IRAN EMBROGLIO: PRINCIPAL CHARACTERS

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei

In 1989, Ayatollah Khamenei succeeded the original Supreme Leader and founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini. Before that he was president for two successive terms from 1981-1989.When he was president he was often at odds with the then Prime Minister, Ali Hossein Mousavi, whom he perceived as being left-leaning. However, as Mr Mousavi had the backing of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, their conflicting views on economic, social and religious policies were left to fester. One of Ayatollah Khamenei's first decisions, when he became Supreme Leader on the death of Ayatollah Khomeini, was to revise the constitution to abolish the post of prime minister.

Ayatollah Khamenei is often described as lacking the charm and popular support of his predecessor. He brought to the position of Supreme Leader the powers and contacts he had made as president and has cemented his position by developing networks in the various institutions and security forces in Iran.



In 1997 he famously clashed with Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, a respected scholar who ranks higher in the hierarchy. Ayatollah Montazeri, who is also one of Iran's leading dissidents, questioned the powers of the Supreme Leader. This led to the closure of his religious school, an attack on his office in Qom and to a period of house arrest.



In August 2000, he sided with the Guardian Council in rejecting a Majlis (parliament) bill reforming the country's press law. According to him the current law had prevented the "enemies of Islam" from taking over the press and any re-interpretation of the law was not in the interests of the country. That led to scuffles in the Majlis and to a debate on the powers of the Majlis and the Guardian Council. The press bill was withdrawn.



In his inaugural address as president in 1981, Ayatollah Khamenei vowed to stamp out "deviation, liberalism, and American-influenced leftists". That set the tone for his leadership. When pro-reform students rioted in June 2003, Ayatollah Khamenei was quick to warn that such actions would not be tolerated. And he blamed the US for stirring up the trouble. "Leaders do not have the right to have any pity whatsoever for the mercenaries of the enemy," he said
in a speech.



In 2009, when the President Obama offered Iran a "new beginning" of diplomatic engagement, Khamenei's response was muted. Addressing students a few days after the Iranian New Year message, he said he had seen no change in America's attitude or policy, singling out US support for Israel and sanctions against Iran. But he said that if President Obama altered the US position, Iran was prepared to follow suit.

Mir Hossein Moussavi

Mir Hossein Moussavi, the President of the Iranian Academy of Arts has not always been best known for his love of painting or poetry. Mr Mousavi was prime minister of Iran for eight years until the post was abolished in 1989. To describe him as a liberal as compared to Mr Ahmadinejad's would, however, be inaccurate. In 1988, the Economist called him a "firm radical".



like most Iranians in power, Mir Hossein Moussavi does not believe in the existence of Israel. He defended the taking of the American hostages in 1979. He was part of a regime that regularly executed dissidents. And as late as April 2009, he opposed suspending the country's nuclear-enrichment program but said it would not be diverted to weapons use.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

In 2003 Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was an unknown entity when he became the Mayor of Tehran. He was not even that well known when he won the 2005 presidential election. The son of a blacksmith, he was born in 1956 in Garmsar, near Tehran, and holds a PhD in traffic and transport from Tehran's University of Science and Technology, where he was a lecturer.



Six of the 52 Americans who were held hostage in the US embassy in 1979 have accused Mr Ahmadinejad of being among those who captured them. He has denied his role in the episode. Several known hostage-takers - now his strong political opponents - also deny he was with them.



When he became mayor of Tehran in 2003, he curtailed many of the reforms put in place by his predecessors. Reformist President Mohammad Khatami had barred Mr Ahmadinejad from attending cabinet meetings, a privilege normally accorded to mayors of the capital.



He also repeatedly defended his country's nuclear programme, which worried the US and European Union. Once in power, he made a defiant speech at the UN on the nuclear issue and refused to back down on Tehran's decision to resume uranium conversion. He continued his defiance despite the reporting of Iran's nuclear programme to the UN Security Council and the possible threat of sanctions. Powerful figures such as former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani say Mr Ahmadinejad's confrontational approach backfired when Iran was reported to the Security Council.



Mr Ahmadinejad has called for an end to the Israeli state and has described the Holocaust as a myth. In October 2005, Mr Ahmadinejad made a statement in which he envisaged the replacement of Israel with a Palestinian state and called for Israel to be "wiped off the map", though this translation is disputed. During a speech at the UN in April 2009, he commented that Israel was a state founded on racist principles.




He also has a reputation for living a simple life and has campaigned against corruption.

Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani

Born in 1934 to a family of farmers, he studied theology in the holy city of Qom with Ayatollah Khomeini. He was imprisoned several times under the Shah.



Mr Rafsanjani was speaker in the Majlis (Iran's parliament) from 1980-89. In the last year of the 1980-88 war with Iraq, Ayatollah Khomeini appointed him acting commander-in-chief of the armed forces. He is seen as the main mover behind Iran's acceptance of the UN Security Council resolution which ended the war.



Mr Rafsanjani was president for eight years from 1987 and ran again in 2005. He lost to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the second round. He has been openly critical of the president since then. He has condemned Mr Ahmadinejad's economic policies, accusing them of having seriously damaged Iran.



As President, Mr Rafsanjani sought to encourage a rapprochement with the West and re-establish Iran as a regional power. His influence in Lebanon helped to bring about the release of Western hostages there in the early 1990s. Domestically, he pursued an economically liberal policy that critics said failed to deliver on social justice.



However, he opposed harsh Islamic penal codes and promoted better job prospects for women. His financial policies aimed to move Iran from the state-controlled economy of the Iran-Iraq war years to a more market-based system.



On the nuclear issue, he was in favour of negotiation with the West, but "not to accept bullying and imposition". He favored using nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.



He has close links to Iranian industry and business and is considered to be the richest man in Iran. He was featured in the Millionaire Mullahs section of the Forbes Rich List in 2003. He has been accused of amassing a personal fortune due to his political connections - allegations that he has always denied.



He was a prominent backer of Mr Mousavi in the 2009 presidential elections when he stood against President Ahmadinejad.

Mohammad Khatami

Seyed Mohammad Khatami, the fifth president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, was born in Ardakan, in the central Province of Yazd in 1943. Son of respected Ayatollah Ruhollah Khatami, President Khatami graduated with an MA in Tehran and returned to Qom to follow up on his philosophical studies at Qom Seminary.



He began his political activities at the Association of Muslim Students of Isfahan University, worked closely with Ayatollah Khomeini's late son, Hojjatoleslam Ahmad Khomeini.



After the revolution in 1979 he replaced Ayatollah Dr. Beheshti as Head of Hamburg Islamic Center in Germany.



He represented Ardakan and Meibod constituencies in the first term of Majlis [Parliament] in 1980. He was also appointed head of Kayhan newspaper institute by late Ayatollah Khomeini in 1981, a post he later resigned.



In 1982, he was appointed as the minister of culture and Islamic guidance during the premiership of Mir Hossein Mousavi. During the 1980-1988 war with Iraq, he served different responsibilities including deputy and head of the Joint Command of the Armed Forces and chairman of the War Propaganda Headquarters.



He was once again appointed as the minister of culture and Islamic guidance by President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani in 1989. Following his resignation in 1992, Khatami was appointed as cultural advisor to President Rafsanjani and head of Iran's National Library. In 1996 He was appointed as a member of High Council for Cultural Revolution.



He was elected as the fifth President of the Islamic Republic of Iran in May 1997 elections by gaining almost 70 percent of the votes cast. And he was re-elected as president in 2001 election by greater mandate of Iranian people (almost 78% of the vote cast).



Mr Khatami speaks English, German and Arabic in addition to Persian. He has written a number of books and articles in different fields.

Ali Larijani

Ali Larijani is a conservative and is a close follower of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who appointed him to the Security Council in 2004 for a three-year term. In 2005 he was appointed the council's head by the new President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who won an election in which Mr Larijani was also a candidate. But his openness towards negotiations on Iran's nuclear programme put him at odds with the president.



Ayatollah Khamenei had previously appointed Mr Larijani to head Iranian state radio and TV in 1994 - a post he held for 10 years. Before that, Mr Larijani served in President Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani's government as Minister of Culture and Islamic Guidance. His appointment to head the Security Council, replacing moderate, pragmatic cleric Hassan Rouhani, was seen as a signal that Iran was preparing to harden its stance on the nuclear issue.



As radio and TV chief Mr Larijani tried to curb foreign cultural influence over young Iranians by cutting imported programmes from schedules. In January 2004 this led some 150 reformist MPs to criticise IRIB for causing Iranians to turn to the foreign media.



Mr Larijani in turn has accused reformists of undermining Islamic values. According to him, "If reforms are not undertaken for the sake of religion, justice and morality, they do not constitute reforms”. And he has blamed reformists for corruption and neglect of the economy.



Larijani is one of the two representatives of the Supreme Leader to the council, the other being Hassan Rowhani. In his post as secretary he effectively functioned as the top negotiator on issues of national security, including Iran's Nuclear Programme .He is the current Speaker of the Iranian Majlis (Parliament).

The Army

The Atresh or Islamic Republic of Iran Army is estimated to have 650,000 personnel (220,000 conscripts and 430,000 professionals) plus around 300,000 reservists for a total of 950,000. Conscripts serve for 18 months and have limited military training.



Iran has two parallel land forces with some integration at the command level: the regular Artesh (Army), and the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution also known as Pasdaran (IRGC). The Pasdaran was created by the clerics as a counter to the Atresh with the objective of preserving their rule over Iran.

IRAN ELECTIONS: PROOF OF FRAUD

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8110877.stm

Monitors from their campaign teams, who by law are allowed to oversee every polling station, were issued with invalid ID cards or refused entry.


There was a 10-fold increase in the number of mobile polling stations - ballot boxes transported from place to place by agents of the interior ministry, which was run by a close ally of Mr Ahmadinejad. They were out of the control of the local authorities and the representatives of the candidates, and nobody knows what they have done to them.


Early on polling day, the SMS network was shut down, that made people keep guessing about what was going on.


Then the interior ministry [where results from polling stations around the country are collated] started kicking out its own employees so that just a few personnel and the top officials were left


Despite the high turnout, the count was remarkably quick, and the results unusually consistent, with none of the typical variations between different regions and cities.


For example, in Mr Mousavi's home province of East Azerbaijan, which is known to have fierce regional and ethnic loyalties to the reformist candidate, he polled far worse than expected. And the liberal cleric Mehdi Karroubi polled 5% in Lorestan, despite having won 55% there in the first round of voting in 2005 when he also stood as a candidate.


In some provinces like Khoresan or Mazandaran the number of people who voted exceeded the number of eligible voters in those provinces. If they wanted to manipulate the election results as they have done before, they could have done it in a more elegant and delicate way. This was not a manipulation, this is a coup.



The Guardian Council, the country's highest supervisory committee is investigating 646 complaints of misconduct. It's an admission there were irregularities. The problem is, the Guardian Council is headed by a cleric, who is a far-right hardliner and known big supporter of Mr Ahmadinejad. Asking that body to review the ballot is like putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop.

Delhi or Dilli: Gill Triggers Debate

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Cities/Delhi-or-Dilli-Gill-triggers-debate/articleshow/4673797.cms#write

Why does Union sports minister M S Gill not change his own name to MS Dill. Only inept politicians with no constructive agendas can come up with a suggestion to change the traditional name of a city. If Gill really wants to improve Delhi, there is no dearth of areas he can focus his limited imagination upon. There is the law & order situation, the dilapidated govt schools, traffic chaos, unkempt markets & roads to name just a few. May be these issues are too mundane for the Minister to waste his time on! Changing Delhi to Dilli? Full marks to Mr Gill for originality of ideas!

IRAN PROTESTS: A GLOSSARY

Islamic Revolution

Despite economical growth, there was much opposition against the Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, and how he used the secret police, the Savak, to control the country. Strong Shi'i opposition against the Shah, and the country came close to a situation of civil war. The opposition was lead by Ayatollah Khomeini, who lived in exile in Iraq and later in France. On January 16 1979, the Shah left Iran. Shapour Bakhtiar as his new prime minister with the help of Supreme Army Councils couldn't control the situation in the country anymore.



Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Iran on 1st February 1979. Ten days later Bakhtiar went into hiding, eventually to find exile in Paris. Processes against the supporters of the Shah started, and hundreds were executed.



On 1st April 1979, after a landslide victory in a national referendum in which only one choice was offered (Islamic Republic: Yes or No), Ayatollah Khomeini declared Iran an Islamic republic with a new Constitution reflecting his ideals of Islamic government. The constitution was some sort of a hybrid of democracy and unelected religious leadership. It appointed Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini -- the leader of the revolution -- the supreme leader of the country. This was the Iranian Revolution.

Supreme Leader

Before Ayatollah Khomeini died in 1989, he made it known that he wanted Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to succeed him. Accordingly, Khamenei, 70, was appointed supreme leader for life in 1989. The supreme leader has the final say in all important matters of the country, such as ties with foreign nations or Iran's nuclear aspirations.



He appoints the Guardian Council - the country's election authority. He also appoints key posts in the intelligence services and the armed forces, including the powerful Revolutionary Guard. He also confirms the president's election. In theory, the supreme leader is appointed by a body of clerics whom voters elect. But in practice, this Assembly of Experts is subordinated to him.

Guardian Council

This is the most influential body in Iran and is currently controlled by conservatives. It consists of six theologians appointed by the Supreme Leader and six jurists nominated by the judiciary and approved by parliament. Members are elected for six years on a phased basis, so that half the membership changes every three years.



The council has to approve all bills passed by parliament and has the power to veto them if it considers them inconsistent with the constitution and Islamic law. The council can also bar candidates from standing in elections to parliament, the presidency and the Assembly of Experts.



Reformist attempts to reduce the council's vetting powers have proved unsuccessful and the council banned all but six of more than 1,000 hopefuls in the 2005 elections. Two more candidates, both reformists, were permitted to stand after the Supreme Leader intervened. All the female candidates were blocked from standing.



In the present crisis, opposition leader Moussavi has had to take his grievance to the Guardian Council. It has agreed to some vote recounts

Revolutionary Guard

Initially created under a decree issued by Khomeini on 5 May 1979 to protect the leaders of the revolution, over the years, it has broadened its scope. Today, it is directly under the control of the supreme leader and enforces the governments' Islamic codes and morality. The 200,000 strong Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRCG or Pasdaran) secures the revolutionary regime and provides training support to terrorist groups throughout the region and abroad. Both the regular military (the Artesh) and IRGC are subordinate to the Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics (MODAFL). This new ministry was established in 1989.



There were other, perhaps more important, reasons for establishing the Pasdaran. The Revolution needed to rely on a force of its own rather than borrowing the previous regime's tainted units. As one of the first revolutionary institutions, the Pasdaran helped legitimize the Revolution and gave the new regime an armed basis of support. The Pasdaran, along with its political counterpart, ‘Crusade for Reconstruction’, brought a new order to Iran. In time, the Pasdaran would rival the police and the judiciary in terms of its functions. It would even challenge the performance of the regular armed forces on the battlefield. The IRGC consists of ground, naval, and aviation troops, which parallel the structure of the regular military. Unique to the Pasdaran, however, has been control of Iran's strategic oil fields and missile and rocket forces.



In late July 2008 reports originating with Iranian Resistance network said that the IRGC was in the process of dramatically changing its structure. In a shake-up, in September 2008 Iran’s Revolutionary Guards (Pasdarans) established 31 divisions and an autonomous missile command. The reported new structure was largely decentralized, with the force broken into 31 provincal corps, possibly to reflect a far greater internal role, with one for each of Iran's 31 Provinces.

Basij

The Basij was formed by order of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in November 1979 and was intended to function as the nucleus of what the founder of the Islamic republic called "the army of 20 million" with the aim of defending the Islamic regime against both domestic and foreign threats.



The Basij (Persian for mobilization) is an omnipresent paramilitary organization with multifaceted roles, and which acts as the eyes and ears of the Islamic regime. It is present in schools, universities, state and private institutions, factories, and even among tribes.



Between 700,000-800,000 Basij volunteers were sent to the front during the eight-year Iran-Iraq War. They were used as cannon fodder when the Islamic regime, deprived of access to Western technology and arms, embarked on a series of disastrous human-wave attacks against Iraqi forces during the final years of the war. The sacrifice made by the Basij in the war with Iraq ensured that the force became one of the five main components of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), together with the army, navy, air force, and Quds Force. After the war, the Basij was reorganized and gradually developed into one of the Islamic regime's primary guarantors of domestic security.

The current commander of the Basij, Hasan Taeb, told the semi-official Fars news agency on November 25 that the force now numbers 13.6 million, which is about 20 percent of the total population of Iran. Of this number, about 5 million are women and 4.7 million are schoolchildren.

Young Voters

60 percent of the population of Iran is under 30. After the revolution, the leaders encouraged early marriage and large families, rewarding families with cars and television sets for each additional child. During the country's devastating eight-year war with Iraq, which began in 1980, the regime continued encouraging population growth, because more children meant more future soldiers. It is those children who are now coming of age.

IRAN PROTESTS: BEYOND PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS

The current situation in Iran is an eruption of a pent-up anger that has been building up for 30 years, from the very first inception of the Islamic revolution. The inner contradictions of an 'Islamic republic' seem finally to have caught up with it. There is much more to the unrest and protests in Iran than meets the eye. This massive outpouring of pro-Moussavi, anti-Ahmadinejad sentiments among a sizeable segment of Iranian population must be viewed in a larger context.


Two major student uprisings of 1999 and 2003 against the government, at a time when the fifth President, Mr Mohammad Khatami,was leading the country are relevant. Both uprisings were against a repressive Islamic system of governance. They were brutally suppressed, and failed due to a disconnect between the grass root agitating youth and political leadership of the time. Soon after the terror strikes of 9/11 in the United States, a sizable group of Iranian youth organized a candlelight vigil for the victims of 9/11, in obvious defiance of the Iranian government.


Viewed against the backdrop of periodic surfacing of peoples’ discontent, what we are now witnessing in Iran, might very well emerge as a major civil disobedience movement not just against Ahmadinejad, but in fact for more civil liberties, economic opportunities, human, civil and women's rights -- so far all within the constitutional boundaries of the Islamic republic. But this may in fact extend to target the non-democratic institutions within the Islamic republic, such as the office of the supreme leader and that of the Guardian Council.

Out of a population of 75 million and a total of 46 million eligible voters, some 40 million, upward of 80 percent, voted in this election, and a significant segment of them are against the draconian doctrine and policies of the Islamic republic, the economic calamities (double-digit inflation and endemic unemployment) of Ahmadinejad's domestic policies, and his belligerent positions on a range of issues, from the inanities of his denial of the Holocaust to his vacuous and flamboyant positions on a number of regional issues.


As Grand Ayatollah Montazeri has just said, this movement is challenging the very legitimacy of the Islamic republic. That the elections might or might not have been rigged is now a completely irrelevant.

ELECTIONS AND PROBE IN IRAN: FRAUD ALL

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/Khamenei-orders-Iran-vote-fraud-probe/articleshow/4658913.cms#write

The elections in Iran were held on 12 Jun and results declared on 13 Jun. In Iran, elections are held on paper ballot (Not on Electronic Voting Machines) and counting should have taken more time. The complicity of the Supreme Leader in
declaring a win for Ahmadinejad is already established. The post election actions of the Iranian government also confirm the elections were an expensive fraud played out by the Guardian Council (comprising of powerful clerics) on the
people of Iran. Had the elections been a fair democratic exercise, the Supreme Leader would have ordered the probe before announcement of the election results, and not after street protests.



It is not possible that events such as massive demonstrations by students and supporters of pro-reform candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi went un-noticed by Ali Khamenei and the Guardian Council. Neither the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei nor his Guardian Council can pretend to have been unaware of the election fraud. It is no secret that they are the real power behind Ahmedinejad. The following actions of the Government must have had the express sanction of the Ayatollah and his Guardian Council:

(a) Opposition leaders and protesting students arrested, including the brother of ex-reformist President Khatami.


(b) Local and international phone and text message services interrupted.


(c) Social networking and newspaper websites blocked.


(d) “Heavy electronic jamming" from inside Iran to disrupt its Persian TV service.


(e) International journalists arrested and asked to leave.


(f) Iranian newspapers did not carry reports of the violence.


(g) Internet sites being blocked by the state.


(h) Brutal beatings of students and protesters by Baseeji (Iran’s secret police that operates in civil dress).


(i) Farsi-language satellite broadcasts of Voice of America were blocked over the weekend. Access to the BBC's Persian-language satellite TV channel and the BBC's news website were also curbed.


(j)The Guardian Council had ordered printing of 53 million ballots for the elections, but only 39 million were used. Fourteen million ballots were missing.

Ever since the revolution of 1979 ushered in the Islamic Republic, Iran has been governed by a power structure that combines unelected clerics with an elected legislature and presidency. Under the revolution's principle of velayat e-faqi or
'guardianship of the jurisprudent,' ultimate political authority rests in the hands of the Shi'ite clergy, first among them the Supreme Leader, chosen by an unelected Assembly of Experts. Still, the regime always sought to affirm its
legitimacy through holding elections for parliament and the president.

The democratic element of Iran's system has functioned as an important safety valve for clerical rule by creating a managed channel for the release of popular frustrations. But now the Supreme Leader appears to have thrown his weight
solidly behind what many are charging is a carefully staged putsch by Ahmadinejad. "The willingness of the regime simply to ignore reality and fabricate election results without the slightest effort to conceal the fraud represents a historic shift in Iran's Islamic revolution.

All previous leaders at least paid lip service to the voice of the Iranian people. This suggests that Iran's leaders are aware of the fact that they have lost credibility in the eyes of their countrymen, so they are dispensing with even the pretense of popular legitimacy in favor of raw power. If the probe establishes there was indeed a fraud committed in electing the President, they too would be proved guilty of having accepted the results. On the other hand, if the probe justifies election of Ahmedinejad, it would only add fuel to the raging fire and justify people's anger against the ruling mullahs of Iran.

For the moment, it seems that by ordering a probe, the Supreme Leader and the Guardian Council have maneouvered themselves between the devil and the deep sea.

ANOTHER POLITICIAN ATTEMPTS RESERVATION ROUTE

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/usrmailcomment.cms?msid=4624922&usrmail=jagdish.madan@gmail.com&mailon_commented=1

Mr Sharad Yadav should first aquaint himself with the views of the Indian society before promising to take poison. There is no argument against the need for upliftment of backward castes. However, the quota route to upliftment of the down trodden has always been exploited by short sighted, thick skinned politicians to shore up their sagging political fortunes rather than out of any sense of social justice. Mr Sharad Yadav is no different.

'WE ARE NO MORE THE SAME PEOPLE' BY VIR SINGHVI

I am reproducing below an article by Vir Sanghvi that I find most relevant. There may be differing views but nothing can refute the logic of Vir Sanghvi.

Few things annoy me as much as the claim often advanced by well-meaning but woolly- headed liberals to the effect that when it comes to India and Pakistan, "We’re all the same people, yaar." This may have been true once upon a time. Before 1947, Pakistan was part of undivided India and you could claim that Punjabis from West Punjab (what is now Pakistan) were as Indian as, say, Tamils from Madras.


But time has a way of moving on. And while the gap between our Punjabis (from east Punjab which is now the only Punjab left in India) and our Tamils may actually have narrowed, thanks to improved communications, shared popular culture and greater physical mobility, the gap between Indians and Pakistanis has now widened to the extent that we are no longer the same people in any significant sense.


This was brought home to me most clearly by two major events over the last few weeks. The first of these was the attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team on the streets of Lahore. In their defence, Pakistanis said that they were powerless to act against the terrorists because religious fanaticism was growing. Each day more misguided youngsters joined jihadi outfits and the law and order situation worsened. Further, they added, things had got so bad that in the tribal areas the government of Pakistan had agreed to suspend the rule of law under pressure from the Taliban and had conceded that sharia law would reign instead. Interestingly, while most civilised liberals should have been appalled by this surrender to the forces of extremism, many Pakistanis defended this concession.


Imran Khan (Keble College, Oxford, 1973-76) even declared that sharia law would be better because justice would be dispensed more swiftly! (I know this is politically incorrect but the Lion of the Punjab’s defence of sharia law reminded me of the famous Private Eye cover when his marriage to Jemina Goldsmith was announced. The Eye carried a picture of Khan speaking to Jemima’s father. “Can I have your daughter’s hand?” Imran was supposedly asking James Goldsmith. “Why? Has she been caught shoplifting?” Goldsmith replied. So much for sharia law.)


The second contrasting event was one that took place in Los Angeles but which was perhaps celebrated more in India than in any other country in the world. Three Indians won Oscars: A.R. Rahman, Resul Pookutty and Gulzar. Their victory set off a frenzy of rejoicing. We were proud of our countrymen. We were pleased that India’s entertainment industry and its veterans had been recognised at an international platform. And all three men became even bigger heroes than they already were.


But here’s the thing: Not one of them is a Hindu. Can you imagine such a thing happening in Pakistan? Can you even conceive of a situation where the whole country would celebrate the victory of three members of two religious minorities? For that matter, can you even imagine a situation where people from religious minorities would have got to the top of their fields and were, therefore, in the running for international awards? On the one hand, you have Pakistan imposing sharia law, doing deals with the Taliban, teaching hatred in madrasas, declaring jihad on the world and trying to kill innocent Sri Lankan cricketers.


On the other, you have the triumph of Indian secularism. The same people? Surely not. We are defined by our nationality. They choose to define themselves by their religion. But it gets even more complicated. As you probably know, Rahman was born Dilip Kumar. He converted to Islam when he was 21. His religious preferences made no difference to his prospects. Even now, his music cuts across all religious boundaries. He’s as much at home with Sufi music as he is with bhajans. Nor does he have any problem with saying ‘Vande Mataram’.


Now, think of a similar situation in Pakistan. Can you conceive of a Pakistani composer who converted to Hinduism at the age of 21 and still went on to become a national hero? Under sharia law, they’d probably have to execute him.


Resul Pookutty’s is an even more interesting case. Until you realise that Malayalis tend to put an ‘e’ where the rest of us would put an ‘a,’ (Ravi becomes Revi and sometimes the Gulf becomes the Gelf), you cannot work out that his name derives from Rasool, a fairly obviously Islamic name. But here’s the point: even when you point out to people that Pookutty is in fact a Muslim, they don’t really care. It makes no difference to them. He’s an authentic Indian hero, his religion is irrelevant.


Can you imagine Pakistan being indifferent to a man’s religion? Can you believe that Pakistanis would not know that one of their Oscar winners came from a religious minority? And would any Pakistani have dared bridge the religious divide in the manner Resul did by referring to the primeval power of Om in his acceptance speech?


The same people? Surely not.


Most interesting of all is the case of Gulzar who many Indians believe is a Muslim. He is not. He is a Sikh. And his real name is Sampooran Singh Kalra. So why does he have a Muslim name? It’s a good story and he told it on my TV show some years ago. He was born in West Pakistan and came over the border during the bloody days of Partition. He had seen so much hatred and religious violence on both sides, he said, that he was determined never to lose himself to that kind of blind religious prejudice and fanaticism. Rather than blame Muslims for the violence inflicted on his community — after all, Hindus and Sikhs behaved with equal ferocity — he adopted a Muslim pen name to remind himself that his identity was beyond religion. He still writes in Urdu and considers it irrelevant whether a person is a Sikh, a Muslim or a Hindu.


Let’s forget about political correctness and come clean: can you see such a thing happening in Pakistan? Can you actually conceive of a famous Pakistani Muslim who adopts a Hindu or Sikh name out of choice to demonstrate the irrelevance of religion?


My point, exactly!


What all those misguided liberals who keep blathering on about us being the same people forget is that in the 60-odd years since Independence, our two nations have traversed very different paths. Pakistan was founded on the basis of Islam. It still defines itself in terms of Islam. And over the next decade as it destroys itself, it will be because of Islamic extremism.


India was founded on the basis that religion had no role in determining citizenship or nationhood. An Indian can belong to any religion in the world and face no discrimination in his rights as a citizen. It is nobody’s case that India is a perfect society or that Muslims face no discrimination. But only a fool would deny that in the last six decades, we have travelled a long way towards religious equality.


In the early days of independent India, a Yusuf Khan had to call himself Dilip Kumar for fear of attracting religious prejudice. In today’s India, a Dilip Kumar can change his name to A.R. Rahman and nobody really gives a damn either way. So think back to the events of the last few weeks. To the murderous attack on innocent Sri Lankan cricketers by jihadi fanatics in a society that is being buried by Islamic extremism. And to the triumphs of Indian secularism.


Same people? Don’t make me laugh.

CORRUPT MINISTER NEEDS TO BE FIRED

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Govt-probes-seat-for-sale-scam/articleshow/4614873.cms

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Minister-denies-link-website-says-otherwise/articleshow/4614878.cms

Why blame the medical colleges that violate an SC order and state legislation banning capitation fee? Why not go deeper and see who is responsible for such violations? There is a live case where Chennai based Shree Balaji College asked for Rs 20 lakh, SRU demanded Rs 40 lakh for an MBBS seat. The colleges have 150 seats each. DMK MP and Union minister of state for information and broadcasting S Jagathrakshakan is the chairman of Shree Balaji Medical College and Hospital while SRU is run by a trust led by industrialist V R Venkataachalam.

The Balaji college administrative officer, Johnson, is on camera directing the student to meet ‘‘an agent’’ at the Shree Lakshmi Ammal Educational Trust at 29, Tilak Street, T Nagar, where “negotiations” for the capitation fee of Rs 20 lakh could be conducted. The college, he said, would at best allow parents to pay the capitation fee in three installments before January 2010, but he insisted that the amount would have to be paid “only in cash”.

MBBS students from these colleges have confirmed the entrance exam conducted by the colleges is an eyewash. Some NRIs paid Rs 75 lakh for a seat. For others, it was Rs 45 lakh. The whole higher education system in the country is blatantly being abused by a central minister. The Prime Minister would do well to remember his own words uttered while forming his new cabinet that it will not be ‘business as usual’ this time round.

The country can sincerely hope the probe into 'capitation fee issue' by HRD and Health ministries involving Balaji college owned by DMK MP and Union minister of state for information and broadcasting S Jagathrakshakan in Tamil Nadu is not an eye wash like the rest of them have been thus far. Since a member of the central cabinet is involved, it must be ensured that people's faith in the UPA is upheld by an honest and transparent probe and exemplary action against the culprits responsible. The expose proves that the Minister not only blatantly ignored Supreme Court's orders but is shamelessly denying his nefarious role in the scandal even after being exposed by media.

India gets its first woman Speaker- Meira Kumar

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India-gets-its-first-woman-Speaker--Meira-Kumar/articleshow/4611805.cms

I wish the Congress had sited the right reasons for election of Meira Kumar as the speaker of Lok Sabha. After all she had served in various embassies around the world based purely on her capabilities as an IFS officer. Or were those appointments too conferred upon her because she is a dalit. Projecting her as a dalit for such a covetted post amounts to perpetuating the retrograde caste system in the country and does not behove a responsible political party like the Congress. It also denigrates Meira's credentials as a capable person and overlooks her vast achivements in life.

NOT THE TIME TO WRITE THE LTTE's OBITUARY

Brief History of LTTE

On 5th May 1976, five young men including Velupillai Prabhakaran, Seelan, Mahattaya, Ragu and Umamaheswaran formed the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and were the first to be in the command structure of a five man council. Umamaheswaran was also chairman of the council while Prabhakaran was its military commander. When the original LTTE split and Umamaheswaran formed the Peoples Liberation Organization of Tamil Eelam (PLOTE) the majority of tigers went with Umamaheswaran. A dejected Prabhakaran teamed up with the Tamil Eelam Liberation Organization (TELO) led by Thangathurai and Kuttimani for a while.



Prabakharan himself was In India for a long time. In his absence a triumvirate comprising Seelan, Mahattaya and Ragu ran the movement on ground. Prabakharan who was under house arrest in Madurai for the shoot-out with Umamaheswaran in Pondy Bazaar, escaped to Sri Lanka in 1983. Thereafter he asserted his leadership of the LTTE on ground.



The 1983 July anti-Tamil pogrom in Colombo saw the politico-military landscape change. Prabhakaran once again landed in Chennai (then Madras) and ran the LTTE from there. His cadres conducted guerrilla warfare in the North and East. There were different regional commanders but Ravindran alias Pandithar, a childhood friend of Prabhakaran was in overall charge of both provinces. Pandithar, based in Jaffna, was also both the military commander and political commissar for the district. He was the accredited LTTE “vice-captain”. Pandithar was killed in Atchuvely in January 1985. Thereafter Prabhakaran did not appoint an overall N-E commander. Instead he maintained contact with each individual regional commander. One reason for this was the LTTE leader’s caution. He did not want any single regional commander to become all powerful and pose a possible challenge to him in the future. Prabakharan returned to Sri Lanka in January 1987 and directed LTTE operations on ground.



In July 1987, Prabakharan nominated Gopalaswamy Mahendrarajah alias Mahattaya de-jure No 2 of the LTTE who was until then the Wanni regional commander. Prabakharan did so on the eve of his departure to India by air to meet Indian PM Rajiv Gandhi. The LTTE leader feared that something could happen to him in India. Therefore he wanted someone to run the LTTE if necessary.



Prabakharan also appointed Mahattaya as acting leader prior to his departure. He gave instructions that everyone should obey Mahattaya and that the acting leader could countermand any order sent by Prabakharan himself from India. This was because the LTTE leader suspected he may be detained by Indian authorities and could be forced to issue orders detrimental to the tigers. Prabakharan returned from India after the Indo-Lanka Accord was signed. He assumed leadership of the LTTE again but Mahattaya remained deputy - leader of the LTTE. Later Mahattaya was also made President of the LTTE’s political party called Peoples Front of Tamil Eelam (PFLT).




At one point serious differences emerged between Prabhakaran and Mahattaya. A “cold war” was on. The tiger leader asked his ex-Jaffna commander Sathasivampillai Krishnakumar alias Kittu to return home from abroad. Kittu however committed suicide on 16 Jan 1993 when the ship in which he was traveling got surrounded by the Indian navy in international waters. In December 1993 merchant vessel Yahata had left Phuket with a large consignment of weapons destined for Sri Lanka. 'Kittu' @ Krishnakumar Sathasivam, a close associate of LTTE supremo Vellupillai Prabhakaran, led the operation and when the Indian Navy intercepted the ship, Kittu blew it up and drowned along with several of his crew members.




Had Kittu returned safely he would have been appointed deputy-leader and accredited as successor to Prabhakaran. There was, however, further trouble in the LTTE. Pottu Amman, the LTTE intelligence chief, “uncovered” details of an alleged conspiracy involving Mahattaya who had already fallen out of favour with Prabakharan. Mahattaya was accused of conspiring with the Indian RAW (Research and Analysis wing) to kill Prabhakaran and take over the LTTE. After prolonged incarceration Mahattaya was executed on 28 Dec 1994 along with 257 LTTE cadres who were thought to be his strong loyalists.




The highest decision making body of the LTTE was a central committee comprising 32 persons. These included all regional commanders and heads of different divisions. But Prabakharan called the shots and though a certain amount of discussion was possible, there was no vote taking. Ultimately the central committee approved Prabhakaran’s diktat unanimously. The central committee was a virtual rubber stamp.




The most senior tiger in the hierarchy was a non descript “Baby” Subramaniam @ Ilankumaran, the head of the LTTE’s education division. Ilankumaran hailing from Kankesanthurai is a founder member of the LTTE in 1976. He remained steadfastly loyal to Prabakharan. Despite his seniority Ilankumaran is not a fighting man. Until 1991 he spent most of his days in India and coordinated all propaganda and political activity for the LTTE in Tamil Nadu. He cultivated a whole lot of Tamil Nadu politicians and promoted the tiger cause. It was he who established links with MG Ramachandran, the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. Under present circumstances this Tamil Nadu connection would be perceived more as a liability than an asset by hardcore tiger elements. Also by nature and temperament the mild - mannered “Baby” is not likely to pursue power or hold on to it ruthlessly.

External Sources of Funds and Military Hardware

The LTTE used its international contacts to procure weapons, explosives, communications, and bomb making equipment. It exploited large Tamil communities in North America, Europe, and Asia to obtain funds and supplies for its fighters in Sri Lanka. It was involved in numerous trans national criminal activities, including partnerships with Pakistani heroin producers / traffickers, alien smuggling, extortion from Tamil families living abroad, and various forms of fraud.


In August 2006 following the European Union's (EU's) designation of the LTTE as a terrorist organization, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark announced their withdrawal from the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission (SLMM).


The LTTE apparently procured much of its weapons from Cambodia, whose flourishing black market in arms is a legacy of the decades of civil war. In the early seventies, the United States supported the right-wing government in Phnom Penh, while China and North Vietnam supplied the resistance with munitions. China poured in even more weapons into Cambodia after the victory of the Maoist Khmer Rouge in 1975. Following the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia in January 1979, China, Malaysia, Thailand and the West supported the anti-Vietnamese resistance led by the Khmer Rouge while the Soviet bloc supplied Phnom Penh with explosives, machine-guns, surface-to-air missiles, rockets, rocket launchers and AK-47 rifles. Finally, a peace treaty was signed in Paris in 1991.


The first LTTE operations in Phnom Penh were run out of Rani restaurant, whose upper storey was a virtual arsenal. Downstairs, a secretary handled professionally forged passports and visas. The LTTE's primary arms buyer, Selvarajah Pathmanathan, aka T.S. Kumaran, was first seen in Phnom Penh in mid-nineties. Both the Indian and Sri Lankan authorities constantly urged Phnom Penh to clamp down on LTTE activities, but to no avail. And security officials in Bangkok pointed out that more than 10,000 fishing trawlers roam the seas around Thailand, making it almost impossible to curb smuggling. Besides, Tamil presence in Phuket is much older than LTTE, which established a base near Trang on the Thai coast south of Phuket in the late eighties. The leader of that base was a Tamil skipper from Singapore, identified as Vijay Kumar. It was a communications centre, complete with radio equipment, warehouses, and access to shipping.


The LTTE presence in southeast Asia had grown and it has a network of private shipping companies, trading firms, hotels and restaurants in Thailand, Cambodia and Laos. After Kittu's death, most operations moved to Phuket and Ranong town on the mainland, where LTTE sympathisers teamed up with arms dealers of Thai and Burmese origin. Contacts were also established with Tamils on the bustling Silom Road in Bangkok.

LTTE Front Organisations

Tamil Rehabilitation Organization (TRO). The TRO which has its headquarters in Melbourne, Australia. Money collected ostensibly for post–tsunami relief and reconstruction projects in the North were actually used for financing LTTE weapons procurement programmes.


Tamil Coordination Committee (TCC). Active in Europe. At least 30 front and cover organisations in the UK, including the Tamil Center for Human Rights (TCHR), Human Rights for Tamils (HURT), Melrose Publishers, Tamil Rehabilitation Organisation (TRO), Tamil Eelam Economic Development Organisation (TEEDOR) were used by the LTTE for its funds collection and coordination of weapons procurement.


People Against Sri Lankan Oppression (PASLO), Gauteng, which has branches throughout South Africa; the Movement Against Sri Lankan Oppression (MASLO), Cape Town and Durban; the Dravidians for Peace and Justice (DPJ), Gauteng, an offshoot of the PASLO; the Tamil Eelam Support Movement (TESM), Durban; the Peace for Sri Lanka Support Movement (PSLSM), Pretoria, an alliance of several groups.


The PSLSM, the latest front organisation to be established by the LTTE, was set up in March-April 1998. In an effort to wield greater influence, the LTTE also attempted to infiltrate other Tamil organisations in South Africa such as the Natal Tamil Federation, the South African Tamil Federation, the Tamil Federation of Gauteng and the World Saiva Council of Chatsworth.


World Tamil Movement (WTM). Now banned in Canada as a terrorist organisation.


U.S.-based Tamil Foundation. The head of the Tamil Foundation is also president of the Tamils Rehabilitation Organization (TRO) in the United States.


LTTE Communication Centre in Norway is the most important for the rebel organization who daily send information from the jungles of the Wanni to Oslo the bustling capital of Norway, from which point, within a period of less than twenty four hours, it is put on the internet and distributed globally.


Tamil Youth Organization (TYO). Active in Australia, Canada, Denmark, France Germany, Holland, Italy, Malaysia, Sweden, Switzerland, UK and USA.

The Indian Involvement

India had provided support to Tamil interests from the very conception of the secessionist movement. This was both as a result of a large Tamil community in South India, as well as India's Regional security interests which attempted to reduce the scope of foreign intervention, especially those linked to the United States, Pakistan, and China. To this end, India sought to make it clear to the Sri Lankan President, Jayewardene that armed intervention in support of the Tamil movement was an option India would consider if any diplomatic solutions should fail. Following the anti- Tamil riots of 1983, the Tamil rebel movement grew progressively strong and increasingly violent. LTTE emerged as the strongest of militant groups in Sri Lanka.



Operation Liberation


1985 saw the Sri-Lankan Government rearming itself extensively for its anti-insurgent role with support from Pakistan, Israel, Singapore and South Africa. In 1987, retaliating an increasingly bloody insurgent movement, Operation Liberation was launched by the Sri Lankan security forces against LTTE strongholds in Jaffna Peninsula, involving nearly four thousand troops, supported by helicopter gunships as well as Ground attack aircraft. In June 1987, the Sri Lankan Army laid siege on the town of Jaffna. As civilian casualties grew, India, which had a substantial Tamil population in South India, called on the Sri Lankan government to halt the offensive in an attempt to negotiate a political settlement.


Operation Poomalai


Failing to negotiate an end to the crisis with Sri Lanka, India announced on 2 June 1987 that it would send a convoy of unarmed ships to northern Sri Lanka to provide humanitarian assistance but this was intercepted by the Sri Lankan Navy and turned back.


Indian government mounted an airdrop of relief supplies over the besieged city of Jaffna. On 4 June 1987, the Indian Air Force mounted Operation Poomalai in broad daylight. Five An-32s of the Indian Air Force escorted by heavily armed Indian fighter jets flew over Jaffna to airdrop 25 tons of supplies, all the time keeping well within the range of Sri Lankan radar coverage. At the same time the Sri Lankan Ambassador to New Delhi was summoned to the Foreign Office to be informed by the Minister External Affairs, K Natwar Singh, of the ongoing operation. It was also made clear to the Ambassador that if the operation was in any way hindered by Sri Lanka, India would launch a full-force military retaliation against Sri Lanka. The ultimate aim of the operation was both to demonstrate the credibility of the Indian option of active intervention to the Sri Lankan Government, as an act of support for the Sri Lankan Tamils.


Faced with the possibility of an active Indian intervention, the Sri Lankan President, JR Jayewardene, offered to hold talks with the Rajiv Gandhi government on future moves. The siege of Jaffna was soon lifted, followed by a round of negotiations that led to the signing of the Indo-Sri-Lankan accord on 29 July 1987 that brought a temporary truce.

The Indo Sri Lanka Accord 1987

The Indo-Sri Lanka Peace Accord was signed in Colombo on 29 July 1987, between Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and Sri Lankan President J.R. Jayewardene. Under the terms of the agreement, Colombo agreed to a devolution of power to the North and East provinces, the Sri Lankan troops were withdrawnto their barracks in the north, and the Tamil rebels were to disarm. The provisions of the Indo-Sri Lanka accord of 1987 also envisioned a referendum to decide if the Eastern and Northern provinces should remain separate or united

The Tamil groups, notably the LTTE had not been made party to the talks and initially agreed to surrender their arms to the IPKF only reluctantly. Within a few months however, this flared into an active confrontation. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) declared their intent to continue the armed struggle for an independent Tamil Eelam and refused to disarm. The Indian Peace-Keeping Force found itself engaged in a bloody action against the LTTE.


Yet another provision of the Indo-Sri Lanka accord stipulated that certain areas were to be recognized as Tamil majority areas, before any electoral democratic process got under way. This could have ensured that the election will occur in a neutral political environment and ensure a free and fair process that met international standards.


One of the key weaknesses of the Indo-Sri Lanka accord was that it lacked a common core of constitutional principles that would form the basis of a political settlement. Rather, it merely recognized that Sri-Lanka was "a multi-ethnic and multi-lingual plural society", which is merely a principle of political nationhood but not a statement of constitutional principles.

The Current Situation in North East Sri Lanka

The LTTE has been militarily decimated with most top level leaders including the dictatorial chief, Velupillai Prabhakaran, killed. With the leadership vacuum in the LTTE, lower cadres in a state of disarray and the civilian Tamil population disillusioned with LTTE’s uncompromising stance for gaining a better political deal for the Tamils, the future of the hapless Tamil population is fraught with unimaginable hardships. Unless the International community, and India in particular, intervenes on their behalf to create the right pressure points upon a victorious and jubilant Sri Lankan government, the misery of war affected Tamils can only be compounded. Ironically, the LTTE, which waged a war ostensibly to protect the Tamils, has left them more vulnerable than ever before. While Prabhakaran and the LTTE strengthened the bargaining position of Tamils, they were simultaneously the biggest obstacle in the path of a negotiated settlement to the conflict.


With Prabhakaran's exit, Tamil obstruction to a negotiated settlement has been removed. When Rajapaksa opens negotiations with the Tamils, the latter will be in a weak position, weakened not only by the absence of the LTTE but also undermined by it. The LTTE systematically decimated a generation of Tamil moderate leaders and intellectuals. The input of people like Neelan Tiruchelvam and Ketesh Loganathan, intellectuals who were assassinated by the LTTE for daring to differ with its methods, will be sorely missed.

Factors Responsible for LTTE’s Defeat

1. hostile international environment that all non-state actors engaging in armed struggle encountered after the terror attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001.

2. Tagged with the terrorist label by several countries, the LTTE's global fundraising, its front organizations and the logistical network came under immense pressure.

3. "Colonel Karuna", joining hands with the government in the military operations against the LTTE.

4. in 2005 Rajapaksa became president. A hardliner, his orders to the armed forces were unambiguous: they were to fight the LTTE not to merely weaken it but to defeat it, to "finish it off" once and for all.

5. The seeds of the LTTE's destruction lay in the organization itself, in fateful decisions that by its leadership that set it on course towards oblivion.
(a) Its decision to assassinate former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in Tamil Nadu 1991 was perhaps its biggest blunder. It not only earned the LTTE the terrorist label from India, but also made India a permanent enemy. Its support base in Tamil Nadu was eroded and its logistical network dismantled. And worse, it resulted in a robust military cooperation and other links between India and Sri Lanka.

(b) Misreading of the potential of the 2002 ceasefire and the talks that followed. Instead of seeing this as a chance to reach a settlement of the conflict, the LTTE saw it as an opportunity to rearm and regroup. It walked out of the talks and did everything possible to make the peace process fail. The war that followed was disastrous for the Tigers.

(c) It gravely miscalculated when it called on Tamils to boycott the 2005 presidential poll. The impact of that boycott saw Mahinda Rajapaksa win by a wafer-thin majority. Perhaps it thought that Rajapaksa as president would result in rallying Tamil support around the Tigers. It did not foresee that Rajapaksa would prove to be their nemesis.

(d) The LTTE appears to have believed its own propaganda. It believed it was militarily invincible. Its closing of the sluice gates of Mavil Aru in July 2006, inviting the vastly stronger armed forces to launch an offensive and at a time when international sentiment was not in its favor, can only be described as suicidal.

(e) The LTTE's use of suicide bombings, its intolerance of dissent, the recruitment of children and its utter disregard for human lives severely undermined support from foreign governments. It is proscribed in 32 counties

(f) The LTTE overestimated itself, even when its military capabilities were waning. In its desperation to hold onto territory and perceiving itself as a conventional army, it fought a defensive war when it lacked the numbers and the firepower for such a strategy. In the circumstances, defeat was inevitable. The LTTE defeated itself.

(g) Prabhakaran was uncompromising in his commitment to the creation of an independent Tamil Eelam. Perhaps too uncompromising for the good of the LTTE or the Tamil people whose interests he claimed to protect.

(h) There were political solutions, like the India-Sri Lanka Accord of 1987 that provided the Tamils with a measure of autonomy. But such solutions Prabhakaran rejected as inadequate as they provided for "less than Tamil Eelam".

(i) Prabhakaran preferred returning to the battlefield time and again, uncaring of the large number of Tamils who were getting killed in the bloody wars. Over 70,000 people are said to have died in the 25-year-long insurgency. This might have been avoided had Prabhakaran been realistic and seriously explored a political solution.

(j) Perhaps the most important reason for the defeat of the tigers was the enforced "one family, one fighter" policy, forcing each family to provide at least one recruit to the LTTE. As 2008 progressed and the LTTE's military position deteriorated, it resorted to more aggressive recruitment, including of older teenagers. The LTTE required individuals to purchase the right to leave LTTE-controlled territory. It also used civilians as human shields. This effectively alienated the Tamils who had already paid a heavy price for LTTE’s intransigence in negotiating a truce.

Future of LTTE

With the demise of Appiah Annai and the semi-retirement of Thevar Annai and Basheer Kakka the only other senior from the pre-July 1983 days who is active in the LTTE in the Wanni is the dreaded Intelligence chief Pottu Amman. Pottu joined the LTTE in 1982. He was a “helper” long before that. All the other senior tiger commanders like Soosai, Bhanu, Sornam, Jeyam, Theepan, Balraj, Nadesan etc joined the LTTE after July 1983. Apart from Pottu’s seniority there is also another factor that makes him a serious contender for the crown. The only man who could have effectively challenged Pottu Amman for leadership was former Batticaloa-Amparai commander Vinayagamoorthy Muraleetharan alias Karuna Amman. Both of them were blue-eyed boys of the big boss and there was simmering tension between them. But Pottu emerged victor in the battle of the Ammans. Karuna was ejected as “thurogi” or traitor. In such a situation the succession stakes seem a virtual one - horse race. It would be difficult for Pottu Amman or any would be successor to “fill” Prabakharan’s shoes automatically. There has to be an interim period before such an eventuality. Two options are possible. One is for a leadership committee chaired by Ilankumaran to run affairs for some time. The other is for a cabal of senior tiger leaders to provide an informal collective leadership. Prabakharan’s wife Mathivathany was seen increasingly in public before the final phase of military operations against the LTTE. Her “influence” was visible in the overseas branches of the LTTE. Plum positions in the LTTE overseas branches and institutions had been given to her relatives. Their passport to success was Ms. Mathivathany Prabakharan.

Diaspora Reaction

The Diaspora which has invested much in the Eelam illusion [of a separate state for the minority Tamils in Sri Lanka] is distraught. It initially refused to believe the death of Velupillai Prabhakaran. It had contributed to the conflict and is equally responsible for present plight of the Tamils. It ignored the fact that other people's children were recruited to die in mosquito-infested jungles while the diaspora wrote out checks every month to salvage its conscience and placate the ghosts of 1983 [the year of ethnic riots in Sri Lanka]. Those who 'donated' funds out of a compulsion arising out of their kin being left alone back home by the LTTE will not be grieving for an end to the menace. Those who had been duped by the LTTE of the sincerity of their objectives are most likely to come to terms with ground reality with time.




As to the Indian politicians like Vaiko, P Nedumaran and others from Tamil Nadu who were LTTE stooges, they have been shown their correct place by the people of the State in the recently concluded Parliamentary elections. While the people of Tamil Nadu have always supported the Sri Lankan Tamils in pursuit of their legitimate political aspirations, they have proved that such support does not extend to a terrorist organisation that was responsible for the brutal assassination of their Prime Minister.

Furure of the Conflict

The LTTE no longer exists as a military organization and its military assets and capabilities have been destroyed. The LTTE is defeated, not dead. Several Tigers are bound to have escaped the armed forces and they will be thirsting for revenge. The war is over; but the ethnic conflict is not over yet. The grievances of the Tamils, and their alienation and anger that gave rise to militancy and organizations like the LTTE in the first place, remain unresolved. The issues that kept the insurgency alive for three decades are very much alive.




To imagine that elimination of Prabakharan and defeat of the LTTE would automatically result in the extinguishing of the ethnic problem would be a colossal blunder. Prabakharan and the LTTE did not create the Tamil problem. Sinhala chauvinist politicians created the problem. Prabakharan and the LTTE were by - products of the problem created through majoritarian hegemony.




Prabakharan was only two years old when Sinhala was declared as the sole official language of Sri Lanka. He was four years old when the 1958 anti - Tamil violence was unleashed. The LTTE leader was only seven years old when the non - violent Satyagraha of the Tamil Federal Party was brutally suppressed by deploying the army and detaining Gandhiyan leaders without trial. The rise of organizations like the Jathiya Hela Urumaya (JHU) show that the problem will not go away now that the LTTE is not there. The JHU advocates an ideology of a Sinhala Nationalist stance in its politics and advocates wiping out the Tamil tigers by force. It wants to maintain Sri Lanka's unitary constitution with meager devolution of powers to Tamils as a solution to the present conflict.




The Tamil National question can be solved only on the basis of justice and equality. Grievances of the Tamils have to be redressed and their legitimate aspirations addressed. As long as the Tamil problem remains unsolved, virulent expressions of Tamil ultra- nationalism like Prabakharan and the LTTE will continue to manifest in different forms.

The only guarantee to ensure that all this happens is to have the United Nations or a multi-national conference assist Sri Lanka in the capacity of an honest third party. There is an urgent need for a sound constitutional process, which is based on the principles of strong federalism, respect for the territorial integrity of Sri Lanka and guaranteed protection of minority rights. Particularly at issue would be the status of minority rights to language, education, and religion, devolution of power, local control of law and order and budgetary autonomy. All of those sensitive issues lie at the core of legitimate Tamil demands for equality and equal treatment.




In addition, human rights abuses have been committed by both sides in the recent war, but the Sri Lankan government bears a special responsibility to face up to its accountability, both because a state always bears more responsibility for its conduct under international law and because it is after all the victor.




The Tamil community also needs to acknowledge a responsibility to reckon with the abuses of the LTTE, which was charged with the violation of grave violations of international humanitarian and human rights law, for example, by using civilians as human shields, and by drafting children as soldiers and suicide bombers.




Finally, reconstructing the war-shattered parts of Sri Lanka is going to be a crucial but a difficult process. The Tamil people need to see concrete improvement in their livelihood and economic security swiftly, in order to begin to trust the Sri Lankan government's intentions. That must be done without altering the ethnic balance on the ground and without exacerbating landlessness, which is already one of the main sources of tension.

Conclusion

To imagine that the elimination of Prabakharan and extinction of the LTTE would autmotically result in the extinguishing of the ethnic problem in Sri Lanka is a colossal blunder. Prabakharan and the LTTE did not create the Tamil problem. Sinhala chauvinist politicians created the problem. Prabakharan and the LTTE were by - products of the problem created through majoritarian hegemony. Prabakharan was only two years old when Sinhala was enthroned as the sole official language. He was four years old when the 1958 anti - Tamil violence was unleashed. The LTTE leader was only seven years old when the non - violent Satyagraha of the Federal Party was brutally suppressed by deploying the army and detaining Gandhiyan Tamil leaders without a trial. The rise of organizations like the Hela Urumaya show that the problem will not go away now that the LTTE has been decimated.


A durable solution to the Tamil National question can be evolved only on the basis of justice and equality. Grievances and legitimate aspirations of the Tamils have to be redressed and addressed. As long as the Tamil problem remains unsolved, virulent expressions of Tamil ultra- nationalism like Prabakharan and the LTTE will continue to manifest in different forms.