|
-
India rejects LTTE regret for
Rajiv Gandhi assassination
-
Former investigative officer
accuses LTTE of trying to soften Indian attitude
-
India says ethnic struggle
issue is different from terror. Large numbers of analysts call for Indian
participation despite ban on LTTE.
|
A day after the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) regretted the
assassination of Rajiv Gandhi the Indian Government strongly rejected these
statements as that would be “tantamount to endorsing the philosophy of terror,
violence and political assassinations.” While Chief Negotiator and political
ideologue Anton Balasingham’s comments did sound like an admission of guilt,
the LTTE quickly denied it was so and claimed that Balasingham was only talking
about how it affected the organization.
Minister of State for External Affairs Anand Sharma said Balasingham’s remarks
were a "confession" by the rebel group of its "complicity" in Rajiv Gandhi's
assassination, which was a "well-known fact." The LTTE cadres had been
convicted in the case.
Former Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Director, D.R. Kaarthikeyan, who
led the Special Investigation Team (SIT) that probed the Rajiv Gandhi
assassination, LTTE was trying to soften the attitude of the Government and
people of India. He speculated that since India had commuted the death sentence
of one of the key accused to life imprisonment and “did nothing for over eight
years to implement the death sentence confirmed by the Supreme Court on three
other accused” might have made the LTTE think that there was a softening of
attitude and policy. Kaarthikeyan “I do not think any politician could have
played a role in the LTTE coming out with a confession at this stage.”
Kaarthikeyan said it was not surprising that the LTTE confessed because their
attempts to involve “self-seeking politicians in our own country” to “derail
and disrupt the investigation and trial” have “miserably failed.” He said that
the LTTE is “unarguably the deadliest terrorist group in the world.”
Sharma said that the LTTE should not confuse terrorism with the ethnic issue.
India wants a negotiated settlement for the Sri Lankan Tamils so peace and
unity returns to the island state. It is not clear whether Sharma was
questioning the legitimacy of the LTTE as the principle negotiator for the
Lankan Tamils. With the decimation of other militant groups, the LTTE has
emerged as the sole representative of the Tamil population. The fact that they
are accused in the assassination of an Indian Prime Minister would not take
away that position from them.
The unfortunate reality for India is that with the ban on LTTE, which was
necessary then, it has lost all bargaining chips in Sri Lanka. Predictably, the
Sri Lankan Government (SLG) would love for India to participate on its side but
that would mean politically alienating vast tracks of land in India. While the
Tamils and Tamil Nadu have ethnic ties, they do not have similar political or
economic interests but politicians in Tamil Nadu make it so. On the other hand,
brutal suppression of the Tamils will also encourage a large refugee exodus to
India thereby affecting Indian security. Several analysts have recommended that
India modify its policies to facilitate peace and security in Lanka.
Meanwhile, the LTTE and the SLG are to meet at Oslo to discuss the composition
of the Sri Lankan Monitoring Mission (SLMM). The LTTE does not want European
Union members as their Governments have banned the organization for terrorism.
The SLG says that since the SLMM Memorandum has been signed by it with Norway,
the LTTE has no locus standi in the matter. The Tamils gave a 1 month deadline
which they are willing to extend to 3 months so the SLMM composition may be
changed. Both parties have weakened the position of Norway as a facilitator
accusing it if taking sides.
|
