Rajiv Gandhi and Sri lanka...

[Eelavar]

Rajiv Gandhi was typical of a certain breed of westernised Indians, totally ignorant about their own country, yet full of goodwill. It must be said to his defence that he was never interested in power, content to be a pilot, hobby around and live a quiet life with Sonya and their two children. But fate and his mother's distrust for everybody but her own sons, decided otherwise. It must also be said that the man (and his wife and children) demonstrated great poise and dignity at his mother's assassination- and what a horrible way to lose one's mother- which could fill one's heart with hatred and ideas of vengeance. Rajiv showed in his early years of power a measure of goodwill and a sincere aspiration to transform the Indian system. But there were two problems: one was that being totally cut off from the Hindu reality of his country, he applied to his effort misconceived ideas about what India should be. And two, that like Don Quichote battling the windmills, he had to fight the Congress system, its corruption, sycophancy and bureaucracy. In the end he gave-up this unequal battle and had to fall back on advice from the old guard. His ill-advised judgement in the Shah Bano case or his pandering to Palestine, were certainly more in tune with the old Congress policy of flattering the Indian Muslim community, as in the pre-independence Kalhifat movement, than his own opinions. For everything in his upbringing was pro-Western - and Israel certainly was no enemy of his. He must have also secretly agreed with the Supreme Court judgement in the Shah Bano case. If his mother's downfall and ultimate death was due to the Sikh separatist problem, his undoing was Sri Lanka and the Tamil separatist factor there.

SRI LANKA

There seems to be little doubt that once upon a time, not that long ago, India and Sri Lanka were linked by a small strip of land, which can still be seen today from the air: Adam's Bridge. And this is how the first Tamils, those who settled in the North, came to Sri Lanka (are they the first inhabitants of Sri Lanka and not the Sinhalese? This is another question!). There is also no doubt -and the Sinhalese recognise it- that they ( the Sinhalese) are originally Indians, although some say that they came from Gujurat, others from Bengal. Thus it can be established beyond doubt that Sri Lanka and India are one ethnically, although they differ in religion (but the same can be said within India). And throughout the ages, under one form or the other, Ceylon was under the influence of India. That is why, when the British conquered it in the late 18th century, they chose to attach it to their Indian empire. But when they left in 47, in their desire to see that India never dominates too heavily the subcontinent, they facilitated the creation of Pakistan and handed to Sri Lanka its freedom. And India and Sri Lanka seemed to part way for ever, as Tamils and Sinhalese were left to war with each other, until Rajiv sent the IKPF in 1988.

One has to go back a long time to understand what decisive factors shaped the psyche of the island's two communities. And this decisive factor bears the names of two of the world greatest religions: Buddhism and Hinduism. The first one, Buddhism, is a gentle, peaceful creed, that teaches non-violence and brotherhood, even to enemies. Unfortunately, Ceylon, often called the "isle of beauty", has always been too tempting a prey for sea-faring invaders. And indeed, successive colonisers, from Arabs to Africans, from Portuguese to Dutch and finally, British, preyed on the tiny, defenceless island. In the name of Buddhism and because, the Sinhalese are by nature a fun-loving, gentle people, not only did they hardly resist these invasions, but often, many of their women, mingled freely with the foreign intruders. The result can clearly be seen today on the faces of many Sinhalese women folk, with their African-curled hair, or Arabic features. As a result, the Sinhalese slowly lost their sense of identity, their feeling of being a collective being, to the point that when the British came, they collaborated wholehearted with them and had to be handed back their independence on a platter, for want of a real freedom movement. Today, democracy and western institutions are just a flimsy cloak that the Sinhalese wear. Lurking underneath the pleasant, sometimes servile attitude towards Westerners, is a sense of hopelessness and a terrible violence. And in reality, since independence, Sinhalese politicians must have been some of the least farsighted of the entire subcontinent: nothing is made in Sri Lanka, everything has to be imported and only tea, tourism and Western grants help the country survive.

On the other hand, Hinduism with its strict caste hierarchy, which in the old times forbade too much contact with outsiders, particularly sexual contact with foreigners, protected Sri Lankan Tamils from mingling with their invaders. Thus they preserved their identity, their racial purity and their culture. Sinhalese live an easier life in the South, which was always more fertile than the arid North. As a result, Tamils have often been better at studies and more hard- working, (although one should not generalise). This was quickly noticed by the British, who often gave Tamils preference for jobs and university grants, thus angering the Sinhalese, who after all were the majority community.

It is this deep-rooted resentment of the Sinhalese towards the Tamil community which is in greater part the cause of the present troubles. When the British left, the Sinhalese quickly moved in to correct what they saw as an unbalance: they set on depriving the Tamils of most of the rights they had acquired under the British and proceeded to establish a Sinhalese-dominated Ceylon. And every time a Sinhalese politician tried to give the Tamils their just share of power, he quickly had to backtrack under Sinhalese resentment. For years, the Tamils bore the brunt of Sinhalese persecution. But one day, too much became too much and Tamil armed groups started springing up to defend their people. To cut short a long story, the LTTE finally emerged as the most ruthless and sole militant organisation. For those who remember the Tamil Tigers in their early years: young, bright, soft spoken university students, there was no doubt that they had started with a genuine aspiration to secure their just rights. But violence breeds its own violence and today the Tigers have lost all sense of measure and restraint, eliminating ruthlessly all what they think stands in the way of their freedom.

Yet, in 1988, Rajiv stepped in to mediate between the warring Sinhalese and Tamils. All kind of insulting epithets have been thrown onto the Jeyawardene-Rajiv Gandhi peace plan and the IPKF's role in Sri Lanka, but these are unfair (as unfair as accusing Mrs Gandhi of creating the Sri Lankan imbroglio by arming and sheltering the Tamil separatist groups in Tamil Nadu's coastal area. Those who vent these accusations have no knowledge of Sri Lankan history : 1) the problem goes back to 2000 years of strife. 2) The Tamils were at that time genuinely persecuted and faced pogroms. Short of India intervening militarily, it made sense to arm the Tamils so that they could defend themselves. The Rajiv Gandhi peace plan was the best attempt that could be made in the circumstances, to solve the ethnic war and ensure the region's stability - and the IPKF did not come to conquer and colonise, but to help. That the LTTE betrayed the hand that had fed it, because it wants total and unequivocal freedom and it saw India's move as thwarting it (that is the main reason for their murdering Rajiv Gandhi. If he had come back to power, as indeed he was sure to, he would have pressurised the Sinhalese to grant the Tamils a semi-autonomous region in the North-East). But that is another matter. India's thus got bogged down in a guerrilla war it did not want to fight, with one hand tied behind the back to avoid killing civilians; and ultimately it had to leave because of pressure at home and Mr Premadasa's intense dislike of Indians.
Today, Tamils have actually come one step nearer to freedom. The partition of Sri Lanka may be considered a "fait accompli". It might take some time, but ultimately, some Sinhalese leader will have to come to the conclusion that Sri Lanka's economy cannot be bled any more by this senseless war. What happens if one day the island's one million Tamil tea planters, (whose forefathers were "imported" from India by the British, another parting gift from dear Britannia), who up to now have kept away from the conflict, join hand with their North-East brothers? It would be the end of Sri Lanka. And how long can tourism, the island's other source of revenue, be promoted in the midst of strife? The LTTE have chosen for the moment to leave the tourists alone. But it would be enough that they kill a few, to scare away Sri Lanka’s main source of revenues.
But even if the partition of Sri Lanka in two is granted by the Sinhalese, with the north-east portion for the Tamils, the island will remain a hotbed of uncertainty, a potential time bomb in South Asia.

And this raises the question of India's security. What should be New Delhi's reaction in case of a Sri Lankan partition? Can India remain unaffected by whatever is going to happen in Sri Lanka? There are 55 millions Indian Tamils in Tamil Nadu. It has been shown already that instability in Sri Lanka breeds instability in Tamil Nadu. Certainly, Mrs Jayalalitha's autocratic ways, when she was in power, her godlike worship by her party men and her paranoia for security, which may be partly justified by the terrible assassination of her friend Rajiv, are a direct result of Sri Lanka's strife. This frightful cold-blooded murder of Rajiv Gandhi, was also a direct consequence of the Sri Lankan problem, which India cannot ignore.

And ultimately, it is hoped that history will remember Rajiv with indulgence and affection, even if he got trapped in the Bofor’s story (*) and India’s spiritual genius had completely eluded him. He was a gentleman and one always courteous with everybody, including journalists. Like his mother, he also gave his life for India and his terrible death shocked millions of us that fateful night in Sriperambadur. Apart from his goodwill, he must be credited with having started the economic liberalisation of India, indispensable if this country wants to become a 21st century superpower. Unfortunately, the Nehru dynasty did not end-up with him : Sonia took-up the mantle and there is always Priyanka, his daughter, who already shows something of her grandmother's imperiousness and charm


Nicely wrote by Francois Gautier..

Anton Balasingham, LTTE's theoritican said few days ago in front of NDTV that assassination of Rajiv Gandhi was one of their biggest mistake...
I agree with him..

[thamizhvaanan]

Anton Balasingham, LTTE's theoritican said few days ago in front of NDTV that assassination of Rajiv Gandhi was one of their biggest mistake...

did he say so not heard of it.

[crazy]

Anton Balasingham, LTTE's theoritican said few days ago in front of NDTV that assassination of Rajiv Gandhi was one of their biggest mistake...

did he say so not heard of it.

TV .............he said!

[crazy]

EELAVAR: my dear brother...................enna solla? i have to remind u that we r not *********here ...............hope u understand!

[Eelavar]

Crazy,

Yes sure buddy i'm personnaly not a TERRORIST ! I know what i am and what are my personal convictions !
But sinhalas in the lankanewspapers.com call me a terrorist..

[thamizhvaanan]

yea today i saw it in newspapers. And Daya master, calls it is a misinterpretion of Anton Balasinghams statement. The exact quote (as per Hindu) goes like,
"As far as that event [rajiv assasination] is concerned, I would say it is a great tragedy, a monumental historic tragedy for which we deeply regret and we call upon Government of India and the people of India to be magnanimous to put the past behind and to approach the ethnic question in a different perspective"
I dont get it, where exactly does he accept it?

[Nakeeran]

yea today i saw it in newspapers. And Daya master, calls it is a misinterpretion of Anton Balasinghams statement. The exact quote (as per Hindu) goes like,
"As far as that event [rajiv assasination] is concerned, I would say it is a great tragedy, a monumental historic tragedy for which we deeply regret and we call upon Government of India and the people of India to be magnanimous to put the past behind and to approach the ethnic question in a different perspective"
I dont get it, where exactly does he accept it?

Its a tacit admission . Otherwise, why should AB say such words. What is the need for him to condole that assassination.
Whatever said and done, just this heinous act of LTTE INDIA WILL NEVER FORGET AND FORGIVE LTTE

[Nakeeran]

Tamilnadu was called AMAIDHI POONGA earlier. After the infiltration of LTTE militants into TN, the face of TN changed dramatically
Everywhere TN had small small violence, including the killing of Padmanabha in Vadapalani area . It was the worst thing to happen to TN those days. There was a blood bath. The cold blooded guys were given good support by the then DMK govt also

[thamizhvaanan]

The politics behind Rajeev's assasination goes deeper than wat any single mind can comprehend.

it is utter nonsense to say that stability of TN changed totally after one incident.

And LTTE "militants" never infiltrated into TN. they were there in TN right from the beginning of their organisation. So u mean to say that LTTE infiltrated only in the 90's and their entry immediately changed the state of TN resulting in assasination of a Prime minister? Isnt it a fact that the supposed assasination of Rajeev Gandhi remains as the only instance of LTTEs violence in TN and India and it was powerfull enuf to alleviate any support that India mite have offered LTTE for eons to come. Then how shameful is it to say that TN's peace has been affected by them .

And it is attrocious to blame a single party. Then in that case u mite take pleasure in blaming Indira Gandhi too, who helpd the organisation a lot during its formative years.

[crazy]

yea today i saw it in newspapers. And Daya master, calls it is a misinterpretion of Anton Balasinghams statement. The exact quote (as per Hindu) goes like,
"As far as that event [rajiv assasination] is concerned, I would say it is a great tragedy, a monumental historic tragedy for which we deeply regret and we call upon Government of India and the people of India to be magnanimous to put the past behind and to approach the ethnic question in a different perspective"
I dont get it, where exactly does he accept it?

Its a tacit admission . Otherwise, why should AB say such words. What is the need for him to condole that assassination.
Whatever said and done, [b]just this heinous act of LTTE INDIA WILL NEVER FORGET AND FORGIVE LTTE[/b]

I (AND MILLIONS OF VICTIMS LIKE ME) WILL NEVER FORGET AND FORGIVE INDIA FOR WHAT THEY DID DO US!

I DONT KNOW WHAT HE THOUGHT(AB) .................BUT I DONT REGRET FOR WHAT WE DID................IAM SORRY............FOR BEING RUDE!