A few questions on LTTE, Saudi Arabia

[Kaushal]

b. IPKF decision - One speculation is that the Israelis were getting involved on the Sinhala side at the behest of the US. So, to pre-empt the potential of later US/Israeli involvement in Sri Lanka, the Indians thought up the IPKF. In those days, there was not much cooperation between the Israelis and the Indians.<P>In retrospect a very bad idea,that cost Rajiv his life, but then I am Monday morning quarterbacking.<P>Kaushal

[Gireesh Nair]

The israeli's never actully got involved in Sri lanka. They were looking for an arms market to service and supply.So for them it was purely commercial reasons. Putting the same circumstnces in todays conditions, they will not get involved because everybody is knocking on Israel's door for defense equipment. This was not the case then, the Israeli weapons industry was a little more embryonic.

[Kuttan]

My perspective on Sri Lanka is that of a kid in central Ceylon in the 1960s, and then the natural interest of following events. <P>The Sinhala people have been in three minds as to whether they are "a little bit of England" (with some cruelly substituting a pair of letters for "b") or if they should continue to admit links to India. North India. There has always been some friction between Sinhala and Tamil people. In the 1950s there were riots, the year I was born, the priests of the temple in Colombo were burned alive, for example. Riots generally ended when there were rumors of Indian warships closing in on Colombo..(you see why some Indians have always looked up to the Indian army, navy etc.). <P>They had a democratic system like ours, with a finely balanced power-sharing agreement with the Jaffna Tamils (distinct from the Indian Tamils who lived in Colomo and Kandy, etc.) As is common in really tiny societies, everyone looked down upon everyone else.<P>In the 1960s (after we had left) there was an insurgency, by the "Janata Vimukti Perumana" (People's Liberation Front, in Sinhalese). In the SOUTH of Sri Lanka. These were Sinhalese youths, claiming to be followers of Che Guevara. This was terribly violent. The govt. reacted by arresting (and "disappearing") anyone who could be remotely suspected, and many who could not. Reliable reports are scarce, but I believe that many of my former classmates and teachers may have "disappeared" as well. I lost all contact. <P>Following this, the democratic system dissolved. J.R. Jayawardene, when he eventually became PM, appointed himself the President. The power-sharing deals with the Tamils were forgotten. Tamil resentment exploded, and as often happens, the moderate voices were drowned out by the guerillas. <P>Long before IPKF, the SriLankan army had attacked Jaffna several times. They were threatening a wipe-out of Jaffna, when India, under pressure from Tamil Nadu, sent fighter planes to buzz the S.L. Army. This was followed by the arrival of IPKF. <P>Nothing since has made any sense to me. India seemed totally undecided whether to support the Tamils to enforce a reasonable power-sharing agreement, or to support the Sri Lankan government all-out. Caught in the middle, over 600 of our soldiers died. IPKF was vastly unpopular with the Jaffna population, and also hated by the Sinhalese, so the diplomatic debacle matched the military one. <P>Well, today the fighting still goes on. I think they have all forgotten why they started. <P>

[Johann]

I actually lived in Ceylon through some of the most turbulent periods in the '80s. Narayanan, you left out Bandaranaike's radical changes and his institutionalisation of Sinhalese domination and segregation in the '60s. The Sinhalese after independance were basically both the landowning and the working classes, while Jaffna Tamils formed the middle classes. Language and race laws fundamentally disadvantaged Tamils by effectively barring them from government jobs which were as in most developing economies, one of the major sources of employment for the middle class. <P> Bandaranaike's election was a reflection of Sinhalese resentment of Tamil success and their insecurity. He turned Sri Lanka into a state run by and for Sinhalese, where other communities except perhaps for the Burghers, (those of Anglo-Dutch-Portugese-Ceylonese descent) would have to exist on grace. His terms in office were economically disastrous (populist and pseudo socialist fiscal policies) , and almost precipitated a coup. After his departure some of his more radical reforms were scrapped (such as week based on the buddhist calendar) but the discriminatory laws remained. Resentment in the Tamil north grew more radical and violent with the belief that non-violent change was impossible. The turning point was the 1983 government sponsored riots throughought the country (in response to the death of 13 SLA personnel in a landmine ambush) but especially in Colombo targetted at Tamils in particular and non-Sinhalese in general. <P> Rajiv Ghandi, along with Arun Singh was responsible for turning India into the world's largest importer of arms, and actively sought means to enhance India's influence through the IOR in order to build it up as a credible power. Time International had a cover story 'India the next Superpower?' and soforth. SL seemed like an ideal opportunity to demonstrate the abilities of the Indian armed forces, and India's dominance of the region. <P> President Jayawardane was a wily old coot who reasoned that the IPKF would help the SLA put down the LTTE (who had by then ruthlessly decimated their other Tamil competitors), as well as closing the LTTE camps and flow of guns and money from across the straight, since the centre's interests were quite different from TN's. <P> Unfortunately Premadasa (the PM) absolutely hated the setup. He saw it as a major loss of sovereignty for no appreciable return. The LTTE wasn't being significantly weakened, and the JVP was accusing the government of selling out and their violent campaign was significantly undermining confidence in the ability of the government's ability to maintain law and order. Persuading the IPKF to leave SL became his number one priority. So, of course he made a deal with the devil. The LTTE had huge caches of arms, but with the IN of the coast running a fairly efficient blockade, he offered to take the pressure off them miliarily, and even supply them with arms, ammo and spares if they would step the campaign up to the point of inflicting unacceptable casualities. It wasn't hard for the LTTE; they had the total support of the local population. <BR> <BR> The military and political leadership had not properly planned in depth for a long term deployment and lacked the personnel, the equipment and the training to handle the situation. Most of the troops could not speak Tamil, and there was a shortage of interpreters. Authoritarian behaviour and insufficient liason with local govt. lead to a severe degradation of civil-military relations. At the same time there was no contingency planning for the possibility that the peace accord might lapse and the IPKF might have to enforce the peace indefinitely. When that eventuality came to pass the political leadership (Ghandi and Dixit) were unwilling to authorise a pull-out as they should have since the very purpose of the mission had been to build Indian prestige. <P>Fundamentally there was no way to enforce a peace that neither side truly wanted with a force that was despised by both parties. The last stages turned into a war against the LTTE (which in turn was actively backed by the SL govt.)which not only controlled the heatrs and minds but most of the countryside and the streets after dark by default. The IA and IAF simply did not have the strength deployed to defeat the forces arrayed against them, let alone complete their mission. Of course the war against the LTTE wasn't very popular with Karunanidhi and the ADMK in TN either. <p>[This message has been edited by Johann (edited 21-07-99).]

[Prof Raghu]

a & b. <BR>Northern Sri Lanka (aka Tamil Eezham) in 1983 was analogous to Bangladesh in 1971 - the only difference was the 18 mile gap between Rameswaram and the Sri Lankan mainland, which for the eternally unfortunate Tamils was an ocean. If that strip had been land, there is no doubt India would have had as significant a refugee problem as in 1971.<P>The Indian Tamils have a historical affinity with the Sri Lankan Tamils. This goes back centuries, to the epic battle between Dushtagamanu and Ellala who was the commander of the Tamil force, sent by the Chozha king (present day central TN).<P>This affinity was, as may be expected, perhaps even stronger than the W.Bengal-B'desh affinity. (a) Historical battles between the (Indian) Tamil and Sinhalese kings, and (b) the majority of Tamil people being co-religionists (Hindu) unlike in B'Desh where the majority was non-Hindu. (c) Point "b" also meant that the cultural affinities could be expected to be stronger.<P>There was no way any Indian government worth its salt could stay quiet, given the intensity of the pressure from ordinary Tamils. Add to this the military significance of the US having R&R facilities in Trincomalee, and other noises then made by J.R. Jayawardene, and you will understand India had to act.<P>d. "save a few hostile and ungrateful Lankan tamils"<BR>I question your basic premise here.<P>e. One of our members (I think jodhka) had mentioned a few days ago that a sikh had gathered some fellow sikhs then in Saudi Arabia for a *private service inside their residence*. The Sikh was executed.<P>You cannot even take pictures of Hindu gods etc into S.Arabia. <P>Llyod Bentsen was the US Treasury Secretary in 1993 and 1994. During a visit to S.Arabia, his wife went with him. She was caned by the Saudi morals police, supposedly for not being properly dressed (I am sure about the getting in trouble part, only do not remember if was "caning" or "baton-rapping" or whatever). This caused a diplomatic stinker, which of course got resolved.<P>And these uncivilized camel drivers dare lecture India on human rights!<BR>

[Johann]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The LTTE raises money by:<BR>1. Smuggling <BR>2. Gun running <BR>3. Extortion and donations from expat Tamils<BR>UK, Canada, Australia,Germany are the main areas<BR>4. Taxes in Jaffna<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>3 & 4 took a significant hit after the SLA retook Jaffna in 1996. They still hold cnsiderable influence there through their underground networks, but most Tamils are tired of war, tired of the LTTE's excesses and tired of seeing their sons and daughters blown to bits. The LTTE has in turn has shifted to sources 1 & 2 which are far more profitable. <p>[This message has been edited by Johann (edited 21-07-99).]

[Kaushal]

On Point e) it should be obvious even to the blind that there is no religious freedom in Saudi Arabia, if you are not a Mussalman. My uncle had his BG with him as he always does, the Customs officer took it out, tore it up and stomped on it underfoot. Pretty medieval and barbaric if you ask me.<P>As far as SL Tamils, go, I was fortunate in knowing a truly accomplished individual in graduate school (in my field of engineering). His lectures were always a joy to attend. Also have had a good Sinhalese friend for many years. Very polished and civilized. I cannot imagine these 2 ever fighting. The world is indeed a strange place.<P>Kaushal<P>

[Prof Raghu]

My uncle had his BG with him as he always does<BR>BG = is it Bhagavat Gita?<P>Also folks, do not forget this: in 1991, Christian and Jewish soldiers of the US army were invited by the Saudis. Yet, they could not bring chaplains for prayer. Gen. Schwarzkopf was not pleased. As a compromise, the Saudis permitted chaplains but they were to be called "morale officers."<BR>

[Johann]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>As far as SL Tamils, go, I was fortunate in knowing a truly accomplished individual in graduate school (in my field of engineering). His lectures were always a joy to attend. Also have had a good Sinhalese friend for many years. Very polished and civilized. I cannot imagine these 2 ever fighting. The world is indeed a strange place.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>What makes you think they are the sort of people in charge? or even make a sizable percentage of the population? Premadasa was a small time crook before he got into politics, a 'gunda', Prabakharan was a frustrated and unsucceful student and Bandaranaike was a loudmouthed, gormless dilettante who had the fortune to come from a family of wealthy planters.

[Sasi]

e) what degree of religious freedom exists in saudi arabia ?<P>Generally, freedom for other religions in Islamic countries is severely limited and Saudi Arabia is no exception. Here is an excerpt from the US Department of State's <A HREF="http://travel.state.gov/saudi.html" target="external">Consular Information Sheet about Saudi Arabia</A>:<P>Saudi Customs, Religious Police, and General Standards of Conduct: Islam pervades all aspects of life in Saudi Arabia. It is the official religion of the country, and public observance of any other religion is forbidden. Non-Muslim religious services are illegal, and public display of non-Islamic religious articles such as crosses and bibles is not permitted. Travel to Makkah (Mecca) and Medina, the cities where the two Holy Mosques of Islam are located, is forbidden to non-Muslims.<P>The norms for public behavior in Saudi Arabia are extremely conservative, and religious police, known as Mutawwa'iin, are charged with enforcing these standards. Mutawwa'iin, accompanied by uniformed police, have police powers. To ensure that conservative standards of conduct are observed, the Saudi religious police have harassed, accosted or arrested foreigners, including U.S. citizens, for improper dress or other infractions, such as consumption of alcohol or association by a female with a non-relative male. <p>[This message has been edited by Sasi (edited 21-07-99).]

[Kuttan]

Johann, Raghu, this is delightful (though not exactly a painless topic) because I am filling gaps in a subject of intense interest. I did not want to detail the '80s in Sri Lanka because I had little direct knowledge, and I thought my statements would appear very biased: I've never met anyone who shared my opinions of Sri Lanka. All I have are memories. Please, admins, let me clarify some historical points, though they may not be quite "military". I've waited decades for this opportunity. Where I work, as someone said, we have Sri Lankans, and people from everywhere else, and I DO NOT discuss politics. <P>A few points that need clarification from your analyses: <P>1. Bandaranaike. I know that the original B. was assassinated in the 1960s, and succeeded by his WIFE, Sirimavo Bandaranaike, leader of the SLFP, or Sri Lanka Freedom Party. This party was considered anti-India. The United National Party (UNP) of Dudley Senanayake and J.R. Jayawardene was considered to be far nicer to the Tamils, and Indians. My dad was a teacher, but he spent his spare time helping the poor, often illiterate, tea-estate workers who were caught between Sinhalese insecurity and greed, and Indian "don't care". They were "stateless", though they had lived and paid taxes all their lives in Sri Lanka, and their work was all that Sri Lanka had to show as exports. So, a UNP government was always cause for happiness: the Tamils (I've met Thondaman) would get a few seats in Parliament. I guess that changed in the 1980s when JRJ became "President". <P>So, I don't understand your ref. to Bandaranaike as "he". There was another, (Felix Diaz B.? or was that the original?), but I did not think he would become PM. Did he? As for Premadasa, I agree with Johann's characterization. <P>The TIME article I remember very well. It was by a pseudo called Pico Iyer (I knew it had something to do with an ugly type-font). He claimed that the IPKF was another in a "long series of Indian invasions of Sri Lanka over the past thousand years". I challenged him to provide history on previous invasions, and got an "in-your-face" answer from some arrogant so-and-so, probably Muddy Halfbright's classmate. So obviously, Pico and his assistants were full of themselves.<P>I was then in the US, and cheered the Indian jets stopping what would have been a genocide in Jaffna town. I guess the genocide did happen eventually. The orders to the IPKF never made any sense to me. They SHOULD have taken over Colombo, since Pico Iyer expected them to, anyway. Instead, they went straight into a Vietnam, shooting at, and getting shot at, by everyone. <P>As for the LTTE, I think all sensible people are already dead or out of Jaffna, Batticoloa and Trincomalee. Well, that's cruel of me: I know some friends whose families are still there, surviving in the bush, hour-to-hour for the last 15 years. The LTTE should be erased, but right now, the only way is using the Sri Lankan army. No Indians should ever die again in that war. <P><p>[This message has been edited by narayanan (edited 21-07-99).]

[Prof Raghu]

narayanan,<P>It has been a delight reading your posts since you started visiting this forum a few days ago.<P>I have doubts about one small item in your post above, though - I believe Mr. B was assassinated in 1959.<P>Also: is it true that two of the three statues outside the Sri Lankan parliament were of Tamils? (Ponnambalam something [Thyagarajan?] and somebody else?) <P>Is this the kind of symbolism which lulled the Tamils in 1948? <P>Reason I ask is this: If India could be partitioned in 1947 by the British when they left, why could not Ceylon be partitioned by the very same British when they left in 1948? This thought has nagged for me for a long time. Mistake of the Tamil leadership? (did they not expect this kind of inhuman "Asura" behavior from the Sinhalese later on?)

[Kuttan]

Prof. Raghu: I have heard of G.G. Ponnambalam, but was too young to know who he was. On my few visits to Colombo, the zoo and prospect of ice-cream far superseded my interest in history. Don't know about the statues: I do think one was of Dudley's dad, riding a horse (he was some Governor-General or some other big personage.)<P>You are right, Bandaranaike had to have died before the 60s, because I remember at least 2 elections before 1966. <P>As I said, the Sri Lankans thought they were a "little bit of England". They had better living standards than India, and better infrastructure. The trains were great, and the roads were good. Colombo and Kandy were clean, modern cities. They had fine Mercedes-Benz buses bought on credit, deal sealed with free Mercedes cars for each Minister, including the Minister for Education, ex-principal of the College whose kindergarten I inhabited. The entire island is beautiful, and very very fertile. They could have had a great nation, except that they all tried to steal each other blind. <P>Hard to say this, but the Jaffna Tamils had pretty-much the same reputation as the Jewish community had in Germany, pre-1935. High achievers, but perceived as arrogant, aloof, etc. etc. My dad studied in Jaffna and knew the place well. He considered the people to be as hard as their land: hot and dry except for the tobacco and palm crops. <P>The Indian Tamils (from Chettinad and Tuticorin) were much milder and laid-back folks by comparison. Obviously I am reflecting statements heard at home. My own classmates were almost all Muslim: Indian emigrants from Tuticorin. I have learned their religions better than most of my classmates, can say many of their prayers, and we were there during the war of 1965. They were decent folks. No comparison to the Pakis, and they did NOT like the Pakis: they rooted for an Indian victory as did most of Sri Lanka, except for the "little bits of England"-type pseudo-experts.<P>The Central "high country" was a calm place. The people were civilized, and civil. Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, and Christians all co-existed and minded their own business. <P>As Johann indicated, the big disaster was the victory by Sirimavo in the late 60s / early '70s, where she had enough seats to be able to ignore all minorities, and institute so-called "reforms". Our friends the tea-estate owners fled to India, essentially penniless except for what they had transferred earlier. Until the even-worse 1980s "reforms" that Johann mentioned, there was no reason to lose hope in Sri Lanka. After that, it was all downhill. But I still think it was the JVP insurgency (no idea who was behind that) which started unraveling their whole society. A really unnecessary tragedy.<P>

[Johann]

S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike was PM from 1956-59, whn he was assasinated. His wife Sirmavo who had absolutely no interest in politics until that point took his poision in the SLFP and was PM from 60-65 and 70-77. I suppose it was some sort of freudian slip referring to her as 'he' considering that her policies were a virtual mirror of SWRD's political goals. <P><BR> The JVP resurected it's campaign in 1987; they were extremely bloody in their shining-path style attacks on symbols of government and all those who were percieved to support it. Of course they were violently suppressed in 1989-90 by a combination of government and vigilante action. the turning point was the capture of their leader Rohana Wijeweera. It's not clear who killed more people; the JVP or the government with it's dissapearances. All in all it cost a least 40,000 lives.<P> Narayanan, Wijeweera fit the typical profile of the sort of 'revolutionary leaders' the world has been plagued by since the '60s. Bright middle class kid, extremely ambitious but frustrated by the lack of a challenge(or a future), discovers the intellectual joys of revolutionary marxism-lenninism while at college. Prospects after graduation look dim, so what does he do, he gets politically active along with other young men and women in eactly the same position in order to 'liberate the people' from 'the capitalist opressive bourgeousie'. He failed because the Sinhalese working class didn't want or need liberation; he might have fared better if he had talked to the Jaffna Tamils.<P> Both you and Raghu seem to have written off Ceylon, which I cannot. Chandrika Banadaranaike Kumaratunga (notice the dynastic patterns of S.Asian democracy?) came to power on the mandate of changing the constitution and ending if not the conflict, then it's roots. Most Sinhalese realise what chauvinism has cost them (pearl of the Indian Ocean). She took the pragmatic approach of dealing with the LTTE; negotiate for peace while preparing for war. She is willing to make concessions to the Tamil people (as opposed to the LTTE, who have no problem with indefinitely extending the conflict) such as autonomy. The problem is she can't do much about that until the SLA, SLAF and SLN defeat the LTTE. They have done a pretty good job of getting local government functioning in Jaffna again, which is dangerous to the LTTE because it restores the faith of Tamils in SL as a country and it government. <P><BR>The SLA was an extremely professional force at the time of independance, I've had the privelige to know officers who served in it, but of course both Sirimavo and Premada severely compromised it's integrity by making largely political appointments, but the trend has swung the other way. The issue is that the LTTE has access to tremendous sums of money, is well organised, motivated and led. They have grown weaker on the ground but painfully slowly and at tremendous cost. It will take at least another decade before they are weakened beyond the point of no return, but that won't be possible without active Indian help through naval and intelligence cooperation. Bangladesh and Thailand have recently become far more helpful in the same regard because they have finally recognised the links between the undesirables on their soil and the LTTE. Despite the crippling cost of the war the SL economy has grown at a healthy rate (an annual average of ~ 5.5%) through the '90s. The population is growing slowly and is largely literate, so their prospects are certainly bright. Even through the worst times, Kandy and Colombo always felt as if the war was in some far and distant place, perhaps even a different country. Psychologically they have coped very well with the war. There is none of the despair I saw in Lebanon for example. <p>[This message has been edited by Johann (edited 23-07-99).]

[Philip]

Johann has made some interesting points which are pretty accurate.Let me add a few more.<P>Before Ceylon achieved Independence,the country had two Tamil communities.The indigenous Tamils in the North,who are commonly called "Jaffna Tamils",though the Dutch census calls them Tamils of "Malabar extraction"-indicating a degree of migration from that area as well.The Tamil plantation labour brought over from India,(called Indian Tamils) by the British displaced the local Kandyan peasantry in the central highlands.This ugly colonial milestone is the root of the Sinhalese mistrust of the Tamil people in the colonial and post-colonial period.It must be remembered that the last king of Kandy was a Tamil and that he was dethroned by the British and died in Vellore jail.Till the advent of the British,the entire ontry had never been conquered.One firmly held belief by many Sri lankans is that an ancestor of the late Prtesident Jayawardene was the "traitor" who showed the British the route to Kandy.Incidentally the Bandaranaike family name comes from the title,"Nayaka Pandaram".A certain Perumal(or his descendant) from the Madurai court was chief record keeper to the Kandyan court.Perumal's family came from Varanasi and were Brahmin priests.Mrs.Bandaranaike's family,the Ratwattes are Kandyan chieftains.Her father-in-law,Sir Solomon Bandaranaike-whose statue gazes at the defunct Race Club in Colombo was the "Maha Mudaliyar",a title bestowed upon him by the British .<P>In the education of the islanders,the American missionaries started institutions in the Jaffna peninsula first,bringing that advantage to the indigenous Tamil population.The minority Sinhalese castes were also encouraged to study in British universities so that they could become administrators to the colonial powers.The Kandyans were not encouraged in order to prevent them from acquiring education,power and later rebelling.At the time of Ceylon being given it's independence,most of the govt jobs were with the jaffna tamils,even though the percentage of Tamils in comparison to the Sinhalese was about 15-20% only.The first govts of independent Ceylon were composed mainly fof the educated elite,regardless of their ethnic background.The old school tie mattered more than anything else.If you were a good sportsman that was as good as being knighted.This attitude still exists.In fact the late President Jayawardene was caught fibbing about his prowess at cricket when he addressed the students of Trinity College Kandy!On the days of the Royal-Thomian cricket derby between the two leading colombo schools,the entire Jayawardene cabinet including the president almost all Royalists, would turn out for the match. <BR>The plantation Tamils in the tea plantations were looked down by the northern Tamils as being of inferior class and were nothing better than coolies.this is a sad fact that exists even to this day,and my good Jaffna Tamil friends regret this as being one reason why they have never been supported by the so-called Indian Tamils.<P>SWRD Bandaranaike who was double crossed in succeding DS Senanayake,the first PM of independent Ceylon,found that after independence the Sinhalese wanted a share of the cake proportionate to their population.He was the country's greatest orator and has had no equal even till today.President of the Oxford Union,and coming from the most powerful poiltical family,he threw away the attire of the west in a manner similar to Nehru and became the darling of his people.With his cry of Sinhala being made the national language he swept the polls.The problems with the Tamils that developed as a result,were to have been sorted out with Mr.Chelvanayagam the Tamil leader in a pact called the "B-C pact".But it was sabotaged by Jayawardene who led violent demonstrations against it.Bandaranaike backed down.That act of Jayawardeene came back to haunt him when in power later on.Right wing Sinhalese conspired to assassinate SWRD Bandaranaike.After his death,no Sinhalese leader had the courage to try and follow his path.The govts of Mrs.Bandaranaike were coalition govts and <BR>she was hampered by a Marxist revolution that came close to toppliong the govt.Every election brought in the opposition as in Kerala and there was a swing fronm crony capitalism to silly socialism with each election.<P>Jayawardene while in opposition promised huge benefits to the TULF,the moderate Tamil party which he soon forgot when in power."Tricky ****y" as he was known infuriated the Jaffna Tamils.From district autonomy that Chelvanayagam wanted,to District Councils that the TULF was promised-whose elections were sabotaged and another milestone-the burning of the Jaffna Library by SL forces during Jayawardene's time,were the last straw for the Tamil youth.They took the path of armed struggle.Here too the caste element saw the various groups disunited leading eventually to the other groups being massaccared by the LTTE along wiht the entire moderate tamil leadership who believed in democracy by Prabhakaran and his fascist lot.<P>The evnts after the 1983 riots and the IPKF's induction are too well known.Read J.N.Dixit's book,"assignment Colombo" for a good picture of those times from his side.Jayawardene was also known as "Yankee ****y"."****" as he was known to his closest friends,was an avowed capitalist and rightwinger.He relished his stand during the Cold War as a pillar of US support in the region.The relationship between the US and SL had overtones that were alarming to india.They included a VOA station,handing over the WW2 oil tank farm at the prize harbour of Trincomalee to the US.He had no love for Indira Gandhi whom he publicly criticised and whom to his discmfiture came back to power.After the riots of 83 took place,Jayawardene started taking military help from the US,other western powers and the Israelis too,who operated out of the US embassy.Gen.Vernon Walters,Reagan's trouble shooter left Fiji for Colombo, after putting into place Rambuka's coup plans to replace the Indian party's electoral victory.Walter's advised Jayawardene to bring in the Israelis.British SAS mercenaries were also operating through "Keeny Meeny Services".India responded by helping the LTTE and the other groups.The rest is history.Of Premadasa's govt,the less said the better.During his time over 30,000 Sinhalese were killed by death squads in a few months.He gave the LTTE arms to fight the IPKF only to be double crossed and assassinated by Prabhakaran after the IPKF returned home!<P>Right now,the LTTE has emerged as a major drug trafficking group worldwide,with vast monetary resources.It owns fake shipping companies which it uses to bring in arms int SL.Prabhakaran has spurned every political solution to solving the ethnic crisis and the war has gone on and on.The SL people are intensely war weary.Fatigue is also setting in with the LTTE who have suffered enormous losses.there is a shortage of "manpower" all round.Meanwhile in the Sinhalese south,the JVP has resurrected itself once again pointing to the frustration with the present PA govt who is losing popularity with each day.The opposition UNP refuses to come out with any plan for peace and the govt is unable to pass any devolution plan for lack of enough votes in the house.<P>Despite all this,the economy has survived thanks to the business community who have also made their own peace gambit.Outside mediation between the two warring sides seems to be the only way out to rsolve the stalemate.Unfortunately for India,mediation will not be from our side.Our govt pretends that the war does not exist!A hands off policy after Rajiv's assassination has taken place.This has only made the SL govt go to Pakistan,China,the US,Britain,Israel and other countries for military help.The Indo-Lanka free trade agreement which was hailed as a model for South Asia has been derailed by Indian babus-yes yet again!Greta opportunities between indian and SL business amn especially from Tamilnadu have been lost as a result.India has sidelined itself thanks to a few vested parties within the govt.Meanwhile in SL the fighting goes on wearily both on the front line and in the electoral battles in the rest of the country.Parliamentary elections are due next year and it may even be preceded by a Presidential election.Chandrika is at the moment the only leader who can crack heads together and carve out a solution out of the mess.She may very well go to the polls on this issue alone.<BR>PS.The webmaster's have censored Jayawardene's nickname which is derived from his second name,"Richard".It's D.I.C.K.<P><BR>[This message has been edited by philip fowler (edited 23-07-99).]<p>[This message has been edited by philip fowler (edited 23-07-99).]

[Prof Raghu]

Just to add to Philip:<P>Yes, the last independent king in Ceylon was the Tamil king, Sri Vikrama Raja Singhan. He was defeated by the British, I believe in 1815.<P>Yes, one of the ancestors of JRJ was a minister (if not the "chief" minister) in that court; it is said the grateful king gave a timepiece (watch?), which was still with JRJ in the 1980s.<P>As an aside, a question: what was the ancient capital of Ceylon - from the Ravana of Ramayana times? Kandy or Anuradhapura? Colombo is of recent vintage, that I know. I remember reading (though not sure of authenticity) that the famous "Ashokavan" where Sita was kept prisoner is in Anuradhapura, so it would seem that was the ancient capital.<P><BR>Johann and the rest:<BR>I still have a nagging question. If Hindu-majority India could be partitioned when the British left, why could a similar partition not be done in a Hindu-minority Ceylon when the British left? <BR>After all, the Tamils of Ceylon had a longer history than did the Muslims of India.

[Kaushal]

Raghu, in answer to your question, why was Sri Lanka not partitioned like India, read the 2nd part of my 'Tortuous relationship', this is of course a shameless plug.<P>One of the motivations of the partition was always, at least IMO, the playing of the Great Game, to thwart Russia and later the Soviet Union and of course India from attaining great or even significant power status. There was no such motivation in the case of sri lanka. In fact, nowhere do you see the uniform condemnation of srilanka for anything , as they used to do, and still do, against India.<P>India should consider this hostility on the part of the US/UK to be a compliment. If India did not have the potential of becoming a significant power, the Brits would never have bothered to partition India.<P>Kaushal

[Johann]

Anuradhapura was founded in the 3rdcentury BC and remained the capital until it was abandoned in 993 AD by a combination of expansion by South Indian kings and royal family feud. Most of the great monastries, palaces and monuments still stand. If you ever visit Ceylon, don't miss it, it's quite beautiful. Polonnaruwa was the medieval capital (another spectacular site, especially the irrigation system) until the Portugese arrived. Polonnaruwa was in turn abandoned for Kandy which held off the Portugese and Dutch but fell in 1815 to the British. Kandy off course is home to the temple of the tooth, and Kandy Perahera. The best part of the festval is the procession bearing the tooth with the drummers, the conchs and the elephants. I sound a bit like a travel-cum-history guide don't I?<P> Philip, all I have to say is St. Thomas forever! Sorry, I'm a bit partial to them, both my father and my uncle studied there a long time ago. My uncle was even on the cricket team, so his name is probably on some polished plaque hanging on a wall somewhere. <BR> <BR> The Israelis in colombo ordial sort of fellows, 'Belgian businessmen', they'd occasionally be found at the bar at hotels simply blending in. Real pieces of work, they worked with the LTTE as well during the detente Premadasa established with them to eject the IPKF. Most of the Brits in the business (the visible ones) were tough chaps who had flown in Rhodesia, Katanga, and anywhere else they were needed and where the FCO didn't mind their presence. They never bothered with any fictional cover.<P> Raghu, Kaushal has his own theory, but I find it hard to agree with. The difference here is (a)The Ceylonese independance movement did not eist. They were given Independance in 1948 when Britain pulled out of South Asia. (b)Bandaranaike's 'Sinhala forever' cries developed belatedly, and gained momentum through the early '50s, and peaked with SWRD's assasination by an extremist Buddhist monk. Sirimavo, judging the climate simply made the right promises at the right time. If Ceylon had been granted independance in 1960 rather than 1948 there might have been a very different sort of Tamil reaction (c)at the time of independance Jaffna Tamils were in a very comfortable position as part of the middle class, doctors, lawyers, teachers and bureaucrats. They had a stake in the country and they didn't believe they had anything to fear. <P> In India's cas the Muslim League was formed in what, 1917? They had 30 years to win hearts and minds by the time independance came along. Muslims did not have the kind of stake in society or the degree of prosperity that the Jaffna tamils enjoyed in SL, so they were far more conducive to Jinnah's arguments. In 1945 when the Labour government came to power they did so on the mandate of divesting the Empire as quickly as possible. Mountbatten's goal was sticking to the handover schedule as rigidly as possible, not maintaining the unity of India. Jinnahs's obstructionist tactics were aimed at Mountbatten rather than Nehru. The implicit threat was this; unless you give me what i want I will wreck your schedule, your political future and that of the labour party. That was quite an incentive for Mountbatten, he spent most of his energies attempting to persuade an equally weary Nehru to accept Jinnah's demands. There was no such vociferous lobby on behalf of the Tamils in Ceylon at the time of the handover.<P>Why has SL typically enjoyed strong western support? Well part of it is that I can't remember the last country where I met more anglophiles per capita other than perhaps New Zealand. They still broadcast the Queens' annual Christmas and birthday mesages. They did not engage in the kind of anti-western rhetoric in the UN that made India so unpopular with the UK and US, and they certainly didn't sign any treaty of friendship with the USSR. As Philip mentioned Jayawardene was an avowed right-winger who was ideologically attracted to Reagan's coalition of tinpot dictators against communsim. Were he still alive he would have got on famously with Pinochet. <p>[This message has been edited by Johann (edited 24-07-99).]

[Kaushal]

They did not engage in the kind of anti-western rhetoric in the UN that made India so unpopular with the UK and US, and they certainly didn't sign any treaty of friendship with the USSR<BR>This is typical Western obfuscation, putting the cart before the horse. When I looked at the calendar the last time 1948 came before 1965. Whitehall, through its Viceroys including the last one Mountbatten, were adamantly against the territorial integrity of India including the legal accession of Kashmir to India. Years of overt and covert hostility starting with the UN debacle in 1948, and the blatant support of Pukeland, no surprise there considering it was a creation of the Brits, convinced India that the Western alliance was congenitally against the emergence of a strong India, and India had little choice but to go with the Soviet Union.<BR>In 1950, my Father was working with the Ordnance Factories. India had a great deal of difficulty signing up even a single British company to develop artillery for the IA, and India had to eventually sign up with Oerlikons in Switzerland. After 100 years of milking everything out of the subcontinent, Britain did not even have the grace to help India develop a measly howitzer. Let's not hear about the lack of India's friendship to the west from the Judas Iscariot of nations. <BR>This after 160,000 Indian troops gave their life for the Allied War Effort. Talk about being ungrateful.<P>Kaushal

[Nagraj]

Kaushal,<P>"This after 160,000 Indian troops gave their life for the Allied War Effort. Talk about being ungrateful."<P>I take it you are referring to WWII? Does anyone have figures for how many Indians died in WWI and WWII, and how that compares to the casualties from other British colonies (Australians, Canadians). In no western historical reporting, mamorials, celebrations, etc. of WWI, WWII, etc. have I seen any acknowledgement of the contribution of Indian forces. I guess they just used us as cannon fodder and forgot about it.<P>Sorry about going off on a tangent here, but I'd appreciate any answers.<P>------------------<BR>Nagraj<BR>

[Kaushal]

In no western historical reporting, mamorials, celebrations, etc. of WWI, WWII, etc. have I seen any acknowledgement of the contribution of Indian forces. <P>This is deliberate and intended to hush up the contribution of Indians to WW II. Large numbers died in WW I also. The casualties were 180,000 in WW II, of whom 24,000 died. They fought in almost every theatre of the war where Britain was present. The Indian contribution to the WW II war effort was massive by any measure. India had recruited more than 2,000,000 Indians, the largest voluntary recruitment in the history of mankind. Indian troops played a major part in the first allied victory of the war, the conquest of Italian East Africa. Out of the 1,000,000 troops engaged in the final allied victory of the war, the defeat of the Japanese in Burma, 700,000 were provided by the IA .<P>India's contribution to WW I was equally impressive. 1.3 million men were sent to the war and there were 106,000 casualties, a third of whom were killed. Again they fought in all theatres - France, under Allenby in palestine, under Smuts in East africa, Gallipoli and Salonika, and the Cameroons.<P>Kaushal

[Johann]

This thread has cerainly gone off on a tangent. I will start a new thread on Indian contributions to WW1 and WW2.

[Philip]

Steering the thread back on track.What's the latest on the Saudi airlift of military material into Kabul?there is a massive build up of "Taliban" warriors who are planning on driving out the last vestiges of the opposition from that country.Is this part of the grand Axis (Saudi-Pak-etc)strategy for the region,or an attempt to deflect their defeat in Kargil?Does it also have a bearing on the US's plans to bring Bin Laden to justice?This is a curious development coming so soon after Kargil.Anyone with more info please respond.