ekalavya is talking according to his handlers own interpretation of "honourable retreat" - the British imperialist interpretation of "either leave" or "death". For me "leave" is leaving politics and power. For eklavya the onlee good enemy is a dead enemy. Eklavya will execute his "hostile" opponent if his opponent does not "retreat" - just as the Brits of a bygone era insisted on. Note that he is always taking the most extreme physical side of state action, torture, execution, killing - as the sole interpretation of "state measures".
Actually eklavya practically justified whatever the Brits did on IRA as "exceptional circumstances". So his pious posturing as "holier-than-thou" is based on the hope that his tacit support of "illegality" of action would be acceptable because he onlee supports the Brit state action - conditioned to support "illegality" as long as such illegality is not helping India, or damaging enemies of India.
Here is his original post in support of bending the law -
By bringing up the treatment of the IRA, you have only highlighted that in exceptional circumstances governments occasionally end up on the wrong side of their own laws. If your yardstick for how the British state deals with Sikh separatists is how they dealt with the IRA, then you are being a bit naive. I was hoping that the US Government-IRA example would make you understand that each state has its own perceptions and interests and acts accordingly; to expect the British state to break its laws for the benefit of the Indian state is tilting at windmills, to say the least.
Note that for him it is not unnatural for the British state to break its "laws" in "exceptional circumstances" - he simply does not expect the British state to "break the law" in favour of India -and that for him law-breaking is dependent on "perceptions" of interests - and "acts" are according to those perceptions. He dares not condemn the British state in the same abusive language he freely hurls at those he thinks are Indians and therefore fit for such abuse [also he might be mortally scared of losing his job if he does not prove his devotion and loyalty by bashing up critical Indians] for the IRA situation.
Before I brought the Stevens report up - both he and Lisa never ever mentioned the existence of the report, while they were pretending that the law "so much" constrained the British state in its actions. Maybe he was hoping no one would bring the ref up.
eklavya, I know you are immensely inflamed at the non-kowtowing to your favourite idols and inspirations - by being viciously abusive and overzealous in whitewashing their image you might hope to gain favours in which nations you mentioned - India, UK and US - right? go ahead - your handlers will know me better than they know you. I do not need to place my views on my visa applications to several countries - because I do not need a visa to visit them legally. I have already placed my views at much higher levels than the embassies (and in perfectly legitimate settings) than you can imagine.
Just as people talk of "solving the Kashmir problem", people also talk of solving the "Khalistani" problem, and the "pak" problem, and so on, and some of those talking sessions are no holds barred - between academics and would-be-solvers. I think you don't realize where you are stepping into because you are committed to holding up and defending a certain image of the states/parties/regimes that is archaic.
Yeah take my views and your threat of state action, to your handlers - if you are expecting a bonus. You will be enlightened.