A poser to Karunanidhi:

Why not a referendum on ‘Kashmir-Eelam’?

Former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Karunanidhi's efforts to outdo his regional rival in communal politics - current Chief Minister Jayalalitha, and take the wind off the Indian Parliamentary delegation of Tamil representatives led by Opposition Leader Sushma Swaraj to Sri Lanka, was to ask the Indian government to urge the United Nations to bring pressure on Sri Lanka to hold a referendum regarding the establishing a Tamil Eelam in Sri Lanka, to realize his unfulfilled dream.

The DMK leader, who together with Jayalalitha, brought sufficient pressure on the Congress-led UPI government to ensure that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh feel coalition compulsions in addition to US pressure, to vote against Sri Lanka in the UNHCR last month, had a good rejoinder from Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa. He did not mince his words in stating that if Karunanidhi's unfulfilled dream was a Tamil Eelam, he should work for it in India.

He told the Daily Mirror that "A much bigger population of Tamils live in Tamil Nadu in India than the Tamil population in Sri Lanka. If Karunanidhi wants a Tamil Eelam he can have it in Tamil Nadu. He should not come to make Eelams in Sri Lanka. This is a sovereign country. We consider those who talk about Eelam as terrorists,"

Devolution of powers

"Tamil 'Eelam' is for Tamil Nadu politicians what the full moon is for hungry wolves.," is what the lead editorial in The Hindu of April 23, said on the attempts by Karunanidhi and Tamil Nadu politicians' attempts to arm-twist New Delhi on his proposal for a UN backed referendum on Eelam in Sri Lankan territory. It said that: "All their howling is indicative, not of any yearning for a distant, dreamy Eelam, but of the baser urges of the politics of the here-and-now. Former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi, who heads the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, a prominent constituent of the United Progressive Alliance government at the Centre, gave a call last week for the creation of a separate nation for Tamils in Sri Lanka, on the lines of Montenegro, South Sudan, East Timor and Kosovo."

It added with a note of caution that: "Far from forcing the Sri Lankan government into reaching a settlement on devolution of powers to the minority Tamils, Karunanidhi appears to have further aided the politicisation of this sensitive issue in Tamil Nadu."

Acknowledging how the parties of Tamil Nadu contributed in no small measure to the shaping of India's stand on the recent resolution against Sri Lanka at the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, The Hindu stated that, "to suggest that the UN conduct a referendum for the division of Sri Lanka on ethnic lines can only have the effect of prompting the Mahinda Rajapaksa government to resist all international efforts to speed up the peace and reconciliation process."

Political division

"In any case, Kosovo or Montenegro, South Sudan or East Timor is not comparable to Sri Lanka. But then Karunanidhi was only looking for instances of new nations formed on the basis of referendums or external intervention, and not seeking to make a cogent case for the resolution of Tamil grievances in Sri Lanka. In 2000, the model of political division he cited was that of Czechoslovakia, which split into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. In Karunanidhi's words, this was "separation without bloodshed, a peaceful resolution of a conflict in a country with sharp divisions," The Hindu said.

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh

Indian Opposition Leader Sushma Swaraj

Chief Minister Tamil Nadu J. Jayalalitha

Former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M Karunanidhi

But what is so easily forgotten is what happened elsewhere after this so-called 'separation without bloodshed'. The division of Czechoslovakia is just one example of the crisis in the Balkans. The tragedies of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia and the massacre at Srebrenica are still fresh in the memory of many who have even a mere nodding acquaintance with the breakup of the former Yugoslavia on ethnic lines. Even the Dayton Accords have not yet healed the wounds of the crisis as seen in the recent commemoration of the 16th anniversary of Srebrenica. If anyone is to be fooled by the 'independent statehood' of Kosovo, which is still not recognized by Serbia, there is enough already happening between Sudan and South Sudan, to have much more than mere doubts about the success of UN backed, encouraged or supported referenda to divide nations and countries.

Jammu and Kashmir

Rather than look at far away Czechoslovakia, or think of Montenegro, South Sudan, East Timor and Kosovo for the promotion of Eelam, it is better if Karunanidhi and those who think alike, would look closer home in India, where the UN mandated plebiscite is yet to be held from 1948 to decide on the actual status of Jammu and Kashmir. From the time of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru to this day India has rejected any attempt to genuinely resolve the Jammu Kashmir issue, by not creating the necessary conditions to hold the UN mandated plebiscite - the vote by which the people of a political unit determine autonomy or affiliation with another country.

There is now a debate in India whether the plebiscite is an issue or not. Yet, commentator Amaresh Misra wrote in October 2011, that "the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) of Kashmir brought out a report, after three years of painstaking investigations that revealed shockingly the existence of 38 sites of unmarked graves in North Kashmir. Estimates vary, but more than 2,500 unidentified bodies were unearthed during the exercise. The SHRC has asked for DNA profiling to identify these bodies and determine whether they are dead militants or dead ordinary Kashmiris.

Unmarked graves

"The Kashmiri Association of Parents of Displaced Persons (APDP) has been agitating for several years about locating more than 10,000 missing persons. These people could have been targets of militants, or of the Indian army, or both. It is suspected that many more unmarked graves exist in other areas of Kashmir. The SHRC has requested the State government to conduct a thorough enquiry in the matter.

"Truth seeking, and coming clean on facts, plus justice and compensation for people killed either by the army or the militants, will boost India's credibility. In fact, the unmasking of the issue of unmarked graves is integral to `Kashmir is an integral part of India' logic.

Other injustices include the misuse of The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA), was passed on September 11, 1958 under which army personnel, even after the filing of FIR, cannot be arrested without the permission of the Defence Ministry in Delhi.

This process is so complex that accused army men have had time to flee the country before action could be initiated against them. To start with why those Districts which have been insurgent free since last three years can't be de-notified under the Armed Forces Act?"

Karunanidhi and others in India who are so-vocal and demanding action about the 'plight' of Tamils in Sri Lanka, and suggesting a UN backed referendum for a separate Eelam, need only look North to what is happening in Jammu-Kashmir, and begin to take the necessary steps to consult the people of J and K as to what their preference for statehood is - whether it is to be part of India, part of Pakistan, or two parts of either country or even a separate state of 'Kashmir-Eelam'?

As the US-based security website GlobalSecuruty.org states: "The concept of partition is anathema to Indians. Kashmir's symbolism to India is as critical a consideration as any security significance associated with this fragment of ice and rock threaded by a beautiful valley. India is unwilling to lose even one additional hectare of this land. New Delhi is also concerned that Kashmiri autonomy would set a precedent for breakaway movements in other Indian states (e.g., Punjab or Assam)." It will also be interesting to know how India will in fact react to the promotion of separatism in neighbouring Sri Lanka by the likes of Karunanidhi and Jayalalitha, when considering the separatist tendencies that prevail in many parts of the country today.

UN intervention

Looking back at not so distant history, GlobalSecurity.org states: "In 1952 the elected and overwhelmingly Muslim Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir, led by the popular Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah, voted in favour of confirming accession to India. Thereafter, India regarded this vote as an adequate expression of popular will and demurred on holding a plebiscite. After 1953 Jammu and Kashmir was identified as standing for the secular, pluralistic and democratic principles of the Indian polity.

Nehru refused to discuss the subject bilaterally until 1963, when India, under pressure from the United States and Britain, engaged in six rounds of secret talks with Pakistan on 'Kashmir and other related issues.' These negotiations failed, as did the 1964 attempt at mediation made by Abdullah, who recently had been released from a long detention by the Indian government because of his objections to Indian control. Pakistan has continued its quest for J and K, the only Muslim majority state in India." So much for the promotion of the rights of the truly oppressed people of Jammu and Kashmir, even with a UN mandate.

It adds that: Kashmir's demographics illustrate the complexity of the issue. The territory can be divided into three regions - Jammu, the Kashmir Valley and Ladakh - each of which is dominated by a different ethnic group. Jammu is inhabited mainly by a Hindu majority, the Kashmir Valley is settled by a Muslim majority, and a Buddhist majority resides in Ladakh. While there is an identifiable Kashmiri ethnicity, the three groups are ethnically distinct, complicating any notion of 'Kashmiri nationalism.'

Those who talk of a referendum, on the setting up of an Eelam in Sri Lankan territory, must also have a proper understanding of the demographics of Sri Lanka, and not only the present post-conflict situation in the Northern Province.

One cannot forget that the original call for Eelam, by the LTTE, and its political backers of the TNA had planned an Eelam that included the North and East, with little concern for the demographics of the East that would have made such a polity untenable from the outset.

Karunanidhi can either take Sri Lanka's Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa's advise and seek to have his unrealized dream of Eelam established in Tamil Nadu in India, or before he talks of Eelam related referendum in Sri Lanka, work towards resolving the crisis of Jammu and Kashmir, with or without UN intervention or nudging.

The Hindu concludes its editorial stating that "For good reasons, India has a firm position on seeking a solution within a united Sri Lanka. Political parties in Tamil Nadu should see the sense behind this."

One can only hope the thinking of the leader writer is correct, and that political parties in Tamil Nadu would see the sense behind such a policy, and stop their full-moon wolf howls for Eelam over here.