fbpx The UNHRC Report – Would Delhi Minus the Sectarian/Raw Act Now on Ending Sri Lanka Genocide | The Oakland Institute
Skip to main content Skip to footer

The UNHRC Report – Would Delhi Minus the Sectarian/Raw Act Now on Ending Sri Lanka Genocide

June 4, 2015
Source
Ground Report

This author has written a series of blogs that describes how the involvement of Delhi is becoming a necessity with the Sinhala leaders of all persuasions over the past years nurtured a flourishing genocide culture that initially began as common mob violence around the country. This culture used monstrous and brutal instruments of oppression on the Tamils to produce the most horrifying 18/19 May, Mullivaykkal, the White flag massacres and also a silent war through ‘military occupation of Tamil land to systematically suppress Tamil culture and history’. A research study (‘The long shadow of war’ of the OAKLAND INSTITUTE ) is timely in drawing the attention of the international community that despite all the boast of reconciliation SL is still waging its ruthless genocide to erase the place that Eelam Tamils had in SL history. To Mahinda Rajapakse “not a life was lost in Mullivaykkal and Delhi collaborators, denying the massacres remains the first line of defense for the war offenders. On the Mullivaykkal massacres, its condemnation in Delhi (the dynastic Gandhi’s of post-Indra era) to the UPA days was muted; the agenda being to ‘save the Rajapakses’ in the international debates on the continuing SL/genocide even when the investigations of the massacres reached the final stage. A horrified international community that observed authentic satellite pictures condemned the cruelty of the killings in SL as war crimes; the sectarian (RAW) South Blockers who wield political power in Delhi after congratulating SL for the massacres for ending SL terrorism at important UNHRC sessions, sided with SL, supporting resolutions to stall proceedings against the Rajapakses by diluting the SL crimes.

The sectarian South Blockers misled Tamils into entering the Narayanan’s ‘no fire zones’ and also RAW over flights providing SL forces with co-ordinates to accurately bomb out unarmed and fleeing civilians, the injured in hospitals to cause the heavy casualties in Mullivaykkal. Vijay Nambiar a sectarian associate of the South Blockers (on Ban’s orders) ensured their presence in the SL frontlines and used devices to eves drop on communications to assist the SL armed forces to locate and bomb out accurately concentrations of white flag waving surrendering Eelam fighters along with their leaders and other civilians. The high powered UN officials sent to the frontline to keep the causalities low amongst the unarmed surrendering fighters were in effect misusing communication devices to treacherously produce the opposite outcome. To deliver justice to these defenseless victims extracts of messages relayed amongst officials relayed by Santhiraneru in the Shakthi TV’ Minnal programme may be subjected to investigation by the UN audit.
Enticing defenseless victims by deceits to concentrate the victims into concentrations to become easy targets for the massacres according to the international community are crimes against humanity and qualify for investigation by world bodies like the UNHRC.

With the UNHTC investigation into the massacres of the Mullivaykkal and White flag waving surrendering Eelam fighters being almost complete the UNHRC report is scheduled for release in September. However the findings in the ‘continuing silent SL genocide (OAKLAND study) also requires the attention of the international community. In decisions on measures at the forthcoming UNHRC sessions the findings in the ‘long shadow of war’ or continuing silent genocide (a research study by the Oakland Institute) needs to be addressed urgently.

The RAW South Blockers keen on saving the Rajapakses from UNHRC measures to redress Eelam Tamils trauma strive to draw the attention of the international community away from the pains the continuing SL military occupation genocide is causing. The OAKLAND INSTITUTE report highlights how SL through military occupation of Tamil land SL is systematically suppressing Tamil culture and history. This alarming study released recently in late May under the title ‘The long shadow of war’ is timely to bring to the attention of the international community to the silent genocide SL is waging to erase off the place Eelam Tamils enjoyed in SL history.

This blogger cautions the international community against the Rajapakses and the South Block sectarians against playing the China factor to continue to support SL on UNHRC implementing sanctions, to the over-appease SL and destroy the Eelam Tamil struggle. For this the blogger analyses John Kerry’s report to the US Senate committee arguing that the South Blockers SL’s ‘drift towards China’ geopolitics is ‘sadly misplaced’ to deliberately unnerve Indians, over play the China factor to justify ‘Delhi’s Indo-SL policies drifting rudderless.’ John Kerry calls Narayanan’s policies as suicidal bringing the China peril closest to the Indian shores. Narayanan’s concocted geopolitics is more to mask his narrow sectarian prejudices, for India to abandon Dixit’s interventionist geo-politics in favour of an ‘over-appeasing Rajapakse diplomacy. The 1983 pogrom set the stage for the Indo-SL Accord to restrain SL directly or indirectly flirting with powers seeking a foothold to challenge Delhi’s regional power status.

The Rajapakses conscious of the advantage to it once the Eelam Tamil deterrence was destroyed began to boast about SL’s ability to control over the whole coastline, to control trade flows across the Indian Ocean regardless of India’s position. ‘The curious Narayanan’s ‘geo-politics’ only satiates the Sonia clan’s palate’. Indian readers have to ponder which country’ interest the Narayanan/trio’s intend to serve. Kerry points to Narayanan’s well known anti-Tamil prejudice has a bearing here. Narayanan’s Bombay debacle and his abdicating Delhi’s role to protect its fishermen citizens, does Tamil citizens and India need a Colombo/Delhi/Beijing axis to keep TN in check. Modi reacted to such puerile thinking by removing Narayanan from the post as West Bengal governor. Brahma Chellaney an eminent intellectual also highlighted the anti-Tamil bias of the Sonia clan since Rajiv’s years prefer to allow a China roaming the seas around SL and SL putting Delhi on notice that its new clout without the Eelam Tamil deterrence is justified. Delhi was without any irritable threats to its south soft underbelly more so over the last three decades when the Tamil Eelam navy checkmated the SL navy and protected TN fishermen. There is strong opinion in India now that favours Delhi/TN pursuing Tamil Eelam’s accession to India/TN to earn back the pre-1987 rights over SL relations and checking the China’s intrusions on Indian security. According to Professor Surianarayanan India does not have the equivalent of the US Committee on Foreign Relations to debate foreign policy decisions subjecting them to checks and balances and taking on board inputs of the constituent states. This arrangement would have prevented Narayanan’s antics manipulating Centre-state politics to hurt the state of TN and India’s security.

RAW’s Raman, of the sectarian wing of Delhi intelligence (B Raman an intense South Blocker built into RAW a network of Delhi’s External Affairs and Defence bureaucrats with powerful enough contacts within and overseas to influence diplomatic support for SL around the world basically to de-stabilize India. Raman blamed the West for be-little ling the highly secretive Narayanan/Menon’s ‘…no fire zone’ military tactic that delivered SL success in the Mullivaykkal massacres. How could a highly rated Raman, head of the sophisticated RAW put out such shoddy intelligence when Delhi that was uniquely placed to have a better and objective (Toming Toming) intelligence on what happened in Mullivaykkal unlike the West. According to Raman the Western sources were defective when they relied on unidentified members of the junior staff of the UN.

The Rajapakses strenuously endeavored to sabotage the UNHRC inquiry causing disappearances to prevent witnesses from appearing before the UNHRC investigators. The evidence of credible witnesses who feared state violence remained silent players to gradually show up and vouch to details pointing to the criminality of SL’s military actions and be caught up in the UNHRC’s investigation.

When Delhi’s influence in the Afro-Asia group declined, Delhi’s support for the Eelam Tamil cause also declined and was replaced by the influence of the sectarian bureaucrats with strong anti- Tamil prejudices. These leaders with concern for friendship for the SL leaders led to Delhi exercising extreme caution when making observations on SL leaders to whom the sectarian anti-Tamil bureaucrats sold out Delhi’s independence and Sonia fearing that the Rajapakses could bare open up details relating to the Delhi trio’s role in the loop intervention during the war. Readers would be aware that at most times Delhi-Colombo relations since independence remained lukewarm and at times even hostile with PM Sir John Kotalawela (an irritable anti-Indian) repeatedly annoying Shree Nehru at the Afro-Asia leaders’ meetings.

This changed when Bofors Rajiv Gandhi fell into the J R Jayawardene’s anti-Tamil trap, to sign the 1987 Indo-SL agreement that agreed to the 13th Amendment/devolution for the Tamils in return for Delhi’s support for SL to eliminate the LTTE (the Tamil insurgency). There were also Rajiv’s orders to Dixit to kill off Prabhaharan a dinner invitee at General Harikirat home. Though to Rajiv and Dixit another South Blocker such an order was acceptable, to Harikirat it amounted to a serious breach of universally accepted code of military conduct. To Rajiv soaked in Bofors mercenary values the changes in Indo-SL relations under his rule were acceptable. They served as the friendship glue for Delhi’s overly concern for cordial relations with its neighbour (SL). Hurting the feelings of TN Tamils was not material.

Thus Rajiv’s anti-LTTE/Tamil moves swiftly led to the introduction of the IPKF led by Raman the RAW the sectarian South Blocker who served to boost Colombo’s/Delhi’s anti-LTTE-Tamil prejudice. The strangle-hold of the anti-Tamil RAW sectarian bureaucrats is so strong even today that the BJP regime had to overlook its concern for UPA2’s petty anti-Tamil measures such as banning the production of a film “Isaipriya” a much loved Eelam Tamil and TN Tamils’ heroine.

The level of support for the Rajapakses whether for mercenary considerations or any other encouraged SL to actively pursue anti-Tamils policies that are patently genocidal in character. In Delhi’s calculus in post 2009 the priority is still to counter a non-existent LTTE terrorism and TN Tamil separatists. Some Tamil spokesmen attribute the success of sectarian RAW anti-Tamil bureaucrats in Delhi to implicitly supporting the South Blockers pursuing vigorously a TN Tamil agenda playing up the underlying racial (North-South) prejudice divide associated with the Dravidian cult and blaming the Eelam Tamils for the assassination of Rajiv. The boastful South Blocker analyst, Subramania Swamy narrates the story of two swamis as suspects surveying the assassination site of Rajiv on the very day of Rajiv’s assassination. Sonia Delhi was aware of this but decided not to pursue further the lead any further. Does the impression in India that the petty prejudices of mercenary Rajiv and South Block RAW tribe still nurture the anti-Tamil sentiments is not healthy for India/Indians who believe in the “India First” doctrine. Delhi needs to be more concerned about Eelam/TN Tamils values over hurting the feelings of a neighbor about to face international courts for heinous crimes that Delhi would not for any reason be keen to be associated with. Will a Mode now act on his “India first’ doctrine.

In the immediate aftermath of 19 May 2009 when the Rajapakses brandished at Delhi its bureaucratic trio’s “in the loop” involvement during the last days of the massacre war the tame surrender of the Sonia and her RAW South Blocker sectarians to woo to avoid the Rajapakses pointing to Delhi and taint in SL’s war crimes proceedings. Hence throughout the UPA period, Delhi was openly taking the Rajapakses’ side in the UNHRC and in international debates.

The defeat of the LTTE did not mean the relief to the victims of the SL genocide would automatically follow. In a piece “Thaw on Anti-Eelam policies in Delhi- whither the genocide in Sri Lanka” Ground report, this author examined the hopelessness of SL leaders ever ending its genocide and redressing SL caused Tamil trauma. Only trust in international (Indian) intervention to bring the necessary change has re-emerged. Dixit led Rajiv into the IPKF debacle three decades ago not demolishing the gains, strengths in Indra’s painfully crafted diplomacy. Likewise Narayanan/Menon led Sonia into Rajiv’s contracted destruction of Eelam Tamils (Mullivaykkal) debacle. Perhaps a return to Indraji’s proven approach in dealing with SL need not be driven by altruism but India’s own self-interest. Modi minus the sectarian South Blockers is expected to produce a convergence of Delhi-Eelam TN Tamil interest to bring Delhi into the international community’s crimes against humanity initiatives and retrieve the leverage it lost by joining SL in destroying the LTTE and elevate SL’s Israel regional power ambitions. Recent debates in SL point to the Sinhala electorate ever allowing any redress measures being undertaken and the sectarian South Block’s standing is declining allowing Delhi’s return to Indraji’s policy to resolve the Indo-SL problem and for peace to return to SL as a single united entity.