Both India and Pakistan is supporting Sri Lanka with weapons. If India did not give them weapons, China will provide them. So India is forced to give weapons, if you remember MK Narayanan told that if Sri Lank wants weapons, itshould first contact India.

Then how come we can say India should not interfere in Sri Lanka internal affairs? It is impossible for India to take a neutral stand.

Do you think we can supply arms and at the same time keep away from internal problems of Sri Lanka?

No two days the same
No two snowflakes are the same
No two tiles are the same
No two ROSES bloom the same way!!!
No Two Fields Ever Grow Grass the Same Way
No Two Lanes Bowl The Same
No Two People See Things The Same
No Two Views are Quite the Same
No Two Cases Are the Same

When two apples are not same, how can a apple (Kashmir) and a orange (Eelam) be same?

“To the man who only has a hammer in the toolkit, every problem looks like a nail.” - Abraham Maslow

Tamils in Sri Lanka are targeted and murdered for the simple reason that they are Tamils. How can Tamil Nadu stay neutral when justice is on the side of the Tamils?

It was by quirk of fate that the Tamil Homelands in the Indian subcontinent got divided between the Indian and Sri Lankan nations. That quirk by itself is not sufficient to turn our backs to the injustice meted out to them by the Sinhalese army.

If Pandyan can compare Godhra riots and Sikh riots to LTTE killings and proclaim that ban on LTTE should be lifted, then why can’t anandvg compare India’s interefence to Pakistan’s. In fact, ananvg’s comparison is much more valid than what Pandyan tried.

Having said that India should not supply any military technology to srilankan govt even if China or Pakistan do so. Also, we cannot turn a blind eye to the humanitarian crisis per say. There are many non-military measures that India can take to provide some relief to tamils in srilanka. I am not saying this because I am a tamilian. There are reasons why an UN was formed - human rights and human right abuse are big issues and India should play some role. But India’s reluctance for a bigger role is justified as long as LTTE call the shots especially after its double-crossing earlier and its assassination of Rajiv Gandhi. Even if one concludes like Pandyan that India should dance to the tunes of tamils, I believe Indian military involvement will certainly escalate the issue to a global fight and realistically will make life difficult for tamils. So emotions aside, it will be a tactical mistake on all counts for India to be militarily involved.

Anand - your questions may be genuine. I dont know who to ask for the answer. I just watched the following video a few minutes back and just unable to comprehend the reality that is gripping the lifes of our brothers in the south. May be they can clear your doubts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kGePNWzLOE&feature=related

In short 1) India is not neutral now (as suresh has pointed). India is providing military support to Lankan army. 2) Not just India, any body in the world has the right to step into Sri Lanka today because what is happening there is not war, but genocide. We never flew our aircrafts over kashmir to bomb indiscriminately. We never used long range surface to surface missiles to wipe out entire villages in kashmir. Pakistan has done that in Baluchistan and is helping Lanka today. Hence Kashmir is not equal to Eelam. Sorry for the very short reply, but i think we talking about this is waste of time and energy. We are as helpless as the people you saw in the video i posted in my previous reply. As you have found out - the world order is against the Tamil people of Sri Lanka and helping them is not to the interest of any country in the face of earth. We can only pray that India should stop helping Lankan Army.

>Pandyan
We can only pray that India should stop helping Lankan Army.
>

As much as I am against LTTE, this is a reasonable and fair proposition. Why should India help lankan army when lankan govt is indulging in such criminal practices?

Comment #4: I say India is not neutral…It is supporting Sri Lankan Govt.

So it is not wrong for some people in India to have opposite opinion i.e. support LTTE.

If India is really neutral, then we can blame poeple who support LTTE..Now we can not do that because Indis itself supports one of Sri Lankan govt.

>gsuresh
Comment #4: I say India is not neutral…It is supporting Sri Lankan Govt.

So it is not wrong for some people in India to have opposite opinion i.e. support LTTE.

If India is really neutral, then we can blame poeple who support LTTE..Now we can not do that because Indis itself supports one of Sri Lankan govt.

>

This equivalence is not correct. By this logic, any terrorist group can be supported. Anyways, India has not been reckless in its support to srilankan govt. As far as I understand, India does not supply any war weapon, only deterrent capabilities to lanka. Even that can be avoided in the face of lankan govt committing atrocities. But any support to LTTE cannot be justified.

India can not be a neutral spectator in this regard as most of the problems were created by India, to be specific, by our secret service RAW (Research and Analysis Wing) in the 80’s. Most of the youngsters may not be aware of this. They just blame LTTE for everything forgetting the fact that, it was an end product of old Indian policy.

Post-independence Sri Lanka, despite having a multi-sectoral population, was a peaceful country until 1971 and was following an independent foreign policy. During the 1971 Indo-Pakistan war, despite heavy pressure from India, Sri Lanka allowed Pakistan’s civil and military aircraft and ships to stage through its air and seaports with unhindered refueling facilities. It had also permitted Israel to establish a nominal intelligence presence and permitted the installation of a high-powered transmitter by Voice of America, which was resented by India.

It was because of these “irritants” that Indira Gandhi planned to bring Sri Lanka into the fold of the so-called Indira Doctrine (India Doctrine). RAW went looking for militants it could train to destabilize the regime. Camps were set up in Tamil Nadu and old R.A.W. guerrilla trainers (from Bangladesh operation) were brought back from retirement. RAW began arming the Tamil Tigers and training them at centers such as Gunda and Gorakhpur. As a sequel to this ploy, Sri Lanka was forced into the Indian power web when the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord of 1987 was singed and the Indian Peacekeeping Force landed in Sri Lanka.

The Ministry of External Affairs was upset at RAW’s role in Sri Lanka as they felt that RAW was continuing negotiations with Tamil Tiger leader Parabhakaran in contravention to the Indian government’s foreign policy. According to R. Swaminathan, (former special secretary of RAW) it was this outfit that was used as the intermediary between Rajiv Gandhi and Tamil leader Parabhakaran. Former Indian high commissioner in Sri Lanka J. N. Dixit even accused RAW of having given 10 million rupees to the L.T.T.E. At a later stage, RAW built up the E.P.R.L.F. (Eelam People’s Revolutionary Liberation Front) and E.N.D.L.F. (Eelam National Democratic Liberation Front) to fight against the L.T.T.E., which made the situation in Sri Lanka highly volatile and uncertain even today (reference: Worldpress).

Most of us who happened to watch Indian televisions in the late 80’s will remember the EPRLF leader Varadharaja Perumal fiasco, completely thrusted by Indian Government on the Tamil people of Srilanka.

So all the games played by India for some other reason has caused a great loss to the Tamil community and it is time that we go back and help the Tamils there.

“It was the Boston Committee of Correspondence that directed the Boston Tea Party action of December 16, 1773. Upset with the lack of redress concerning the new tax on tea established by the British government for importation of tea to Boston, a small band of the Boston Committee of Correspondence members (approximately fifty in number) led by Samuel Adams, proceeded to empty three ships worth and 342 chests of tea into Boston Harbor in protest.

Was this an early terrorist action or a patriotic action. Surely, the answer lies with perspective. If you were a British official, this action was treasonous and punishable by death. If you were an American colonial citizen, this event would be seen as a glorious action of the freedom fighters worthy of praise, pride, and acclaim.

The Sons of Liberty organizations responded to the Stamp Act of 1765 in various ways. The New York Sons of Liberty declared in December 1765 that they would go to the last extremity” with their lives and fortunes to prevent the enforcement of the Stamp Act. This declaration included the use of violence if necessary.

Violence broke out with the arrival of a shipment of stamped paper to the Royal Governor’s residence. A few hours after receiving the official papers, a raucous mob captured the governor’s gilded and spectacular coach and reduced it to a pile of ashes. From here the mob (consisting largely of extremist elements of the New York Sons of Liberty) raced uptown to the home of Fort George’s commander, smashing numerous windows and breaking into the wine cellar to sustain their “patriotism” before descending on the rest of the house in a convulsion of vandalism.

The two original Sons of Liberty organizations (New York City and Boston) quickly established correspondence and communications with ever emerging Sons of Liberty groups in New England, the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia.

Were they a terrorist organization? The British certainly believed they were. After all, the Sons were advocating overthrow of the status quo government and independence for the thirteen colonies. Were they a patriotic organization? Many American colonists certainly believed they were. The Sons represented to them the American freedom fighter personified, fighting for their rights and ultimate independence.

One thing is certain about the Sons of Liberty organization: it gave American colonists a voice and vital chance to actively participate in the independence movement.

Finally, the decision on the Sons of Liberty comes down to a variation on an old saying, “one man’s terrorist is another man’s patriot.” The ultimate conclusion must be left to the individual.”

Edited from - The Archived Early America — a unique array of primary source material from 18th Century America. http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/fall96/sons.html

While i dont deny friend anand’s and others right to refer Tigers as terrorists, i reserve mine to refer them as FREEDOM fighters. Because you have the right to my opinion.

Tigers are THE BIGGEST symbol of FREEDOM in this century. Oxford Dictionary included the following reference for the defenition of the animal Tiger n. a large Asian animal of the cat family with yellowish and black stripes. - Tigers pl.n. a Tamil military organization in Sri Lanka seeking independence for their community.