By M.R. Narayan Swamy, IANS
New Delhi : Indians may be upset that Sri Lanka has not set up a memorial to Indian soldiers who died fighting the Tamil Tigers two decades ago. But the man who led them asks: why is there no monument for them in India?
Recalling the difficult period when the Indian troops fought the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in Sri Lanka's northeast in 1987-90, Lt. Gen. (retired) A.S. Kalkat says Colombo's indifference pains the families of the dead soldiers.
"Our soldiers and their families do feel hurt that they (Sri Lankans) could not provide a memorial. And the soldiers died for their sovereignty," Gen Kalkat told IANS on the 20th anniversary of the India-Sri Lanka agreement signed this day in July 1987.
"But what about India? I feel sad that there is no memorial in India to honour those brave soldiers who fought under the Indian flag in Sri Lanka. More so when we have impressive and massive memorials for the two World Wars when Indian soldiers died under the Union Jack," he said at his house here.
Indian troops deployed in Sri Lanka's northeast under the terms of the accord ended up fighting the Tigers for well over two years, losing nearly 1,200 men, before they returned home in March 1990. Many hundreds were wounded and maimed.
Kalkat, who continues to keep in touch with Sri Lankan developments but has avoided visiting Colombo, said the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) broke up the LTTE "as a fully functional organisation" during the fighting that erupted Oct 10, 1987, and ended only in 1990.
This is the reason, he asserted, that LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran made a dramatic U-turn and shook hands in 1989 with the government of Ranasinghe Premadasa, otherwise seen by Tamils as a Sinhalese hardliner.
"That is why they embraced the Sri Lankan state," he said. "Can you ever believe Prabhakaran embracing the Sri Lankan military? Because he had lost out! He was seeing the political demise of LTTE in sight. The embrace was for his survival."
Prabhakaran's decision to go for talks with the Premadasa government made the latter demand the withdrawal of Indian soldiers from the island, embarrassing India and leading ultimately to the Tigers taking control of large parts of the northeast.
So was the Indian intervention in Sri Lanka worth the human and financial cost?
"Whether it was worth it or not should be seen in the light of the geographical political canvass," said Kalkat. "The pity is the success of the IPKF was not allowed to be consolidated because (the V.P. Singh government that took power in December 1989) stood for the IPKF pullout and (Premadasa was) totally opposed to the 1987 agreement and the devolution of powers (to Tamils in Sri Lanka)."
Kalkat called Premadasa, who was assassinated by the LTTE in May 1993, "a "hostile president", one "who did not want a Tamil province in the northeast".
"Obviously what was worrying Premadasa was that a Tamil chief minister in the northeast must not get stabilized and firmly established. Then he could not have undone the Tamil administration. In the hurry, he ordered his officers to start providing weapons and ammunition to the LTTE, which (by then) had been reduced to a marginal role."
Kalkat says that by the time it was all over, the Indian military had earned a very good understanding of the ethnic conflict, which continues to bleed the country, having already taken several thousands of lives.
What does Kalkat think of the LTTE?
"LTTE is no doubt one of the most professional and formidable and dedicated militant forces," said the man who oversaw the Indian military capture of Jaffna in late 1987 and then commanded the IPKF from January 1988 until March 1990.
"After all they were the original inventors of improvised explosive devices and human bombs. Much later it has come in vogue in the Middle East and Kashmir and the rest of the world," he added, hastening to add that he considered the LTTE and the Tamils two distinct entities.
Will Prabhakaran ever make peace?
"I do not think Prabhakaran will ever settle for less (than Tamil Eelam). I always felt that," he said. "He has talked himself to a point of no retraction. Now even if he wants to step back, he cannot do it."
Â