Rajiv went to Lanka for a purpose

Rajiv went to Lanka for a purpose
A.N. Dar

It is one thing to analyse the IPKF reverses in Sri Lanka, blame them on Rajiv Gandhi and maintain that India is fortunate that the Congress is not in power now as a recent article (`Where angels fear to tread', May 11) did and quite another to scientifically dissect why India went there in 1987 and what it should do now.

To say that Rajiv Gandhi decided to fight the Sri Lankan battle ``out of mistrust of south Indians in general and Tamilians in particular'' is so puerile an argument that it only leads us to false conclusions. The argument is made out that in Rajiv's thinking if the ``Tamils of Jaffna succeeded in breaking free from Sinhala domination and created a free nation called Eelam'' wouldn't the ``Tamils of Tamil Nadu try to secede, perhaps to join the new country?'' This argument is put forward in order to blame him for something of which he cannot be accused.

Have the Nehru-Gandhis mistrusted the Tamils? Could they do so with any justification? Even when the north had blasted the Congress, it was the south that gave the party refuge. Even now, when the Congress wants a reaffirmation of faith, its leader goes to Bellary for a vote of popular confidence. And yet the subversive idea is put forth that Rajiv wanted to fight the LTTE to ensure that the Indian Tamils did not join them in seceding from India. Does anyone in his senses today suspect the Tamils of Tamil Nadu?

The reason behind Rajiv Gandhi's decision to send the IPKF to Sri Lanka must be found elsewhere. The army action failed and the loss of a thousand sons of India was a grievous blow. But the Indian blood that was spilled in a country which was not ours, for a cause which again was not ours in fact did great service to our country. One of the reasons which perhaps made Rajiv take the decision was not because he mistrusted Tamils but because he was dealing with a cold-blooded man like President Jayewardene.

If India did not go there to fight the LTTE, Jayewardene would surely have asked Pakistan to come over. And it was General Zia's Pakistan which we would have had to deal with. Do we recognise what it would have meant to have Pakistani gunships in Trincomalee and Pakistani soldiers fighting in Jaffna? For the last ten years, Pakistani soldiers would have dominated the Indian Ocean, with a smiling China not too far away. In the north, the Pakistanis would have been sucking us dry in Kashmir. In Afghanistan, Pakistan again would have been dominant. Can we sense what this situation would have meant for India? Jayawardene would have had no qualms in inviting Pakistan. Fortunately for us, Chandrika Kumaratunga is not so cold-blooded a strategist. In her we have a reasonable leader.

But in 1987, when India was involved in the fighting, nobody thought that Jayewardene would be followed by an anti-Indian Premadasa who thought nothing of toying with the future of his country because he hated India. Yet, we must put the blame where it is due. True, we could have gone to Sri Lanka after a better assessment of the LTTE's strength. And we could have made better preparations or even not gone at all.

Perhaps we should have known that we were not fit to fight a guerilla army in the jungles of Jaffna. These are things that happen. We honour what the Vajpayee government did in Kargil but we don't take away its glory by asking questions about the intelligence failure that cost us so many lives.

So, while discussing Sri Lanka, forget your enmity with Rajiv Gandhi and don't gloat over Sonia Gandhi's silence. Think of larger issues. Hatred of Rajiv should not makes us overlook the fact that India is a dominant power in this part of the world and it cannot ignore its responsibilities.

Please don't get me wrong. Sri Lanka is not Afghanistan, but when a call for helping Colombo at its invitation comes, the response cannot be to hide under a soft, warm quilt of indifference.