The last whorl of the spiral

Posted by twnewsfeatures on 11 February 2007, 12:22 am

Posted on South Asia Analysis Group (SAAG) website - 2007

By Dr. Geeta Madhavan

The greatest cause for concern of the civilian population in a conflict situation is not so much the kind of resolution envisaged by the parties to the conflict or even the time frame set out – as the actual end of the conflict itself. The decades long conflict in Sri Lanka has severely debilitated the civil society and both the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE seem unable to control the swirl of the spiral towards total chaos.

An analysis of the chain of events in the past two years reveals how the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE have steadily veered towards violent confrontation rather than negotiation although they had for sometime managed to maintain veneer of civil responses. On 25 th November, 2005 the then newly elected Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapakse in his speech had clearly enunciated that there would be no self-government or separate homeland for the Tamils drawing strong reaction from the Leader of Tamil Eelam V. Prabhakaran who in his 27th November 2005, Heroes Day speech said the requiem for the dead cadres and swore to intensify the struggle for a separate Tamil homeland.

The standoff situation led to a flurry of activities by the concerned members of the international community and the facilitators who made sincere efforts to bring the two parties to seriously negotiate a settlement. However, a series of failed talks followed and the subsequent intense violence blew away the chances of any peaceful settlement.

The Rajapakse Government may have earlier espoused moderation in responding to violent acts of the LTTE and selective use of military power but there is little doubt that it is in the military solution that the government of Sri Lanka has now reposed its total faith. The Rajapakse government, encouraged by the steady military advances into the LTTE controlled areas and especially after the capture of a key base of the Tigers in the east seems convinced of its ability to vanquish LTTE. Meanwhile players from the international community clearly disapprove of what they perceive as excessive emphasis on military strategy to counter the LTTE challenge.

Undeterred by criticism Mr. Rajapakse stated that the “innocent Tamil people of the north can be liberated from terrorist intimidation and the misdeeds of violence and the north could be emancipated” . He also categorically rejected the claim of the Tigers to be the sole representative of the Tamils said that the Singhalese and the Government are not ready to give in to the ” blood thirsty demands” of the LTTE. The new Sri Lankan Foreign Minister, Rohitha Bogollagama, stated in Delhi after his meeting with the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee that the terrorist movement needed to be eliminated. The Sri Lankan government has also maintained that not a single civilian death had taken place during the military actions in Vaharai in eastern Sri Lanka.

The LTTE, on the other hand has been equivocal about the losses it has faced in the military action although it is very specific about the civilian deaths due to military strikes in the region. However, the LTTE also seems to be losing its position as the sole representative of the rights of the Tamil people in Sri Lanka and its cause celebre- the establishment of Tamil Eelam seems to be a mirage to the civilian population of the region in the wake of the vociferous speeches against any such solution by the Rajapakse government .The LTTE’s actions supposed to benefit the Tamils by forcing the Sri Lankan government in giving total autonomy has only driven to death and despair the very people the organization promised to deliver from repression. The civilian population of the area that become collateral damage for the Sri Lankan military in the war against LTTE, are used as human shields by the LTTE themselves. The United Nations, too, has been deeply concerned about the civilian deaths due to the military actions and the UN’s relief coordinator, Jan Egeland, has said that force continues to be used indiscriminately in the conflict in Sri Lanka.

It therefore, becomes incumbent on the India to disconnect the human situation from the political one. In India any sympathy for the civilian population is immediately translated into political sympathy for the cause of the LTTE. India has therefore consistently sought to stay out of any direct involvement in the core issues of Sri Lanka. However, Sri Lanka is not far enough to be ignored and the geographical proximity itself precludes ambivalent attitude towards the gross human rights violations by the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE. While it is possible to permit Sri Lanka to face its internal challenges by itself, the spillover into the Indian mainland will cause serious destabilization in the coastal states accessible to the LTTE. There have been reports of smuggling of arms and drugs from India and even the possibility of the setting up of camps for training and logistics in India. The question still remains as to what extent is India going to stick its neck out for the suffering civilian population of Sri Lanka without bringing the sword upon its own neck. India has to protect its own interest and those of its citizens even while being concerned about the civilian lives in Sri Lanka. The answer perhaps lies in the involvement of the international community in a multi lateral humanitarian effort which goes beyond the political solution. The greatest danger for any civilian population in a conflict situation is the loss of interest of the world community in a conflict that seems to last forever.

(Dr. Geeta Madhavan is an analyst working in areas related to international security and Terrorism. The views expressed are author’s own. 

LTTE and Assassination of Rajiv Gandhi

Posted On South Asia Analysis Group (SAAG) website in 2009 

LTTE and Assassination of Rajiv Gandhi 

by Dr Geeta Madhavan

(The South Asia Analysis Group)

"It (India) must stop all military assistance given to Sri Lanka, remove the ban on our movement and recognise our struggle. I like to point out that our movement and our people are true friends of India." – B. Nadesan – LTTE political head in emailed interview to a magazine – Times of India 22 Nov. 2008

Almost everyone remembers the night of 21st May 1991 when the erstwhile Prime Minister Mr Rajiv Gandhi and leader of the Congress party  was assassinated in a meticulously  planned and well co ordinated violent act by a LTTE female suicide bomber as  he went to address an election  meeting  in Sriperumbudur in the outskirts of the city of Madras. It did not matter whether one was a Congress party supporter or not, party affiliations were not relevant; what was pertinent was that a heinous and violent act was perpetrated by a foreign terrorist group on Indian territory. The citizens of India woke up next morning to the fact that a vile and horrible act had been committed against the nation itself. Analysts and experts woke up to the fact that international terrorism had arrived in India. The country had been grappling with militancy within its territory for quite some time and had developed a concerted and long term strategy to deal with it. What it did not expect was that a terrorist organisation would from across the borders act directly to shatter the Indian national unity and add a new dimension to terrorism against India.

India was drawn into the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka due to ethnic ties, strategic interests and geopolitical considerations. When the separatist Tamil movement started in Sri Lanka there were various organisations representing several groups espousing the aspirations of the Tamils in Sri Lanka. The moderate voices intermingled with the more militant voices in demanding rights for the marginalised Tamils who had suffered under successive repressive policies of the Sri Lankan governments. It is now well documented that there was support and sympathy for these movements in India especially in the state of Tamil Nadu where it was seen as protecting the interests of the Tamil brethren across the waters. Almost all the groups had well established bases in Tamil Nadu during that period. Subsequently, however, the most militant and the deadliest of them all, the LTTE systematically obliterated the leaders and key persons of the other outfits and the demand for a Tamil Eelam nation for the Tamils translated into a demand for a Prabhakaran-led Eelam. Relentlessly and with single mindedness the LTTE has pursued its dream of establishing a separate Tamil nation under its control on the island.

India became actively involved since the 1980s in the conflict in Sri Lanka and sought to create an atmosphere where the opposing factions could negotiate a peaceful settlement to the conflict. In 1985, the LTTE which had been part of the Eelam National Liberation Front along with the TELO, EROS and EPRLF participated in June 1985, in the talks sponsored by India held in Thimpu, the capital of Bhutan. Initiated by India, the leaders of the Tamil militant movements who were engaged in an armed struggle for the establishment of a separate Tamil Eelam state agreed to a cease-fire to create a congenial atmosphere for the talks. The LTTE, which was willing to settle for nothing less than an independent Eelam, was a reluctant participant. The LTTE sought to emerge as the sole repository of the Tamil aspirations and was wary of the possibility of the other groups of agreeing for something less than an independent Eelam.  It was unwilling to share the power to control the destiny of the Tamils with the other Tamil outfits or fragment the sympathy and logistic support of the Tamil diaspora. Consequently, during 1985-86 the LTTE launched attacks on the other groups justifying its actions by calling them traitors to the cause of the Tamils. The LTTE efficiently eliminated opposition from other groups, growing stronger by killing the leaders and prominent members of those groups. Later, unwilling to accept India’s exhortation to enter into an agreement with the Sri Lankan government to find a permanent solution to the conflict, the LTTE leader Prabhakaran left India to establish himself in Jaffna.  

The Indo Sri Lankan Accord signed in 1987 between India and Sri Lanka by Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi of India and President J.R. Jayewardene of Sri Lanka,   and under its mandate, the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) was sent to Sri Lanka with the intention of restoring peace to the island torn by the war between the militant Sri Lankan Tamil nationalists and the Sri Lankan military forces. The military contingent , like peace keeping forces worldwide , was not sent in as a combat force -  its mission specifically being to "guarantee and enforce cessation of hostilities" much in the spirit of the United Nations peace keeping forces sent  to help countries all over the world  torn by conflict create conditions for sustainable peace. As reluctant participants to the Accord, the LTTE was against Indian military intervention and abhorred the clause by which it was required to surrender weapons. Under the Accord although a large quantity of arms were surrendered by the LTTE, it was suspected that larger quantities were still being held. Over a period of time in internecine battles within Sri Lanka with rival militants the LTTE killed members of the other groups and emerged as a stronger organisation.  

The IPKF by several turn of events in September and October 1987, became embroiled in direct confrontation with the LTTE .Consequently, the LTTE launched into vituperative attacks on the IPKF and in its publication A Nation Betrayed alleged that by the Indo Sri Lankan Accord, India had completely negated Tamil hopes to serve its own geopolitical interests. It also set up effective propaganda against the IPKF alleging human rights violations. The IPKF operation resulted in the death of more than a thousand Indian soldiers and public opinion in India favoured withdrawal of the IPKF. The newly elected President of Sri Lanka R. Premadasa was against the presence of the IPKF in Sri Lanka and in April 1989 demanded the withdrawal of the IPKF within the timeframe of three months. The newly elected Indian Prime Minister Mr. V.P. Singh reviewed the Sri Lankan policies of Rajiv Gandhi and stating it a failure, ordered the withdrawal of the IPKF from Sri Lanka.  With the change of governments in India and in Sri Lanka, the final withdrawal of IPKF took place in March 1990.

The LTTE exulted in the removal of the IPKF and eliminated Amirthalingam in 1989 when he expressed in an interview in July 1989 that that the IPKF should remain to ensure the safety and security of Tamils. After the withdrawal of the IPKF, LTTE became the sole power in the north-east of Sri Lanka – a triumphant step towards the establishment of Tamil Eelam.   It was therefore, with trepidation that the LTTE watched the unfolding election scene in India in 1991. It was apparent that Rajiv Gandhi supported a solution to the conflict maintaining the unity and integrity of the Sri Lanka which was completely unacceptable to the LTTE’s single minded ambition for the establishment of a separate nation of Eelam. In the assumption that it was close to achieving its goal of independent Eelam and exulting in its control of the territory where it acted as the sole power, it viewed the return of Rajiv Gandhi to power in India as a severe impediment of its grandiose plans. Therefore, to prevent his return to power he had to be dealt with in a manner best known to the LTTE – by assassinating him.  The LTTE pathological hatred for Rajiv Gandhi and his policies towards Sri Lanka involved the formulation of the plan, the movement into India of the LTTE personnel instructed to accomplish the act, the recruitment of local sympathisers, the elaborate preparation of the master plan, the intense and constant study of local congenial conditions, the monitoring of movements of the target and the final execution. Detailed examination of the events makes a chilling study of the capabilities of a ruthless terrorist organisation.

 The tacit admission to the assassination finally came from the statement of Mr Balasingham in 2006 when in an interview he stated

 " As far as that event is concerned, I would say it is a great tragedy, a monumental historical tragedy for which we deeply regret and we call upon the government of India and people of India to be magnanimous to put the past behind," .

On March 19, 2008 Priyanka [daughter of the late Rajiv Gandhi] met Nalini, one of the conspirators of the Rajiv Gandhi assassination in Vellore jail. Nalini is lodged in Vellore jail after her death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment by a plea for clemency for the sake of the convict’s daughter by Mrs. Sonia Gandhi. Priyanka went on record accepting that she had met the killer of her father and stating that it was a personal meeting and clarified it further :  "I do not believe in anger, hatred and violence and I refuse to allow these things to overpower my life," . Her action as an  individual to come to terms with the personal  tragedy does not in any manner dilute the grim truth that the nation was avenged only when the death sentences were handed down to the perpetrators of the assassination. The country had to bear the ignominy of being the victim of a terrorist organisation whose ideology it had understood, sympathised and supported.  The sheer audacity of LTTE, with total disregard to the stability of the political and social structure of India and with the sole purpose of furthering its own delusion, to defiantly subject the nation to shame is unjustifiable.   Despite Balasingham’s self serving appeal to Indians,(statement quoted above ),  it is undeniable that the LTTE had carried out an act of aggression against the Indian nation.

The LTTE has encouraged elements in Tamil Nadu, where there is a deep sympathy for the humanitarian crisis in the island, to twist it into a support rally for the LTTE. It had, by the suicide bombing sought to manipulate the Indian political scene and in its propensity of self preservation wanted to manoeuvre the political destiny of India. It was not just the death of a prominent citizen of India – the violent act chose to cause permanent damage to the democratic system of India which allows the citizens to choose their representatives and their government. It also demonstrates the contempt the LTTE holds for the Indian nation and its people. The LTTE sought to impose upon the Indians a different choice by eliminating the person who it did not desire to return to power.

 To seek to destroy the integrity of the Indian nation is unpardonable but to imagine that the nation will forgive the perpetrators of the act is to scoff at the national conscience.

(Dr. Geeta Madhavan is an analyst working in areas related to international security and Terrorism.  

Debate on Death Penalty

Debate on Death Penalty 

 Dr Geeta Madhavan 

 Published in  The New Indian Express  Thursday 4 August  2015

Every hanging opens up a huge public debate on abolishing or retaining capital punishment in India.  It throws up a plethora of reasons for the imposition of death penalty as well as for its continued existence or for its abolition... There are three schools of thought on this subject  :  those who vociferously support it ;  those who virulently oppose it and those  who are ambivalent and choose one side or the other depending on whether they consider it punishment enough or not - depending on how heinous the crime seems to them. A reading of Oscar Wilde’s Ballad of Reading Gaol or watching a cleverly edited news channel documentary on Death Row prisoners can highlight the despair of the condemned persons and stir up further deliberations on capital punishment. Its  often reflections  about the particular condemned  individual  which  starts the debate and most of the rhetoric whether from the political establishment or the media confuses  the average citizen about  whether that person should   be hanged  or not . Various elements influence the debate which are not consistent with the actual reasons and are based on extraneous factors.  Unfortunately, most of the debate is also emotional and is rarely based on whether the imposition of the death penalty should be an act of judicial responsibility which is subsequently fulfilled by the State. While many Western countries have legally abolished capital punishment, there are also many countries where capital punishment exists in their legal procedural codes but they have not meted out capital punishment for a long time. In practice, therefore it is considered to have been abolished.

The creation of the entity of the State had at its primary role the protection of its citizens.  It was created with the primal need for the people to be subjects of a sovereign power whose duty it was to protect the people and ensure their well being. Thus it became incumbent upon a State to create a system of acceptable behaviour that later became rules and were codified by the State as laws.  These not only dealt with how a citizen of that State should conduct himself but also how a State is bound to conduct itself for the benefit of its citizens. Statehood, therefore, does not inhibit itself to mere governance but stretches itself into protection of all the people who live within its territorial limit. It also has a responsibility towards its own people beyond its geographical territorial limits. The State is thus vested with the right to take the life of such people who threaten its existence, threaten peace and threaten the safety and security of its people.  Thus a State is permitted to kill people, creating under its law the enforcement machinery for this purpose in the form of military, Para-military, police and such other forces with specific powers in specific instances tasked to take life. It is in this same manner that a State creates the right to inflict capital punishment.  In its duty to protect its citizens, a State can by due process of law require to take the life of those it deems as an existing threat or a possible future threat. However, this is not an unlimited power to be used at will. Thus it makes capital punishment not only acceptable but also a necessary duty imposed upon a State as part of its obligations for proper governance.

The argument for the pursuance of capital punishment is perfect if such argument is based on the basis of a just and fair judicial system bereft of human frailties. In reality, however, the studies have shown that it is the marginalized, the discriminated against and the vulnerable who end up on death row more often than those with recourse to knowledge of law and its nuances. In an ideal situation where the State, the judicial process and the enforcement authorities are not dogged by human fallibility based on prejudices and pre conceived notions, a fair system for justice can exist. Enough studies have been done worldwide to show mismanagement of justice and the miscarriage of justice based on gender, social and racial discriminations.

The other argument is that a State is not a sanctified entity; it is made up of people who govern and are governed.  Private and social prejudices often play a role in societies. In most countries a person brought before law who cannot afford a legal counsel is provided one by the State so that the accused has all means to defend him.  In reality, however, the legal incompetence or disinterest of the court appointed legal officers works against the interests of the accused. In India in most cases, the free legal aid system is not adept and efficient to the extent it should be, to protect the interests of the accused. It is therefore rather difficult, despite a robust and largely impartial judiciary in India, to categorically reach the conclusion that there is no miscarriage of justice. However, these by themselves cannot be reason enough to abolish capital punishment in its entirety but should be reasons to strengthen the judicial system and to assuage the fear that a State will not be impose capital punishment arbitrarily.

A State is bound by duty to ensure the protection of all lives and not just the life of a single individual. Retributive justice is an essential component of the Statehood .Often a weak argument is placed that crime does not stop because of the existence of laws that prescribe punishment. One cannot even begin to imagine the crimes that will be committed in the absence of laws!  Just as the laws that prescribe punishment for crimes deter potential criminals, capital punishment deters those who will act with impunity if capital punishment does not exist. Those who argue that retributive justice does not act as a deterrent fail to accept that the fear of death upon conviction does indeed deter potential offenders against violence directed towards the State and its people. It is not argued that capital punishment ought to be used at all times but when all the appeals  provided for  clemency have been rejected  because of the nature of the crime , capital punishment cannot be termed unnatural, unnecessary or  barbaric .  All human beings do not adhere to natural justice or to the higher principles of good and evil.  It becomes mandatory for a Sate to impose punishment on those who violate norms and disregard the sanctity of all human life.

In the argument for abolition of capital punishment it is important to remember that clemency is the prerogative of the State. It is not an unassailable right of the accused to demand compassion.  In cases where high treason has been committed against the State and in “rarest of the rarest “cases capital punishment has been justified.  The Supreme Court of India has been extremely clear that exceptional circumstances demand capital punishment. It is rather strange then to note that jurists, social activists and other prominent persons seem appalled when capital punishment is ordered and when clemency petitions are rejected by the judiciary and the executive. No State can and should tolerate treason, subversion, sedition or any such act that threatens security or the territorial integrity of the State . No such act should go unpunished by which the lives of its people are endangered and concerted attack against the lives of the citizens cannot go unpunished. A State is deemed weak if it cannot protect its people and if it cannot protect them from internal enemies, there is scant hope that it will be able to use hard power in the case of a military attack upon it.