While the very diplomatic position adopted by the Indian Government in respect of the Sri Lankan peace process in general and Prabhakaran in particular, would earn India Sri Lankan admiration and worldwide praise, the position taken by the Tamil Nadu Government is indeed dubious to say the least.

Tamil Nadu leaders clearly feel that the current peace process must be scuttled at all costs and is merely using the issue of the LTTE leader as a mere Trojan horse. They also feel that the LTTE is no longer dependent on or under obligations to them and would be prepared to defend the sovereign integrity of Sri Lanka against threats from Tamil Nadu, including the hgihly provocative and preposterous demand to intervene militarily to take the LTTE leader into custody.

If the Attorney General of India and the Indian Judiciary were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the LTTE leader was instrumental in planning the murder of Rajiv Gandhi they would have presented such evidence before the Sri Lankan courts long ago to enable the due process of law to take its course.

The fact that such evidence has still not been presented clearly indicates that putting the blame on Prabhakaran is a conspiracy of those who would have been actually behind the murder. They include Tamil Nadu politicians who were considerably affected by Rajiv Gandhi’s policies related to the State including the pre-mature dissolution of the State assembly. They also include foreign vested interests who found Rajiv a threat to their hegemonistic plans for the South Asia region. The might of the local and International media which they had control over enabled a successful campaign to make the world erroneously believe that Prabhakaran, instead of them, was behind the murder.

The only evidence in support of the contention was that the actual murder was carried out by LTTE cadres trained in Tamil Nadu. The chances are that they would have carried it out as a ‘part time’ contract. It is also claimed that the murder was carried out as an act of revenge against the IPKF misdeeds. If that was the case the LTTE would judging by their other acts at the time, also have targeted some local politicians who were aiding and abetting the IPKF. Furthermore, wishing that Rajiv was dead and actually Planning his murder are completely different in the eyes of the law.

It would have been quite clear to the LTTE leadership that the consequences of LTTE being suspected of planning the murder would have been disastrous as far as LTTE operations from Tamil Nadu were concerned. One did not need to have been a military or political genius to realize that the LTTE would have been hounded out of Tamil Nadu if there was even the slightest suspicion. If it was in fact carried out as directed by the LTTE, it was an act of virtual suicide.

In this connection no leadership of a disciplined organisation would plan out any act of revenge until and unless it is convinced that the Benefits arising from the act would be far greater than the costs including the various RISKS arising therefrom. There are no palpable benefits to the LTTE arising from Rajiv’s murder but the costs are innumerable as has been well demonstrated.

The Tamil Nadu as well as the Indian Congress leaders are accordingly well advised to review their position on the issue and grant that the LTTE was quite capable of working out such Costs and Benefits accurately. They are also well advised to provide the Indian Government with acceptable evidence, if any to be submitted to the Sri Lankan Judiciary to prove that there is even a Prima facie case against any Sri Lankan citizen in connection with the murder, instead of chanting the Goebles type allegations against them.
Bernard P. M. Wijedoru,
Mount Lavinia.