Advertisement

Help
You are here: Rediff Home » India » News » Photos
Search:  Rediff.com The Web
 
      Discuss  |          Email   |         Print  |  Get latest news on your desktop
'India cannot compromise on legitimate Tamil grievances'

Back United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon (left) with Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapakse in Kandy on May 23
More

What do you think should be India's stand at this point?

The government stand has been that one point we cannot compromise on is the settling of the legitimate Tamil grievances. In my opinion, it is a correct stand assuming you are able to translate it to its logical conclusion. If you are able to make the Sri Lankan state give Tamils their due, then that would be an ideal stand. Can they do it? I don't know.

There are certain limitations. One, of course, is the fact that Sri Lanka is a sovereign nation and we cannot tell them what to do.

And the fact is that, ultimately, and this was stated very beautifully by one of the Norwegian peace-makers: People think because we have intervened, and because we have intervened in Ireland and other places, automatically our entry means peace in Sri Lanka. It's not so. If the two protagonists do not want to make peace then no peace can come with Norway, without Norway, with India, without India, with America, without America, with God, without God. Ultimately, unless and until the Sri Lankan state, which keeps saying I am the only lord and master of the entire mass of Sri Lanka, genuinely believes it has to give a fair deal to the minorities, the Tamils included, no amount of pressure from you will work.

Already the language, the lingo coming from Colombo is that outsiders do not understand what the war is about; we will only have a home grown solution. That is perfectly fine at one level. But it could also be an excuse not to do what needs to be done because it sounds very nice.

It all depends on what the Sri Lankans ultimately want to do. They could just sit back and say we have won the battle. Some of them have already said there is no ethnic problem in Sri Lanka, there is only a terrorist problem in Sri Lanka. Once the terrorist problem goes away, there will be no ethnic problem. If you take that to its logical conclusion, it means there is no problem. The problem is over.

They could have killed Prabhakaran earlier but they waited for the polling in Tamil Nadu to end. Was this orchestrated by the Indian government?

I don't think so at all.

The end was too well-timed.

The end, I don't know. It is perfectly possible what you are saying could be true. Although, in fact, I was very surprised by the results in Tamil Nadu because I thought it would be much more favourable to the AIADMK alliance because of the Sri Lanka factor. So I really cannot comment convincingly about that point.

I have also been convinced for a long time that, even assuming India had taken a very strident stand and told the Sri Lankan state that look, if you don't stop this war, this is what we are going to do, we are going to cut off diplomatic relations, the Sri Lankans would have said please cut off diplomatic relations, there is no way we am going to stop the war.

Look at it from the Sri Lankan state's point of view. For the first time, it gets an opportunity to crush the LTTE beyond recognition. If you are the Sri Lankan state, would you let go of the opportunity? You won't.

Image: United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon (left) with Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapakse in Kandy on May 23
Photograph: Reuters
Also read: After Prabhakaran, what next?
Back  |  More
© 2009 Rediff.com India Limited. All Rights Reserved.Disclaimer | Feedback