and to approach the ethnic question in a different perspective.”
Asked if the LTTE could promise that it would not commit such acts again, Mr. Balasingham went on: “We have made pledges to the government of India that under no circumstances we will act against the interest of the government of India.”
“I think we are prepared to build up a new understanding... a new relationship with the government of India provided she makes a positive gesture and it is up to the government of India because we have already pledged that we will never to do anything or act anything inimical to the geo-political interest of India.
“So if the past is put aside and if a new approach is made, then there is possibility of India playing a positive active role in bringing a resolution to this conflict.”
But Mr. Balasingham underlined that the LTTE did not want from India any “military intervention as has happened in the past” and made it clear nor India cannot play the mediator’s or facilitator’s role as long as it keeps the LTTE outlawed.
He said without “a relationship ... a working relationship between the government of India and the LTTE ... it would be difficult for India to have a mediator’s role.
“The only role which she can play is diplomatically and politically persuading Sri Lanka and LTTE to seek a negotiated settlement rather than involving in a military confrontation. That is what she is doing now.”
“So this kind of intervention ... diplomatic intervention is crucial. It would help to protect our people from (being) subjected to genocidal operations by the Sri Lankan armed forces and also help both the parties to go for a negotiated settlement.”
He agreed that a mass exodus of Tamils from Sri Lanka to India triggered by fresh fighting “will create far-reaching political consequences”. He also referred to appeals from Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Muthuvel Karunanidhi to New Delhi to intervene in Sri Lankan affairs.
“India is responding in that aspect. Therefore as you say India has genuine concerns, geopolitical and national interests in the resolution of this conflict.”
The LTTE ideologue described India as “the regional superpower in South Asia” and said she just cannot ignore “this conflict” in her backyard.
“India has genuine national and geopolitical interest in that region. She has to insure that there is peace and stability in the environment.”
Delhi has not formally responded to the LTTE’s overtures.
Analysts said a snap reaction by a junior minister was not reflective of Delhi’s considerations, particularly given that India’s Junior Foreign Minister Anand Sharma also denied a well known truism: that India had trained and armed the LTTE in the early 1980s.
“The people of India cannot forget the dastardly crime committed by the LTTE or at their behest,” Mr. Sharma told reporters.
“Seeking our forgiveness would be tantamount to endorsing their philosophy of terror, violence and assassination,” said Mr. Sharma, who was a close aide of Gandhi.
The LTTE’s expression of regret is not new - at the April 2002 press conference in Kilinochchi, LTTE leader Vellupillai Pirapaharan also described the Gandhi killing as a ‘thunbiyal’ (sorrowful event).
However, it is the first time that the LTTE has directly called on India to take a pro-active role in resolving the island’s conflict.
Avowed opponents of the LTTE in India reacted furiously to the LTTE’s olive branch, heaping vitriol on the movement and saying it’s expression of regret ‘was nothing new.’
One frequent and vocal critic of the LTTE, Dr. Subramaniam Swamy, took the opportunity, to attack Rajiv Gandhi’s widow and now Congress Party leader, Sonia Gandhi, describing her as “the prime beneficiary” of her husband’s death.
“The widow of Rajiv Gandhi and the prime beneficiary of his assassination, Ms. Sonia Gandhi, have legitimized pro-LTTE political parties in India by openly allying with them in elections and sharing power in government. It is time for the Congress Party to prove it’s bonafides in the assassination by dispatching a commando unit with GPS locator to hunt for Prabhkaran and his associates, and bring them to trial in India,” Dr. Swamy said.
Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated by a suicide bomber in 1991, a year after the withdrawal of Indian troops that he as Premier in 1987 had despatched to enforce the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord.
The LTTE refused to accept the Accord, but agreed not to oppose it. But after several of its leaders were arrested by the Sri Lanka Navy in defiance of the Accord and committed suicide in military custody, the LTTE halted its surrender of its weapons.
The Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) was then ordered to disarm the LTTE by force. The IPKF failed to crush the LTTE and was ordered out by Sri Lankan President R. Premadasa in 1990. By then over one thousand Indian soldiers and 1500 LTTE fighters had died – along with a staggering five thousand Tamil civilians.
Elaborating on the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord itself, Mr. Balasingham told NDTV on Sunday: “We were not very happy with the political solution proposed by India because it did not satisfy the political aspirations of our people. If India has offered a federal solution as she has in her own country then we would have definitely responded positively but the provincial administration suggested by India was totally inadequate to meet the demands of the Tamil people so that’s why we did not support the accord.”
