A forum for nationalists
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Dr Swamy meets US President Obama
Anna Hazare must cut ties with Naxalites: Subramanian Swamy
SATNA: Janata Party president
Dr. Subramanian Swamy said today that he was ready to extend support to social
activist Anna Hazare provided he distances himself from with the
"Naxalites" in his team.
Dr Swamy was talking to press persons in Satna on his way to Rewa ,where he addressed Kushabhau Thakare Vyakhyaanmaala at APS University.
"Although I am with Baba Ramdev, I could not back Hazare as there are Naxalites in his team. In case, he wants my support, he must sever ties with them," Swamy told reporters here. He also said that he did not agree with Hazare's demand that the Lokpal Bill should be brought first.
"Corruption would not finish even if Lokpal Bill becomes a reality," he said. Swamy said it was not right on part of Hazare to insist that only what he was saying was apt and nothing else is correct.
Expressing surprise over the clean chit given to Union finance minister, P Chidambaram in the 2G scam, by the Supreme Court, the Janta Party president today reiterated that he would file a review petition against yesterday's judgement and said he would not like to comment on it further..
Later in the day when Dr Swamy returned to Satna Circuit house accompanied with party general secretary, he was gheraoed and intimidated by the hooligans from Youth Congress. Later police rounded up the goons .
Dr Swamy condemned this attack and said this was an attempt to kill him at the instance of higher ups in the party. Congress is scared of him and does not know how to react to his exposures of various scams in the UPA government. He accused that the congress party wants to incapacitate him so that he is not able to move to courts to file/ follow up cases against the corrupt UPA.
Dr Swamy was talking to press persons in Satna on his way to Rewa ,where he addressed Kushabhau Thakare Vyakhyaanmaala at APS University.
"Although I am with Baba Ramdev, I could not back Hazare as there are Naxalites in his team. In case, he wants my support, he must sever ties with them," Swamy told reporters here. He also said that he did not agree with Hazare's demand that the Lokpal Bill should be brought first.
"Corruption would not finish even if Lokpal Bill becomes a reality," he said. Swamy said it was not right on part of Hazare to insist that only what he was saying was apt and nothing else is correct.
Expressing surprise over the clean chit given to Union finance minister, P Chidambaram in the 2G scam, by the Supreme Court, the Janta Party president today reiterated that he would file a review petition against yesterday's judgement and said he would not like to comment on it further..
Later in the day when Dr Swamy returned to Satna Circuit house accompanied with party general secretary, he was gheraoed and intimidated by the hooligans from Youth Congress. Later police rounded up the goons .
Dr Swamy condemned this attack and said this was an attempt to kill him at the instance of higher ups in the party. Congress is scared of him and does not know how to react to his exposures of various scams in the UPA government. He accused that the congress party wants to incapacitate him so that he is not able to move to courts to file/ follow up cases against the corrupt UPA.
Swamy’s grievance against SC in Chidu case looks valid
By
Kartikeya Tanna
Late last week, on Friday, the Supreme Court gave its judgment dismissing all grounds against P Chidambaram in the much-awaited battle between him and Janata Party chief Subramanian Swamy.
To many of Swamy’s supporters, his relentless fight against Chidambaram culminated in some sort of an anti-climax, giving the UPA something to cheer about despite the muck it finds itself in.
http://www.firstpost.com/
Late last week, on Friday, the Supreme Court gave its judgment dismissing all grounds against P Chidambaram in the much-awaited battle between him and Janata Party chief Subramanian Swamy.
To many of Swamy’s supporters, his relentless fight against Chidambaram culminated in some sort of an anti-climax, giving the UPA something to cheer about despite the muck it finds itself in.
Given this reprieve of sorts from the nation’s highest court, Chidambaram is now de facto leading the UPA’s defence in the Coalgate allegations postulating “zero-loss” theories (even though not using those words) and qualifying them the next day. Swamy has, in the meanwhile, vowed to fight back by filing a petition to review this judgment on the grounds that it did not address the arguments he had made.
Many supporters and sympathisers of the UPA have seen this move from Swamy as some sort of a struggle by a stubborn man. His supporters, incensed upon seeing Chidambaram go scot-free, are fully backing him. Is it his unwillingness to accept defeat that has prompted his move? Or is his move based on a genuine grievance against the Supreme Court’s half-baked judgment?
In my view, it is the latter. Whether or not Swamy’s case has any legal strength depends on the court examining his arguments and the existing case-law and pronouncing its opinion. But what when the Supreme Court does not even examine his arguments?
That is exactly what happened with Swamy’s petition against Chidambaram. Swamy was in Supreme Court appealing against the decision of Special CBI Judge OP Saini who had rejected Swamy’s plea to make Chidambaram a co-accused along with A Raja. The Supreme Court clubbed Swamy’s petition with Prashant Bhusan’s petition which asked for a CBI inquiry against Chidambaram.
In a way, this clubbing of petitions was a plea for alternative remedies: either make Chidambaram a co-accused in A Raja’s trial, or order a CBI probe.
In order to determine whether Chidambaram could be made co-accused, the Supreme Court had to assure itself of the existence of a prima facie case against Chidambaram. In simpler words, the Supreme Court must be convinced that there is some material which makes it more likely than not that Chidambaram can be guilty under the grounds alleged.
Since both petitions were clubbed, it is uncertain who argued what. Speaking to IBNLive, Swamy said that the SC gave its opinion on grounds he did not argue.
According to the Supreme Court, however, arguments made by Swamy and Bhushan led to issues of (i) criminal conspiracy with A Raja; (ii) obtaining for self or for Raja any monetary benefit by corrupt and illegal means; (iii) deliberately allowing dilution of equity by Swan and Unitech; and (iv) abusing his position as the finance minister to obtain benefit for self or anyone else.
Each issue had some element of mens rea or, in other words, a ‘guilty mind’. However, as Swamy had given periodic indications via media interviews and on his Twitter account, he was focusing on a specific category of criminal misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act: whether, as finance minister, Chidambaram obtained benefit for anyone else without any public interest (Section 13(1)(d)(iii) of POCA).
This ground does not contain the element of mens rea. All it requires is (a) whether anyone benefited; (b) due to a decision which was without any public interest whatsoever. Lack of public interest in the decision is the main crux of this ground.
In fact, the Supreme Court, in Para 6 of its judgment, even mentioned that this ground was one of the arguments made by Swamy. Yet, the Supreme Court did not even consider adding this ground as one of the main issues which arise for consideration. Readers may check Para 18 of the judgment which contains a list of questions for SC’s consideration. It does not contain Section 13(1)(d)(iii) at all!
Given that the Supreme Court took so much time in arriving at this judgment, how could it totally skip pronouncing its views on a ground which was purportedly Swamy’s trump card? If the Supreme Court did not find any merit in it, it should have at least given a reasoned decision rejecting it. Why ignore it altogether?
Why did the Supreme Court not consider it worthwhile to allow Swamy to complete his arguments in a case of such importance?
These nagging questions will remain unanswered unless the Supreme Court elaborately deals with them in the review petition Swamy intends to file. It is important to point out here that under Supreme Court Rules 1966, a review petition, as far as practicable, is circulated to the same judges whose decision one is seeking a review against. In all likelihood, therefore, the review petition will be filed before the same two judges who presided over this judgment. Unfortunately, however, there cannot be any oral arguments in a review petition.
Hopefully, the Supreme Court will exhaustively deal with these unanswered questions instead of ignoring the plea for a review. Swamy, and the nation, deserves an answer.
(Note: Another ground which Swamy raised in his plea both before Judge OP Saini and the Supreme Court is whether Chidambaram was guilty of breach of trust by not disclosing that Etisalat and Telenor were black-listed by the home ministry. Neither Judge OP Saini nor the Supreme Court dealt with this ground. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will answer this charge as well.)
Many supporters and sympathisers of the UPA have seen this move from Swamy as some sort of a struggle by a stubborn man. His supporters, incensed upon seeing Chidambaram go scot-free, are fully backing him. Is it his unwillingness to accept defeat that has prompted his move? Or is his move based on a genuine grievance against the Supreme Court’s half-baked judgment?
In my view, it is the latter. Whether or not Swamy’s case has any legal strength depends on the court examining his arguments and the existing case-law and pronouncing its opinion. But what when the Supreme Court does not even examine his arguments?
That is exactly what happened with Swamy’s petition against Chidambaram. Swamy was in Supreme Court appealing against the decision of Special CBI Judge OP Saini who had rejected Swamy’s plea to make Chidambaram a co-accused along with A Raja. The Supreme Court clubbed Swamy’s petition with Prashant Bhusan’s petition which asked for a CBI inquiry against Chidambaram.
In a way, this clubbing of petitions was a plea for alternative remedies: either make Chidambaram a co-accused in A Raja’s trial, or order a CBI probe.
In order to determine whether Chidambaram could be made co-accused, the Supreme Court had to assure itself of the existence of a prima facie case against Chidambaram. In simpler words, the Supreme Court must be convinced that there is some material which makes it more likely than not that Chidambaram can be guilty under the grounds alleged.
Since both petitions were clubbed, it is uncertain who argued what. Speaking to IBNLive, Swamy said that the SC gave its opinion on grounds he did not argue.
According to the Supreme Court, however, arguments made by Swamy and Bhushan led to issues of (i) criminal conspiracy with A Raja; (ii) obtaining for self or for Raja any monetary benefit by corrupt and illegal means; (iii) deliberately allowing dilution of equity by Swan and Unitech; and (iv) abusing his position as the finance minister to obtain benefit for self or anyone else.
Each issue had some element of mens rea or, in other words, a ‘guilty mind’. However, as Swamy had given periodic indications via media interviews and on his Twitter account, he was focusing on a specific category of criminal misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act: whether, as finance minister, Chidambaram obtained benefit for anyone else without any public interest (Section 13(1)(d)(iii) of POCA).
This ground does not contain the element of mens rea. All it requires is (a) whether anyone benefited; (b) due to a decision which was without any public interest whatsoever. Lack of public interest in the decision is the main crux of this ground.
In fact, the Supreme Court, in Para 6 of its judgment, even mentioned that this ground was one of the arguments made by Swamy. Yet, the Supreme Court did not even consider adding this ground as one of the main issues which arise for consideration. Readers may check Para 18 of the judgment which contains a list of questions for SC’s consideration. It does not contain Section 13(1)(d)(iii) at all!
Given that the Supreme Court took so much time in arriving at this judgment, how could it totally skip pronouncing its views on a ground which was purportedly Swamy’s trump card? If the Supreme Court did not find any merit in it, it should have at least given a reasoned decision rejecting it. Why ignore it altogether?
Why did the Supreme Court not consider it worthwhile to allow Swamy to complete his arguments in a case of such importance?
These nagging questions will remain unanswered unless the Supreme Court elaborately deals with them in the review petition Swamy intends to file. It is important to point out here that under Supreme Court Rules 1966, a review petition, as far as practicable, is circulated to the same judges whose decision one is seeking a review against. In all likelihood, therefore, the review petition will be filed before the same two judges who presided over this judgment. Unfortunately, however, there cannot be any oral arguments in a review petition.
Hopefully, the Supreme Court will exhaustively deal with these unanswered questions instead of ignoring the plea for a review. Swamy, and the nation, deserves an answer.
(Note: Another ground which Swamy raised in his plea both before Judge OP Saini and the Supreme Court is whether Chidambaram was guilty of breach of trust by not disclosing that Etisalat and Telenor were black-listed by the home ministry. Neither Judge OP Saini nor the Supreme Court dealt with this ground. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will answer this charge as well.)
http://www.firstpost.com/
Nothing objectionable in Sushma's choice of words: Swamy
Janata
Party President Dr Subramanian Swamy has
justified the use of a phrase “ Mota
Maal” by Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha Sushma Swaraj with regard to the
coal block allocation issue which has been objected to by the Congress.
Dr. Swamy
said in a press statement that there was
nothing unparliamentary about the phrase 'mota maal' which was used by Ms. Sushama Swaraj while alleging that the
Congress party received bribes in the allocation.
"These
two words convey very graphically what in English will be called as a bribe.
Therefore, the catchy phrase is easy to understand for the masses of
India," Swamy said in a statement.
Congress
chief Sonia Gandhi and Finance Minister P Chidambaram had taken objection to
the use of the phrase by Swaraj at a press conference on Monday
Monday, August 27, 2012
D E F I A N T
BUSINESS TODAY •
SEPTEMBER 2012 businesstoday.lk
( Business Today magazine of Sri lanka interviewd Janata party President Dr Subramanian Swamy,during his visit to Sri Lanka in July 2012 .The interview is reproduced here )
Dr Subramanian Swamy is a Member of Parliament from the National Democratic Alliance
and President of the Janata Party in India. He is a man who stands for what he believes in
and is known to be outspoken. He has vehemently opposed the LTTE and is a friend of the
Sri Lankan people. He urges the government of Sri Lanka to bypass the TNA as he doubts
their sincerity and go directly to the Tamil people.
Dr Swamy stresses that Sinhalese and Tamils should recognise that they are one people,
where Ayran and Dravidian divides are mythical concepts that were perpetuated by
colonial rulers in their campaign to divide and rule. “We may have differences, may have
disagreements, but ultimately when the country’s future is at stake we should be one.”
Wise words from a very wise man.
What are your thoughts on the relationship between India and Sri Lanka?
It has gone through significant changes. The relationship between the two countries should have been very good from the beginning but unfortunately there were misunderstandings about the nature of the relationship.
India gained Independence in 1947 and Sri Lanka in 1948. India should have been looking into our own neighbourhood and Asia but Jawaharlal Nehru had a European centric infatuation and as a consequence all these other relationships were ignored.
In the meantime Sri Lanka wanted to undo what the British had done. And, they tried to do this in a hurry. The British co-opted the Tamil population who in turn became their collaborators and as such the Tamils had a disproportionate share in services, universities and so on. After Independence,
Sri Lanka brought in amendments such as Sinhala only and standardisation without thinking
ahead and that led to bad blood. The Tamils looked to India to support them. As a result Tamils immediatelybegan to be looked upon as an extension of India, when in fact both communities
had come from India. India over time became an advocate
for Tamils, when they should have been advocates for both, because both communities had been a part of India and that is an acknowledged fact. We failed to rectify the distorted history, which
the British had forced on us – India and Sri Lanka. The idea of Aryans and Dravidians, where the Sinhalese thought themselves as Aryans from North India and the Tamils as Dravidians from the South is actually a non existing concept that has now been thrown out of the door by DNA studies.
Then Rajiv Gandhi tried to rectify the damage his mother had done by training militants. She had a personal grudge against J R Jayawardene whowas seen as pro-western, she thought she could do a Bangladesh type of operation where she would become a hero of the Tamils and the southern
Indians. Rajiv tried to rectify this by having the Indo-Sri Lanka agreement.
Unfortunately Sri Lanka under the leadership of Ranasinghe Premadasa entered into a collaboration with the LTTE and that led to strained relations between the two countries. The LTTE assassinated Rajiv Gandhi and then of course it all boomeranged because the LTTE was a terrorist organisation and they betrayed the agreement, they in fact assassinated Ranasinghe Premadasa.
During the period of the conflict India had assisted Sri Lanka substantially. We should have built on that but we made this big mistake of supporting the US backed UNHCR resolution. The general opinion in India was that we should not support the resolution because this is a knife that can be used both ways. It can be used against us too. And the Americans have no right to talk about Human Rights because of what they have done in Afganistan with their drone where innocent civilians have been killed.
But, the new problem that has arisen in India is the affiliation of Sonia Gandhi to pro-LTTE forces. She has written to the President of India that the killers of Rajiv Gandhi should not be hanged, which I do not think any widow of this sub continent would consider doing. She was the one who was insistent that India should support the US backed UNHCR resolution. I feel that the European powers have influenced her. As such the relations between Sri Lanka and India hit rock bottom. We were shocked. We are now trying to improve bilateral relations. The government in India will change in the next elections. The new government will start with a clean slate.
What can each country do to strengthen the ties?
India should now focus on the economic side and they must invest in the Northern region where there has been very poor investment. Sri Lankan banks have gone there and have started giving loans and other facilities and as a result there is an improvement. India must stop being an advocate of
Tamils, India must be an advocate of both, Sinhala and Tamil. We are Indians first and then only Tamil. Therefore this has been going on too long. India feels guilty regarding the Indian Tamil
plantation workers who were brought back to India and then rendered stateless creating misery for them. There was over compensation when it came to the conflict with the LTTE. India should now play a role in construction especially economic construction of Sri Lanka. Later this may translate into better relations and we will become more credible. Initially Sri Lanka approached India for assistance to develop Hambantota but India did not want to upset the Tamils. I want to ask what Tamils? I too am a Tamil. 99 percent of Tamils are against the LTTE. Therefore all problems are because of a few leaders and their greed for money.
Another step that Sri Lanka cann take to improve relations is to give the data that they have acquired from the interrogation of LTTE members about the money that has been given by the LTTE to certain politicians in India. We can expose them to show that they are doing this for money.
Tamil Nadu has exerted significant pressure on the central government of India which has resulted in decisions that are detrimental to Sri Lanka, what are your thoughts on this? Well the primary influence is of Sonia Gandhi. I feel that her family
has some connection with the LTTE, which needs to be probed. She has consistently come out in favour of the LTTE. Even in May 2009, she sent a letter to Prabakaran through a person
by the name of Father Jasper to sign .But that man was a terrorist and had no brains.
He consulted Nediyakumaran and Vaiko who said that the government in India will change and a new coalition would be formed. Prabakaran believed them, but then on May 16 the same government was elected and it was too late for him to change his mind.
At times it seems like the Tamils in India are more concerned about the Tamils in Sri Lanka, than the Tamils in this country. Why is that?
No, not all. The Tamils in India are not at all concerned about the
Tamils in Sri Lanka or any Tamils anywhere. It is the money factor that is making these people behave this way.
What is the agenda of the Tamil Nadu politicians? Why are they focusing on Sri Lanka?
It is not that they have an agenda per se but if we take Karunanidhi after I caught him on corruption and his daughter was taken to prison, there is nothing that he can go to the public on. He is thinking this is the only way. He thinks that Jayalalitha will be defensive on that. On everything else she is offensive but on the subject of Tamils she is defensive. But he will come to grief on what he is
doing.
The media in India too, propagate this negative image? why?
Well the problem is that the people who are against Sri Lanka are very well organised, large sums of money are circulated and journalists generally do not have the patience to do research. Most people do not know that Sinhalese come from India too.
They do not know that there is high percentage of sanskrit words in the
Sinhala language.
What are your thoughts on the current Tamil leadership in Sri Lanka, how can
we encourage more moderate parties to enter politics?
There are Tamil leaders such as Chandrahasan and Douglas Devananda. Sri Lanka needs to create
and bypass the TNA. The TNA is too tied up with LTTE history. I mean the TNAs hypocrisy is clearly seen in 2010, during the Presidentialelections. I mean in 2009-2010 they were going on about Human Rights violations and genocide conducted by the Sri Lankan Army. And thenthey end up accepting the Commander of the Army, Fonseka as their leader and candidate at the Presidential elections. The Tamils cannot rely on the TNA as many of them are compromised. Therefore
we need alternative parties so that the people will have a choice. During the conflict they surrendered
to the LTTE and won elections with the support of the LTTE.
What is your message to them?
I am not going to give any message to the TNA. I’m asking the government to go straight to the public. The public has been talking to me and corresponding with me, and they tell me that they are very happy that their children are safe and they do not have to be worried about their children
being forcibly recruited. That they do not have to give a portion of their salary to the LTTE. The people are happy because they are able to lead a
normal life.
What are your thoughts on the progress achieved by the Sri Lankan government?
As far as reconstruction and resettlement they have done a first class job. But they need to go a step further on reconcilliation. The government must devolve some power. They should not worry about whether the power is misused because the constitution should have a safeguard clause.
If the chief minister misuses his police, use the central police as we do in India. At the time I was a minister Karunanidhi misbehaved by assisting the LTTE. I dismissed the government in 1991. When the next elections was held Karunanidhi won only two seats from a total of 234.
You are very outspoken, that is very rare in a politician.
Yes it is because it hurts your career but for me in the long run I always win. There may be problems but in the long run it is always important to stand for what you believe in. I have been elected to parliament five times. I have been a minister twice. There are times when I say things which are very
unpopular but people soon realise that I was right. Earlier, people used to think that I was too blunt. Now people say ‘he is honest that is why he is so blunt.’ Today honesty has become an issue. People say the others are cowards and this man speaks. So at the next elections? I am part of a coalition – the National Democratic Alliance. We will
be in government and hopefully we will not have to wait till 2014. We will try to have the elections next year.
Final thoughts?
In the minds of both the Tamils and Sinhalese it should be that they are one people – Sri Lankans. You can say that the Tamil speaking people are a minority and the Sinhala speaking are the majority but they must agree that they are both one people. Stop living in purely Tamil areas and purely Sinhala areas. The government should give people incentives to intermingle.
In India whatever differences we may have at the end of the day we are Indians first. In Sri Lanka
the people should realise that they are one people. That your loss is my
loss. Your gain is also my gain. We swim together or sink together. Sri Lanka has to get out of this Aryan- Dravidian mentality, which we in India have fought on and now it is finally out of our text books. Now here is DNA evidence. Your language is not different, you have a distinct language but not different. You have sanskrit words and the script is Brahmi, so there is this oneness that has to be fostered.
In Sri Lanka the people should realise that they are one people.That your loss is my loss.
BUSINESS TODAY •
SEPTEMBER 2012 businesstoday.lk
( Business Today magazine of Sri lanka interviewd Janata party President Dr Subramanian Swamy,during his visit to Sri Lanka in July 2012 .The interview is reproduced here )
Dr Subramanian Swamy is a Member of Parliament from the National Democratic Alliance
and President of the Janata Party in India. He is a man who stands for what he believes in
and is known to be outspoken. He has vehemently opposed the LTTE and is a friend of the
Sri Lankan people. He urges the government of Sri Lanka to bypass the TNA as he doubts
their sincerity and go directly to the Tamil people.
Dr Swamy stresses that Sinhalese and Tamils should recognise that they are one people,
where Ayran and Dravidian divides are mythical concepts that were perpetuated by
colonial rulers in their campaign to divide and rule. “We may have differences, may have
disagreements, but ultimately when the country’s future is at stake we should be one.”
Wise words from a very wise man.
What are your thoughts on the relationship between India and Sri Lanka?
It has gone through significant changes. The relationship between the two countries should have been very good from the beginning but unfortunately there were misunderstandings about the nature of the relationship.
India gained Independence in 1947 and Sri Lanka in 1948. India should have been looking into our own neighbourhood and Asia but Jawaharlal Nehru had a European centric infatuation and as a consequence all these other relationships were ignored.
In the meantime Sri Lanka wanted to undo what the British had done. And, they tried to do this in a hurry. The British co-opted the Tamil population who in turn became their collaborators and as such the Tamils had a disproportionate share in services, universities and so on. After Independence,
Sri Lanka brought in amendments such as Sinhala only and standardisation without thinking
ahead and that led to bad blood. The Tamils looked to India to support them. As a result Tamils immediatelybegan to be looked upon as an extension of India, when in fact both communities
had come from India. India over time became an advocate
for Tamils, when they should have been advocates for both, because both communities had been a part of India and that is an acknowledged fact. We failed to rectify the distorted history, which
the British had forced on us – India and Sri Lanka. The idea of Aryans and Dravidians, where the Sinhalese thought themselves as Aryans from North India and the Tamils as Dravidians from the South is actually a non existing concept that has now been thrown out of the door by DNA studies.
Then Rajiv Gandhi tried to rectify the damage his mother had done by training militants. She had a personal grudge against J R Jayawardene whowas seen as pro-western, she thought she could do a Bangladesh type of operation where she would become a hero of the Tamils and the southern
Indians. Rajiv tried to rectify this by having the Indo-Sri Lanka agreement.
Unfortunately Sri Lanka under the leadership of Ranasinghe Premadasa entered into a collaboration with the LTTE and that led to strained relations between the two countries. The LTTE assassinated Rajiv Gandhi and then of course it all boomeranged because the LTTE was a terrorist organisation and they betrayed the agreement, they in fact assassinated Ranasinghe Premadasa.
During the period of the conflict India had assisted Sri Lanka substantially. We should have built on that but we made this big mistake of supporting the US backed UNHCR resolution. The general opinion in India was that we should not support the resolution because this is a knife that can be used both ways. It can be used against us too. And the Americans have no right to talk about Human Rights because of what they have done in Afganistan with their drone where innocent civilians have been killed.
But, the new problem that has arisen in India is the affiliation of Sonia Gandhi to pro-LTTE forces. She has written to the President of India that the killers of Rajiv Gandhi should not be hanged, which I do not think any widow of this sub continent would consider doing. She was the one who was insistent that India should support the US backed UNHCR resolution. I feel that the European powers have influenced her. As such the relations between Sri Lanka and India hit rock bottom. We were shocked. We are now trying to improve bilateral relations. The government in India will change in the next elections. The new government will start with a clean slate.
What can each country do to strengthen the ties?
India should now focus on the economic side and they must invest in the Northern region where there has been very poor investment. Sri Lankan banks have gone there and have started giving loans and other facilities and as a result there is an improvement. India must stop being an advocate of
Tamils, India must be an advocate of both, Sinhala and Tamil. We are Indians first and then only Tamil. Therefore this has been going on too long. India feels guilty regarding the Indian Tamil
plantation workers who were brought back to India and then rendered stateless creating misery for them. There was over compensation when it came to the conflict with the LTTE. India should now play a role in construction especially economic construction of Sri Lanka. Later this may translate into better relations and we will become more credible. Initially Sri Lanka approached India for assistance to develop Hambantota but India did not want to upset the Tamils. I want to ask what Tamils? I too am a Tamil. 99 percent of Tamils are against the LTTE. Therefore all problems are because of a few leaders and their greed for money.
Another step that Sri Lanka cann take to improve relations is to give the data that they have acquired from the interrogation of LTTE members about the money that has been given by the LTTE to certain politicians in India. We can expose them to show that they are doing this for money.
Tamil Nadu has exerted significant pressure on the central government of India which has resulted in decisions that are detrimental to Sri Lanka, what are your thoughts on this? Well the primary influence is of Sonia Gandhi. I feel that her family
has some connection with the LTTE, which needs to be probed. She has consistently come out in favour of the LTTE. Even in May 2009, she sent a letter to Prabakaran through a person
by the name of Father Jasper to sign .But that man was a terrorist and had no brains.
He consulted Nediyakumaran and Vaiko who said that the government in India will change and a new coalition would be formed. Prabakaran believed them, but then on May 16 the same government was elected and it was too late for him to change his mind.
At times it seems like the Tamils in India are more concerned about the Tamils in Sri Lanka, than the Tamils in this country. Why is that?
No, not all. The Tamils in India are not at all concerned about the
Tamils in Sri Lanka or any Tamils anywhere. It is the money factor that is making these people behave this way.
What is the agenda of the Tamil Nadu politicians? Why are they focusing on Sri Lanka?
It is not that they have an agenda per se but if we take Karunanidhi after I caught him on corruption and his daughter was taken to prison, there is nothing that he can go to the public on. He is thinking this is the only way. He thinks that Jayalalitha will be defensive on that. On everything else she is offensive but on the subject of Tamils she is defensive. But he will come to grief on what he is
doing.
The media in India too, propagate this negative image? why?
Well the problem is that the people who are against Sri Lanka are very well organised, large sums of money are circulated and journalists generally do not have the patience to do research. Most people do not know that Sinhalese come from India too.
They do not know that there is high percentage of sanskrit words in the
Sinhala language.
What are your thoughts on the current Tamil leadership in Sri Lanka, how can
we encourage more moderate parties to enter politics?
There are Tamil leaders such as Chandrahasan and Douglas Devananda. Sri Lanka needs to create
and bypass the TNA. The TNA is too tied up with LTTE history. I mean the TNAs hypocrisy is clearly seen in 2010, during the Presidentialelections. I mean in 2009-2010 they were going on about Human Rights violations and genocide conducted by the Sri Lankan Army. And thenthey end up accepting the Commander of the Army, Fonseka as their leader and candidate at the Presidential elections. The Tamils cannot rely on the TNA as many of them are compromised. Therefore
we need alternative parties so that the people will have a choice. During the conflict they surrendered
to the LTTE and won elections with the support of the LTTE.
What is your message to them?
I am not going to give any message to the TNA. I’m asking the government to go straight to the public. The public has been talking to me and corresponding with me, and they tell me that they are very happy that their children are safe and they do not have to be worried about their children
being forcibly recruited. That they do not have to give a portion of their salary to the LTTE. The people are happy because they are able to lead a
normal life.
What are your thoughts on the progress achieved by the Sri Lankan government?
As far as reconstruction and resettlement they have done a first class job. But they need to go a step further on reconcilliation. The government must devolve some power. They should not worry about whether the power is misused because the constitution should have a safeguard clause.
If the chief minister misuses his police, use the central police as we do in India. At the time I was a minister Karunanidhi misbehaved by assisting the LTTE. I dismissed the government in 1991. When the next elections was held Karunanidhi won only two seats from a total of 234.
You are very outspoken, that is very rare in a politician.
Yes it is because it hurts your career but for me in the long run I always win. There may be problems but in the long run it is always important to stand for what you believe in. I have been elected to parliament five times. I have been a minister twice. There are times when I say things which are very
unpopular but people soon realise that I was right. Earlier, people used to think that I was too blunt. Now people say ‘he is honest that is why he is so blunt.’ Today honesty has become an issue. People say the others are cowards and this man speaks. So at the next elections? I am part of a coalition – the National Democratic Alliance. We will
be in government and hopefully we will not have to wait till 2014. We will try to have the elections next year.
Final thoughts?
In the minds of both the Tamils and Sinhalese it should be that they are one people – Sri Lankans. You can say that the Tamil speaking people are a minority and the Sinhala speaking are the majority but they must agree that they are both one people. Stop living in purely Tamil areas and purely Sinhala areas. The government should give people incentives to intermingle.
In India whatever differences we may have at the end of the day we are Indians first. In Sri Lanka
the people should realise that they are one people. That your loss is my
loss. Your gain is also my gain. We swim together or sink together. Sri Lanka has to get out of this Aryan- Dravidian mentality, which we in India have fought on and now it is finally out of our text books. Now here is DNA evidence. Your language is not different, you have a distinct language but not different. You have sanskrit words and the script is Brahmi, so there is this oneness that has to be fostered.
In Sri Lanka the people should realise that they are one people.That your loss is my loss.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)