Nehru, Modi, Eelam: Aravindan Neelakandan's Canard

Aravindan Neelakandan's latest blog on Nehru is an admirable exercise in manipulation of facts. Neelakandan is a proponent of strident Hindutva with a website named, what else, 'www.Tamilhindu.com'. Nehru and Gandhi are probably the most hated individuals by Modi's prospective voters.

Neelakandan seeking to justify a Modi regime sought to 'expose' Nehru on the occasion of, of course, Nehru's birthday. He alleges that Nehru signed a pact with Sri Lankan Prime Minister John Kotelawala that made thousands of Sri Lankan Tamils 'stateless'. Neelakandan's new found love for Eelam has an agenda. He quotes Nehru's comrade V.K.Krishna Menon that Nehru signed the pact with little thought of what it would do Tamils and he did so to win international acclaim. Then Neelakandan conflates Nehru-Liaquat pact as a similar effort that 'paved the way for genocide of Hindus in Pakistan'. All those pacts led to, Neelakandan alleges, the genocide of Hindus in what was East Pakistan in 1971 and in Sri Lanka in 2009. In the passing he takes refuge in Rajaji's criticisms of Nehru.

When the sun set in the British empire they left behind countries that were mangled and mired in problems. The British had imported cheap labor, by the thousands for many years, into Sri Lanka from Tamil Nadu. Its a thorny issue with grey areas. Sri Lankans felt that indentured laborers who came as immigrants should go back to India, irrespective of how long they had lived in Sri Lanka. Many were there for generations. Before Indians jump indignantly let us remember why Assam erupted into a violent revolution. If one looks, just cursorily, at the Assam agreement one could see how draconian it was. Sri Lanka acted likewise by asking India to take back all immigrants. Nehru had been in dialogue with Senanayaka first and then Kotelawala.

Nehru invited Kotelawala to Delhi for talks. After three days of talks Jan 16th-18th 1954 they signed a pact that was a tortured document about what kind of people Sri Lanka would accept as citizens and who, India, should take back. Fairly Sri Lankan Tamils were not happy. Thats a fair criticism. But Neelakantan goes further in alleging that Nehru was villainous.

Writing on the Nehru-Senanayake talks Valli Kanapathi Pillai writes in 'Citizenship and Statelessness in Sri Lanka' that Nehru "refused to compromise on the interests of the Indian Tamils for the sake of bilateral relationship. In all the negotiations that Nehru had with Sri Lanka over the Indian Tamils he resisted any suggestion of large scale repatriation of Indians".

Kanapathi Pillai does quote Vytilingam, as cited by Neelakandan, that the Tamils felt 'they have been tied hand and foot and delivered to John Kotelawala'. Pillai also extends his criticism that Nehru had initiated a change in stance with Kotelawala and for the first time accepted 'repatriation'. Pillai is categorical that this was done for 'bilateral relations'. The pact was a complete failure and Pillai lays the blame all around for that. The next big pact was the Sirima-Shastri pact which took the repatriation agreement to new levels.

In the course of history such deal making is common. It is distasteful but it is done. The crux of the issue is that Nehru did not 'sell out' Tamils to get a feather in his cap from the international community as Neelakantan alleges.

What Neelakantan does not place in context is the precarious nature of the Indian state in 1954. Barely 7 years after Independence and a steady stream of communal riots until 1950 posed serious threats to the very survival of the nation. By alleging that Nehru sold out Tamils Neelakantan moves to the real objective of painting Nehru as one who sold out Hindus in the Nehru-Liaquat pact.

On the Nehru-Liaquat pact Neelakandan is certainly on far slippery ground. His usual technique is to find a good factual nugget and then use the credibility thus gained to propagate an unrelated falsehood. Neelakandan, an open Hindutva proponent, sought to establish that Nehru was a habitual 'sellout' and used the messy Sri Lankan example to establish a pattern for his more important allegation that Nehru laid the groundwork for genocide of thousands of Hindus. I need to wash my hands for typing that sentence.

Nehru wrote to Clememt Attlee on 20th March 1950 and it bears some extensive quotes. Citing that Muslims hold high positions in Indian government Nehru contrasts it with Pakistan, "In Pakistan the Hindus did not and do not occupy any important place", "the party itself is communal and thus there is not even a chance for a non-Muslim to influence its work or decisions". Referring to India's efforts to bring back Muslims from areas that they fled from Nehru contrasts with Sind 'practically no Hindu population left, except for the sweepers..as their services were required...Sind was thus added to the West Punjab and the Frontier Province as an area where the minority problem had practically been solved by the elimination of the minority".

After signing the pact with Liaquat Nehru addressed the parliament at length. "As I sat hour after hour, discussing these matters of grave import with the Prime minister of Pakistan, I saw an unending stream of unhappy, fear-stricken refugees, uprooted from their home, facing a dark and unknown future. I experienced their sorrow and misery and I prayed for guidance as to how this could be stopped". It was "essentially a human problem in which human lives and human suffering were involved in a measure that was almost unthinkable".

The partitioning of India created a humanitarian disaster that was unprecedented in history and thankfully never seen again either. 10 million lives were uprooted in a mass exodus of Hindus and Muslims across the sub-continent. The wounds festered for long. And 3 years, when the Nehru-Liaquat pact happens, is nothing in the time scale of a nation's wounded history. Both countries were ready to erupt into war and civil wars. In 2013 we cannot even fathom those perilous days.

India had far more minorities than Pakistan did and any lesser secular leadership than Nehru could have easily seen the country descend into horrific bloodshed that could possibly have torn apart a nascent country.

Nehru-Liaquat pact centered around the right of refugees to return home, be provided safe conveyance for visits to dispose property, minorities to be assured, in both countries, of liberty. Nehru addresses the concern that Pakistan was a theocratic state and cites Liaquat's assurances of a modern liberal constitution. Liaquat did indeed write the 'objectives' for Pakistan. Then Nehru speaks of India's secularism. "This (secularism) does not mean that religion ceases to be an important factor in the private life of the individual. It means the state and religion are not tied up together".

Worried over the war mongering of Pakistan Nehru writes a really long 7 page letter to all chief ministers on August 1st 1951. Nehru recounts a vast public meeting, attended by 200,000 according to his estimate. It was raining heavily yet people stayed  to listen to their leader. Nehru writes that he spoke to this vast crowd about the recent war mongering by Pakistan and how India had nothing to be afraid of by detailing the steps taken by India. His "comparison of the 'clenched fist' of Pakistan with the Asoka Chakra, our symbol of peace and righteousness, evoked the loudest applause". Then Nehru goes on to give a summary of how UK and USA are molly coddling Pakistan. The letter gives a history lesson too. (I hope Neelakantan loves Nehru's fondness for Asoka Chakra)

Here is a leader who addresses a parliament at length laying out the rationale for a treaty while completely aware of how venal a theocratic state can treat its minorities. When a neighboring country rattles its saber Nehru addresses the common man, counseling caution, unlike Modi in Trichy. Then he proceeds to write a lengthy letter to state chief ministers like a CEO would write to his chief officials. Actually Nehru treats the CM's with respect and as equals. Sadly his daughter and grandson learned none of this. This is the man that Neelakandan says laid the foundations for genocide of Hindus.

It is instructive to compare Patel, Modiu's hero here. To Modi and his voters it is an article of faith that Gandhi out of partiality toward Nehru foisted him to Prime Ministership and that if Patel had been PM India would have, without a doubt, fared better.

The only decent biography of Patel is by Rajmohan Gandhi. Neelakantan might disagree with the book because the author is Gandhi's son. Patel is an honorable son of India who rendered a great service to the country at a time of great peril. However Patel was not Nehru. Rajmohan quotes a report from Hindustan Times where Patel says "every loyal muslim must be treated as a brother". Rajmohan quotes it approvingly to illustrate how well disposed Patel was towards Muslims. Little does Rajmohan, a hindu, realize how grating to a muslim's ears must the words be. What does Patel mean by 'loyal muslim should be treated as brethren". Till today one can hear those words. Why did not Patel tell Muslims "every loyal Hindu will be your brethren". A Hindu's loyalty is axiomatic and is assumed. A Muslim's loyalty is a  pre-requisite to be treated as brethren.

Angered by the exodus of Hindus from Pakistan Patel wrote to Nehru "we would have no alternative left except to send out Muslims in equal numbers". Thankfully Nehru, as PM, discredited that shameful advice. But Patel, the Sardar that he is, corrected himself and stood by Nehru to support the pact with Liaquat.

Patel and Nehru are a good tag team. Unfortunately Patel died too soon in 1950 barely when India's constitution was adopted and the country became a republic. During the constitutional debates Patel ridiculed that there 'should be no restrictions on the Press, the lathi or the bullet'. Patel wanted, Rajmohan writes, 'citizen's right of speech and action to be balanced by society's right of order'. Of course Nehru stood for greater individual freedom. Where Nehru, enamored by Soviet collectivization, was eager to grab farm land, Patel stood firmly against it.

It takes a really malicious mind to connect Liaquat-Nehru pact with Hindu's killed in East Pakistan in 1971. East Pakistan was engulfed in total civil war where not just Hindus were killed. The civil war condition created a refugee crises prompting Indira Gandhi to act decisively. Vajpayee then called Indira Gandhi as 'Durga devi'.

Yes Rajaji opposed Nehru particularly on the economic policy front. Rajaji correctly labeled Nehru's economic vision as 'license permit raj'. Rajaji and K.M.Munshi formed the libertarian Swatantra party. Their declarations read like the campaign rhetoric of USA's modern day GOP replete with references to 'small government'. Later the same Rajaji would join hands with DMK to defeat Congress. I'd love to know if Neelakantan liked that too.

Rajaji in fact paved the way for DMK with his ill conceived plan to close down schools to address budget deficit. He compounded a bad policy with an ill thought out statement that children need not idle at home due to shortened hours at school but could help out parents in their chores. Rajaji's bete noire EVR made political hay by alleging, incorrectly, that Rajaji, a brahmin, was telling non-Brahmins to go do their parents jobs. Kamaraj, a non-Brahmin illiterate, who succeeded Rajaji invested in education and revolutionized primary education in Tamil Nadu for generations to come. Rajaji's ideas of laissez faire government would not have suited a nation born after centuries of colonial rule and still wracked by casteism.

I cannot comprehend the depravity to which a mind can subscribe to when it ties the tragic 2009 Sri Lankan civil war to a failed bill of 1954. In a mind clouded with prejudice and hatred complexities of history, facts and truths are inconveniences. The tragic denouement of a people's struggle for rights should be rightfully blamed on both Sinhala leadership and most importantly on Prabakaran a Frankenstein's monster unleashed by India under Indira Gandhi.

Neelakandans diatribe is suffused with logical inconsistencies. By tarnishing Nehru as one who cared nothing for Tamils he only supports the Dravidian ideology of separatism which too alleged that Delhi does not care for Chennai. As a votary of Grand India I am sure Neelakandan would recoil with horror at that idea.

The mask falls off when Neelakandan tars British TV channel that exposed Sri Lankan war crimes as having an insidious agenda of some commercial gain. If Channel 4 wanted commercial gains they would rather not expose Rajapakse. A simple logic like that is inconvenient to his vitriolic narrative.

The worst part is where Neelakandan, with no basis, alleges that Prabakaran's outfit was funded by Western Christian organizations. Western Christian organizations are a perpetual bogey for a Hindutuva proponent. Prabhakaran's funding apparatus was based on extortions, drug trafficking, the elaborate web of fundraising by expatriate diaspora. But then why bother with truth when it would spoil a hypothesis.

Neelakandan cites obscure quotes to show that Modi and RSS were Eelam supporters. Just recently the BJP was in favor of Manmohan attending the Sri Lankan hosted Commonwealth summit going against the prevailing sentiment in Tamil Nadu, including the state unit of BJP. BJP was in favor because, they too, overlooked local interest in the name of bi-lateral relations and strategic needs.

Neelakandan is no fool. He is a very intelligent man who works with a laser like focus on promoting a militant Hindu regime. He, as RSS and BJP wants, has to tear down Nehru and Gandhi to erect the edifice of a Hindu theocratic state. The most indomitable force that stands in his way is the cosmopolitan secular outlook of Nehru and Gandhi. This is why Neelakantan and his ilk assiduously undermine the very idea of 'secularism' a vital glue that holds together a nation. Advani coined the term 'pseudo secularism' and reaped votes.

The faults and vote bank politics of Congress is being exploited to the hilt by Neelakantan to not just getting Modi elected but to a complete re-ordering of Indian society. India is a very unique country. Many accommodations and compromises that were done for the sake of minorities was to address a tortured birth and a situation that had no parallel in history. Let us not forget that Hindu's too were molly coddled by way of reservations, specious tax laws and the like.

People like Neelakandan should not be ignored as 'oh well thats him. Don't take him seriously'. People like him should be exposed, consistently and without fail, for what they truly are. Fascists.


References:

1. Citizenship and Statelessness in Sri Lanka - Valli Kanapathipillai. Its actually available as google book.

2.Refer to page 244-253 in thius excellent collection of 'Documents of Sri Lanka Foreign Policy:1947-65. This contains exact docs of the Nehru-Kotelawala pact, Sirima-Shastry pact etc http://www.rcss.org/publication/books/FPbook.pdf

3. Nehru's letter to Attlee, Speech to Parliament, letter to chief ministers were from "The essential writings of Jawaharlal Nehru" Volume 2 Edited by S.Gopal & Uma Iyengar. Refer pages 341-351 and 363-369

4. Patel's quotes were from "Patel: A Life" by Rajmohan Gandhi. Refer pages 497-500.

5. Assam student revolt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assam_Movement

6. Another corroboration of Kanapathipillai's material is by a less regarded journalist at http://www.atimes.com/ind-pak/CK17Df01.html

7. A short intro on Nehru-Liaquat pact by a Pakistani web site http://storyofpakistan.com/liaquat-nehru-pact/

7. Aravindan Neelakantan's blog http://www.tamilhindu.com/2013/11/eelam/

Sri Lanka: Would the wounds heal? Is there a tomorrow?

It’s been more than a year since the conclusion of Sri Lanka’s civil war and the din just refuses to die, for good and bad reasons. Its good in as much as there is continued focus on rehabilitating the war destitute and being vigilant on human rights abuses by a not so magnanimous victor. This continued noise about Sri Lanka in India and elsewhere by Tamils and Tamil expatriates is more counter-productive and in fact it’s mostly divorced from reality.

If Hutu’s and Tutsi’s can make peace in Rwanda I see no reason for Sri Lankan Tamils for not making peace with Sinhalese (or vice versa). If Jews can still live in Germany I see no reason as to why Tamils cannot live in unified Sri Lanka. If Kurds can live in Iraq and Armenians in Turkey (Turkey still denies to call the Armenian Massacre a genocide, in fact calling it so is a punishable crime) what compelling reasons do Sri Lankan Tamils have for vivisecting a land to which they had emigrated to? Sikhs and Muslims still live in India despite organized pogroms. Dalits still live in Tamil Nadu despite Tamil Nadu ranking 5^th in anti-Dalit violence. Brahmins and Forward community people still live in Tamil Nadu despite the most oppressive policies that exclude them from education and jobs (and they did not even think it’s ok to get violent just because they don’t get college seats). 

A little perspective here. Dravidian parties rose to prominence on the back of a virulent hate filled agenda built around anti-brahminism. That Brahmins and sections of, supposedly, other communities (all collectively labeled Forward Community) held most government posts and constituted the most of educated population was pointed to as gross imbalance. Quota based reservation was championed as “positive discrimination” in favor of hitherto backward communities. In 2008 not a single Brahmin student gained admission in the state Medical colleges. Not a single one. DK, a neo-Nazi type organization, crowed that this was victory. Brahmins and by extension fellow Forward Community were often  portrayed as having gained access to portals of education by currying favors with the British and entrenching a system that used merit as fig leaf to cover casteist aspersions. Today Tamil Nadu has 69% reserved seats. Not just in undergrad. It continues to PG, Jobs and promotions too. The only thing left out of quotas is reserving a plot in the cemetery.  

The Sri Lankan situation was the reverse. Native Lankans saw that Tamils had cornered much of the government jobs and far outnumbered Sinhalese students in colleges. So they decided to do their own ‘positive discrimination’. In fact their reservation quota system was more sympathetic towards Tamils than the system in Tamil Nadu is towards to FC’s. Also their reservation system has been revised and in fact discontinued even while the quota in TN continues unabated where we see children of ministers and doctors claims “backwardness” and enjoy the quota. Disenchanted with being denied life blood, access to education and jobs, the youth became restive and seethed with rage. Added to this was the language policy promoting Sinhala the native language spoken by the majority. Tamil chauvinists saw this as an attempt to relegate them to secondary citizen status. Now every state in India is promoting its own language with almost no toleration for others and especially English. 

In a nutshell take the policies championed by Dravidian parties and paint it Sinhala and there you have it. I used to live with Sinhalese when I came to USA. I had no problems, one of them was the finest human being I had seen. During a chance conversation a girl narrated how Tamils used to dominate Sri Lanka and how Sinhalese were marginalized and how certain policies were put in place to address that imbalance. I could close my eyes and imagine a DK/DMK fascist talk about Brahmins. For every time she said "Tamil" I could easily substitute "Brahmin". She claimed that Tamils, under the cloak of meritocracy only gamed the exams and even gave out the question paper in advance. Now, I've heard this accusation verbatim, hurled at Brahmins by a non brahmin.


Throw in a few more crumbs like Indira Gandhi’s desire to thwart American influence to appease her masters in Kremlin. India uncannily sought to fish in that troubled waters. Indira had a fetish to create Frankensteins. Prabakaran and Bindranwale. She and her son paid a very tragic price for those adventures. A Sri Lankan Tamil friend put it succinctly that Prabakaran was indeed seen as a hero initially, especially in the aftermath of the July ’83 pogroms (which itself was a reaction to Prabakaran’s adventurism in killing 13 Sinhala soldiers). The rest is history and I shall not waste my breath or your patience on rehashing the familiar story.

What is the status today of a people that feel vanquished, under threat and practically clueless. Quite often with sickening regularity Eelam sympathizers talk about how Jews got Israel. Ironically many are strong Palestine sympathizers and practically adore Yasser Arafat (another failed leader like Prabakaran). It is sad to see these misguided and ill-informed, but well meaning, sympathizers even go to the extent of adopting what used to be a Jewish slogan “next year in Jerusalem”. Now we hear “next year in Eelam”. Most do not even know the basic history surrounding the creation of Israel and the odds overcome by giants in leadership. Theodore Herzl, David Ben Gurion, Golda Meir, Chaim Weizmann etc are sheer giants in pragmatic leadership. An infant nation smaller than Kerala faced the sea to one side and three countries that were armed to the teeth who vowed to push the Jews into the sea. To think that Israel became a nation courtesy the US and US provided assistance is childish at best. 

First the question of Rajapakse. There is clamor to have him declared as war criminal and haul him off to some prison. In real terms this will not happen. Also, if one looked at it coldly, he just prosecuted a war ruthlessly where neither side was a saint when it came to human rights. Actually the Prabakaran worshippers are the worst in this because they turn a willful blind eye to how Prabakaran held his own people as human shields, recruited child soldiers, tortured would-be deserters, harassed families for donating soldiers etc. 

Throughout history this clamor to label somebody, especially the victor of a difficult war, as war criminal has been persistent. Winston Churchill in a very defiant speech in fact promised that he would mete out to the German more than the equal measure of what they inflicted on Britain. The bombing Dresden is still debated as an act of vengeance by the Allied forces. George Bush was sought to be tried for supposed war crimes by millions across the globe. 


Indicting an elected head of state as war criminal is a very arduous task bordering on impossibility. Also the legal requirements are daunting. To indict Rajapakse as war criminal it has to be proved that he issued orders for ethnic cleansing, that he issued orders for bombing known civilian areas with no provocation. Are his hands clean? Certainly not. In a war where neither side respected norms of Geneva conventions its difficult to just indict one side. Hospitals were indeed bombed but hospitals were used by LTTE as launch sites. 


The other question is about the "genocidal war". While the riots of '83 etc would qualify as pogroms, a riot aimed at an ethnic race the war certainly does not qualify for the tag "genocide". I find it objectionable to bring in comparisons with holocaust where a race that was law abiding and never contemplated violence against the state was murdered by the millions. What happened in Sri Lanka was civil war. An aggrieved ethnic community resorted to armed struggle and lost the day. In a war that was prosecuted with no concern for norms by either side its facetious to label it as genocide. Also its pertinent to note that Obama's administration steadfastly refuse to call the ARmenian massacre a "genocide" just because US does not want to infuriate Turkey a key ally in a troubled region. In a world like this calling the Sri Lankan war a genocide is unnecessary complication.

What is really pernicious is the attempt by the Sri Lankan Tamil diaspora and especially Tamil NRI's to engender a state of perpetual hostility while safely tucked in the comforts of well paying jobs. Imagine you are a Sinhala in Lanka and if you see the diaspora push countries to institute trade boycott of Sri Lanka made goods, you would naturally think "well the Tamil brethren are trying to starve my country so why should I spend our taxpayer money to pay for any reparations and why should I reconcile, after all I won the war that I did not start".

Rather than work with Sri Lankan government or NGO's on reparations and rehabilitations that require lot of effort its easier to rouse the rabble in front of embassies. More travel between Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka should be encouraged. Travel by industry people, ordinary folks, cine artists, human rights organizations and the like.

China, in its race for markets and resources, is establishing foothold everywhere across the globe and human rights is not a concern at all. Well after Tianenman square can the CHinese do that? Whether its Sudan or Sri Lanka human rights is simply not a concern. In a geo politically convoluted world this angle cannot be ignored by India. Also let us bear in mind that Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of state, has categorically stated that in dealing with China, USA is not concerned about human rights (imagine the reaction of left wingers if Donald Rumsfeld under Bush had said that).

A parting word for those who still clamor for Eelam. Despite the sub human condition of Afro-Americans never once did Martin Luther King desire to dismember US. Instead he called upon America to live up to its promise.

A big tragedy for Sri Lankan Tamils is the absolute lack of good leadership that is visionary. The blame for that is to be squarely laid at the feet of Prabakaran who methodically eliminated all moderate leadership in cold blood

For those Prabakaran worshippers out there. Sit and ponder why a guy, who controlled practically 2/3rd of Sri Lanka's coast line and had all the land he pretty much wanted, lost it all and died senselessly. THey also have to answer for the numerous transgressions of Prabakaran, murdering leaders of his own people, expelling thousands of Muslims from Jaffna, child soldiers, forced conscriptions, absolute tyranny etc. Prabakaran was another Yasser Arafat, did not know when to take a compromise and build a better future for his people. But then did he ever desire peace and progress for his people?

Bottom line is that Sri Lankan Tamils have to adjust to reality. At best they can hope for a federal structure. Separate homeland is a dangerous utopia. Also its unfair to Sri Lanka to dissect their homeland.

Sri Lanka: India's asinine efforts Vs European Efforts

(Photo Courtesy New York Times)

The photo above published in today's NYT is telling. It is very reminiscent of Auschwitz and Dachau. If one looks closely one can see that it is mostly children standing there. They will carry their scars for decades if at all they can return to any normalcy.

The tragedy of Lankan Tamils is getting worse by the day between two supposed liberators. Both the Lankan Government and LTTE are claiming to prolong this tragedy in the name of the people. Rajapakse claims he is liberating "hostages" , LTTE claims they are fighting for a homeland and that the people are staying back of their own free will.

What struck me as curious about the humanitarian mission by, David Miliband, Britain’s foreign secretary and Bernard Kouchner, Foreign minister of France is that they visited the refugee camps. Pranab Mukherjee on the other hand visited only Rajapaksa, shook his hands, shared a smile in front of flashing bulbs and returned home empty handed. The European ministers on the other hand were extremely critical of Rajapakse, yes they could not achieve more but at least they did not just pose for photographs and were moer explicitly vocal in their criticisms.

The gesture of visiting refugee camp is significant. If Pranab, accompanied by a Tamil Nadu minister, did the same it would have meant something for the poor souls seeing their brethren visit them. But alas what Pranab did was more due to compulsion of electoral politics than out of genuine concern.

Also ominously absent from all these international reports is what India is doing. India is doing nothing and that is reflected in the news stories pouring out in international media.

"Mr. Kouchner, who has spent four decades in conflict zones and is a co-founder of Doctors Without Borders, said in an interview before his departure that he did not entirely trust the Sri Lankan government’s assurances.“Do I believe them? No, not completely,” he said. But he said he discounted claims by the rebels even more."

India and the International community are yet to prick the soft underbelly of Sri Lanka's economy. I do not understand why the EU could not impose an embargo on exports from Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka is heavily dependent on garment exports and is very vulnerable if that spigot is turned off. Here is an idea for MNC's, why not picket department stores that stock clothing from Sri Lanka.

Another painful truth is there exists no legitimate avenue to channelise financial aid. Any donor is immediately worried about money being funneled to LTTE, a proscribed organization in USA and would constitute a crime unless it was proven that the donor did not know that the recipient was a front for LTTE. There are no NGO's operating in Lanka who can tap into global diaspora. In the absence of those what the diaspora does is just marching up and down avenues in front of consulates. There is almost total absence of concrete efforts to help the refugees.

The onus to stop the war is on Mr Prabakaran as he is the only pretext for the war. If he had any love for his people he should abdicate without delay. Without him on the scene the international community will bear down on Rajapakse unequivocally unlike today when they still have to excuse the war and voice concern about civilians in a restrained manner.

Sri Lanka: An orphaned Race Vs A Tyrannical government

The Sri Lankan tragedy is now garnering the attention of news outlets across the world. NYT, Wall Street Journal, BBC, Washington Post etc have been publishing regular stories. Increasingly the focus is turned on the Rajapakse led government, its arrogance, blatant violation of all international laws, unbridled tyranny, war crimes are all being brought to world attention, sadly with little effect though.

"In victory, magnanimity" said Churchill. Rajapakse, his government and the Sinhalese public, in general are gloating over their victory in an unseemly sight. Rejecting the offer of truce by LTTE, Gothabaya Rajapakse and another minister, showed arrogance that sends a chill down the soul of anyone who had glimmers of hope in reconciliation amongst Tamils and Sinhalese. The attitude of revenge, especially indiscriminate revenge is chilling. The concentration camps, they are not refugee camps, is a travesty of all international laws. In the guise of screening thousands are held in concentration camp like set ups. This is no way to treat a people. This is no road to reconciliation.

Sri Lanka is today rated as the worst spot for journalistic reporting. Every news agency draws attention to the fact that no objective reporting can be done because reporters are denied access to war zone. What is worse is the naked tyrannical atmosphere where unfriendly journalists are murdered or disappear without trace.

The Economist, in an article titled "Dark Victory", writes, "In the east and elsewhere, especially Colombo, the country’s main city, it is alleged to have abducted and killed hundreds of young Tamils. Nor are Sinhalese entirely safe, especially journalists. Several have been mysteriously assassinated, and the rest terrorised. Reporters Without Borders, an NGO, considers Sri Lanka more hostile for journalists than any other democracy."

International agencies accuse the Sri Lankan government of the highest number of extra judicial killings or just plain disappearances. Tamils picked up for questioning routinely turn up dead or just not traceable.

Just today the Swedish foreign minister was denied visa, he was to undertake a humanitarian fact finding mission. This diplomatic slap is unprecedented. According to NYT, the pro-government Sinhalese newspaper, Daily News, today published an article titled ominously "“Get your humanitarian paws off my country.”

Sri Lanka has requested foreign aid to deal with the refugee crisis. It has already recieved one third of the $200 million it requested. But many aid agency staff are refused visas. NYT reports that Doctors-without-borders, says, “For us as a humanitarian organization, it’s extremely difficult for us to get permission to get staff in. It can take up to six weeks to get approval.” Another NYT report, cites Dr Pruchnic of Doctors-without-borders “there are kids here who have had amputations, their mother and father are gone — their whole family is missing,”. Yet they can still smile. I’m amazed at their resilience." Dr. Pruchnic said many of the patients, including children, arrived without their families.

It is the duty of world bodies NOT to release any further money without getting gaurantees from Sri Lankan government on access to refugees and stringent auditing of funds is required.

BBC reports that "The United Nations top humanitarian envoy, John Holmes, said on Monday that he had failed to secure agreement from the government on access to civilians."

Condemning Rajapakse is not a free pass for LTTE, the Economist notes bluntly, "Nor should Mr Prabhakaran and his crew be mourned. A well-organised and vicious terrorist group, expert in brainwashing and suicide-blasting, the LTTE has maintained its fief—which until late 2006 extended over almost a third of the country—by murder and fear. Moreover, having sabotaged a peace initiative of the previous government, and helped it lose an election by imposing a boycott on Tamil voters under its sway, Mr Prabhakaran has had the war he was asking for".

The onus on a government is because a government is necessarily judged on a different plane. America's use of napalm in Vietnam war and My Lai are still justifiably cited as some of the most shameful instances of a country with a proud army. Abhu Graib is the latest blot. India's role in Kashmir is no less repressive. Rajapakse's government has been singularly incapable of honoring any promise, they are absolutely duplicitous.

The world community with so many options is still feeble in its responses. A people have been brought to its knees and the victor is salivating with taste for blood and revenge.

Rwanda, the place of 20th century's most horrific genocide by Hutus against Tutsis has a Tutsi President. Million plus Tutsi's were killed by Hutus. This week's issue of New Yorker carries an extensive article on the reconciliation between Tutsis and Hutus, thought impossible 10 years ago.

The day Sri Lanka can elect a Tamil as Prime Minister or President is when Sri Lankans can truly be proud. Its a long road but its up to the Sinhalese to pave the road. There are good people amongst them too. I also hope that Tamils will be able to join the mainstream as equals and contribute to a prosperous Sri Lanka.

Sri Lankan tragedy: Mourned by all , helped by none.

It is difficult not to voice an opinion on a great tragedy unfolding in our time. Seeing the images of a stricken population coming out of a sliver of land one cannot help being moved. The image of tens of thousands streaming out of a beseiged city brought to mind the image of defeated Jews leaving Jersusalem 2000 years ago. The Tamils of Sri Lanka could have learnt a lot from how Israel was created but then Prabakaran and the mediocre leadership are no match for the wisdom of Theodor Herzl or Chaim Weizman or Ben Gurion. I shall write seperately on that.

It has become a fashion in Tamil Nadu to organize some protest rally, shriek unprintable illogical nonsense againt MK, Sonia, India. I've no sympathy for MK. He is cornered fair and square by the lumpen Frankenstein that he, Annathurai, Ramasamy Naicker and other charlatan fascists had unleashed 60 years ago. Looking at all this one would think that Sri Lankan refugees would be patronised with love and care far exceeding their imagination but as it often happens reality is otherwise.

"Rose" a transgender woman hosts a show in Vijay TV. I stumbled upon a a show of hers posted in youtube dealing with Sri Lankan Refugee travails. In that she interviews, at great length several refugees. From a purely journalistic angle it is not a great interview but compared to vernacular and local media it is certainly above par. In the section I've provided the link for a man who narrates his travails. This is unique because no where else do we get to hear from the victims themselves, often we only hear colored political commentary, here they are without filters. Its a six part interview, this section is part 4.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmdo9bN43Rg&feature=related

Apart from a very shameful aspect of being cheated out of his last penny by a police officer, the narration highlights the true difficulties of refugees. The biggest difficulty is becoming part of mainstream population, getting a job. A gut instinct is to sympathise with him on being discriminated against but let us put ourselves in the shoes of employers. Who would dare risk employing an unknown Sri Lankan, the first question is "is he LTTE", "if not can we trust for sure", "what troubles would he bring". THAT is the nub of the mess.

Successive governments have all used the Sri Lankan tragedy for their own ends. When convenient they would shout from rooftops about supporting and when inconvenient they would slither away.

The film fraternity led by Bharathiraja is shouting at the most shrill pitch. The greatest tragedy of Tamilians is that by and large people like Satyaraj, Thamarai etc have become ideologues freely dispensing political ideologies. When Sean Penn, two Academy Awards, opines on Iraq War he mostly gets sniggers. But then for 60 years Tamil Nadu, or the Tamil speaking part of Madras Presidency, has been subjected to a mass hypnosis that would put to shame Stalin or Hitler.

Not one, except Mani Ratnam, amongst this Tamil filmdom, Kollywood, had espoused these causes when they were each at the top. Bharathiraja was busy making love crazy films, busy on promoting his good for nothing son, Thamarai never uttered anything in public or through her works on this, Satyaraj had the worst reputation as womaniser (though an actor capable of some good acting) and he too is now busy promoting his equally useless son, the list goes on.

Even if one were to accept, well at least now they are voicing concern, I'd like to ask "to what end". How many have done anything "concrete" for the refugees. Do they even know what the concerns are? How many have even talked to refugees or visited a refugee camp? Do they know the genuine issues of managing such a steady influx of refugees? How do we screen the refugees for terrorists, or for pure criminal elements? how do we control law and order or crime rate with such influx? (Crime rate shot up in Tanjore / Trichy areas during the last such mass influx of refugees).

So many simple acts of generosity could be done. The children could be rehabilitated in good schools (no Tamil Medium please), given psychological support with psychological evaluations, women could be integrated in so many walks of life, the refugees themselves could be used to streamline the steady influx, if only some mind is applied to find sincere solutions.

Instead of fanciful demands of asking India to tell Sri Lanka to stop the war the Indian government could be pressured to send several red-cross aid teams, good rehabilitation NGO's could be asked for help. Kollywood with its immense financial clout can help in many ways. Instead of wasteful Bandh they could have one extra screening of a Rajni/Kamal movie and donate the proceedings. Why stike work thus depriving people in Tamil Nadu of livelihood, do the opposte, work more and donate to charity. Can anything be more Gandhian? But I guess its easy to shout from a dais half baked ideas on racism and question national integrity than to do something really useful.

The last point takes us to the vexing issue of Prabakharan. The local media, invariably Cho and N.Ram, get excoriated as "Brahminical" when they are critical of Prabakaran but who can answer to New York Times or BBC which equally call Prabakaran "dictatorial, terrorist etc". It sickens me to the stomach to see each rally for Sri Lankan Tamils degenerate into unqualified support for Prabakaran and most importantly some phantasmal adulation like he is redeemer. Whether it is Bharathi Raaja or Mahendran (two people who recently were sought out and given audience by Prabakaran) these charlatans cannot answer what kind of life will Tamils have under Prabakaran. Prabakaran has made no bones. He wants to be a dictator, as MK himself now quotes. Looking at his blood stained history of killing all his competitors and dissenters one need not doubt. Ask the families of Amirthalingam, Siri Sabaratnam, Padmanabha etc.

A great human tragedy has become all more tragic due to the mindless circus around this.