| The
        Pirabhakaran Phenomenon | |||
| 
 Thwarting the Careers of Closet Tamil Operatives
          LTTE has been condemned strongly for
        the assassinations of Sam Tambimuttu and Neelan Tiruchelvam, as well as
        the execution of its one-time deputy leader, Mahendrarajah (aka
        Mahattaya). As expected, condemnations came from those circles (in
        Colombo, Chennai, New Delhi and Washington, DC) who had close links to
        these three Tamils, whom one can label as Closet Tamil Operatives (CTOs).
        Expressed eulogies to these CTOs deserve dissection to reveal the cant
        implied in them.   Mervyn de Silva’s eulogy
        to Tambimuttu  The dictionary defines eulogy as, (1) a
        spoken or written piece of high praise, esp. when delivered publicly.
        (2) great praise. The word ‘eulogy’ is derived from, two Greek
        words; eu [= good, well, easy, agreeable] and [legein = to
        speak]. I quote excerpts from Mervyn de Silva’s eulogy to Sam
        Tambimuttu, written within the black-border lines – symbolizing
        sorrow:   “…Right through the ‘war’ in
        the east, before and after the arrival of the IPKF, Sam Thambimuttu was
        the reporter’s first choice for what in the professional patois is
        called a ‘check’ and a ‘double check’…There was the more
        exacting professional demand rooted in the very character of a highly
        competitive profession. Beat your rival. Get the story out first.  ‘For the foreign correspondent’
        (the foreign-foreign, or the local stringer) the source is vital. So is
        the ready access to the source. But most of all, reliability. And
        credibility. Since this is not a personal, but a professional’s
        tribute to Sam Thambimuttu, I have had to break an old established rule
        not to reveal the source. In this case, however, Sam’s assistance to
        the International press, particularly to the BBC, was hardly a secret.
        His name has been mentioned a hundred times.  Nothing reveals the man better than his
        role as a regular news source. And since there are no real secrets in
        this little island, Batticaloa or Colombo, certainly the
        English-educated Sinhala-Tamil-Muslim community, knew all about Sam’s
        work as chairman of the Citizens Committee. In fact, Everyman’s
        Mouthpiece, Lawyer, the Community’s PR man, Batticaloa’s link to the
        world.  And why Sam, not somebody else? He was
        independent…though he sported a party label. He was outspoken, perhaps
        too outspoken. He respected the press, and understood its role,
        recognised its role, recognised its needs and its importance. He
        realised that the best service to his ‘own people’ was to let the
        world know what was going on.” [Lanka Guardian, May 15, 1990,
        p.3]  Hardly any Sri Lankan will doubt that
        Mervyn de Silva is an excellent writer. What he projects and what he
        omits have profound meanings. In his brief, but touching eulogy, Mervyn
        de Silva, while mentioning the many caps worn by Tambimuttu, had
        willingly omitted one role of his valuable ‘source’ - that of a wily
        shrimp farmer. And Mervyn de Silva had not deviated from the spirit of
        eulogy – i.e, speak only the ‘good, well, easy and agreeable’.
        Kindly note that the meaning of eulogy does not have any roots
        linking to ‘truth’.  Even when American correspondent
        William McGowan published his brief expose on Tambimuttu’s shady deals
        with shrimp farming subsequently, as presented in the previous chapter [see,
        Part 49], Mervyn de Silva failed to amend his eulogy on his once vital
        ‘news source’ from the East.   Eulogies to Neelan
        Tiruchelvam  If the eulogies offered for Sam
        Tambimuttu’s killing in 1990 amounted to pound equivalents, the
        killing of Neelakandan Tiruchelvam (hereafter abbreviated as Neelan) on
        July 29, 1999, elicited eulogies at ton equivalents from diverse
        quarters, who benefited from Neelan’s expertise as an informant. At
        the time of his death, Neelan held the nominal position as one of the
        Vice Presidents of the Tamil United Liberation Front, and was a
        nominated member of the Sri Lankan parliament. Despite this relatively
        low-profile ranking, the then American President Bill Clinton offered an
        eulogy. The US State Department mourned the loss of one of its ranking
        ‘sources’ [in positive as well as negative contexts] on Sri Lanka.
        Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the UN, condemned the LTTE in not
        so uncertain terms. Quite a number of Self indulgent Obscurantist Rights
        Evangelists (SOREs) in Sri Lanka and India sobbed with words
        uncontrollably in the news media. It is of relevance to note that
        Neelan’s professional career has a precedence in the American War of
        Independence – that of despicable social climber and scientist
        Benjamin Thompson (better known for scientists as Count Rumford).
        Thompson, was a colonial American who spied on the American colonies for
        the British, and was later knighted by King George III.   The unusual high-octane eulogy offered
        for any Sri Lankan was received from the US State Department on July 29,
        1999. For record, I provide this somber text couched in diplomatic lingo
        and euphemism - in full:  “US Department of State Office of the Spokesman July 29, 1999.  Statement by Philip T.Decker, Acting
        Spokesman  Sri Lanka: Assassination of
        Dr.Tiruchelvam  It is with profound regret that we
        learned of the murder today of Dr.Neelan Tiruchelvam on the streets of
        Colombo, the capital of Sri Lanka. Dr.Tiruchelvam was a respected
        academic and constitutional law expert, the Director of the
        International Centre for Ethnic Studies and a member of parliament
        representing the Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF), a moderate Tamil
        political party. He was killed by a suicide bomber on his way to work.
        Several bystanders were also injured.  The attack appears to be the work of
        the terrorist LTTE, Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, who have been
        waging a separatist war in Sri Lanka’s north and east for more than 16
        years. The United States has long urged the LTTE to cease its terrorist
        activities, to stop immediately the killing of non-combatants and
        civilians and to seek peaceful means of pursuing its political ends. We
        designated the LTTE as a foreign terrorist organization in 1997.  The United States has always supported,
        and continues to support, a peaceful resolution to the conflict through
        negotiations among all parties. We believe the Government of Sri Lanka
        has put forward realistic and sincere proposals for constitutional
        reform that could help toward this end.  The United States extends its sincere
        condolences to Dr.Tiruchelvam’s family, friends and associates, and to
        the other victims of this bombing and condemns in the strongest possible
        terms this outrage.  Dr.Tiruchelvam had many friends and
        colleagues in the United States. He freely shared his knowledge and
        conviction of the possibility for a peaceful resolution to Sri Lanka’s
        ethnic conflict. He had taught at Harvard and was scheduled to teach
        there again this autumn. So, we in the United States also share the
        terrible sense of loss of his family and country.”   It
        is my assessment that the last four sentences, couched in euphemism,
        reveal to some extent Neelan’s closet links to American officials and
        Intelligence operatives and exposes the motive of such a high-octane
        eulogy offered by the US Department of State.  On July 30, 1999, the day following
        Neelan’s killing, President Bill Clinton extended his “deepest
        condolences” from Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina – where he was
        visiting. The full text, as released by the US State Department is as
        follows:  “THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary (Sarajevo-Bosnia-Herzegovina) July
        30, 1999  Statement by the President  Hillary and I were shocked and saddened
        by the tragic death of Neelan Tiruchelvam at the hands of terrorists in
        Sri Lanka today. We extend our deepest condolences to his wife and
        family.  Neelan Tiruchelvam was a constitutional
        lawyer and human rights advocate who was well-known and well-respected
        far beyond his country. He devoted himself to seeking a peaceful and
        just solution to the tragic conflict that has caused so much bloodshed
        in Sri Lanka.  Hillary was deeply moved by her meeting
        with Mr.Tiruchelvam during her 1995 visit to Sri Lanka. With his death,
        a powerful voice for reconciliation in Sri Lanka has been silenced. I
        hope that this tragedy will spur efforts to find an end to the fighting
        and to build a lasting peace in Sri Lanka.”  At the end of Clinton presidency,
        Americans as well as non-Americans have come to learn that President
        Clinton’s errors of judgement – both personal and professional - 
        are monumental. Monica Lewinsky scandal and the presidential
        pardons of Clinton are two best examples. Thus, Clinton’s special
        condolence on the killing of Neelan, issued from Sarajevo,
        Bosnia-Herzegovina could also be attributed as none other than another
        minor error of judgement. Or could it be, that President Clinton was
        sincere in offering the condolence, as the US State officials and
        Intelligence operatives lost a loyal informant, who worked for them
        under cover? And LTTE’s assassination of Neelan eliminated one vital
        Colombo source, who had close links to the dictators of power in Sri
        Lanka.  Evaluating the eulogies
        delivered for Neelan Tiruchelvam  It
        is of relevance to dissect the essence of eulogies delivered for Neelan,
        from the side of Eelam Tamils. The openly expressed views of three
        contemporary Eelam Tamils, of which one is mine, is presented below.   (1)
        by S.Sivanayagam, the journalist:  “…This man who held no office,
        wielded no ostensible power, not a man of the people by any means, and
        what is worse, a Tamil by birth in a country where Tamils as a people
        have long been reduced to second class citizenship, has now emerged in
        death, (if not in life), as a seemingly more deserving figure than the
        rest of them for public lionizing. How does one account for this
        paradox?  Even President Clinton and his good
        First Lady Hillary thought it fit to come down from superpower perch and
        brush aside all norms of protocol to say how ‘saddened and shocked’
        they were to learn the death of a man whom hardly any American citizen
        would have heard of, or even of the little country that he came from. UN
        chief Kofi Annan, not to be left behind, showed proof that the world was
        indeed a global village with hardly any distance separating Manhattan
        from Rosmead Place in Colombo 7.  Condolences and condemnatory messages
        came from the Foreign Ministers of Canada and Australia. The Times
        (London), The Guardian, The Independent, The New York Times, Toronto’s
        Globe & Mail (who usually run long obituaries of people whom most
        readers are not even sure whether such people were alive) – gave more
        space for this man’s death than to report the death of 60,000 civilian
        killings in Sri Lanka….  There is no questioning the many
        personal virtues ascribed to Neelan as a man, as a scholar, as a jurist
        and as an academic and constitutional pundit. But all that do not add up
        to the motivations behind the adulatory postures struck by many of his
        obituary writers. The reason is not far to seek. Every man who enters
        public life chooses his own favourable constituency and builds on it,
        which is a fact of life; and some obituary writers have their own
        private agendas.  One can assert with certainty that had
        poor Neelan died of natural causes, half those obituaries would not have
        been written and whatever written would not have had the ‘fire’ that
        characterised those eulogies. To put it in plain language, many of them
        exploited the assassination at the hands of a suspected Tiger suicide
        bomber to use the opportunity to indulge in Tiger-bashing. What a pity,
        even in death, he had played into the hands of those whose only motive
        was to discredit the LTTE.  Copious references were made to Neelan
        being a ‘moderate’, a ‘democrat’, and so on, but surely he was
        not killed for being any of this? The one writer who came closest to
        finding the right word to describe the victim in the eyes of the
        assassin – AND INDEED IN THE EYES OF THE WIDER TAMIL COMMUNITY, was
        Lakshman Gunasekera (Sunday Observer, August 1). That word was
        COLLABORATOR.  Collaborators, as anyone who knows the
        history of peoples fighting for justice and freedom know, end up by
        being executed by their own people, status notwithstanding. In war-time
        phraseology the word ‘collaborator’ (with the enemy) invokes in
        people a sense of shame and anger. If what is happening in Sri Lanka is
        not war, what else is it?… [Hot Spring magazine, London,
        Aug-Sept. 1999, pp.1 & 3]  (2) by G.G.(Kumar) Ponnambalam Jr., fellow
        lawyer and politician:  Kumar Ponnambalam’s lengthy
        assessment on the assassination of Neelan appeared in the Sunday
        Times (Colombo) of Sept.19, 1999. But in this published version, as
        one would expect from the servile Colombo press, almost half of the
        feature, containing quite a number of unflattering paragraphs, was
        deleted. I provide only excerpts of Kumar Ponnambalam’s assessment,
        and the deleted paragraphs from the Sunday Times are shown in
        italics.   “….I wish to place on record the
        feelings of a preponderant section of the Tamils on the matter of Dr.
        Tiruchelvam’ death. Eulogies have come in from abroad and locally.
        From foreigners and from Sinhalese. Indeed, at this time, it is the done
        thing to say all the good things about a dead person. But there has been
        hardly a good word for him from some of the Tamils, whether from abroad
        or locally. Why this glaring dichotomy?….  In 1997 October when President
        Kumaratunga, at a weekly meeting of financial officials on Fridays,
        blurted she would get onto the streets and attack Tamils if the
        Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) attacked Buddhist places of
        worship and this leaked out and there was a hue and cry from the Tamil
        quarter, Tiruchelvam feigned another’s signature in an irrelevant and
        disgraceful letter to the President which sought, dishonestly, to bale
        the President out of a very difficult position. To say that Tiruchelvam
        is a paragon of virtue, even after this notorious act, is nothing but
        midsummer madness. The Tamils have not forgotten this.  Tiruchelvam is described as a
        ‘crusader for peace’ and ‘a tireless worker towards resolution of
        conflicts.’ After Tiruchelvam’s death, it has surfaced that he was
        abandoning Parliament and the ‘Peace Package’ for pastures new and
        that he was going to take up a teaching assignment in America on 1st
        September 1999. Some interested parties want the people to accept the
        ‘Peace Package’ as this would be the least that they could do in the
        memory of Tiruchelvam. But if D.B.S.Jeyaraj’s eulogy at page 10 of The
        Hindu of 7-8-99 [Note by Sri Kantha: Aug.7, 1999] is anything to go by,
        Tiruchelvam obviously did not tell Jeyaraj, even as late as 35 minutes
        before his death, that he was leaving the shores in a matter of days. On
        the contrary, Tiruchelvam had - even minutes before this death
        -‘wanted a little more time in Parliament to accomplish his goal of
        achieving a political settlement’. It will not be easy unravalling
        this strange situation, more so if we take into consideration what the
        President has said about presenting the ‘Peace Package’ to
        Parliament by the end of August 1999. This, too, has raised Tamil
        eyebrows and all sorts of questions are being asked in Tamil circles.
        Was Tiruchelvam decamping after ensuring his pension? Where is his
        commitment to the Peace Cause, leave alone the Tamils? The Tamils have
        not forgotten this.  Tiruchelvam is described as an
        ‘international figure’. Of particular interest to Tamils was the
        fact that he was Chairman of the Minority Rights Group International.
        This organization did a study of Sri Lanka after the present Government
        came into power and brought out a report in February 1996 with special
        reference to the Tamils. It was an indictment against his friend – the
        Sinhalese Government. The Report had many recommendations. Some Tamil
        organizations had written to Tiruchelvam during his stewardship
        requesting him to use his good offices with the Government to which he
        was so close (as has been now made out by representatives of this
        Government) and alleviate the distress of the Tamils. He just would not
        move in the matter. The Tamils have not forgotten this.  In July 1998 when President Kumaratunga
        went to distant South Africa and came out with the bloomer that the
        Tamils are not the original people of this island and there was a mass
        protest from Tamils, here and abroad; there was not a whimper from the
        international personality that Tiruchelvam was. He could have used his
        good offices as an international figure that he was held out to be, to
        neutralize this statement, more so, when he had the opportunity to do so
        as he was in South Africa soon after the President’s
        characteristically ill-conceived outburst. He did nothing. The Tamils
        have not forgotten this.  To make matters worse, Foreign Minister
        Lucky Kadirigama who, incidentally, was suddenly catapulted into the
        political arena from nowhere, due largely to a typical Tiruchelvam
        machination, completely let down his friend by calling a press
        conference on 2-8-99 [Note by Sri Kantha: Aug.2, 1999] and
        announcing, with pompous finality, that Tiruchelvam was a virtual
        consultant to the Foreign Ministry. This has opened the eyes of the
        Tamils who now charge that Tiruchelvam, with his ‘international
        connections’ as was evidenced by the outpourings that came from abroad
        and specifically from America, had a hand in the designation of the LTTE  [as a terrorist organization] and that Tiruchelvam was indeed
        a CIA agent. A greater dis-service Kadirigama could not have done to
        Tiruchelvam.  In spite of the fact that the President
        had done nothing about Tiruchelvam’s ‘Peace Package’ for three
        years, that he should have thought that she was still the best bet for
        the Tamils when the whole Tamil Nation was arraigned against the
        President for years showed not only Tiruchelvam’s political acumen but
        also the distance he occupied from the Tamil Nation.  Friends of Tiruchelvam have said that
        the Tamils have kept their distance from Tiruchelvam because of fear of
        the LTTE and as the Indian Express has said ‘mortgaged its soul to
        the LTTE’. I do not think the LTTE would ever think of videoing
        those who attended the Tiruchelvam funeral in order to take it out of
        those Tamils. Such modus operandi are only carried out by a despotic
        Sinhala Government to intimidate and harass Tamils who attend Tamil
        political meetings in the vastly predominant Sinhala Colombo….[Hot
        Spring magazine, London, Sept-Oct.1999, pp.15-18]  (3) by Sachi Sri Kantha,
        an academic:  I focused on one particular point
        G.G.Ponnambalam Jr. had expressed in his assessment – that of Neelan
        being a CIA agent – in my letter to the Hot Spring magazine.
        Excerpts:  “The allegation of being a CIA agent
        in Sri Lanka is a serious one to tag to any individual. Thus, one
        sentence in G.G.Ponnambalam (Jr.)’s excellent commentary on the
        political career of late Neelan Tiruchelvam deserves further analysis. (Hot
        Spring, Aug-Sept.’99). This particular sentence states,
        ‘…Tamils who now charge that Tiruchelvam, with his ‘international
        connections’ as was evidenced by the outpourings that came from abroad
        and specifically from America, had a hand in the designation of the LTTE
        [as a ‘terrorist organization’] and that Tiruchelvam was indeed a
        CIA agent.’ Is there any proverbial ‘smoking gun’ for the charge
        that Neelan could have been a CIA agent?  Before I read G.G.Ponnambalam (Jr.)’s
        commentary in the Hot Spring, I was intrigued by a couple of tid-bits
        which appeared in the eulogy of Celia Dugger to Neelan, published in the
        New York Times of Aug.24. In it she had written as follows:  ‘Tiruchelvam’s elder son, Nirgunan,
        26, an investment banker in Singapore, became almost obsessed with his
        father’s security. He begged his father to stay inside their house, or
        to wear a bullet proof vest and travel in a bomb-proof car. The son
        tracked down an aging bomb-proof Jaguar that had carried the Queen of
        England when she visited Sri Lanka in the early of 1980s. But when his
        father used the car, it broke down. The one garage that could fix it
        always seemed to be busy.’  I feel that some vital information is
        missing in the above passage. How Nirgunan was able to locate the
        bomb-proof Jaguar which carried the Queen of England for his dad? Did he
        receive any extraordinary help from ‘foreign hands’ to purchase this
        car? Why ‘only one garage’ could fix this bullet-proof car? Why this
        ‘one garage’ was always ‘busy’? How many months (or years) did
        Neelan use this car?…  Unless evidence to the contrary is
        revealed publicly, messages of condolences offered by Kofi Annan as well
        as President Bill Clinton on Neelan’s untimely death have to be taken
        as a circumstantial evidence of a link between Neelan Tiruchelvam and
        CIA.” [Hot Spring magazine, London, Oct.-Nov.1999, p.14]  When this letter of mine was published
        in November 1999, neither me nor G.G.Ponnambalam Jr. would know that the
        ‘circumstantial evidence’ of a kind which I was alluding to would
        present itself within three months. On January 5, 2000, G.G.Ponnambalam
        Jr. was assassinated in Colombo – now believed to be - by the
        Gestapo-gang affiliated to the current Sri Lankan President’s Security
        Guard. In the eyes of Eelam Tamils, by birth pedigree, by age, by
        professional merits and even strangely by death, 
        both Neelan and G.G.Ponnambalam Jr. formed identical mirror
        images. The only difference was that, while G.G.Ponnambalam Jr. had
        turned into an  open LTTE
        sympathizer in the 1990s, Neelan was content to be the closet Tamil
        operative in the corridors of power. For the eulogy offered to Neelan in
        July 1999, to be counted as comforting the Eelam Tamils, a similar
        eulogy from the American as well as Indian Pooh-Bahs would have been
        forthcoming six months later as well. But G.G.Ponnambalam Jr.’s
        killing did not elicit any eulogies from President Clinton and the US
        Department of State – proving that Neelan was indeed a valuable closet
        operative in the services of American interests.  Mahattaya –the Benedict
        Arnold of LTTE  If Neelan Tiruchelvam was the Count
        Rumford for Eelam Tamils, Mahattaya – the ex-deputy leader of the LTTE
        -  became the Benedict
        Arnold of the LTTE. On the perfidy and pathos of the LTTE’s ex-deputy
        leader, I concluded part 24 of this series, penned 13 months ago, as
        follows: “I leave it for those such as Anton Balasingham, who had
        known both Pirabhakaran and Mahattaya, to shed more light on the
        Mahattaya episode, at appropriate time.”  To my relief, some light has been
        thrown on the Mahattaya episode, by Anton Balasingham’s wife, Adele,
        who is also privy to the inside details on the LTTE. Thus, I provide
        relevant details, appearing in her autobiography, published in 2001.  “….[Around April 1993], Mathaya and
        some of his close associates were arrested by the LTTE’s intelligence
        wing for conspiring to assassinate Mr.Pirabhakaran. In a massive cordon
        and search of his camp in Manipay – supervised by senior commanders of
        the LTTE – Mathaya was taken into custody along with his friends. We
        were shocked and surprised by this sudden turn of events. Mr.Pirabakarn,
        who visited our residence that day, told us briefly of a plot hatched by
        the Indian external intelligence agency – the RAW – involving
        Mathaya as the chief conspirator to assassinate him and to take-over the
        leadership of the LTTE. He also said that further investigations were
        needed to unravel the full scope of the conspiracy.  The investigation took several months
        to complete. Mathaya, his close associates involved in the conspiracy,
        and several other cadres who functioned directly under him, were
        thoroughly investigated. Finally, the complete story of a plot emerged.
        Confessions by all the main actors were tape-recorded and video filmed.
        The leadership also arranged a series of meetings for all the LTTE
        cadres to explain the aims and objectives behind the plot. Apart from
        Mathaya, other senior cadres who were involved in the conspiracy were
        allowed to make public confessions during those meetings confirming
        their involvement. It was a complicated and bizarre story of the Indian
        intelligence agency establishing secret contacts with Mathaya through
        his close associates, with the promise of huge funds and political
        backing from India if the plot succeeded and the LTTE leadership was
        eliminated. A former body-guard of Mr.Pirabakaran was secretly released
        from an Indian jail in Tamil Nadu and trained as the main assassin. He
        was sent to Jaffna with an intriguing story of a successful jail break
        as cover. His assignment was to plant a time bomb in Pirabakaran’s bed
        room as a part of an overall plot planned by Mathaya. This young man, as
        soon as he landed in Jaffna, was once again included amongst
        Mr.Pirabakaran’s bodyguards. Surprisingly, just a few days before his
        arrest, he visited our residence to tell us fabulous stories about his
        jail break. The investigation established, without doubt, that Mathaya
        was the chief conspirator. The plot was to assassinate Mr.Pirabakaran
        and some senior commanders loyal to him and assume the leadership of the
        organisation. On 28th December 1994, Mathaya and a few of his
        fellow conspirators were executed on charges of conspiracy to eliminate
        the leadership.” [Book: The Will to Freedom – An Inside View of
        Tamil Resistance, 2001, pp.296-298]  Naturally, Pirabhakaran’s opponents
        as well as those who were close to Mahattaya and those who stood to
        benefit from Mahattaya’s ascendancy would not accept the
        insider-account presented by Adele Balasingham. But, one should note
        that Adele Balasingham has a special standing. She is peculiar mix of
        ‘insider-outsider’. She is privy to Pirabhakaran’s confidence, and
        at the same time the only non-Tamil who had seen Pirabhakaran’s rise
        as a Tamil military leader in close circuit. Her link is similar to that
        which Edgar G.Snow had with Mao Ze Dong.  The demerit of Pirabhakaran’s critics
        in Sri Lanka, India and elsewhere is that, unlike Adele Balasingham,
        none had an opportunity of watching in close circuit the growth of a
        guerrilla movement, which transformed into a military force. Discipline
        is to the military, as rhythm is to music. Thus, as a military leader,
        it is within Pirabhakaran’s parish to execute those who betray his
        confidence. And Pirabhakaran was following the military traditions of
        Washington, Mao and Castro. Critics of Pirabhakaran, including the
        Pooh-Bahs from the US diplomat corps, ignore the historical facts of how
        Washington reinforced discipline. To quote Allan Nevins,  “One element of Washington’s
        strength was his sternness as a disciplinarian. The [Patriots’] army
        was continually dwindling and refilling; politics largely governed the
        selection of officers by Congress and the states; and the ill-fed,
        ill-clothed, ill-paid forces were often half-prostrated by sickness and
        ripe for mutiny. Troops from each of the three sections, New England,
        the middle states, and the South, showed a deplorable jealousy of the
        others. Washington was rigorous in breaking cowardly, inefficient, and
        dishonest men and boasted in front of Boston that he had ‘made a
        pretty good sort of slam among such kind of officers’. Deserters and
        plunderers were flogged, and Washington once erected a gallows 40 feet
        high, writing that ‘I am determined if I can be justified in the
        proceeding, to hang two or three on it, as an example to others’. At
        the same time, the commander in chief won the devotion of many of his
        men by his earnestness in demanding better treatment for them from
        Congress…” [entry on George Washington, Encyclopedia Britannica,
        Macropedia, vol.29, 15th ed., 1990, pp.699-706]  It is debatable whether Pirabhakaran
        and LTTE has the moral right to short-circuit the careers of  a handful of Closet Tamil Operatives. In spirit and
        execution, LTTE’s assassinations do not differ from both the currently
        employed American policy of ‘bring to justice’ those who have
        extinguished American lives and Israel’s ‘payback principle’ of
        targeted killing. I quote from a recent feature by David Margolick
        entitled, ‘Israel’s Payback Principle’:  “…For Israel, ‘targeted
        killings’ are as old as the Talmud. ‘If he comes to kill you, kill
        him first,’ it states. Sprinkled throughout the nation’s 54 years
        are many such actions, often filled with James Bond-like tales of
        ingenuity and derring-do. The Israelis have always been quietly proud of
        them, while also asking themselves whether they want to be, or should
        be, doing such things…  In 1955 the Israeli philosopher
        Yishayahu Leibowitz complained in a letter to Ben-Gurion, Israel’s
        first prime minister, about innocent Palestinians killed in Israeli
        operations. ‘I received your letter and I do not agree with you,’
        Ben-Gurion replied. ‘Were all the human ideals to be given to me on
        the one hand and Israeli security on the other, I would choose Israeli
        security, because while it is good that there be a world full of peace,
        fraternity, justice and honesty, it is even more important that we be in
        it.’  Last July, Israel’s most respected
        political columnist, Nahum Barnea, of the newspaper Yediot Aharonot,
        showed Ben-Gurion’s letter to Prime Minister Sharon, who said he
        agreed with every word of it.  Traditionally, such operations have
        been conducted in strict secrecy and steadfastly denied. [Vanity Fair
        magazine, Jan.2003, pp.40-47]  Israel’s area of 20,770 sq.km is almost identical to the area of the traditional Tamil homeland in Sri Lanka. Israel’s political leaders from Ben Gurion to Ariel Sharon had learnt the value of the security of their land, and the means of protecting its security. It is not an exaggeration to state that in idea and execution, Pirabhakaran’s policy of protecting the Tamil homeland was not in variance from that employed by the military minds (Begin, Shamir, Rabin, Barak and Sharon) who later became the political leaders of Israel. [To be Continued.] | |||