N.Nandhivarman, General Secretary Dravida Peravai in an exclusive interview to Tamil Sydney.com says: 
Q: In the aftermath of all parties of Tamilnadu protesting against Indian inaction over the genocide of Tamils in Srilanka, the Government of India had taken few steps to cool down the tempers in Tamilnadu. What is your view on the steps taken by Government of India? 
A: Every step is welcome, but let those take the steps look back to past, so that they may not falter in their steps. Close on the heels of Government of India coming out hesitantly, there are moves by forces opposed to Tamils rights to confuse and fish into troubled waters. The Hindu gave undue importance to the 150 day Chief Minister of Eastern Province Mr. Sivanesathurai Santhirakanthan, by publishing his views.

 The Delhi spokespersons too had repeated recently like parrots that the democratic process in Eastern Province should be encouraged. Both initiatives seem to aim to introduce the Chief Minister of Eastern Province, as legitimate political authority, in order to induct him too in the so called dialogue. The de-merger of the Northern and Eastern Provinces aims at slapping India on its face. It makes mockery of the Rajiv Gandhi_ J.R.Jayawardene accord signed on 29th July 1987. Close on the inking of that accord, India backed Mr.Varadaraja Perumal was foisted as Chief Minister of unified North-Eastern Province. Ultimately when accord failed, Mr.Varadaraja Perumal had to unilaterally announce independence and flee to India, which spent happily public money for decades to protect a puppet. Now it is the time for Srilankan Government's puppet Mr.Sivanesanthurai Santhirakanthan, the so called Chief Minister of Eastern Province, to play his historical role till he flees. Apart from individual players, the main thrust of argument both the cases were and is that Provincial Councils with devolution of powers will address to the aspirations of Eelam Tamils. This is mirage chase, a mirage Tamils of Elam had been chasing even before Srilanka got independence.

Q: Are you of the opinion that provincial councils within unitary Srilanka would not resolve the crisis, if so please elaborate the reasons?

A:   Even before Srilanka became independent in 1928, Donoughmore Commission suggested the creation of Provincial councils. It took 12 years and in 1940 the Executive Committee of Local Administration chaired by Thiru. S.W.R.D.Bandaranaike considered these proposals which were approved by legislature. Again in 1947, on the floor of the House of Representatives, Thiru.Bandaranaike reiterated his support. In 1955 Choksy Commission recommended the establishment of Provincial Councils. The Government headed by Thiru.S.W.R.D.Bandaranaike in May 1957 presented a draft bill for the establishment of Provincial Councils. Having been repeatedly advocated by Sinhalese Government of the day, the stamp of approval by the Tamil parties, then who were only seeking federalism, came when in July 1957 Thiru.S.V.J.Selvanayagam –Bandaranaike pact was signed. The pact paved way for direct election to regional councils with allocation of agriculture, cooperatives, land development, colonization and education as regional subjects, but even that dream was scuttled by the opposition parties mainly the UNP headed by J.R.Jayawardane.

Then in July 1960 Federal Party of Selvanayagam supported the SLFP headed by Mrs.Srimavo Bandaranaike, hoping it will implement the earlier pact. Though in July 1963, Mrs. Bandaranaike paid lip service by appointing a committee on District Councils and that eyewash committee too submitted its Draft of the Proposed Bill to create District Council. That ended there and nothing further was done.

Then in 1965 Dudley Senanaike-Selvanayagam pact was signed in order to get the Federal party's support to UNP Government. This pact affirmed assurances for early devolution of powers with creation of District Councils. In 1968 Dudley Senanaike cabinet approved a draft bill for the establishment of District Councils. Opposition mounted pressure and in July 1958 District Councils bill was withdrawn. Federal Party retaliated by withdrawing support to Government.

A Constituent Assembly was constituted after SLFP led by Mrs. Srimavo Bandaranaike won with huge majority in General Elections. The Federal Party submitted its proposals to the Constituent Assembly. The memorandum called for "a federal form of government with three autonomous Tamil, Sinhalese and Muslim states."  The demand of Federal Party for parity of status between Tamil and Sinhala was defeated in the Constituent Assembly. Federal Party boycotted but the new Constitution that changed Ceylon to Sinhalese name Srilanka making it a theocratic state with Buddhism as state religion was passed on 22nd May 1972. In 1979 August President J.R.Jayawardane appointed a Presidential Commission on creation of District Development Councils.

Well, to sum up, these were the demands of Tamil parties, more particularly The Federal Party headed by the Gandhi of Eelam Thiru Selvanayagam, as he was fondly referred in those days. The National Security Adviser of India, and those who currently have run out of ideas or initiatives, must realize they are clinging to certain phrases like "devolution of powers within unitary Srilanka" which are unrealizable goals, the unfolding drama since 1928 till date prove beyond an iota of doubt.

The role model of Indian states, which these people hold as panacea in their minds, will never be acceptable to Sinhalese .Even in India, to resolve the Kashmir dispute, the Indian constitution created a special article 370, even which till date has not satisfied the aspirations of Kashmiris. Even to the extent India came down to create a special provision in the Constitution Srilanka will never shed its arrogance and seek solution within the Constitutional parameters.

Q: These failures were between Srilankan ruling parties and Tamil parties. There were no mediators between them. India brokering peace and offering solutions will work, some analysts say, what do you feel?                                               

A: Have you forgotten that in the aftermath of 1983 genocide of Tamils, and then Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi sent her emissary Thiru.G.Parthasarathy. These proposals were later known as Annexure C proposals. Is Indian bureaucracy now in external affairs ministry ignorant of the fate of Annexure C proposals? Have they erased from their memories the reasons for the failures of Thimpu talks?  Later too what happened to the visit of Indian Ministers Mr.Natwar Singh and Mr.P.Chidambaram? Where their December 19 proposals, as they were called in 1986, had gone? Then the infamous pact and fiasco of IPKF need not be reminded. Those who currently advise Government of India and the Peace Emissary of Madam Sonia Gandhi, Mr.Pranab Mukerjee, must know they are dealing with the fate of Tamils who had met broken promises too long and who are facing genocide since 1983 to 2008. Just by simply repeating within unitary Srilanka or devolution of powers the conflict could not be resolved. They must search their brains for solutions. They must place their valuable suggestions for public debate. Before Mr.Sivashankar Menon assumed office as Foreign Secretary, and before he was relieved as Indian Ambassador of Pakistan, I wrote to him bluntly. Eelam Tamils will not live in Unitary Srilanka, Tamils don't trust Sinhalese. If India does not want separate Country for Tamils, then there can be only one option. The Tamil provinces of Srilanka can join Indian Union and be states within Indian Union, but let Sinhalese remain as separate sovereign Sinhala country.

Q: Then what is the other way out? What option will satisfy Eelam Tamils? Who should mediate?

A: The Tamilnadu Chief Minister Dr.Kalaignar M.Karunanithi is of the view that Norway need not mediate now; perhaps he has in mind a greater role for India. But I am of the view that India takes this issue to United Nations. It is not an issue between two countries; it is an issue between a ruthless government and its genocide of its own people. Instead of looking through the spectacles of Mr.M.K.Narayanan let India see this issue through UN. Canada had faced similar problem, and they had resolved. The Irish problem was resolved, to cite few. Many issues have been resolved and no use in buying time or sending issues to cold storage.

Europe has twelve small states, five of which are islands or island groups. Monaco, a small urban enclave on the northern Mediterranean coast, is one of the most prosperous and best known of all small states. With just 32,000 permanent residents (8,000 of whom are citizens) and 500 acres of territory, Monaco is a sovereign state; its independence is somewhat limited, since its big neighbour, France, manages its foreign relations, postal services and defense, while the French franc has served as its official currency. When Monoco can be independent nation with restrictions, why not that option be given to Tamil Eelam, for argument sake, we are asking the world community. Though we won't support independence with restrictions as is the case of Monaco, why not even for debate sake no one proposes Monaca model to resolve Tamil Eelam struggle.

In addition to Monaco, the smaller European territories of this type are: the Principality of Liechtenstein (pop. 31,000), the semi-independent state lets of Andorra (pop. 64,000) and San Marino (pop. 24,000) and four British territories -- the Isle of Man (pop. 70,000), the Channel Islands (pop. 150,000), the Faeroe Islands (pop. 45,000), and Gibraltar (pop. 29,000) – as well as Vatican City State. With just 700 residents and 109 acres, the Vatican may be the only state in the world with a diplomatic corps larger than its resident population. When Vatican with such miniscule population is independent nation what is wrong in Tamil Eelam being independent nation?

The Caribbean area has a number of small states, the majority islands. According to our adjusted World Bank figures there are 14 states and 15 territories in this class in the Caribbean region, ranging in size from Montserrat (pop. 6,400) to Trinidad and Tobago (pop. 1,300,000). Belize (pop. 236,000), Suriname (pop. 431,000), French Guiana (pop. 168,000) and Guyana (pop. 705,000) are all located on the mainland. Some of the better-known islands include Aruba (pop. 80,000), Barbados (pop. 257,000), the Bahamas (pop. 284,000), Martinique (pop. 412, 00), and Grenada (pop. 94,500).  If these tiny countries can be independent nations, what prevents all these countries from endorsing the right to independence to Tamil Eelam?

The Netherlands Antilles (pop. 208,000) is home of George Soros' famous Quantum hedge fund, while Bermuda (pop. 63,000) has recently become an important center for the global insurance industry. The tiny British self-governing territory of Cayman Islands (pop. 23,000) has risen to special prominence in recent decades.

The Pacific Ocean region has two dozen island states, ranging in size from Fiji (pop. 773,000) to tiny Tokelau, an atoll with just 1,700 residents. If with 1700 people an atoll be independent, why not Tamils of Eelam have their independent nation?

Some of the territories embrace hundreds of islands scattered over more than a thousand miles of ocean. The Indian Ocean is site of four large island groups, including the Maldives (pop. 245,000) and the Seychelles (pop. 79,000), as well as a number of other territories including the French island of Reunion (pop. 718,000). Among the smallest Pacific SSTs, Nauru (pop. 10,000) and Niue (2,100) have specialized in offshore finance, a field where newcomers can have an advantage.

Africa, too, has a number of SSTs – 12 states according to the World Bank count, including the islands of Cape Verde (pop. 416,000) and Sao Tome and Principe (pop.142, 000), coastal Djibouti (pop. 636,000) and continental Swaziland (pop. 969,000), as well as a number of territorial remnants of colonialism, like Ceuta (pop. 69,000) and Melilla (pop. 60,000), Spanish territories on Morocco's Mediterranean coast.

Asia, by contrast, has relatively few SSTs, many of which are quite prosperous. The island of Bahrain (pop. 629,000), peninsular Qatar (pop. 724,000), and coastal Brunei (pop. 323,000) are all petroleum-rich monarchies

Thirty-two of the Commonwealth's 53 member countries are small states - mostly with populations of less than 1.5 million They range in size from micro-states such as St Kitts and Nevis, Nauru, Niue, and Tuvalu with less than 50,000 people each, to countries like Botswana, The Gambia and Mauritius

The world's political map, dominated by large states, includes many lesser-known small states and territories. Using the World Bank benchmark of 1.5 million populations, there are 56 small states, as well as more than a hundred small territories under the sovereign control of others. A substantial majority of these small political units are islands or island federations, like Fiji in the Pacific or Barbados in the Caribbean. But others are located on the continental main lands, sometimes as coastal enclaves, like Monaco or Brunei, and sometimes as landlocked (often mountainous) territories, like Swaziland or Liechtenstein. A large number of the SSTs have emerged only recently from colonialism.

If this is the world scenario, Eelam can be independent, can sustain as independent nation, and its demand for independence does not lack logic. Hence Dravida Peravai appeals to all the member states of the United Nations to arrive at a consensus to extend support to the independent nation of Tamil Eelam.   India must work towards this goal and Dr.Kalaignar M.Karunanithi, Chief Minister of Tamilnadu must work hard keeping the unity of Tamil parties to arrive at a consensus towards once for all resolving the Eelam Tamils issue, which cannot remain forever like this in turmoil.

Q: The attitude of Sinhalese towards Tamils is nothing new, they have this Raj Thackerey mentality against all, you had spoken in past. Could you elaborate?

A:  The first riots in Srilanka are more than a century old. In 1883 they attacked the Christians. In 1902 the Sinhalese sponsored riots targeted Dalits. During 1915, the Sinhalese showed their ire against North Indian traders and South Indian Muslim petty businessmen. Mr.Shivashankar Menon must go back to the pages of history when in 1930; Sinhalese riots targeted Malayalis from Cochin and Travancore. Then they targeted Indian immigrant plantation labour. This resulted in India foolishly signing a pact creating Stateless people, whereas USA assimilated all citizens. After trying their anger against all communities, then they started discriminating the sons of their soil, Eelam Tamils, who were there much before these Sinhalese set their foot. The Indian policy framers are thinking Tamils went from India and Sinhalese are the sons of their soil. Their own sacred book Mahavamsa proves they have arrived in Srilanka.  So the External Affairs Ministry, whose spokesmen recently hit at Dr.Kalaignar M.Karunanithi, as soon as he gave the call for Tamilnadu Members of Parliament to quit en masse, saying India has long term foreign policy and political parties cannot change it, forgets that India is a democracy ruled by a Cabinet system and DMK is in the Cabinet, and DMK has legitimate right to offer course corrections or take policy decisions, and bureaucrats are here just to implement what Cabinet decides or Parliament approves. The foolishness of past of giving room to J.N.Dixit or Romesh Bhandary and current reliance on bureaucrats shoulders to resolve Eelam issue will not work. This realization must have made the octogenarian leader Dr.Kalaignar M.Karunanithi to place the responsibility on Cabinet Ministers and Prime Minister, instead of stale old advisers in bureaucracy, who have selective amnesia with regard to the genocide of Sinhalese Governments.

[Interviewed by freelance journalist R. Ramachandran, formerly of New Indian Express ]