We are happy that BJP is the only national party now evincing keen interest and involvement in the problems of Tamils.The past experience will reveal on how many meaningful dialogues have failed between India and Srilanka ever since both countries attained Independence from British colonialism. The list of pacts and the clauses in these pacts which could not be implemented too will provide an insight into what went wrong in initiatives to usher in peace to gain equality for all Srilankan citizens. The few pages of historical importance in The Elusive Dove: An assessment of conflict resolution initiatives in Srilanka 1957 to 1996 will also provide with insight into the intricacies and nuances in various attempts to solve the ethnic conflict. Draft provisions of the Constitution containing the proposals of the Government of Srilanka relating to devolution of power will give an idea to what extent then President Chandrika Kumaratunga was willing to concede.
The pacts our nation entered into with neighboring Srilanka and its failure should be borne in mind. We must introspect the fall out of Srimavo-Shastri Pact, Rajiv Gandhi- Jayewardene Pact and long list of broken pacts compiled by Srilanka based NGO and condensed in our party’s white paper . A booklet The Unspeakable Truth in nutshell traces the history of the ethnic conflict including points to stress the futility of engaging Srilanka for a meaningful devolution and decentralization of powers.
The violent freedom struggle and how Tamils faced genocide wherein Srilanka is accused of war crimes and genocide is occupying our minds. But at same time how to redeem living millions from the clutches of slavery should also draw our attention.
In post ethnic war period throughout the world Tamils of Eelam were thunder struck and felt their lives had reached dead end. Then we suggested Government in exile to win liberation through democratic route. We also mooted the concept of Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam.
We were the first to suggest this. This did not emanate from LTTE. After few days it was endorsed by them, anointing Kumaran Padmanabhan as head of such state. After that person’s detention and switching over to the Srilankan side to betray Tamils, through initiatives of Tamils spread across nations, now a Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam is functioning in USA. Throughout countries through publicly conducted elections by neutral observers Tamils of Eelam eschewing the path of violent armed freedom struggle had elected a full fledged Government in Exile housed in USA.
We wish India should recognize the Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam on the lines it recognizes Tibetan Government in exile.
It is from 1100 in Europe States sprung up gradually but the Treaty of Westphalia 1648 established the international system based on plurality of independent states. [Antonio Cassese, International Law in a iv ie world pp 88-7]
Three multi-national federations’ broke up: Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia in nineties. New states entered the horizons. European Council of Ministers adopted Helsinki norms for recognizing new states. New states should be constituted on democratic basis, must accept provisions of UN charter, The Helsinki Final Act, the CSCE charter of Paris with regard to rule of law, democracy, human rights, safeguarding the rights of minorities etc. On these principles new states were recognized by European Union.
In the Post-Eelam War Phase when violent armed struggle ended, I wrote to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and other leaders of the European Union to recognize the Tamil Eelam Government in Exile.
I would like to recall that I wrote to Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh urging him to consider annexing Tamil Eelam as one of the Indian states, if they are against Tamil separate state. Tamils of Eelam would be safe within India instead of being forced into unitary Srilanka, I thought. My letter called for UN Plebiscite to decide the question of whether Tamils want separate state or want to be within unitary Srilankan state or could vote to be under Indian Union. This appeal was not heeded.
There are states, dependencies and areas of special sovereignty. India could have Tamil Eelam as its dependency instead of allowing it to be crushed by the bloodthirsty Srilankan State. In my videos calling for an Eye opening seminar on Eelam, I argued that how come India which accepted Mahatma Gandhi’s prescription for division of India and Pakistan is putting road blocks to division between Buddhist Srilanka and Hindu Tamil Eelam, of course inclusive of minorities on both sides of division. If husband and wife have rights to divorce how come that last option too is denied to Tamils of Eelam, I pointed out. My appeals on Srilankan ethnic conflict went to all Chief Ministers of India, and with gratitude I must place on record that only Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi responded by email and Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Raman Singh acknowledged my letter. Since I had participated in the International Convention for Solidarity with Eelam Tamils of Srilanka organized in 14 th July 1997 by Comrade George Fernandes with whom I am associated for four decades, I planned the Eye Opening Seminar which did not take place. Now it is heartening to note BJP is planning a National Convention on Tamils problems.
Dependies with Special Sovereignty : Published by the U.S. Department of State Website at http://www.state.gov maintained by the Bureau of Public Affairs.
The list would provide India to deliberate this option too that is to have Tamil Eelam as dependency of India with special sovereignty.
But Tamils of Eelam are looking at United Nations various initiatives. I must recall how an UN observer was sent to hold referendum for the last colony of New Zealand, a tiny island called Atoll of Atafu with less than thousand population, and UN helped for the aborigines of that island gain independence through referendum.
Atafu, formerly known as the Duke of York Group is a group of 42 coral islets within Tokelau in the south Pacific Ocean, 500 km north of Samoa. [1] . Covering 2.5 km², it is the smallest of the three islands that constitute Tokelau, and is composed of an atoll surrounding a central lagoon, which itself covers some 15 km². The atoll lies some 800 kilometers south of the equator at 8° 35′ south, 172° 30′ west. According to the 2006 census 524 people officially live on Atafu (however just 417 were present at census night
The basis of Tokelau’s legislative, administrative and judicial systems is the Tokelau Islands Act 1948 and its amendments. In November 1974 the administration of Tokelau was transferred from the Mäori and Island Affairs Department to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. From then until September 1980, when the Tokelau administration regulations were amended, the New Zealand Secretary of Foreign Affairs was the administrator of Tokelau. New regulations then came into force whereby the Minister of Foreign Affairs was empowered to appoint a suitable person to be the Administrator of Tokelau. The New Zealand flag is used and the anthem is God Save the Queen.
Most of the powers of the administrator are delegated to Tokelau. As from 1 July 2004 the delegations will be with the 3 council of elders. The principal organ of local government on each island is the taupulega (council of elders). Differences exist in the composition of the taupulega of the three atolls. In Atafu the council comprises the head of each family group together with the faipule and the pulenuku. In Fakaofo the council is formed by the faipule, the pulenuku and the village elders; the heads of families are only consulted when the council requires their advice. The Nukunonu council is a combination of the two; the elders, the heads of extended families, the faipule and the pulenuku.
Law
The legislation and judicial systems are based on the Tokelau Act, 1948, and its amendments. A major law reform project is continuing; its purpose is to ensure that Tokelau has a coherent body of law which responds to current needs and gives due recognition to local custom.
Unless it is expressly extended to Tokelau, New Zealand statute law does not apply to the territory. In practice, no New Zealand legislation is extended to Tokelau without Tokelauan consent. The villages have the statutory power to enact their own laws covering village affairs. International covenants on economic, social and cultural rights and civil and political rights, ratified by New Zealand in December 1978, apply in Tokelau. Civil and criminal jurisdiction is exercised by commissioners and the New Zealand high court.
There are nine Tokelauan police officers – three each on Fakaofo, Nukunonu and Atafu. They are responsible to the village authorities for the enforcement of law and order and to the public service for their various civil duties. There is little crime apart from petty theft and there are no prisons. Punishment generally takes the form of public rebukes, fines or labour.
Even this degree and quantum of freedom available to 524 people of an island nation won’t be given to Tamils of Eelam and United Nations failed to protect the Tamils of Eelam.
Timor-Leste: Independence through referendum
Anthropological investigations indicate that the first people to arrive in Timor, approximately 40,000 to 20,000 years BC, were of the Vedo-Australoide type, similar to the Vedas of Ceylon. A second wave, which arrived around 3000 years BC, consisted of Melanesians, similar to those living today in Papua New-Guinea and some Pacific Islands. Probably due to the mountainous nature of the country, these new arrivals did not mix with the former inhabitants, who withdrew to the interior mountainous regions. This may be one reason why Timor-Leste has so many different languages. A third wave of people who arrived around 2500 BC consisted of ‘proto-malays’ – people coming from South China and North Indochina. Even today the Chinese in Timor-Leste, mainly Hakka, are one of the more important trading communities.
The Portuguese colonize Timor
The Portuguese reached the coast of Timor on what is now the enclave of Oecussi around 1515. They made huge profits from exports of sandalwood but eventually overexploited this resource. As sandalwood became almost extinct the Portuguese in 1815 introduced coffee plantations, along with sugar cane and cotton. Timor-Leste remained largely underdeveloped with an economy based on barter. Prior to World War II, the capital, Dili, had no electricity or water supply and there were few roads. Even so, before the Second World War, Timor-Leste was seen as strategically important. When World War II started the Australians and the Dutch, aware of Timor’s importance of as a buffer zone, landed in Dili despite Portuguese protests. The Japanese then used the presence of the Australians as a pretext for an invasion in February 1942 and stayed until September 1945. By the end of the war Timor was in ruins. Approximately 50,000 Timorese had lost their lives as a result of Japanese occupation and the efforts of the Timorese to resist the invaders and protect Australia. People were also forced to give food to the Japanese, so when the Japanese finally surrendered the scene in Timor was one of human misery and devastation.
The 1960s – a new era of Portuguese colonialism
The Timorese and the Portuguese tried to help the country recover. But development was slow. The average annual growth rate between 1953 and 1962 was just 2%. Meanwhile the United Nations declared Timor-Leste a non-self governing territory under Portuguese administration. It was only then that Portugal tried seriously and systematically to develop Timor-Leste through three successive five-year plans. Portugal governed Timor-Leste with a combination of direct and indirect rule, managing the population as a whole through the traditional power structures rather than by using colonial civil servants. This left traditional Timorese society almost untouched.
In 1974, however, the ‘transition to democracy’ in Portugal had a sudden impact on all its colonies. The political climates in Portugal shifted to the left and for the first time the Timorese were given freedom to form their own political parties.
On August 11, 1975, the more conservative Timorese parties launched a coup in an attempt to seize power from the Portuguese and prevent the ascendancy of the left-wing Frente Revolucionária do Timor Leste Independente (Fretilin). Clashes between the two main Timorese contenders escalated into violence resulting in more than 2,000 deaths. On November 28, 1975, Fretilin declared Timor-Leste as the República Democrática de Timor Leste (RDTL). RDTL was recognized just by a few countries, mainly former Portuguese colonies, and was short-lived. Ten days later on December 7 1975 Indonesian troops invaded.
The Indonesian occupation
Some 60,000 people lost their lives in the early years of Indonesian annexation – contributing to a total of about 200,000 deaths for the whole period of their administration. In an effort to stamp greater control over its dissident new province – whose seizure was condemned by the United Nations – Indonesia invested considerable sums in Timor-Leste leading to more rapid economic growth which averaged 6% per year over the period 1983-1997. Unlike the Portuguese the Indonesians favoured strong, direct rule, this was never accepted by the Timorese people who were determined to preserve their culture and national identity. In 1991, the Indonesian military gave permission for a parliamentary delegation from Portugal. The visit was cancelled at the last minute. Immediately, the Indonesian military went on the attack. A young student, Sebastião Gomes, was killed and many others were arrested. On November 12, 1991 thousands of Timorese marched towards the Santa Cruz cemetery to mourn for Sebastião Gomes. The Indonesian Army opened fire and killed more than 200 people. The ‘Santa Cruz Massacre’ marked a turning point in the brutal occupation of Timor-Leste as the shocking images were beamed around the world. Individuals and organizations started to put increasing pressure on their governments and on international organizations on behalf of Timor-Leste. The imprisonment of resistance leader Xanana Gusmão in 1992 also put the spotlight on the human rights situation. Indonesia found itself in an increasingly difficult position which culminated in October 1996 when the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to two Timorese leaders, Bishop Ximenes Belo and José Ramos Horta, adding to the growing assertiveness of the independence movement. Then in 1997 and 1998, Soeharto’s New Order was shaken by a severe economic crisis, leading to widespread demands for political change. Soeharto was forced to resign and was replaced by his vice-president, Dr. Habibie. President Habibie was unwilling to maintain the ‘burden’ of such an expensive province and in January 1999 offered Timor-Leste ‘wide-ranging autonomy’. Should the Timorese reject this then Indonesia would be prepared to ‘let Timor-Leste go’. An agreement on a popular consultation in Timor-Leste was finally reached in May 1999 under the auspices of UN Secretary-General Kofi Anan.
A referendum for freedom
The UN started to prepare for the referendum by setting up the United Nations Assistance Mission for Timor-Leste, UNAMET. On June 3, 1999 the UN raised its flag on the soil of Timor-Leste. In September 1999 the people of Timor-Leste voted overwhelmingly – 78% – in favour of independence from Indonesia. The pro-integration militia gangs and the Indonesian armed forces responded with extraordinary brutality, rampaging and plundering across the country. As a result, one-third of the population was forced to resettle in refugee camps in West Timor and neighbouring islands. Another one-third looked for refuge in the mountains of Timor-Leste. Between 1,000 and 2,000 people are reported to have died in the violence. The UN Security Council authorized a multinational force (INTERFET) under the unified command structure of a member state, Australia, to restore peace and security. The UN also launched a large-scale humanitarian operation including food supplies and other basic services. On October 25 1999, the UN Security Council established the United Nations Transitional Administration in Timor-Leste (UNTAET) as an integrated, multidimensional peacekeeping operation responsible for the administration of Timor-Leste during its transition to independence.
Independence
On August 30, 2001, Timor-Leste had its first free elections – for representatives who were charged with writing a new Constitution. This was agreed on March 24, 2002. On May 20th, Timor-Leste became the world’s newest democracy and the first new country of the third millennium. The celebrations took place at Taci Tolou just outside Dili, a former mass grave site, and were attended by dignitaries including United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, former President of the United States Bill Clinton and perhaps most significantly, President Megawati of Indonesia. Click here for pictures of the celebrations. At midnight on May 19th, the new flag of Timor-Leste was raised, the new national anthem was sung and Timor-Leste’s long fight for freedom was finally over.
If UN could grant freedom through referendum in Timor Leste why not India urge United Nations to follow this precedent with regard to Tamil Eelam
Let me quote on the Independence of Sudan that happened before our eyes on 9 th July 2011.
Independence of South Sudan:
On 9 July 2011 South Sudan became the newest country in the world. The birth of the Republic of South Sudan is the culmination of a six-year peace process and a new chapter in a region that has seen little peace in the last 50 years.
New UN Mission in South Sudan
The Security Council established as of 9 July 2011 the United Nations Mission in the Republic of South Sudan (UNMISS) for an initial period of one year. The resolution 1996 (2011) mandates UNMISS to consolidate peace and security, and to help establish the conditions for development with a view to strengthening the capacity of the Government of the Republic of South Sudan to govern effectively and democratically and establish good relations with its neighbours.
Accordingly the Security Council authorizes UNMISS to perform the following tasks:
Support for peace consolidation and thereby fostering longer-term state-building and economic development; Support the Government of the Republic of South Sudan in exercising its responsibilities for conflict prevention, mitigation, and resolution and protect civilians; Support the Government of the Republic of South Sudan, in accordance with the principles of national ownership, and in cooperation with the UN Country Team and other international partners, in developing its capacity to provide security, to establish rule of law, and to strengthen the security and justice sectors;
UNMISS will consist of up to 7,000 military personnel, including military liaison officers and staff officers, up to 900 civilian police personnel.
Closure of UN Mission in Sudan
On 9 July, the mandate of the United Nations Mission in Sudan (UNMIS) will ended following the completion of the six-and-a-half-year interim period set up by the Government of Sudan and SPLM during the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) on 9 January 2005.
On 17 May 2011, the Secretary-General urged the parties and the Security Council to consider a three-month extension of UNMIS due to ongoing security concerns in South Sudan that were directly related to security issues that the North and South had to address together. In his report to the Security Council (S/2011/314), the Secretary-General explained that this period would allow the mission to begin downsizing its presence in Khartoum while assisting the parties in seeking resolution to the ongoing security issues, as well as the residual CPA and post-referendum issues, including finding a mutually acceptable arrangement for monitoring the border.
On 31 May 2011, the Secretary-General transmitted a letter from the Government of Sudan (GoS) to the Security Council (S/2011/333) announcing the Government of Sudan’s decision to terminate the presence of UNMIS as of 9 July 2011.
Under-Secretary-General of the Department of Field Support, Susana Malcorra paid tribute to the work of the mission on a visit to Sudan in July: ‘I believe that the people of this Mission need to be proud of what has been done in the referendum – it was an incredible achievement – it was an incredible challenge that most of the world believed was not going to happen.’ She continued: ‘I think people in this Mission have done an incredible job in the process of DDR; in the processes of for example of mine action – trying to make sure that they clear for mines important extensions of the territory; in supporting all the important mandated tasks by the Security Council but most importantly engaging with the Sudanese in trying to arrive to a better place where peace can be achievable.’
Situation in disputed Abyei
A separate referendum to determine whether the future of the area of Abyei lies in northern or southern Sudan was not held in January 2011 as originally planned, as a result of a failure to establish a referendum commission and lack of agreement on who could vote.
Renewed fighting broke out in the area at the beginning of March, driving an estimated 20,000 people their homes, according to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).
The Security Council, by its resolution 1990 of 27 June 2011, responded to the situation in Sudan’s Abyei region by establishing the United Nations Interim Security Force for Abyei (UNISFA). The Security Council was deeply concerned by the violence, escalating tensions and population displacement. The operation will monitor the flashpoint border between north and south, and is authorized to use force in protecting civilians and humanitarian workers in Abyei.
Referendum process
The referendum to determine the status of Southern Sudan was held on schedule in January 2011, with the overwhelming majority, 98.83% of participants, voting for independence. The Secretary-General welcomed the announcement of the final results, stating that they were reflective of the will of the people of southern Sudan.
The Secretary-General said that the peaceful and credible conduct of the referendum was a great achievement for all Sudanese and he commended the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) partners, the Government of Sudan led by President Omar Hassan Al Bashir, and the Government of Southern Sudan led by President Salva Kiir Mayardit, for keeping their commitment to maintain peace and stability throughout this crucial period. The referendum was called for by the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) between the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), which ended more than 20 years of war.
The Sudanese authorities were responsible for the referendum process. Under the leadership of the Secretary-General, the United Nations provided technical and logistical assistance to the CPA parties’ referendum preparations through support from its peacekeeping missions on the ground in Sudan, as well as the good offices function provided by the Secretary-General’s panel aimed at ensuring the impartiality, independence and effectiveness of the process, and by the UN Integrated Referenda and Electoral Division (UNIRED).
We have given precedents from history. The think tanks of political parties must ponder:
Pre-Civil War proposal:
● By UN referendum to decide whether people of Tamil Eelam want to remain in unitary Srilanka with devolution of powers or want to become another state under Indian Union or want separate Tamil Eelam independent nation and all parties to abide by that decision.
Post-Civil War proposal:
● India to recognize Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam in USA created by democratic means, on similar lines of Tibetan Government of Exile
● Through UN referendum Tamil Eelam could be made dependency of India with special sovereignty
● Through UN referendum Tamil Eelam to become separate sovereign state to be with India to check mate the Chinese encirclement of India and designs to have foothold in Indian Ocean, Bay of Bengal and Arabian Seas to stake claim for under-sea mining through International Sea bed Authority of United Nations.
● BJP to urge India to take the issue of Katcha Teevu, Valideep to the International Tribunal of the Law of Seas to reclaim territory and to seek compensation for lives lost through trigger happy Srilankan navy in contrary to the clauses under Law of Seas.
● BJP to urge India to remove road blocks in UN Security Council for trying Srilanka in war crimes and genocide and initiate global efforts through UN to take this genocide to the International Criminal Court of Justice.
Saluting the leaders of BJP for their concern to redeem Tamils from the theocratic state of Srilanka, Let brain storming sessions yield positive results.
N.Nandhivarman General Secretary Dravida Peravai
I remain forever treading the path of my political mentor Aringnar Anna and Comrade George Fernandes.
Regards
Yours fraternally
N.Nandhivarman
General Secretary Dravida Peravai
28.07.2011
11.932880
79.837067
