[Reader-list] India accused of complicity in deaths of Sri Lankan Tamils

[Inder Salim]

Dear Kshmendra

thanks for forward

ever since IPKF  ( indian peace keeping force )  launched itself
against LTTE i see Indian complicity in continuum

the fall of Tamils in Sri Lanka was bound to happen, as no terrorist
activity sustains itself beyond a decade or so. That has happened in
Punjab and perhaps we see it happening in Kashmir as well. I always
feel that 'dissent', mainly political, as and when crosses a certain
limit of violence it only helps the state to strengthen.....strangely
, after the fall of any terrorist outfit, i see erstwhile politicians
acquiring more lethal looks than before.

there are are reasons to fear any sign which marks the defeat of these
Militants-Turned-Terrorists organizations because now the so called
main stream politicians will be armed with  many excuses to quell any
expressions that  may demand the restoration of the sensible, .......
perhaps, because of millions of such organized state violence against
its subjects has resulted into this present mindset of Nationalism,
wherein we even see the story of human civilization,

i see no escape for the masses, and i see no end to the possibilities
of terror outfits throwing blood on the flowery still life on our
routine canvas.  am i too pessimist ?

We, the peaceful living entities in India have a natural consensus
against Naxals, ( a movement by landless people ) which led to  a
recent farcical arrest of Dr. Binayak Singh, and now strangely his
supporters have no choice but to be thankful to an SC Judgement that
grated him bail after two years of illegal confinement,  but the good
judges too might not be good against the a real Naxal, if arrest, just
on as flimsy grounds as Dr. Binayak Singh.....( Perhaps, former
Railway minister George Ferndese  was a Naxalite,  once )... strange
are the ways of main stream politics...

i know it is not possible to understand these conflicts with one yard
stick. and yet we see similarities,
 and some questions arising out of that, just for curiosity

LTTE's success would have unnerved Indian Nation State, since Tamil
Nadu too could have become part of it, if not now, but in future, but
why cant there be one exclusive Tamil country with its own language,
administration, if all the Tamils want it, why denial ? ( meanwhile, i
have no big enthusiasm for any formations of new boarders/territories,
but statuesque are proven sterile...   )

I know the slogan like multiculturalism etc are good for the health of
society/nation etc etc. but on the ground, Tamils in Sri Lanka were
treated as second class citizens, so why cant LTTE  be seen as a just
political expression, of course driven by obsolete protest procedures.

 but on the other hand how deep is the relation between violence and
politics, we both know. quite paradoxical ...

.......some  managed their territorial dissent, with their money or
modernity, where people dont see much difference between this and
that,  French managed it, Spain too , and  now main stream Iraqi  too
seems to settle down with Kurdistan within one Iraq map. there are
many examples,

here in India too we are settled with Punjab issue, but with Kashmir
issue, i guess Indian diplomacy is still at square one? or things have
quite drifted in other direction because of ennui ...

or you see it differently?

with love
is


On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Kshmendra Kaul <kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> From The Times
> June 1, 2009
>
>
> "India accused of complicity in deaths of Sri Lankan Tamils"
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jeremy Page, South Asia Correspondent
>
>
> India was accused yesterday of complicity in the killing of an estimated 20,000 civilians in the last stages of Sri Lanka’s 26-year war against the Tamil Tigers.
>
> Major-General Ashok Mehta, a former commander of Indian peacekeeping forces in Sri Lanka, said that India’s role was “distressing and disturbing”. Two international human rights groups said that India had failed to do enough to protect civilian lives.
>
> “We were complicit in this last phase of the offensive when a great number of civilians were killed,” General Mehta, who is now retired, told The Times. “Having taken a decision to go along with the campaign, we went along with it all the way and ignored what was happening on the ground.”
>
> Despite being home to 60 million Tamils, India has provided Sri Lanka with military equipment, training and intelligence over the past three years, diplomatic sources told The Times. More controversially, it provided unwavering diplomatic support and failed to use its influence to negotiate a ceasefire for civilians to escape the front line, they said.
>
> India joined a bloc led by China and Russia at a special session of the UN Human Rights Council last week to thwart a proposal for a war crimes inquiry, and instead supported a resolution praising Sri Lanka. In January India voted in favour of a war crimes inquiry into Israel’s operation in the Gaza Strip, which killed an estimated 926 civilians.
>
> General Mehta said that the Indian Government, led by the Congress Party, wanted to counterbalance China and Pakistan, its main regional rivals, which had each increased arms sales to Sri Lanka in the past few years. It also wanted to avenge the Tigers’ assassination in 1991 of Rajiv Gandhi, the Prime Minister and late husband of Sonia Gandhi, the current Congress leader, he said.
>
> Brad Adams, Asia director of Human Rights Watch, said that neither reason justified failing to act when the Red Cross warned of an “unimaginable humanitarian catastrophe”. India “could have saved many lives if it had taken a proactive position — and it would not have affected the outcome of the war,” he said.
>
> Sam Zarifi, Asia Pacific director of Amnesty International, said: “India . . . simply chose to support the [Sri Lankan] Government’s notion that it could kill as many civilians as it would take to defeat the Tigers.”
>
> India says that it provided Sri Lanka with non-lethal military equipment and sent officials repeatedly to persuade the Government to protect civilians. “We’ve consistently taken the line that the Sri Lankan Government should prevent civilian casualties,” a Foreign Ministry spokesman said.
>
> However, President Rajapaksa of Sri Lanka told NDTV: “I don’t think I got any pressure from them. They knew that I’m fighting their war.”
>
> Mr Rajapaksa told The Week magazine that he planned to visit Delhi next month to thank Indian leaders. “India’s moral support during the war was most important,” he said.
>
> Diplomats, human rights activists and analysts say that Delhi either did not use its full diplomatic force or, more likely, gave Colombo carte blanche to finish the war. India’s only real concerns, they said, were that the conflict should not create a flood of refugees to India. Some raised questions about Vijay Nambiar, a former Indian diplomat, who is chief of staff to Ban Ki Moon, the UN Secretary-General. The Times revealed last week that Mr Nambiar knew about but chose not to make public the UN’s estimate that 20,000 civilians had been killed, mostly by army shelling.
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6401557.ece
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe in the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>


--

http://indersalim.livejournal.com