RAJAPAKSHE SELLS POISON WITH SUGAR COAT:
On Srilankan President Rajapakshe's Interview to The Hindu, Dravida Peravai General Secretary N.Nandhivarman comments;
Q: On October 29th The Hindu, Srilankan President Mahinda Rajapakshe had given an exclusive interview to the Editor-in-Chief of The Hindu Mr.N.Ram. What do you feel about the interview and its contents? 
A: The Editor-in-Chief of The Hindu had not even taken a photographer with him, and he himself has become a photographer, as is evident from the caption in the front page photograph of The Hindu. I do not think that The Hindu has cash constraints to send a photographer along with the Editor. 

 The earlier interview of the Eastern Province Chief Minister Mr.Sivanesanthurai Santhirakanthan appeared on October 27th of 2008. That interview was done by Mr.V.S.Sambandam, and why the Editor in Chief himself had gone all the way to interview the President, surprises me. Within 2 days The Hindu publishing two interviews from Srilanka clearly proves without an iota of doubt that the newspaper is indulging in justifying all actions of the Srilankan Government. Avoiding his daily's photographer, Mr.N.Ram had gone so that what transpired between him and Srilankan President will remain hidden from others eyes or ears. This public relation exercise, if it had been from a daily published from Colombo, it could be understood. Or if the neutrality of The Hindu is still holding some credibility, it should have interviewed the Tamil National Alliance Members of Parliament. It should have published the views of Tamilnadu Chief Minister Kalaignar M.Karunanithi, but neither of these was attempted. Only one sided view of Sinhalese rulers and their stooges were given undue prominence. It was aimed to whitewash the sins of Neo- Hitler Mr.Mahinda Rajapakse. The efforts made by Mr.N.Ram, makes me recall the services of Dr.Goebbells, the Propaganda Minister of that Fascist Hitler. 

Q: You are harsh in your comments, but please express your views on what Srilankan President said in the interview? 

A: "A military solution is for the terrorists, a political solution is for the people living in this country" Mr.Mahinda Rajapakshe proclaims and through The Hindu promises that "I myself will take charge of the political process and see it through politically". It is nice of you Mr. Ram, to extract a promise for political solution from Mr.Rajapakse, but in spite of the lengthy interview, the President had not let the cat out of the bag. He had not spelt what political solution he has in mind. Mr.N.Ram may be mind reader or can talk to the President through telepathy, but ordinary third rate politicians like me, are incapable of understanding what is the political solution that is brewing in the mind of Mr.Mahinda Rajapakshe. Political solution should not be a cosmetic exercise or lip service; it must have substance that will satiate to a substantial level the legitimate aspirations of Tamil people. More than 23 conflict resolution solutions were offered between 1957 to 1996, and it is history, none of that was acceptable to Srilankan Sinhalase rulers and political parties. To sum up, Tamil people wanted the repeal of Article 2 of the Srilankan constitution in order to permit the introduction of a federal or confederal system of government. Tamils wanted the repeal of Article 76 to allow political devolution. Tamils wanted the amendment of Article 18 to declare that the official languages of Srilanka shall be Sinhalese and Tamil throughout the country and without any condition. 

 After the UNP government [1977- 1989] adopted its 1978 constitution, political devolution and the establishment of a federal government were precluded by article 2 which declared "The Republic of Srilanka is a unitary state. The article 76 which read that " The Parliament shall not abdicate or in any manner alienate its legislative power and shall not set up any authority with legislative power" If Constitution clearly states Srilanka is a unitary state, where is the room for federalism. If the Constitution is firm that no legislative will be devolved and no authority with legislative power will be created, then what use of Provincial councils or governments. Keeping such provisions in Constitution, Mr.Rajapakse speaking about devolution of powers is only to hoodwink you Mr.N.Ram, unfortunately we Tamils who learnt our politics from Aringnar Anna are not nincompoops to accept the verbal gymnastics of Mr.Rajapakshe about a political solution. Politically to solve this Tamils issue no government before Mr.Rajapakshe was prepared, neither Mr.Rajapakshe has the heart to amend constitution and offer clear cut devolution of powers.

When Mr.Dudley Senanaike wanted to know the minimum demands of the Tamils, the Leader of the Federal Party Mr.S.VJ.Selvanayagam submitted the Policy and Objectives of the Federal Party. It called for "the replacement of the present unitary constitution by a federal constitution which recognizes the autonomy of Tamil speaking areas, the restoration of the Tamil language to its rightful place enjoying parity with Sinhala as official language of the country, the grant of citizenship rights to Tamil persons of Indian origin who are settled in Ceylon, the cessation of planned colonization of traditionally Tamil areas with Sinhalese people". This is in 1960, much before LTTE was born. The Editor in Chief Mr.N.Ram, who had taken labour pains to bring out a new born baby of political solution, must have asked the President what your solution is? Speak out with clear cut views, instead of beating around the bush with vague phrases, Mr.N.Ram should have asked Mr.Rajapakshe. Instead The Hindu, to sell the cunning mercenary as savior of a civilized democracy uses sugar coated words. 

Q: The Srilankan President spoke in UN General Assembly in Tamil and do you think he is against Tamil language?  

A:  Until 1956 Tamil and Sinhala languages were enjoying equal status. SLFP led government enacted the 1956 Official Language Act to make Sinhala as sole official language. Without going in detail in various amendments, suggestions, proposals that emanated from Tamil people ever since 1956, I would challenge the Srilankan President, who takes pride in speaking in Tamil at United Nations General assembly, to bring constitutional changes to accord Tamil same status as official language with Sinhala. Can he promise, even if he promises can he fulfill? Mere gimmicks like speaking in Tamil will not hoodwink Tamils. The Hindu must have sought clarifications from Srilankan President, on what he proposes to do to address the legitimate aspirations of Tamils expressed even from times before Srilanka became independent. Let the cat out of the bag, Mr.Rajapakshe. What is your political solution to the official language problem? 

Q: What do you think about the military solution against terrorists, about which Mr.Rajapakshe speaks with determination? 

A: This military solution is nothing new. It had been practiced by his predecessors.  In 1979 after enacting the Prevention of Terrorism Act, President J.R.Jayawardane's nephew Brigadier Weeratunga was sent to Jaffna "to eradicate terrorists in all forms within 6 months using whatever means necessary but acting within the law of the land". The word within the law of the land is what even now Indian parrots will repeat. But they forget how law of the land was subverted by the same President J.R.Jayawardene.  "The UNP government created the Executive Presidency, devalued the Prime Minister and Cabinet in Parliament and turned them essentially the appendages of the President." Yes according to law, you can subvert law to suit your power crazy politicians, and then preach to the world that everything should be done according to law. President Jayawardane gained absolute control over Parliament in 1981 after he obtained undated letters of resignation from Parliament of all the Members of Parliament including the cabinet. By such brazen act then President reduced Parliament to virtual impotence. Current President Mr.Rajapakshe openly proclaims that "I will take charge of political solution". That means it is not a democratic country, and there exists no government, but it is only a Dictatorship, that is why the Dictator says individually he will take care of everything under the Sun. Between July and December 1979 Northern Province was placed under Martial Law. Tamil population as a whole was subjected to inhuman treatment and indiscriminate violence under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1979.  In January 1980 Mr.Weeratunga proudly announced that he had eliminated Tamil militancy. Looking back at these 28 years, Tamil militancy had grown and not weakened or eliminated. Like M, Mr.Weeratunga now it is the turn of Mr.Rajapakshe to claim that he will end militancy. History shows that the iron will of the Tamils is much stronger than all the fortifications of the cowardly Srilankan Army, which cannot win militancy in land war, hence it resorts to air war killing civilians and internally displacing Tamil people. 

Q: Do you think that what Mr.Rajapakshe claims about Eastern Province heralding the dawn of democracy and those powers given is satisfactory to Tamils of Eastern Province?                                                                          

 A: The Chief Minister of Eastern Province, a stooge of Sinhalese leaders openly admits that "regarding finance, although we have powers, the central government is implementing projects that we can implement. There are some direct powers for us under the 13th amendment. If I were to be specific, if the 13th amendment is implemented, the rest will follow, democracy will be strengthened." "Although not fully satisfied we are confident we can usher in reforms in administration, education and agriculture " So if this is the state of affairs where Srilankan governments puppets themselves are not fully satisfied, as they had told The Hindu, what does Mr.N.Ram wants Tamils of Eelam to accept, approve and endorse as his prescription. A daily coming from Tamilnadu and read by Tamils must not carry on its shoulders dictators who butcher their own civilian population, nor should it try to create a farcical opinion that the Eastern Province is a model for political solution.

Q: the Srilankan President through the Hindu extends invitation to Tamilnadu Chief Minister Dr.Kalaignar M.Karunanithi and do you think that this visit will materialize? What would you say about Srilankan President's claim that killing of Tamil fishermen issue is resolved?

A:  Dr.Kalaignar M.Karunanithi is a shrewd statesmen and he will not fall into the trap. The main demand of Tamilnadu political parties under the leadership of Tamilnadu Chief Minister is bringing end to war. And Srilankan President is adamant that war will continue. And with such war monger at helm of affairs, peace in Srilanka is never going to come. Nor the ordeals of Tamils are going to end soon. Hence the question of shaking the blood thirsty hands of Rajapakshe does not arise, and Dr.Kalaignar will not sully his reputation. Moreover Srilankan President also had spoken that a satisfactory solution to killing of Tamilnadu fishermen had been found. We in India know that if only Indian Coast Guard had chased Srilankan naval boats that killed the first fishermen and caught them to produce in Indian Courts for justice, the killings of fishermen which had been a continuous process would have ended then itself. Indian coast guard failed to nip this crime in bud. Now after killing spree, Srilankan President, speaks as if the issue is resolved. Issue will be resolved only after Kaccha Theevu is retrieved by India.

There is an urgent need to sue Srilankan Government in the International Court of Justice for compensation to 980 Indian fishermen killed in the International waters, as well as retrieval of the Kaccha Theevu. It  will be appropriate to recall the words of Former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, then M.P in the Indian Parliament on 23 rd July 1974 (cols 186-201), when the then External Affairs Minister Swaran Singh made a statement on the Re Agreement between India and Srilanka on the boundary in the historical waters between the two countries and related matters. Honble Atal Bihari Vajpayee who strongly condemned the bartering away of Kaccha Theevu, had said that the old mythological name for Kaccha Theevu is VALI DEEP, the island where legendary Rama fought a mythological Vali. Dravida Peravai now reminds BJP, the main opposition party to  the Government headed by Man Mohan Singh to fulfill what Atal Bihari Vajpayee had once demanded while he was in opposition; namely retrieval of the Kaccha Theevu islands from the Srilankan government. The lives of 980 of our fishermen is lost due to this agreement imposed during the darkest days of emergency and it is time that we scrap this agreement or take it to the International Court of Justice to get due compensation for our fishermen.

There has been precedents in international inter country matters where issues have been taken to the International Court of Justice.1). In the English Channel there is a rocked island known as Minquires-Enrou. They are far way from the British coast and were closer to the French coast. Since it was near its international waters France staked the claim over that island. Britain showed the documents in its possession and the basis of the documents in 1953 the International Court of Justice decided that this island belongs to Britain. As in this case the documentary proof will be in our favour and we will retrieve Kaccha Theevu, is we approach the Court.2) An island Clip Orton which was closer to Mexican coast actually belonged to France, and since it was far away from French soil no one visited there and hence Mexico claimed right over these islands. But the International Court of Justice decided in the favour of France.

3). Near Philippines an island Palmas Mianjus was in the possession of Spain. Spain one fine morning handed over that island to America. But Netherlands had rights over that island much before Spain had, and in view of this when this matter came before the Court, the Court decided in favour of Netherlands.

These are past precedents. We have recent judgments too wherein decisions by International Court of Justice had been impartial and in the interests of natural justice. Let me quote about a recent judgment in 2002.

 The International Court of Justice, principal judicial organ of the United Nations, has today given (17.11.2002) Judgment in the case concerning sovereignty over Palau Ligitan and Palau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia). In its Judgment, which is final, without appeal and binding for the Parties, the Court finds, by 16 votes to 1, which "sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan belongs to Malaysia".  Ligitan and Sipadan are two very small islands located in the Celebes Sea, off the northeast coast of the island of Borneo.

Reasoning of Court: The Court begins by recalling the complex historical background of the dispute between the Parties.  It then examines the titles invoked by them.  Indonesia's claim to sovereignty over the islands is based primarily on a conventional title, the 1891 Convention between Great Britain and the Netherlands. Indonesia, thus, maintains that that Convention established the 4° 10' north parallel of latitude as the dividing line between the British and Dutch possessions in the area where Ligitan and Sipadan are situated.  As the disputed islands lie to the south of that parallel, "[I] t therefore follows that under the Convention title to those islands vested in the Netherlands, and now vests in Indonesia".  Malaysia, for its part, asserts that the 1891 Convention, when seen as a whole, clearly shows that Great Britain and the Netherlands sought by the Convention solely to clarify the boundary between their respective land possessions on the islands of Borneo and Sebatik, since the line of delimitation stops at the easternmost point of the latter island.  After examining the 1891 Convention, the Court finds that the Convention, when read in context and in the light of its object and purpose, cannot be interpreted as establishing an allocation line determining sovereignty over the islands out to sea, to the east of the island of Sebatik, and as a result the Convention does not constitute a title on which Indonesia can found its claim to Ligitan and Sipadan.  The Court states that this conclusion is confirmed both by the travaux préparatoires and by the subsequent conduct of the parties to the Convention.  The Court further considers that the cartographic material submitted by the Parties in the case does not contradict that conclusion.

Having rejected this argument by Indonesia, the Court turns to consideration of the other titles on which Indonesia and Malaysia claim to found their sovereignty over the islands of Ligitan and Sipadan.  The Court determines whether Indonesia or Malaysia obtained a title to the islands by succession.  The Court begins in this connection by observing that, while the Parties both maintain that the islands of Ligitan and Sipadan were not terrae nullius during the period in question in the present case, they do so on the basis of diametrically opposed reasoning, each of them claiming to hold title to those islands.  The Court does not accept Indonesia's contention that it retained title to the islands as successor to the Netherlands, which allegedly acquired it through contracts concluded with the Sultan of Bulungan, the original title-holder.  Nor does the Court accept Malaysia's contention that it acquired sovereignty over the islands of Ligitan and Sipadan further to a series of alleged transfers of the title originally held by the former sovereign, the Sultan of Sulu, that title having allegedly passed in turn to Spain, the United States, Great Britain on behalf of the State of North Borneo, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and finally to Malaysia.

Having found that neither of the Parties has a treaty-based title to Ligitan and Sipadan, the Court next considers the question whether Indonesia or Malaysia could hold title to the disputed islands by virtue of the effectivités cited by them.  In this regard, the Court determines whether the Parties' claims to sovereignty are based on activities evidencing an actual, continued exercise of authority over the islands, i.e., the intention and will to act as sovereign. Indonesia cites in this regard a continuous presence of the Dutch and Indonesian navies in the vicinity of Ligitan and Sipadan.  It adds that Indonesian fishermen have traditionally used the waters around the islands.  In respect of the first of these arguments, it is the opinion of the Court that "it cannot be deduced [from the facts relied upon in the present proceedings] that the naval authorities concerned considered Ligitan and Sipadan and the surrounding waters to be under the sovereignty of the Netherlands or Indonesia".  As for the second argument, the Court considers that "activities by private persons cannot be seen as effectivités if they do not take place on the basis of official regulations or under governmental authority". Having rejected Indonesia's arguments based on its effectivités, the Court turns to consideration of the effectivités relied on by Malaysia.  As evidence of its effective administration of the islands, Malaysia cites inter alia the measures taken by the North Borneo authorities to regulate and control the collecting of turtle eggs on Ligitan and Sipadan, an activity of some economic significance in the area at the time.  It relies on the Turtle Preservation Ordinance of 1917 and maintains that the Ordinance "was applied until the 1950s at least" in the area of the two disputed islands.  It further invokes the fact that the authorities of the colony of North Borneo constructed a lighthouse on Sipadan in 1962 and another on Ligitan in 1963, that those lighthouses exist to this day and that they have been maintained by Malaysian authorities since its independence.  The Court notes that "the activities relied upon by Malaysia ... are modest in number but ... they are diverse in character and include legislative, administrative and quasi-judicial acts.  They cover a considerable period of time and show a pattern revealing an intention to exercise State functions in respect of the two islands in the context of the administration of a wider range of islands".  The Court further states that "at the time when these activities were carried out, neither Indonesia nor its predecessor, the Netherlands, ever expressed its disagreement or protest".

The Court concludes, on the basis of the effectivités referred to above, that "sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan belongs to Malaysia".

There are many cases, which can be quoted. But the need here is to stress that India must revoke the Kaccha Theevu agreement with Srilanka since it was imposed during emergency and take it to the International Court of Justice to establish India's right over this island. Also As per clause 76 of the International Law of Seas 1982 " The coastal state shall establish the outer edge of the continental margin wherever the same extends beyond 200 nautical miles from the base lines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured on sub marine ridges. The continental shelf shall not exceed 350 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured." In view of this clause there is a necessity to redraw the territorial waters between India and Srilanka. So we have compulsions as per UN obligations to carve out our Exclusive Economic Zone and while such opportunity is at our doorstep we must reopen the Kaccha theevu issue with Srilanka and get it back. 

Tamil Nadu assembly had passed many resolutions demanding the retrieval of Kaccha Theevu, and Dr.Kalaignar M.Karunanithi had voiced concern not only about the genocide of Eelam Tamils but also raised the emotional issue of our fishermen. The lives of  more than1000 fishermen is lost because of this agreement to barter Kaccha theevu and it is time that we claim compensation from Srilanka for the lives lost apart from staking our rights to regain Kaccha Theevu. 

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