" We are Prepared to Pay for
Freedom With Our Lives "
Q: Why did you choose to go underground?
A: I did not leave with the intention of going under ground. I had to
attend to some work in my country. I had to discuss certain matters relating to the peace
talks with my lieutenants. I also had to assess for myself the situation and reaction in
the Tamil areas. While I was there certain incidents took place (referring to the
deportation of A. S. Balasingham, official spokes man of the LTTE) so I continued to
remain there.
Q: What is the reaction of your lieutenants to the cease-fire?
A: The cease-fire is a drama. Under its guise, the Sri Lankan armed
forces are continuing to perpetrate atrocities against our people, massacres are still
going on, Tamils are still being driven out of their homes. If it is a true cease-fire,
our lieutenants will be happy. We followed the cease fire in letter and spirit and stopped
all our guerrilla operations. But the Sri Lankan armed forces continued to attack
civilians, forcing us to retaliate. I find I have to handle the present situation very
carefully. The cease-fire itself is a farce and I also have to handle my lieutenants, who
know only too well that it is a drama where the Sri Lanka government is covertly going
ahead with its genocide of the Tamils!
Q: Why did you choose to go under ground when Balasingham was de ported?
A: I could have come back immediately. But I wanted to express my
resentment at the deportation order.
Q: You continued to remain inaccessible even when Rajiv Gandhi summoned
the ENLF leaders. Don't you think your inaccessibility has strained relations between the
government of India and you?
A: But I wished to convey my dissatisfaction also, as I strongly felt
that the deportation order was unnecessary.
Q: Then what made you surface again ?
A: There were many reasons. First, because I was underground there were
some negative forces, certain anti-liberation forces which in my absence were trying to
portray us as dangerous terrorists who were opposed to the peace talks. Second, there was
an attempt to isolate and single us out as hard-liners who wanted only a military
solution. Rumours were being floated in the public and in some newspapers which started
giving grossly exaggerated and distorted news about us, painting us as dangerous
terrorists. Third, the Sri Lankan Government was exploiting my absence and blaming the
LTTE for having killed the TULF ex-MPs.
Q: What do you hope will come out of your meeting with Prime Minister
Rajiv Gandhi?
A: We hope to explain our problem clearly to him. Among the issues we
want to raise with him is the fact that Jayewardene is using the cease-fire as a front
while he goes about systematically massacring the Tamils. We want to try and convince him
that what is going on in Sri Lanka is genocide of a race. We want to give him details of
what exactly is going on in Sri Lanka even though there is supposed to be a cease-fire. We
also want to highlight the fact that the Sri Lanka government has so far not put forward
genuine, meaningful set of proposals. So far we have had contacts with the Indian Prime
Minister only through third parties. We want to meet him directly so that we can clear a
lot of misunderstandings and suspicions.
Q: Do you think the PM will be sympathetic?
A: I trust he will be.
Q: Do you feel that in the last three months the Indian
government's attitude towards the militants has hardened?
A: In the beginning I did not think so but after Balasingham was de
ported I am inclined to believe that the attitude has hardened.
Q: What do you think has caused this change in the Indian government's
stance?
A: I don't know what has caused this change. Perhaps, some international
crisis or pressure is responsible. It is not possible for us to ascertain immediately as
to what has caused this change, but with time I am sure the reasons will come out.
Q: Do you think that India has become more pro-Sri Lanka?
A: So far we have not thought along those lines. But certain incidents
create doubts in our minds.
Q: Why did you not respond immediately to Mr. Gandhi's summons when
Thimphu II talks had failed?
A: Though both the LTTE delegates had come away, one delegate of the
other groups was kept back in Thimphu. India wanted the ENLF leaders in Delhi so that they
could somehow resume the peace talks. But when massacres were going on in Vavuniya and
Trincomalee, isn't it a mockery that we, who are supposed to defend our people, are
engaged in peace talks? When there is no sense of responsibility on the part of the Sri
Lanka government to adhere strictly to the cease-fire regulations peace talks become
meaningless. The Sri Lanka government gave no assurances that such massacres will not
recur. In the circumstances we decided not to terminate the talks.
Q: Did the LTTE kill the two TULF ex-MP's? The Indian intelligence
agencies are positive that you were responsible.
A: We are not responsible for the killing. What can we do if Indian
intelligence agencies make such claims? Immediately after it took place, we denied the
claim made by the Sri Lanka government that we were responsible. The ENLF also issued a
denial. Even if the Indian intelligence agencies claim that we are responsible the people
in Jaffna know that we have not done it. Maybe the Indian intelligence agencies have
assumed that we did it without any evidence. Because I had gone underground they may have
come to such conclusions. If we had done it, we would have claimed responsibility, giving
our reasons for doing it. We undertake an operation only on the basis of our conviction.
So, if we had done it we would not have gone about hiding the fact. For instance, when we
shot Alalasundaram (the ex-TULF MP who was killed recently had earlier been shot in the
leg by the LTTE) we claimed we haddone it. We did not kill him because we thought it was
unnecessary. We punished him for his anti-social activities: he had a hand in the
cooperative fraud. We produced evidence of his embezzlement. Incidentally, a lot of the
documents exposing his nefarious activities were set ablaze on the cooperative premises.
We also claimed responsibility when we shot Anandarajah (principal of St. John's School in
Jaffna). When the Sri Lanka government announced a reward of Rs. five lakhs for
information leading to the arrest of his killers, the people of Jaffna came to know the
basis of his relationship with the Sri Lanka government. They
kept quiet fully understanding why we had killed him. Anandarajah was planning to hold a
cricket match with the armed forces at a time when they were killing our people, arresting
young Tamil boys indiscriminately, burning Tamil property and raping Tamil women.
We had to do away with him because the government was using the impending cricket match as
propaganda to give the impression to the world that the Tamil civilians have very cordial
relations with the Sri Lanka armed forces and that the ethnic problem is something created
by a handful of militants.
Q: Could not the ex-TULF MPs have been killed by some rebel LTTE members?
A: Absolutely not. Nothing happens in the LTTE without my permission.
About the killing I want to say something. I met TULF leaders and assured them that we had
not done this killing and that they need not worry about facing such consequences from us.
I told them that just because we had shot Alalasundaram some time ago, it did not mean
that we were against the TULF. However, I pointed out to them that the gap between them
and the younger generation was widening most alarmingly. The younger generation look upon
them as betrayers who have given up the struggle for Eelam. The gap is widening all the
more because they are not in Eelam facing the people. They have been completely isolated
from the realities in Eelam. So, as long as they remain isolated from the Tamil people,
they are likely to face such drastic action from the younger generation. The reality is
that if I were to give up the Eelam struggle I would face similar action from them.
Q: You mean to say that the younger generation is even more committed to
Eelam?
A: The incidents in Eelam show that a Eelam, a separate state, is the
only solution. After facing so many genocidal attacks, the Tamils realise there is no
solution other than Eelam for them if they are to live in peace I and security.
Q: Apparently the killing of the TULF MPs, for which the LTTE was held
responsible, has hardened Mr. Gandhi. In fact, he did not rescind the deportation order on
Balasingham even though he had been on the verge of doing so...
A: We have no connection with the killing. If the Indian
government does not rescind the orders because it assumes that we killed the TULF' MPs,
then it is its mistake. There is no point in punishing us. They should punish the agency
that is really guilty so that such incidents do not occur again.
Q: What was your reaction when Balasingham was deported?
A: We had cooperated so much with the Indian government, so when it
happened we felt we had been wronged. The incident has created a certain amount of
bitterness between us and them.
Q: How would you define your relationship with Balasingham? A:
He is our political advisor. As a true patriot, he reflects the national sentiments of our
people.
Q: Why did India deport Balasingham?
A: India has said that he was deported in "public interest."
But the reason appears to be farcical.
Courtesy: 'SUNDAY' magazine, India 29 September -5
October 1985