Distortion of history

In the discussions on the resolution in the Tamil Nadu Assembly seeking economic sanctions on Sri Lanka and demanding the Centre to take action to get all those responsible for large scale civilian deaths during the civil war declared as ‘war criminals’ and calling upon the State Revenue Department to implead itself in a case filed by Jayalalitha in the Supreme Court for retrieval of Katchatheevu island, both Chief Minister Jayalalitha and Leader of the Opposition Vijayakant have unnecessarily targeted former Chief Minister and DMK President Kalaignar and chose to make disparaging remarks against him. Their speeches during the discussions diluted the very seriousness and purported purposes of passing the resolutions and seemed intended for merely seeking narrow political gains and not borne out of any sincerity or concern for Lankan Tamils.

Participating in the debate on the special resolution on Sri Lanka, DMK Group Deputy leader Thiru Durai Murugan had said political parties might have had a thousand differences among themselves and adopted different approaches to the Sri Lankan Tamil problem, but this was not the time to highlight them. Following the UN report, the whole world was aware of the issue. Supporting the resolution, he said, “Whatever action the Centre takes now, the whole world will support it.” Despite such a passionate appeal, Leader of the Opposition Vijayakant was allowed to make disperaging statements on Kalaignar and sweeping remark that the DMK had been betraying Tamils since 1972. The DMK members were on their feet in protest and Thiru Durai Murugan wanted the Speaker to allow him to rebut Vijayakant’s submission. The Speaker D.Jayakumar first said the DMK would be given a chance after completion of Vijayakant’s speech but later did not relent and called upon the CM to reply to the discussion. All DMK members walking out in protest and Jayalalitha was let to make wild allegations against DMK and Kalaignar in a bid to cover up all faux pas she committed in the past. In the process both Vijayakant and Jayalalitha terribly distorted history at their will to suit their present needs.

Jayalalitha had said that after Rajapaksa became President of Sri Lanka late in 2005, the government unleashed a repressive campaign against the Tamils in the name of establishing peace. Towards the end of 2008 and early 2009, Sri Lankan force intensified their military campaign. Then why did Jayalalitha on Jan. 17, 2009 said ‘It was not the intention of the Sri Lankan army to kill the Tamils. However, it was a war and innocents were bound to be killed’. She had supported the Sri Lankan government’s war against the LTTE and had condemned the LTTE for using the Eelam Tamils as shield against the Sri Lankan army. ‘What is happening in Sri Lanka is that the LTTE do not allow Lankan Tamils to go to safer places, held them as captives and use them compulsorily as shield against the army” she had said. She also said, “The Indian government has no authority to interfere in the internal affairs of Sri Lanka and stop the war, as it is a sovereign nation.” Does not all these statements of Jayalalitha at the peak of civil war and ‘intensification of attacks against the Tamils’, (according to present statement in the Assembly) tantamount to abetting the killings of innocent civilians and hence a war crime. Is she not punishable according to the resolution? The Sri Lankan army’s website carried the photographs and statements of Jayalalitha during that period and she did not change her pro-Sri Lankan government stand till early April 2009 when election campaign for 2009 Lok Sabha election started. Were not all these treacherous acts covered up by distorting history?

Jayalalitha had prided that her government persuaded the Centre to ban the LTTE in 1992 and that in 2002, she had got a resolution passed in the Assembly demanding that its leader V.Prabhakaran be apprehended and handed over to India. The ADMK also passed a resolution not to allow any LTTE member inside India. In her previous regimes Jayalalitha never supported the Eelam cause. MDMK leader Vaiko and Pazha Nedumaran were arrested under draconian POTA Act and lodged in prison and it was Kalaignar’s efforts that resulted in their release. Jayalalitha used to take pride claiming that she had driven out LTTE and Eelam supporters out of Tamil Nadu soil. In fact her regimes were nightmares for those who supported Tamil Eelam cause. She could not tolerate Kalaignar penning an elegy in Murasoli following the death of LTTE’s political wing leader Tamizh Selvan in 2007 and said, “this was an evidence for Karunanidhi’s secrete links with the LTTE and highly condemnable.” Have all these leaders of fringe Tamil groups like Nedumaran, Vaiko, Seeman and others, who today hail Jayalalitha for passing the resolution and have planned to hold a thanksgiving rally, conveniently forgotten all these possibly to escape from her wrath for their pro-Tamil Eelam cause and for deifying Prabhakaran.

Kalaignar has detailed all the steps taken by him since 1956 for the Lankan Tamils countering the disperaging remarks of Jayalalitha and Vijayakant and setting right the distortion of history.

The ADMK right from its inception had no stable stand on Lankan Tamils issue and was always determined by its anti-Kalaignar policy. Its founder MGR fell in line with the strategy of Indira Gandhi rule of supporting Tamil Eelam cause and promoting militant groups. In seeking one-upmanship against Kalaignar, who strove to unite various militant groups and avert internecine clashes and killings, MGR promoted LTTE and its leader as the sole representative group of Eelam Tamils. The tragic killings of precious Tamil lives is history. Following MGR’s line Jayalalitha was also supporting only the LTTE and did not even condemn the killings of EPRLF leader Padmanabha and 9 others in Chennai in 1990. On the contrary she told in an interview in ‘Indian Express’ that the then Chief Minister Kalaignar failed to lend full support to Prabhakaran whose LTTE, she described as the sole representative of Eelam Tamils. But without any compunction. She later joined hands with Subramanian Swamy, who was fiercely opposed to Tamil militant groups, in getting the DMK government dismissed within two years in 1991, by the short-lived Chandrasekhar ministry, charging Kalaignar of passing secrets of India to LTTE leadership. Following the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi and her coming to power on ‘sympathy wave’, Jayalalitha turned into a fierce opponent of Eelam cause and LTTE and ruthlessly suppressed Eelam solidarity movement. That was her position till early 2009, when again her political interest demanded her becoming an Eelam crusader! And Vijayakant, who admired the LTTE leader, named one of his sons as Prabhakaran and acted in a movie titled ‘Captain Prabhakaran’ (by which he has acquired his title) joining hands with Jayalalitha and deriding Kalaignar, is again political convenience!

About the Assembly resolution on Katchatheevu also, Kalaignar has placed the record straight and laid bare Jayalalitha’s betrayal for the efforts to retrieve the island and her cover-up attempt now.

Besides on behalf of the Party, DMK Parliamentary party leader Thiru T.R.Baalu while speaking on a call attention motion in the Lok Sabha on 31.08.2010 on the killings of Indian fishermen by Lankan Navy referred to Katchatheevu and said:

“I would take two minutes and remind you of the history. In 1974 there was an agreement signed by the great leader of this country the late Indira Gandhi. Indira Gandhi signed that agreement with Shrimati Sirimavo Bandaranaike. The two Prime Ministers signed the agreement on 28-6-1974. Article 4 of that agreement says, “Each country shall have its sovereignty and exclusive jurisdiction and control over the waters, the island, the continental shelf and subsoil thereof falling on its own side of the aforesaid boundary.” Article 5 of the agreement reads, “Subject to the foregoing, Indian fishermen and pilgrims will enjoy access to visit Kachathivu as hitherto and will not be required by Sri Lanka to obtain travel documents and visas for these purposes”. Article 6 is more important and it says, “The vessels of India and Sri Lanka will enjoy in each other’s waters such rights as they have traditionally enjoyed thereon”.

Traditional rights have been established in this 1974 agreement which was signed by Indiraji. What happened after 1974? In 1974 itself, Shri Swaran Singh, the former External Affairs Minister made a statement.

In his statement, he also says: “I wish to remind the  Members that in concluding this Agreement, the right of fishing, pilgrimage and navigation, which both sides have enjoyed in the past, have been fully safeguarded for the future.” It has become a parliamentary document. Once again, during his speech, he says: “I am sure that the Members know that the 1921 Fishery Line was a Line, it was about three or three and a half miles West of Kachathivu, that is, to the western side of the Fishery Line was a exclusive fishery rights of the Indian citizens and to the east of that was, the right of Sri Lankan fishermen.” This is what late Swaran Singh stated in Parliament, on the same floor.

Finally, he says: “Although Sri Lankan claims to sovereignty to Kachathivu has been recognised, the traditional rights of Indian fishermen to pilgrims to visit the Island will remain unaffected” - I repeat, remain unaffected – “similarly the traditional navigation rights exercised by India and Sri Lanka in each other’s waters will remain unaffected.” This is the assurance given by late Swaran Singh, the former External Affairs Minister.

What went wrong in 1976? There was a sheer transaction of two letter correspondences between one Secretary of External Affairs Ministry of the Government of India by name Shri Kewal Singh and another Secretary by name Shri Jayasinghe of the Defence Ministry of Sri Lanka. The letter says that: “The fishing vessels of fishermen of India shall not engage in fishing – in the historic waters – in territorial sea and exclusive economic zone of Sri Lanka nor shall the fishing vessel and fishermen of Sri Lanka engage in fishing in the historic waters, the territorial sea and exclusive economic zone of India without the express permission of Sri Lanka or India, as the case maybe.” It is a blow on the heads of the fishermen of India. This has happened in 1976. It is an Executive Order of Secretary – from the Government of India, without the consent of Parliament and without the consent of political hierarchy, without the consent of the State Government.

The State Government of Tamil Nadu was never taken into confidence. Moreover in the first Agreement in 1974 itself, it has not been placed. The Agreement was signed on 28.06.1974 by Indira ji. In July only, the discussion took place. In June, the Agreement was signed by the Government. But in July, 1974, the discussion took place in Parliament. That is why, many parliamentarians took exception because an Agreement has been signed and an Agreement is brought before the House for getting an approval fait accompli. Why should the Government do that? That is what the  Members had asked at that point of time during discussion. After this, the two letter transaction has become a part and parcel of the Agreement. That is a blow on the heads of fishermen at that particular point of time.

The then parliamentary party leader of DMK, Era Sezhian – many senior Members like Shri Jaswant Singh and Shri Advani should be knowing him –has said categorically that: “This Agreement goes against the interests of the country. It is a pure surrender of our territory without going through any norms. This is an unholy and disgraceful act of statesmanship unworthy of any Government. Therefore, we do not want to associate ourselves with the statement that is going to be made by the Minister and we want to disassociate ourselves by walking out of the House.” We have made strong exception. The DMK has made it clear that we are not conceding this and conceding Kachathivu to Sri Lanka is against the interests of the India. That is what he had said and he walked out.

Before I conclude, as requested by the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and my leader, Kalaignar Karunanidhi many times, and the Members of Parliament, cutting across party lines, I would request the Government of India to revisit the Agreements and renegotiate to get back Kachathivu Island. Secondly, the Government must increase the Coast Guard patrolling to protect the Tamil fishermen. Third is the most important and the immediate action needed is to establish on-line interactive dispute redressal mechanism involving all stakeholders – Government of India, Sri Lanka, State Government of Tamil Nadu and the fishermen. Unless and otherwise you establish linkage, you cannot solve this problem. Otherwise, you have to get back the Kachathivu Island back to India.”

Jayalalitha had cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in 1960 in the Berubari case that any agreemnet on the cessation of Indian territory to another country should be ratified by Parliament through an amendment of the Constitution. However, contrary to the verdict of Supreme Court, Katchatheevu was ceded under the 1974 and 1976 agreements to Sri Lanka without the approval of the two Houses of Parliament. And novice Vijayakant and she had faulted Kalaignar for the Centre’s act. Both of them do not know that the DMK refused to be a party to post-facto ratification of the agreement in Parliament and walked out and that there was no agreement in 1976 but only an exchange of letters between the Foreign secretaries of the two governments. They have exposed their lack of correct information. Jayalalitha did not also explain why she filed the case in Supreme Court  only in the year 2008 citing this verdict of 1960.

So, in every respect the intended purpose of Jayalalitha moving and passing these two resolutions is nothing but politically targeting Kalaignar and DMK by placing on Assembly records distorted versions of the past and also covering up her betrayal to Tamils and Tamil Nadu. The purpose of novice Vijayakant also in attacking Kalaignar seems more as a political strategy (probably worked out by Panruti Ramachandran, the Kudilan) to win over to his party the ADMK ranks, who knew nothing but blind opposition to Kalaignar. That was why the actor-politician projected himself as ‘dark MGR’ and succeeded in winning over many leaders from the ADMK. Anyway the long-term interests of Jayalalitha and Vijayakant cannot co-exist!