Karunanidhi's stance

Sir, - I refer to your Editorial (June 6) characterising Mr. M. Karunanidhi's various suggestions for ending the conflict and reaching a political settlement in Sri Lanka as an ``irresponsible stance''.

If the Sri Lankan Tamils desire an independent Eelam, the one and only party they will have to convince is the Sri Lankan Government representing the Sinhalese majority population. The views and desires of other parties including the neighbouring countries are purely peripheral and irrelevant.

It is pertinent to cite a parallel in recent history. Pakistan in 1971 after its military defeat in East Bengal was in a situation identical to that of the Sri Lankan Government in the early Nineties when it lost control over the Jaffna peninsula to the LTTE. If Pakistan, even after losing control over East Bengal, had refused to give up its sovereignty over the territory, Bangladesh would never have become an independent nation. No country in the world (barring India and, possibly, Bhutan) would have dared to recognise Bangladesh as an independent country in the absence of Pakistan's prior concurrence. It must, therefore, be realised that it was Pakistan's acquiescence (even though it was given under duress) that made an independent Bangladesh a political reality.

In the same vein, if the Sri Lankan Government, either voluntarily or under duress, agrees to the emergence of an independent Eelam, that is all that will count in the final analysis. The views of India or any other country in the world will be totally irrelevant. It would not be proper for India to assert that it will never agree to the creation of an independent Eelam. Who are we to dictate to the Sri Lankan Tamils as to how they should shape their political destiny? We cannot force them to continue to live as second class citizens in their own country just because it suits our so-called `security interests' that they do so. To extend the analogy that Mr. Karunanidhi has cited in this context, if partners in a marriage mutually agree to a divorce due to irreconcilable differences, it is not for the neighbours to say that they will not agree to such a divorce because they do not like a divorcee living next door to them.

The mighty U.S. does not like a communist Cuba in close proximity but nonetheless it is forced to put up with the situation however unpalatable and irksome it may be. After all, the Czechoslovakia model of separation that Mr. Karunanidhi has suggested implies the full concurrence of both the antagonists to such an arrangement through peaceful negotiations.

It may also be pointed out that there are dozens of countries in the world - no more than mere specks on the Pacific Ocean or the Caribbean Sea - which are independent nations and which are much smaller in size and population than the area occupied by the Tamils in Sri Lanka.

V. Nagarajan,

Chennai

Sir, - The view expressed by Mr. Karunanidhi should be taken in the right perspective instead of making a big hue and cry about it.

It should be noted that he preferred balkanisation in the event of failure of permanent solution to the ethnic problem by empowering equal constitutional rights to the minority Tamils which is vehemently denied by that Government. What is being contemplated now by the Sri Lankan Government is only a temporary solution and even for that there is a lot of opposition in that country. This is the crux of the problem.

Also, Mr. Karunanidhi is emphatic that he is interested only in the permanent solution to the plight of Tamils there in the form of full and equal rights to them, or in its absence a federal setup or finally the balkanisation. This he also emphasised only as a solution on humanitarian grounds and not being a Tamilian. His views should be well appreciated as it is very clear that Sri Lanka is not really interested in giving equal rights to its minorities and many times went back on the assurances in this regard.

V. S. Ganeshan,

Bangalore

Sir, - I am not at all surprised by the fury faced by Mr. Karunanidhi for having suggested the sensible, practicable and inevitable Czech formula for Sri Lanka. In the Forties, when Rajaji candidly aired his suggestion that Jinnah's demand for partition might be conceded many people dubbed him a traitor. He had the foresight that giving away Pakistan was inevitable, if Hindustan was to get independence. History has shown that Rajaji is right. Pakistan outside India is so troublesome. Readers could imagine the condition had it been inside.

Similarly, in the interest of Sri Lanka and for the welfare of both the ethnic groups, Mr. Karunanidhi has come out with a pragmatic plan. It is unwise to question a surgeon for having suggested amputation for saving a patient from a carbuncle.

N. S. Govindan,

Chennai

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : In defence of academic economics
Next     : 'Forward class'