APPEAL TO TAMILNADU POLITICAL PARTIES
ON WHAT SHOULD INDIA DO IN TAMIL EELAM CONFLICT:
14th December 1997 Comrade George Fernandes organized one day International Seminar for Solidarity with Eelam Tamils and only 4 Tamil leaders spoke in that Seminar. Pazha.Nedumaran, K.Veeramani, Ira.Janarthanam, N.Nandhivarman. Comrade Thiagu translated the speeches of other leaders. Pazha.Nedumaran brought out a souvenir of that Seminar BLACKING OUT ONLY MY WRITTEN SPEECH . The contents of that speech later in letter form was sent to all India Political parties and leaders. The letter given in verbatim below written in 2008 is still needs to be pondered and introspected by Indian leaders .We reproduce :
Every word of this letter springs from my heart. Tamils are emotional but their political responses should be rational. Yes on the question of Tamilnadu raising voice in Indian Parliament or presenting charter of demands for resolving the Tamil Eelam people’s plight, we should rise above just one- liners, though one liners will suit for television bytes, we have to present better argument to activate the Union cabinet, unfortunately misguided by bureaucracy . No use in repeating like parrots about political solution without spelling what it is. As long as article 2 of Srilankan Constitution says “the Republic of Srilanka is a unitary state” there is no room for federalism and all talk about political solution leads only to dead end. This article blocks political devolution. It is needless to teach the enlightened bureaucracy at Indian government that political devolution means creation of states with sovereign legislative power on subjects allocated or earmarked for that provincial administration. Then the other dangerous provision from the Tamils stand point is article 76 which states “Parliament shall not abdicate or in any manner alienate its legislative power and shall not set up any authority with legislative power”. Tamilnadu must understand that this article blocks political decentralization by all ways and means. If there is no political devolution or political decentralization, what the Government of Srilanka plans to offer on platter to Tamils is nothing but slavery. No Indian model state, not even Union Territory status is what Government of Srilanka is having in its shelves as political solution. India that has article 370 in its constitution cannot even get that equivalent for Eelam Tamils. This is the ground reality. Then all crocodile tears for Tamils is nothing but to conceal their inability to restrain or stop the Government of India from its course to clandestinely support the racist Srilankan Government under the Chinese phobia or Pakistan phobia. Ultimately by playing with these phobias, Srilanka gets the support of India too in its genocidal war. Whoever headed or heads the Srilankan Government, they were never for resolving the conflict satisfying the legitimate demands of the Eelam Tamils. This has to be borne in mind. The past must be evaluated before accepting at face value the verbal gymnastics of Srilankan President Mr.Mahinda Rajapakshe.
Minimum Demands that were never met:
The following would have satisfied legitimate demands of Eelam Tamils, if Srilankan Government had offered before launching the current genocidal war against Eelam Tamils.
A] Repeal of the Article 2 of Srilankan Constitution to pave way for the introduction of federal form of governance, or for a con-federal system of government
B] Repeal of Article 76 to allow political devolution
C] Amending the Article 18 to declare that “the official languages of Srilanka shall be Sinhala and Tamil, enforceable throughout the country without any restrictions.
D] Amending Article 9 to delete “the foremost place” granted to Buddhism and to declare Srilanka a secular state.
These could be termed as minimum demands that could satiate the Tamils of Eelam. These were the demands voiced from much before British left Ceylon, and were the theme of many broken pacts and failed promises, in which Srilankan Governments are aiming for a place in Guinness Record to be the unique country that adopted ethnic cleansing through genocide successfully, while the conscience keepers of this world remained mute spectators.
The reasons for Indo Srilanka Accord’s failure in 1987:
Before looking back at the broken pacts, let us examine what went wrong with the initiatives of Mr.Rajiv Gandhi. Congressmen are bound to answer why his initiative failed, who misguided him. It is a miserable failure to his foreign policy, which any historian of future will record. The bureaucracy under Mr.Rajiv Gandhi’s government negotiated from 30th August 1985 to 19th December 1986 with the Government of Srilanka. India failed to pressurize Srilanka to create a congenial and peaceful atmosphere in Tamil areas, while both countries negotiated a solution to the Tamil’s problem. As of now the Government of Srilanka pursued parallel military campaign against the Tamils of Northern and Eastern provinces, while negotiating with India. The question that haunts us even today is how a tiny island can defy India, refuse to comply with India’s demand to stop the war machine and negotiate peaceful settlement. Having allowed Srilanka during the time of Mr.Rajiv Gandhi’s governance to opt for sweet dialogues here and aerial bombings to annihilate there at same time, it appears the bureaucrat under the guise of politician, Mr.Manmohan Singh, could only repeat that historical blunder. But it is not so. We should take into account what Mr.Rajiv Gandhi did, when Srilanka was continuing with military solution.
The stance of Rajiv Gandhi outwardly appeared as above and invited criticism among Tamils. But he launched a diplomatic campaign among the international community to expose the human rights violations bordering on genocide of the Srilankan government. This yielded fruits in past. The need now is to adopt the same approach, for which Mr.Rajiv Gandhi’s government had set the precedent. The demands of Tamilnadu should be to urge the Government of India to launch a diplomatic offensive against the Srilankan Government, as was initiated by Mr.Rajiv Gandhi himself during his rule. In middle of 1987, as of now the Government of India intervened to provide humanitarian assistance to Tamils and airlifted food supplies to Jaffna peninsula. This forced Srilanka to suspend war and agree for Indo-Srilanka accord. Now while history is repeating, Mr.Manmohan Singh just sends humanitarian assistance in ships but neither pursues the diplomatic pressure built by Mr.Rajiv Gandhi nor made even an inch forward to clinch another accord during recent visit of Mr.Mahinda Rajapakshe, taking into account the past mistakes.
The Indo-Srilankan Agreement of July 1987 paved way for the temporary merger of Northern and Eastern provinces into a unified North-Eastern Province. This merger was to be endorsed by a referendum before the end of 1988. One Provincial Council was set up in North-Eastern Province as well as 7 other provinces. In order to implement this accord Mr.Rajiv Gandhi sent the Indian Peace Keeping Force in the first week of August 1987. The pressure brought by Mr.Rajiv Gandhi also made LTTE agree to cessation of hostilities. LTTE also started handing over weapons to IPKF. So far everything went well. Then how this accord was sabotaged and who torpedoed it? A general amnesty was granted under the accord to “political and other prisoners now held in custody under the Prevention of Terrorism Act and other Emergency laws, and to combatants, as well as those persons accused, charged and or convicted under these laws.” Government of Srilanka, known for treachery which current breed of politicians may have erased from memory withheld amnesty to 1250 Tamil political prisoners. This was done by twisting the amnesty clause to say that it applied only to NEP and not offences committed outside North Eastern Province. LTTE retaliated by suspending surrender of arms. Everyone now in Indian Government, especially the so called National Security Advisers, must refresh their memory. All those who swear allegiance to Mr.Rajiv Gandhi must understand that Mr.Rajiv Gandhi almost was heading to resolve the Tamil Eelam issue, but the betrayal of Srilankan Government aborted his peace initiatives. Now, to trust Mr.Rajapakshe that after eliminating terrorism, he has a peace formula under his red towel, which he will wave along with olive branch, would amount to total ignorance of the history of betrayals, for which many Sinhalese rulers till now are held accountable before the conscience of the world.
For further proof that all Sinhala politicians are known for double speak and double act, let me refresh your memory about the 1994 Parliamentary elections in Srilanka on the popular platform of peace at all costs. SLFP leader Mrs.Chandrika Kumaratunge won that election and became Prime Minister. As Prime Minister, she once again reaffirmed her commitment to negotiated settlement. Subsequently in Presidential election in November, Mrs. Chandrika Kumaratunga won the executive presidency, and instantly she changed her tunes from peace at all costs to seeking peace but not at all cost.
Racial Riots in 1883 hit Christians in 1902 Dalits, in 1915 Muslims, in 1930 Malayalees, then Plantation Tamils and from 1983 Eelam Tamils:
India must tell the diplomatic world that Nazism is not dead, and just because it thrives in a tiny island, it need not be condoned or ignored. The problem with Sinhalese is not Tamil-phobia. They are against everybody. The seeds of hatred are ingrained in their brains. A scholar Kumari Jayewardene, a Sinhalese herself, had chronicled the history of clashes and communal unrest in Srilanka. The starting point of Tamil Sinhala ethnic clashes are considered to be 1983. But hundred years before that, in 1883 the Sinhalese turned their ire against Catholics. The Buddhist religious firebrand Anagarika Dharmapala criticizes the British for their religion. “When the ancestors of the present holders of our beloved land were running naked in the forests of Britain with their bodies painted and later on when their ancestors had gone under the imperial rule of Rome and some of them were being sold as slaves in the market place of Rome, our ancestors were already enjoying the fruits of glorious and peaceful civilization. Buddhism was the religion of the state in Ceylon like the church in England in the British isles” proclaims Anagarika Dharmapala, forgetting what the sacred book of the Sinhalese, known as Mahavamsam says about the first originator of the Sinhalese race. Born to parents who are cross breed between a Lion and a Princess that too born to a brother and sister incest couple, the unruly Vijayan driven by his father with such credentials, landed in Srilanka and married local women, i.e. Tamil, even a Pandyan princess. Then how come Sinhalse can claim racial superiority or purity. Like Anglo Indians, they are half Tamil, half foreign. So assuming they are racially superior, the Sinhalese called Christians barbarians and launched attacks in 1883. Then in 1915, Sinhalese want to drive away the North Indian and South Indian Muslims.
“The Mohammedans, an alien people, who in the early part of the nineteenth century were common traders, by Shylockian methods became prosperous like the Jews. The alien South Indian Mohammedan comes to Ceylon, sees the neglected illiterate villagers without any experience in trade, without any knowledge of any kind of technical industry and isolated from whole of Asia on account of his language, religion and race, and the result the Mohammedan thrives and the son of the soil goes to the wall……..What the German is to the British that the Mohammedan is to the Sinhalese by religion, race and language. He traces his origin to Arabia” incited the same Anagarika Dharmapala. Violent attacks, arson, looting were unleashed against the Muslim traders in 1915.
Readers of both the quotes from a Sinhala firebrand who planted seeds of hatred between communities and who is one among those who ignited communal clashes must take note of a contradiction in his statement. While speaking about British in 1883 he claims Sinhalese were enjoying the fruits of glorious and peaceful civilization. But in 1915, he admits that Sinhalese have no experience in trade and are without any kind of knowledge. Then how could they be the architects of the glorious and peaceful civilization. And that civilization must be of the Tamils, who can establish right up to Indus valley. In between 1883 and 1915, other unfortunate riots hit the dalits from India, who had gone to Ceylon as plantation labour. The arrogant Sinhalese refused to drink tea plucked by untouchables. Later in 1930 the Sinhalese turned their ire against the 30,000 Malayalees, who had gone to Ceylon from Travancore-Cochin state. A trade union leader A.E.Kunasesinghe launched the racial fire against them by his fiery speeches.
Between 1871-1881 when coffee, tea plantations came up in large numbers in Ceylon, lots of Tamils from India went there seeking work. They constituted nearly 10 % of the then population of Ceylon. Donoughmore Commission constituted before independence said out of these roughly 50 percent labour were permanently residing in Ceylon. Jackson Report of 1928 said they were around 60 percent. The Soulbury Commission of 1946 stated 80 percent of these labour were permanent residents of Ceylon.
Donoughmore Commission had recommended that for all those who had lived for 5 years and above citizenship rights must be conferred. Ceylonese Government did not accept that recommendation, thus the crisis started. In 1940 both India and Ceylon discussed this issue. Again in 1941 September there was a bi party conference between India and Ceylon. They agreed joint declaration which emanated in this meeting was not implemented. The irony is in 1942 Ceylonese Government itself written to Indian Government requesting India to permit labour to come and work in its rubber plantations. In the first General Elections of 1947 plantation labour had voting rights. They backed the Ceylon Indian Congress and elected 7 members to Parliament. They were the deciding factor in another 20 parliamentary constituencies. D.S.Senanayaka, first Prime Minister of Ceylon amended the 8 th article of the Citizenship Act and disenfranchised plantation Tamils called as Malayaga Tamils. He passed in Parliament the amendment by 1949 and removed people of Indian origin from the voters list. That is how the voting rights of plantation Tamils who chose 7 Members to Parliament were deprived from them. Then Indian origin people were asked to apply for citizenship. 8, 25,000 people applied for citizenship. Only to 1, 00,000 people Ceylonese citizenship was granted. To resolve this deadlock at London both Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Ceylon Prime Minister Dudley Senanaiyaka talked but could not resolve. In 1954 a pact was signed between Jawaharlal Nehru and Sir John Kotewala, Ceylon Premier. It was never implemented. By 1964, Srilankan Prime Minster Srimavo Bandaranaike and Indian Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri signed a pact, wherein Srilanka agreed to give citizenship to 3, 00,000 persons. India admitted to take back 5, 25,000 persons.
“All American people were once migrants from Europe. Yet no European country foolishly signed a pact with America to take back its citizens. Even after signing such a pact India had left more than 2, 00.000 people of Indian origin in Srilanka. India considers the whole Srilankan problem as one between its original inhabitant Tamils of Ealam and Sinhalese. Dravidian parties have totally forgotten about our people i.e. stateless Tamils of Indian origin. To resolve the hardships caused to these stateless Tamils it is imperative exert due diplomatic pressure. India cannot keep away from any issue of South East Asia. India has left 2, 00,000 of its citizens in Srilanka, when such being the cases how can it keep away? Is it not the duty of India to take responsibility for every Indian citizen on alien soil?” Columnist Rajiv Dhavan wrote an article in The Hindu. “With its open borders South Asia like Africa is a refugee prone region. India discovered this when absorbing the Tibetan refugees in 1959, the Bangladesh refugees in 1971, the Chakma influx in 1963, the Tamil influx from Srilanka in 1983, 1989 and again in 1995, the Afghan refugees from 1980s, the Myanmar’s refugees for a similar period and migration and refugee movements from Bangladesh over the years…….. In 1995 India following the Pakistan’s example joined the Executive of the UNHCR. Though welcome, this half way attempt seems odd since India refuses to sign 1951 convention. Meanwhile a series of judgments by The Supreme Court and the Gujarat, Punjab, Gauhati and Tamil Nadu High Courts has reinforced the need for humane due process for the Chakmas, Srilankan and other refugees. Some of the judgments expressly recognize the value and worth of UNHCR and invite it to involve more in the refugee questions in India” wrote Supreme Court lawyer Rajiv Dhavan.
Sinhalese against Brahminism:
The Buddhist religious head that had spit venom on Christians, Muslims and Tamils had not spared even the Brahmins. These facts are not taken into account by those bureaucrats in India who support Sinhala rulers. Let me quote the same Anagariga Dharmapala, whose quotes appear in last paragraph too. ‘Brahmanism is only for the three twice born castes. The Brahmins were proud of their mantras. The Brahmin rishis were great in their selfishness. They had spiritual power even to frighten the gods; they cursed the latter when they were angry. It is said that the rishis Durbhasha and Brighu cursed both Vishnu and Shiva. The rishi Gautama cursed Indira. The Brahmin rishis organized the caste system vesting all power in the Brahmins. They organized animal sacrifices. They drank wine, ate beef and took women from the other three castes. It was their privilege. They made laws prohibiting the three castes from taking Brahmin women. They laid down the rule that the issue of Brahmin women by a non-Brahmin husband is to be recognized as Sandala….
The Bhikku sanga became epitome of universal brotherhood and refuge of the high and low. All Asia heard the law of compassion, the religion of wisdom was preached to all, and the dharma of karuna and pragna was accepted by men and gods, Allah, Jehovah Vishnu, Shiva, Kali, Durga, Jesus were names not yet heard in the civilized world. The European races with the exception of Romans and Greeks were then in a state of barbaric paganism. The ancestors of the British were then living naked in the forest. The Nordic races were still savages…………..
The destructive hordes of Islam had then not been born. Buddhism was flourishing in Ghandadhar, Afghanistan, Kabul valley and Turkistan. Two centuries later a new factor came into existence in India which helped to destroy the individuality of Buddha Dharma. Kumarila began to preach his new doctrine which weakened the power of the bhikkus. His successor was the Malabar Brahmin Sankara. Driven out from his native land, young Sankara came to Jabalpore and was admitted to a monastery where he learnt Buddhism. Having studied the Upanishads, he gave a new interpretation to the latter. He poured new wine into old bottles…….
Islam, Brahmanical ritualism and Christianity are the three forces that are at work in India. Brahmins through sheer selfishness rejected the noble Aryan Dharma from its native soil and India fell. Brahmanism is only for high castes. Islam and Christianity are both destructive……
Dravida Peravai wishes to remind the Brahmins who are against Tamil eelam just because of the Aryan tag attached to the Sinhalese must realize that Sinhalese are not accepting Brahmins as Aryans. The above quoted passages must be an eye opener. In orissa certain hill tribes even today call themselves aaranya Brahmins, like that the Sinhalese take pride in calling themselves Aryans, while ridiculing Hindu gods, Brahmins and even their spiritual head Adi Sankara. So the love between Indian Brahmin bureaucrats and Sinhalese is not based on strong foundations, but on a mirage.
Sinhala Racism in Parliament:
With due respect to the Indian Parliament, we wish to draw the attention of the Hon’ble Members of Indian Parliament about some of the highly civilized speeches of the Aryan Sinhalese Parliamentarians.
Mr.D.M.Chandrapala, Sinhalese Buddhist Member of Parliament from Kundasale spoke the following words in Srilankan Parliament on July 1981. “Now Sir… what should we do to this so called leader of the Tamils? If I were given the power, I would tie him to the nearest concrete post in this building and horse whip him till I raise to his wits. Thereafter let anybody do anything he likes, throw him into the Beire [lake] or into the sea, because he will be so mutilated that I do not think there will be life in him. That is war.”
Can anyone in civilized world in any of the democracies of the world, could have heard such a speech. That speech too is against democratically elected Tamil leaders demanding federalism and not independent state at that juncture. There was no terrorist in Parliament yet if Sinhala Parliamentarian spits such venom, how could Tamils live within unitary Srilanka, the National Security Adviser Mr.M.K.Narayanan, who creates an impression that he misguides Indian Government must introspect and correct his wrong steps, if any.
The Indian bureaucracy, unfortunately inherited from a colonial legacy underestimates the elected representatives and their cabinet. They dream that India could be ruled by bureaucrats who are not accountable to public opinion. For their conscience to awaken, Dravida Peravai wishes to reproduce more speeches of Srilankan Parliamentarians.
Mr.G.V.Punchinilame M.P from Ratnapura spoke in Srilankan Parliament in July 1981. “Since yesterday morning, we have heard in this Honorable House about the various types of punishment that should be meted out to them {Tamil Parliamentary Members}. The M.P from Panadura Dr.Neville Fernando said there was a punishment during the time of Sinhalese kings, namely, two areca nut posts are erected, these two posts are then drawn toward each other with a rope, then tie each of the feet of the offender to each post and then cut the rope which will result in tearing apart the body. These people should also be punished in the same way.
…………..some Members suggested that they should be put to death on the stake, some other Members said that their passports should be confiscated, still other Members said they should be made to stand at the Galle Face Green and shot at. The people of this country want and this government is prepared to inflict these punishments on these people.”
If in Srilankan Parliament such barbarian punishments are sought against duly elected Tamil Members of Parliament even in 1981 much before the birth of militant movements, Indian bureaucrats and media who want to uphold the territorial integrity of Srilankan Fascist State, must admit they are fooling themselves and also fooling the world as if they are dealing with a civilized neighboring country.
Having read the barbarian speeches of cannibals, it is time to read the speech of the cunning fox Mr.J.R.Jayawardane, President of Srilanka, which appeared in Daily Telegraph of 11th July 1983. “I am not worried about the opinion of the Tamil people…… now we cannot think of them, not about their lives or their opinion….. the more you put pressure on the North, the happier the Sinhala people will be here… Really if I starve the Tamils out, the Sinhala people will be happy.”
That is what is happening now under the blood thirsty Mr.Mahinda Rajapakshe’s government. That is why Tamilnadu Chief Minister Dr.Kalaignar M.Karunanithi collects funds and pressurizes the Indian Government to send food and medicines to Eelam Tamils. No Tamil in Tamilnadu will tolerate his kinsmen starving in Tamil Eelam. A land where Poet Bharathi proclaimed that if there is no food for an individual we will destroy the world, will rise like one man to destroy the fascist regime of Srilanka that starves Tamils, kills Tamils, uproots Tamils by aerial bombings, but Tamils and Tamilnadu still hopes that Government of India will save Eelam Tamils from genocide and claws of death, through internationalizing Tamils issue and bringing economic blockade on Sinhala country.
Naked Facts about broken Pacts:
Having traced the thorny issues which India failed to handle in the best interests of Indian citizens or people of Indian origin, now let us look at the various peace proposals which Srilanka aborted in the past.
The Bhandaranaike-Chelvanayagam Pact of 1957 signed between Srilankan Prime Minister SWRD Bhandaranaike and Federal Party leader SVJ Chelvanayagam reached in July 1957 was abrogated in May 1958.
- The Senanaike-Chelvanayagam Pact of 1965 was not implemented even though the pact led to a coalition between Federal Party.
- Federal Party’s model constitution of 1972, submitted to the Constituent Assembly to create a Federal Republic of Ceylon was rejected by the steering committee of the Constituent Assembly.
- Dr.Neelam Tiruchelvam’s report to the Presidential Commission on Development Councils in 1979 also was sent to cold storage.
- Indira Gandhi Initiative of 1983 resulted in bilateral talks between India and Srilanka, as well as between India and TULF, yielded Annexure C proposals due to the efforts of India’s emissary G.Parthsarathy, which was also thrown into dustbin by Srilankan President Mr.J.R.Jayawardane.
- Draft Bill for Provincial Councils which was endorsed by the All Party Conference in 1984 met the same fate under President J.R.Jayawardane’s governance.
- Thimpu Talks in 1985: TULF and LTTE, TELO, PLOTE, EROS and EPRLF participated in Thimpu talks initiated by Government of India. In that conference all the Tamil parties submitted four cardinal principles as conditions for accepting conflict resolution. A] Recognition of the Tamils of Srilanka as a distinct nationality. B] Recognition of an identified Tamil homeland and guarantee for its territorial integrity. C] Recognition of the inalienable right of self determination of the Tamil nation. D] Recognition of the right to full citizenship and other fundamental rights to all Tamils of Srilanka. All Party Conference proposals formed the basis of Srilankan side. Though talks were aborted a Draft Framework evolved which should have been placed before Cabinet for approval before it could be adopted. But President J.R.Jayawardane did not do that, and it met its end.
- TULF presented new proposals to Indian Prime Minister Mr.Rajiv Gandhi in December 1985.The Government of Srilanka submitted its views on that proposals in January 1986. In nutshell the Srilankan Government rejected TULF proposals.
- Chidambaram Proposals: Srilankan Government discussed with the delegation headed by Mr.P.Chidambaram and in May 1986 sent its own proposals to Government of India. Then the Government of Srilanka formulated the Draft Amendment to the constitution of Srilanka to provide legal frame work to Chidambaram proposals.
- Government of India prepared a working paper on the discussions held at Bangalore on 18th November 1986 between Indian Prime Minister Mr.Rajiv Gandhi and Srilankan President Mr.J.R.Jayawardane. The Government of Srilanka submitted its observations on the working paper on 20th November 1986. Then on December 19th of 1986 talks took place between two Indian Ministers and Srilankan President. All such exercises led to the India-Srilanka Accord of July 1987 known as Rajiv Gandhi-Jayewardene accord.
- The fate of that Indo-Srilankan accord is dealt in a separate paragraph above which puts Srilankan Government in dock for breaking this accord.
- Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of Srilanka was effected in November 1987, and first time provincial councils were set up.
- The Democratic People’s Alliance led by SLFP in its election manifesto for 1988 Presidential and Parliamentary elections offered promises to resolve the ethnic problem, but that alliance failed to capture power, so promises remained promises.
- Tamil political parties ACTC, DPLF, ENDLF, EPRLF and TELO submitted proposals to the drafting committee for the All Party Conference of 1990.
- Thondaman Proposals: This attracted the LTTE which invited Mr.Thondaman to visit Jaffna to further discuss the proposals but Sinhalese opposition especially by a newly floated Sinhalese Defence Organization paralyzed the proposals.
- Liberal Party proposals to the Committee on Constitutional Reform in 1992 to resolve the ethnic conflict.
- UNP Presidential candidate for the November 1994 elections Mr.Gamini Dissanayake presented his Vision for the 21st century, but since Mr.Gamini Dissanayake was assassinated in October 1994; his own political party UNP buried the proposals along with him.
- The up-country Tamils, people of Indian origin, about whom India never applies its thought after branding them as stateless people, submitted their proposals to the Parliamentary Select Committee on Constitutional Reforms in December 1994. The Up country People’s Front sought separate autonomous territory for up-country Tamils. This has nothing to do with the North Eastern Province sought as traditional homeland of Eelam Tamils, the original indigenous people of Srilanka. Indian political parties even now are silent on stateless people. The ghost of Mr.Rajiv Gandhi will not haunt over the Autonomous State of Up Country Tamils, hence there is no reason why Indian Government is not taking care of Indian Tamils settled in Srilanka. Up country Tamils are not in anyway branded as terrorists, in fact their parties had been part of ruling coalitions till date. That does not mean India should not open its mouth about the unfortunate people India also made as stateless overnight thoughtlessly by signing a pact.
- Basic Ideas of Chandrika Kumaratunga made in 1995 when she promised peace at all costs before winning parliamentary elections but changed her tune to peace but not at all cost, after she won Presidential election.
Dravida Peravai urges the Tamil Nadu political parties and its representatives in Indian Parliament to raise the following questions to the Indian Prime Minister Mr.Manmohan Singh, Indian Minister for External Affairs Mr.Pranab Mukherjee and to the man above the cabinet, The National Security Adviser, who is not elected and hence not accountable to people, so could afford to spit at the face of Tamil’s concerns for fellow Tamils across the Palk Straits.
Srilankan Governments headed by any President belonging to any political party have never complied with their promises or pacts made with Tamil parties or Indian Government. So many proposals as listed above have been made wasting years and years without yielding any result. India had offered many formulas ever since Indira Gandhi’s time to Rajiv Gandhi’s time, but none of that was acceptable to Sinhala rulers. Now whole of Tamilnadu echoes its unity by a unanimous resolution in Tamilnadu Assembly in November 2008, urging Indian Government to intervene in Srilanka to end the genocidal war. The weak kneed responses of Indian Prime Minister, and his soft requests made as only lip-service to Srilankan Neo-Hitler Mr.Mahinda Rajapakshe has left a deep scar in the Tamil psyche .Tamils are hearing vague promises with oft repeated phrases like within “unitary Srilanka” devolution of powers will be offered to Tamils. The list of pacts broken and promises un-kept must awaken Indian Government to look for ONCE FOR ALL RESOLVING this CONFLICT. What is the magical Manmohan formula to resolve the issue to the best satisfaction of Tamilnadu? Let the Government of India spell out?
Eelam as Independent Nation:
To our humble view there is no alternative solution to Tamil Eelam. This is based on simple logic. If a husband and wife cannot live together, divorce is permissible in civilized world. And that logic applies to Eelam Tamils. There is nothing illegal in Tamil Eelam remaining an independent nation. In the developed world particularly Europe has twelve small states, five of which are islands or island groups. Monaco, a small urban enclave on the northern Mediterranean coast, is one of the most prosperous and best known of all small states. With just 32,000 permanent residents (8,000 of whom are citizens) and 500 acres of territory, Monaco is a sovereign state; its independence is somewhat limited, since its big neighbor, France, manages its foreign relations, postal services and defense, while the French franc has served as its official currency. When Monoco can be independent nation with restrictions, why not that option be given to Tamil Eelam, for argument sake, we are asking the world community. Though we won’t support independence with restrictions as is the case of Monaco, why not even for debate sake no one proposes Monaca model to resolve Tamil Eelam struggle.
In addition to Monaco, the smaller European territories of this type are: the Principality of Liechtenstein (pop. 31,000), the semi-independent state lets of Andorra (pop. 64,000) and San Marino (pop. 24,000) and four British territories — the Isle of Man (pop. 70,000), the Channel Islands (pop. 150,000), the Faeroe Islands (pop. 45,000), and Gibraltar (pop. 29,000) – as well as Vatican City State. With just 700 residents and 109 acres, the Vatican may be the only state in the world with a diplomatic corps larger than its resident population. When Vatican with such miniscule population is independent nation what is wrong in Tamil Eelam being independent nation?
The Caribbean area has a number of small states, the majority islands. According to our adjusted World Bank figures there are 14 states and 15 territories in this class in the Caribbean region, ranging in size from Montserrat (pop. 6,400) to Trinidad and Tobago (pop. 1,300,000). Belize (pop. 236,000), Suriname (pop. 431,000), French Guiana (pop. 168,000) and Guyana (pop. 705,000) are all located on the mainland. Some of the better-known islands include Aruba (pop. 80,000), Barbados (pop. 257,000), the Bahamas (pop. 284,000), Martinique (pop. 412, 00), and Grenada (pop. 94,500). If these tiny countries can be independent nations, what prevents all these countries from endorsing the right to independence to Tamil Eelam.The Netherlands Antilles (pop. 208,000) is home of George Soros’ famous Quantum hedge fund, while Bermuda (pop. 63,000) has recently become an important center for the global insurance industry. The tiny British self-governing territory of Cayman Islands (pop. 23,000) has risen to special prominence in recent decades. The Pacific Ocean region has two dozen island states, ranging in size from Fiji (pop. 773,000) to tiny Tokelau, an atoll with just 1,700 residents. If with 1700 people an atoll be independent, why not Tamils of Eelam have their independent nation? Some of the territories embrace hundreds of islands scattered over more than a thousand miles of ocean. The Indian Ocean is site of four large island groups, including the Maldives (pop. 245,000) and the Seychelles (pop. 79,000), as well as a number of other territories including the French island of Reunion (pop. 718,000). Among the smallest Pacific SSTs, Nauru (pop. 10,000) and Niue (2,100) have specialized in offshore finance, a field where newcomers can have an advantage.
Africa, too, has a number of SSTs – 12 states according to the World Bank count, including the islands of Cape Verde (pop. 416,000) and Sao Tome and Principe (pop.142, 000), coastal Djibouti (pop. 636,000) and continental Swaziland (pop. 969,000), as well as a number of territorial remnants of colonialism, like Ceuta (pop. 69,000) and Melilla (pop. 60,000), Spanish territories on Morocco’s Mediterranean coast.Asia, by contrast, has relatively few SSTs, many of which are quite prosperous. The island of Bahrain (pop. 629,000), peninsular Qatar (pop. 724,000), and coastal Brunei (pop. 323,000) are all petroleum-rich monarchies Thirty-two of the Commonwealth’s 53 member countries are small states – mostly with populations of less than 1.5 million They range in size from micro-states such as St Kitts and Nevis, Nauru, Niue, and Tuvalu with less than 50,000 people each, to countries like Botswana, The Gambia and Mauritius
The world’s political map, dominated by large states, includes many lesser-known small states and territories. Using the World Bank benchmark of 1.5 million populations, there are 56 small states, as well as more than a hundred small territories under the sovereign control of others. A substantial majority of these small political units are islands or island federations, like Fiji in the Pacific or Barbados in the Caribbean. But others are located on the continental main lands, sometimes as coastal enclaves, like Monaco or Brunei, and sometimes as landlocked (often mountainous) territories, like Swaziland or Liechtenstein. A large number of the SSTs have emerged only recently from colonialism.
“If this is the world scenario, Eelam can be independent, can sustain as independent nation, and its demand for independence does not lack logic. Hence Dravida Peravai appeals to all the member states of the United Nations to arrive at a consensus to extend support to the independent nation of Tamil Eelam. If it is true that the Secretary General is the spokesperson of the suppressed people we urge him to muster support for the cause of Independent Tamil Eelam among the member states of the United Nations” says a letter written by me to the United Nation’s Secretary General in 2006.
Tamil Eelam within Indian Union
Before current foreign secretary Mr.Shivshankar Menon was relieved from Pakisthan, on reading about his new posting as Indian Foreign Secretary, Dravida Peravai wrote to him, which will be in our voluminous reports in net world, urging him to consider as last option, to have Tamil Eelam as a state within Indian Union. Eelam Tamils will never accept nor can live in peace under unitary Srilanka. India is concerned that Tamils like Jews should not have a country of their own. If that be so why not absorb Tamil Eelam as another state within Indian Union, I had argued in that letter.Mr.T.S.Gopi Rethinaraj, faculty member of Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, in National University of Singapore, wrote in Deccan Chronicle on 12th November 2008, which needs to be reproduced here.
“Suggestions that the emergence of an independent Tamil Eelam will hurt Indian security interests are disputable because its ethnic and political ties with India through Tamilnadu will be much stronger than a Sinhalese dominated state. However given a chance most of Srilankan Tamils will be happy to live under greater Tamilnadu comprising traditional Tamil areas of North and East of the island as Indian citizens. But India failed to explore the option to integrate the north and east with Tamilnadu when several opportunities were presented that outcome before 1987.”
The thrust here is for all parties to apply their brains to find ways to resolve the Tamil question. India did not fear that West Bengal and East Pakistan will become one Bengali nation, when Indira Gandhi supported beloved Mujibur Rahman’s call for Independent Bangladesh. Then why in Tamils issue unnecessary phobias crop up in the minds of Indian policy framers? To dispel their fears the above said option may be of use.
Retrieval of Katcha Theevu: TAKE THE ISSUE TO INTERNATIONAL COURT
There is an urgent need to sue Srilankan Government in the International Court of Justice for compensation to 980 Indian fishermen killed in the International waters, as well as retrieval of the Katcha Theevu. It is will be appropriate to recall the words of Former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, then M.P in the Parliament on 23 rd July 1974 (cols 186-201), when the then External Affairs Minister Swaran Singh made a statement on the Re Agreement between India and Srilanka on the boundary in the historical waters between the two countries and related matters.
Hon’ble Atal Bihari Vajpayee who strongly condemned the bartering away of Katcha Theevu, had said that the old mythological name for Katcha Theevu is VALI DEEP, the island where legendary Rama fought a mythological Vali. Dravida Peravai now reminds BJP, the main opposition party to the Government headed by Man Mohan Singh to fulfill what Atal Bihari Vajpayee had once demanded while he was in opposition; namely retrieval of the Katcha Theevu islands from the Srilankan government. The lives of 980 of our fishermen is lost due to this agreement imposed during the darkest days of emergency and it is time that we scrap this agreement or take it to the International Court of Justice to get due compensation for our fishermen.
There has been precedents in international inter country matters where issues have been taken to the International Court of Justice.1). In the English Channel there is a rocked island known as Minquires-Enrou. They are far way from the British coast and were closer to the French coast. Since it was near its international waters France staked the claim over that island. Britain showed the documents in its possession and the basis of the documents in 1953 the International Court of Justice decided that this island belongs to Britain. As in this case the documentary proof will be in our favour and we will retrieve Katcha Theevu, is we approach the Court.2) An island Clip Orton which was closer to Mexican coast actually belonged to France, and since it was far away from French soil no one visited there and hence Mexico claimed right over these islands. But the International Court of Justice decided in the favour of France.
3). Near Philippines an island Palmas Mianjus was in the possession of Spain. Spain one fine morning handed over that island to America. But Netherlands had rights over that island much before Spain had, and in view of this when this matter came before the Court, the Court decided in favour of Netherlands.
These are past precedents. We have recent judgments too wherein decisions by International Court of Justice had been impartial and in the interests of natural justice. Let me quote about a recent judgment in 2002.
The International Court of Justice, principal judicial organ of the United Nations, has today given (17.11.2002) Judgment in the case concerning sovereignty over Palau Ligitan and Palau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia). In its Judgment, which is final, without appeal and binding for the Parties, the Court finds, by 16 votes to 1, which “sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan belongs to Malaysia”. Ligitan and Sipadan are two very small islands located in the Celebes Sea, off the northeast coast of the island of Borneo.
Reasoning of Court: The Court begins by recalling the complex historical background of the dispute between the Parties. It then examines the titles invoked by them. Indonesia’s claim to sovereignty over the islands is based primarily on a conventional title, the 1891 Convention between Great Britain and the Netherlands. Indonesia, thus, maintains that that Convention established the 4° 10′ north parallel of latitude as the dividing line between the British and Dutch possessions in the area where Ligitan and Sipadan are situated. As the disputed islands lie to the south of that parallel, “[I] t therefore follows that under the Convention title to those islands vested in the Netherlands, and now vests in Indonesia”. Malaysia, for its part, asserts that the 1891 Convention, when seen as a whole, clearly shows that Great Britain and the Netherlands sought by the Convention solely to clarify the boundary between their respective land possessions on the islands of Borneo and Sebatik, since the line of delimitation stops at the easternmost point of the latter island. After examining the 1891 Convention, the Court finds that the Convention, when read in context and in the light of its object and purpose, cannot be interpreted as establishing an allocation line determining sovereignty over the islands out to sea, to the east of the island of Sebatik, and as a result the Convention does not constitute a title on which Indonesia can found its claim to Ligitan and Sipadan. The Court states that this conclusion is confirmed both by the travaux préparatoires and by the subsequent conduct of the parties to the Convention. The Court further considers that the cartographic material submitted by the Parties in the case does not contradict that conclusion.
Having rejected this argument by Indonesia, the Court turns to consideration of the other titles on which Indonesia and Malaysia claim to found their sovereignty over the islands of Ligitan and Sipadan. The Court determines whether Indonesia or Malaysia obtained a title to the islands by succession. The Court begins in this connection by observing that, while the Parties both maintain that the islands of Ligitan and Sipadan were not terrae nullius during the period in question in the present case, they do so on the basis of diametrically opposed reasoning, each of them claiming to hold title to those islands. The Court does not accept Indonesia’s contention that it retained title to the islands as successor to the Netherlands, which allegedly acquired it through contracts concluded with the Sultan of Bulungan, the original title-holder. Nor does the Court accept Malaysia’s contention that it acquired sovereignty over the islands of Ligitan and Sipadan further to a series of alleged transfers of the title originally held by the former sovereign, the Sultan of Sulu, that title having allegedly passed in turn to Spain, the United States, Great Britain on behalf of the State of North Borneo, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and finally to Malaysia.
Having found that neither of the Parties has a treaty-based title to Ligitan and Sipadan, the Court next considers the question whether Indonesia or Malaysia could hold title to the disputed islands by virtue of the effectivités cited by them. In this regard, the Court determines whether the Parties’ claims to sovereignty are based on activities evidencing an actual, continued exercise of authority over the islands, i.e., the intention and will to act as sovereign. Indonesia cites in this regard a continuous presence of the Dutch and Indonesian navies in the vicinity of Ligitan and Sipadan. It adds that Indonesian fishermen have traditionally used the waters around the islands. In respect of the first of these arguments, it is the opinion of the Court that “it cannot be deduced [from the facts relied upon in the present proceedings] that the naval authorities concerned considered Ligitan and Sipadan and the surrounding waters to be under the sovereignty of the Netherlands or Indonesia”. As for the second argument, the Court considers that “activities by private persons cannot be seen as effectivités if they do not take place on the basis of official regulations or under governmental authority”. Having rejected Indonesia’s arguments based on its effectivités, the Court turns to consideration of the effectivités relied on by Malaysia. As evidence of its effective administration of the islands, Malaysia cites inter alia the measures taken by the North Borneo authorities to regulate and control the collecting of turtle eggs on Ligitan and Sipadan, an activity of some economic significance in the area at the time. It relies on the Turtle Preservation Ordinance of 1917 and maintains that the Ordinance “was applied until the 1950s at least” in the area of the two disputed islands. It further invokes the fact that the authorities of the colony of North Borneo constructed a lighthouse on Sipadan in 1962 and another on Ligitan in 1963, that those lighthouses exist to this day and that they have been maintained by Malaysian authorities since its independence. The Court notes that “the activities relied upon by Malaysia … are modest in number but … they are diverse in character and include legislative, administrative and quasi-judicial acts. They cover a considerable period of time and show a pattern revealing an intention to exercise State functions in respect of the two islands in the context of the administration of a wider range of islands”. The Court further states that “at the time when these activities were carried out, neither Indonesia nor its predecessor, the Netherlands, ever expressed its disagreement or protest”.
The Court concludes, on the basis of the effectivités referred to above, that “sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan belongs to Malaysia”.
There are many cases, which can be quoted. But the need here is to stress that India must revoke the Katcha Theevu agreement with Srilanka since it was imposed during emergency and take it to the International Court of Justice to establish India’s right over this island. Also As per clause 76 of the International Law of Seas 1982 “ The coastal state shall establish the outer edge of the continental margin wherever the same extends beyond 200 nautical miles from the base lines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured on sub marine ridges. The continental shelf shall not exceed 350 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.” Inview of this clause there is a necessity to redraw the territorial waters between India and Srilanka. So we have compulsions as per UN obligations to carve out our Exclusive Economic Zone and while such opportunity is at our doorstep we must reopen the Katcha theevu issue with Srilanka and get it back.
Tamil Nadu assembly had passed many resolutions demanding the retrieval of Katcha Theevu, and Dr.Kalaignar M.Karunanithi had voiced concern not only about the genocide of Eelam Tamils but also raised the emotional issue of our fishermen.
The lives of more than1000 fishermen is lost because of this agreement to barter Katcha theevu and it is time that we claim compensation from Srilanka for the lives lost apart from staking our rights to regain Katcha Theevu.
IF ONLY INDIAN COAST GUARD HAD ATLEAST ONCE IN A YEAR HAD CAUGHT A SRILANKAN NAVAL BOAT THAT KILLED INDIAN FISHERMEN OR IF IT HAD FIRED AT THAT NAVAL BOAT, NO INDIAN FISHERMEN WOULD HAVE LOST THEIR LIVES. Government of India owes public apology to Tamilnadu for not protecting its fishermen from the killing squads of Srilanka.
Dravida Peravai is enclosing two booklets, one with regard to Tamil eelam and other with regard to Katcha Theevu. Also some other papers about our campaigns are enclosed. These are enclosed just to introduce our activities over years consistently towards the goals for which now Tamils have joined hands under the leadership of Dr.Kalaignar M.Karunanithi, Chief Minister of Tamilnadu. Let Tamil unity lead to Tamils articulating views clearly in national politics, instead of waiting for bureaucrats to produce panacea for Tamil issues. The article on Sethusamudram published in the Souvenir of MDMK’s Villupuram Conference will clearly prove the Chinese designs to control the sea lanes of Indian Ocean by sitting in Hampanthotta, in Southern Srilanka. The geo political interest of India warrants India to support the liberation struggle of Eelam Tamils and help Tamil Eelam blossom. By such help India can have Trincomalee harbour in its control to put a check on Chinese designs. My personal friend Thiru.Vaiko on many occasions even in public had expressed his unhappiness over my staunch admiration of Dr.Kalaignar M.Karunanithi. I had told him that it is a precedent set by Aringnar Anna. Anna parted with Periyar but Anna considered Periyar always as his leader. I parted with Dr.Kalaignar M.Karunanithi in 1996 when Dravida Peravai was registered as political party with Election Commission of India. But he remains my leader. I have no regrets for charting a lonely course. This is an experimental political party which hopes to be a catalyst. We are not after power or position. If our appeal could make some of the political parties ponder deep or if that could lead to introspection of Mr.Manmohan Singh Government on its clueless policies on Srilanka, we shall be grateful. Just because we mentioned about China, we are not against that country, the enclosed article on border dispute will prove that we approach issues not with emotion but with rational yardsticks. TAMIL EELAM will be grateful to INDIA, if it takes up their cause in United Nations and among world countries through diplomatic channels
N.Nandhivarman General Secretary DRAVIDA PERAVAI
INDO-EELAM FRIENDSHIP FORUM 
You must be logged in to post a comment.