Tamil Nadu researcher testifies to OISL on Indian complicity in genocide

[TamilNet, Monday, 03 November 2014, 23:43 GMT]
“While several actors including US, UK, China, UN involved in different ways in the conflict in Sri Lanka which led to genocide of Eelam Tamils, the actor most severely and the most consistently perplexed in the Sri Lankan war has been India,” says University of Bergen Research Fellow, Vijayshankar Asokan in a submission he sent on “Indian complicity in the genocide of Eezham Tamils” to OHCHR investigation on Sri Lanka. A native of Tamil Nadu and studying in Norway since 2008, Mr. Vijayshankar in his submission was extensively citing Mr. Ku. Ramakrishnan, General Secretary of Periyar Dravidar Kazhakam, Mr. Erik Solheim, the failed peace facilitator and various reports as well as statements.

Vijayshankar Asokan

“This present report intends to provide the collective information regarding the Indian collusion with Sri Lankan military regime throughout the thirty years of genocidal counter-insurgency warfare carried out against Eelam Tamil nation who struggled for the recovery of their ethnic homeland. Indian-Sri Lankan relationship had taken various forms, including: overt training by Indian military officials, bi-lateral military relationships, supply of sophisticated weaponry, intelligence support, black training by Indian mercenaries, the passing of anti-terror laws, dissolving International pressure during the war in 2008-2009, and propaganda in Indian media against Tamil nation. The cumulative outcome of those decisions is evident in Sri Lanka’s brutal action of genocide against Eelam Tamil nation,” Mr. Vijayshankar said in the submission.

The following were his conclusions:

Through various evidences presented here, it is evident India had criminal intent in executing genocide on Tamils and Tamil Home Land in the Island of Sri Lanka. This intent has taken the forms of aiding, abetting and/or being complicity. It can be summed up as follows.

1. Prepared a conducive environment to initiate genocide. These preparations were offered both militarily and diplomatically. Military aids during the period of 2000-2007 to destruct LTTE Naval Vessels and diplomatic pressures to EU in 2005 to proscribe LTTE amounted to tilting power in favour of one party that is GoSL. By fortifying one party with all might, India helped GoSL to unleash genocide without any retaliation from LTTE and also subdued any diplomatic pressure arising out of public protests in EU.
   
2. India had the capability to act to stop the genocide and was reluctant to act. This indicates its acceptance of killing Tamils. This act of not willing to prevent proves its intention.
   
3. India also warded off those states who express concern on war crimes happening in the Island. By keeping them at bay, India played a crucial role to ensure genocide took place without any hindrance. Acts of diplomatic dissuading and deceiving by the Government of India, kept the international community out of the issue and it facilitated complete genocidal onslaught against Tamils.

Full text of the submission follows:

Bergen, Norway
30.10.2014

From,
Vijayshankar Asokan,
Research Student,
University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway


To,
OHCHR Investigation on Sri Lanka,
UNOG-OHCHE, 8-14, Rue de la Paix,
CH-1211, Geneva 10, Switzerland


Subject: Indian Complicity in genocide of Tamils in Sri Lanka

I am Vijayshankar Asokan (age 30), research student at The University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway. I am basically from Tamil Nadu, India staying in Norway since 2008. I was well aware about the facts that Norway brokered a peace process between Government of Sri Lanka and LTTE and my country India was involved in the Sri Lankan conflict for a long time. On the other side, I also witnessed and was captivated by the protests by diaspora Tamil youths in the streets of Norway every day in 2008-2009. As a Tamil from Tamil Nadu doing my PhD at The University of Bergen, I started to seriously do research on the part of India’s involvement in the genocidal war in against Eelam Tamils in Sri Lanka.

During the final phase of war in May, 2009, when the International community of establishments including India were maintaining their ‘silence’ and let the war to finish off with genocide, Dr. Francis A. Boyle (Professor, International Law, Illinois University, USA), issued a statement [1] on May 12, 2009 outlining the legal framework for a United Nations Security Council (UNSC) meeting to end the war in Sri Lanka between the army and Tamil fighters (LTTE). He was highly critical against the governments of India, USA, United Kingdom (UK) and France, for their inaction to call for an emergency UNSC meeting. Here are excerpts pertaining to India:

“India has an obligation to bring this matter to the attention of the Security Council under U.N. Charter Article 35 and to demand an immediate, emergency meeting of the Security Council under its Rule of Procedure No. 3 in order to terminate the GOSL's genocide against the Tamils in Vanni. Failure by the Government of India to do so would only render India guilty of "complicity" in the GOSL's genocide against the Tamils under Article III (e) of the 1948 Genocide Convention”.

Many legal experts and International human rights defenders expected India to act effectively in neutralize the situation and prevent the genocide happening at that time, however India had not responded to them, and acted in a way to ward off the International pressure. Answer for India’s role came out when Mahinda Rajapakse (Sri Lankan President) opined after the end of final war in Sri Lanka. On May 29, 2009, in his interview to Hindustan Times stated, “I fought India’s war’ [2], exposes the Indian complicity in genocidal war.

While several actors including US, UK, China, UN involved in different ways in the conflict in Sri Lanka which led to genocide of Eelam Tamils, the actor most severely and the most consistently perplexed in the Sri Lankan war has been India.

This present report intends to provide the collective information regarding the Indian collusion with Sri Lankan military regime throughout the thirty years of genocidal counter-insurgency warfare carried out against Eelam Tamil nation who struggled for the recovery of their ethnic homeland. Indian-Sri Lankan relationship had taken various forms, including: overt training by Indian military officials, bi-lateral military relationships, supply of sophisticated weaponry, intelligence support, black training by Indian mercenaries, the passing of anti-terror laws, dissolving International pressure during the war in 2008-2009, and propaganda in Indian media against Tamil nation. The cumulative outcome of those decisions is evident in Sri Lanka’s brutal action of genocide against Eelam Tamil nation.

I hereby further attach a testimony from Mr. Ku Ramakrishnan, General Secretary, Periyar Dravidar Kazhakam (PDK), Tamil Nadu, India, writes me a mail regarding his own experience witnessing India’s military assistance to Sri Lanka, which follows below:

“In 2007, I directly witnessed the military training for more than 10 Sri Lankan military personnel in Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) training college at Kurutampalayam, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India. At that time, we together with many political parties in Tamil Nadu staged a protest against this. Then, they shifted the training camps to Bangalore, Karnataka, India. Later on, Indian government brought Sri Lankan air force officials to Sulur Air Force Base, Coimbatore, to provide training. After our protest against this, they moved the training camps to other states in India. After a few months gap, Sri Lankan military officials and personnel got training at The Defence Services Staff College (DSSC), Wellington, Tamil Nadu. Again after our protest, they moved on to another states. At Wellington, this scenario continued for three times. Even many political parties including PDK staged a mass protest against Naval training at Chennai. We also heard news about India’s supported with Radars and Intelligence network. On May 02, 2009, we came to know that nearly 82 heavy carrier vehicles carrying military arms and equipment from Andhra Pradesh via Coimbatore by Roadways to Cochin, Kerala and then by ship to Colombo. At Coimbatore, nearly 300 cadres from various political parties including PDK cadres blocked the vehicles. Angered Indian government filed case against all of us under National security Act and we were arrested” he states.

Further, Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh (2004-2014) wrote a letter to Mr. Vaiko (General Secretary, Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhakam), ex-parliamentarian on October, 2008, acknowledged India’s military assistance to Sri Lanka, stating the reason, “to protect sovereignty and integrity of Sri Lanka” also holds a direct proof for Indian complicity.

In this report, I have considered many facts and documented reports in order to bring the evidence for the India’ complicity which follows below:

Indian complicity in Tamil genocide

In the 1980s, India’s crave for regional domination reflected in interventions in Sri Lanka. Model was designed to weaken Sri Lankan government and to impose New Delhi’s preferred policies.

In early 80’s Indira Gandhi led Indian government gave military training in Indian Territory and also provided economic support to Tamil militant groups including LTTE. However, Rajiv Gandhi after the assassination of Indira Gandhi took a more neutral stance on the issue and officially interrupted the military support for Sri Lankan Tamil rebels. Instead, India taken his inexperienced conflict management role and repeatedly attempted to mediate between the conflict parties in the 1980s. With the continuous failure in the mediation efforts due to incapability of Rajiv led government, and the escalation of violence in Sri Lanka ultimately forced India to abandon its temporary neutral stance.

In 1987, at first India pressurised Sri Lankan government, intervened by airlifting supplies to the Jaffna Peninsula in the North of the island and broke the blockade the Sri Lankan government had imposed there. Sri Lankan government started to cunningly accept India’s conflict‐management efforts and had secret meetings with Rajiv Gandhi in July 1987 which led to the signing of the Indo‐Sri Lanka Agreement (ISLA) and, shortly thereafter, India deployed its Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) in the North and the East of the island with the task of supervising the ceasefire and disarming the LTTE. IPKF’s Intervention was interpreted as “involvement” towards peaceful solution, but later on, diplomatic incapability of Indian government turned “peace” to war. In 1989, India withdrew its troops after facing the increasingly evident failure of the IPKF.

Following the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi by a suicide bomber in Tamil Nadu in May 1991, New Delhi’s approach on one side, maintain a silence towards the conflict, but on the other side proceeded with increased economic support and holds a strong diplomatic relationship with Sri Lanka due to geopolitical interest lies in Indian Ocean.

BJP led government passed a resolution of “not selling” arms to Sri Lanka and made a decision of not providing military assistance even at the difficult situation in 2000 [3]. However, in contrast to what headlines of news rolled on, Indian Navy sold INS Sarayu, a Sukanya-class patrol vessel to Sri Lanka in the year 2000 (later named SLNS Sayura in Sri Lanka) [4]. In the midst of crisis situation in the war zone in the year 2000, on May 07, The Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal A.Y. Tipnis, started a six-day visit to Sri Lanka [3]. It was reportedly said that he may assess the situation and suggest possible Indian response. All these sequences shows that the Indian government’s military policy and concern towards Sri Lanka fate.

Starting in 2000, Norway acted as a mediator between the LTTE and the Sri Lankan government. Eventually this mediation led to the signing of a ceasefire in 2002 and provided for the establishment of the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission (SLMM), composed of “Nordic” states charged with monitoring the ceasefire. In the context of its more co-operative regional policy under the Gujral Doctrine, the Indian government accepted the involvement of external actors in Sri Lankan affairs. Even then, India kept a watchful eye on the developments in Sri Lanka and was continuously kept informed by Norway about the latest developments in the peace process [5].

I got insight into the scenario about India’s involvement throughout the period of peace to war from the speech of Mr.Erik Solheim [6] at the panel discussion in Oslo when the Norwegian report “Pawns of peace” [7] released (November 2011). Here are the excerpts from his speech:

“………………………..We started the peace process on the part of Norway with the belief that this could be resolved in a few months time. The Indians told us please be patient. If you cannot be patient, go away, I mean, get out of South Asia, you will only complicate matters. This will take a decade at the minimum. So, we learnt to be patient and you need to be patient with a peace process. 



India, throughout had a veto power over the peace process. Because the Tigers did not have access to India, Milinda and myself shuttled to Delhi. I don't know how many times I have been at the Indian airport of New Delhi, meeting Indian intelligence and others and there was no major step in the peace process whatsoever was taken without informing India. Sometimes they gave tacit accept even if they may have disagreed. But, India was throughout informed. And the reason for that was very simple.



From Day 1, we took the view that India is by far the most important foreign influence in Sri Lanka. The United States is important. But, it is second to India. And even more so, for India, Sri Lanka is a core interest. For the United States, it is periphery interest. And the United States will never ever risk relationship with India for Sri Lanka. So, if India is on board, ultimately the United States will basically follow. Most important and even into the details, for instance, what nations should be acceptable in the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission (SLMM) – they [the Indians] gave us a list of nations that they would accept and we picked from that [smiling].

I was very – I have to say Very Close – to Indian Intelligence. I met them enormous amounts of time throughout this process. Never, ever did any Indian official hint that a military victory was possible until mid 2008. Then they started, I mean I observed the change in Mr. Narayan [M.K. Narayan, National security advisor, India, 2005-2010] and others, gradually shifting to the position that maybe – still may be that the government can wipe out the Tigers, militarily. Before that, no one thought it was possible. United States thought it was impossible; India thought it was impossible; Colombo thought it was impossible. So again, complete change from what we all based the peace process on, until that point….” Erik Solheim states.

From Erik’s point I got clear picture that without India nothing had been moved and India didn’t wanted strong and independent SLMM to function.

Further, I get more details when I start to read the Norwegian report “Pawns of peace” [7], in page 58-59:

“….More importantly, Indian opposition to the LTTE starts to translate into firmer backing for the Sri Lankan government. Faced with diverse interests (geo-political dominance, regional security, Tamil Nadu politics) the Indian government has persistently struck a balance between advocating Tamil rights while opposing separatism. Crushing the LTTE has become the overriding concern after the disasters of the Indo-Lankan Accord in 1987 and the subsequent LTTE assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in May 1991. The return to power of the Indian National Congress (now headed by his widow Sonia Gandhi) in 2004 and declining influence of Sri Lanka on Tamil Nadu politics (see chapter 7) mean that there are fewer inhibitions on a military solution to the conflict. India thus continues to advocate for the accommodation of Tamil aspirations in Sri Lanka, but does not apply any pressure against the Rajapakse government in relation to the military option”

ICG report in 2011, “India and Sri Lanka after the LTTE” [8] further reflects the points in [5-6]. This gives me clarity to decide my points that India contributed politically and militarily to the break-down of the 2002 Ceasefire agreement, by distorting the balance of power in favour of the Sri Lankan government. Despite the truce, India continued to train, advise and equip the Sri Lankan military, police and intelligence agencies. Further, contrary to what India was projecting to our people about China’s involvement, the Norway report clears me that it was India that encouraged Sri Lanka to bring in China.

V. Surya Narayanan, a leading Indian analyst on Sri Lanka, in 2004 wrote [9]:

“A country of India's size and resources should not merely assess the dangers emanating from a changing strategic environment. It should also zealously safeguard its autonomy in decision-making. New Delhi should develop the political will to pursue courses of action that promote India's national interest. India should work with the objective of neutralising the Sea Tigers at the earliest opportunity”.

This article popped out during the peace process, can be understood as the policy the Indian government is either under preparation or at the moment of acting.

During 2006-2007, India had quietly transferred the Coast Guard Ships CGS Varaha and CGS Vigraha on an annually renewable contract [10]. CGS Varaha was operated as SLNS Sagara in Sri Lanka and CGS Vigraha renamed SLNS Sayurula. Varaha, was handed over to the Lankans, not in Chennai where the ship was actually based, but in Visakhapatnam, away from the media and public glare to avoid inflaming public sentiment in Tamil Nadu. The aim was to help the Lankan Navy conduct deep water operations, which have resulted in the destruction of nine such LTTE freighters in the years 2002-2007 and five had been sunk in 2007 alone [10]. In the September, 2007, in a span of 24 hours, Sri Lankan naval warship SLNS Sayura had tracked down three LTTE freighters laden with arms, including artillery shells, aircraft parts [10].

In addition to the supply of Coast guard ships, Indian Navy also provided real time intelligence to Sri Lankan Navy to track and then destroy the LTTE arms consignments [11]. For instance, the Indian Navy’s Dorniers based at Ramnad in Tamil Nadu, India, flew regular reconnaissance missions over the seas around Sri Lanka. These Dorniers aircraft fitted with high-powered radars scoured the area for ships with suspicious movement and cargo. Whenever such a ship was detected, the Indian Navy passed on the information to the Sri Lankans.

In early 2008, Sri Lankas’s Navy chief Admiral Wasantha Karannagoda praised the Indian Navy’s role [11-12]. He elaborates, “Co-operations with India has been extremely successful in countering the LTTE. Every year, the India Navy with the Indian Coast Guard and the Sri Lankan Navy holds four bilateral discussions. We are conducting co-ordinated patrols with the Indian Navy as well” [11].

In the November 2009, message was sent to Sri Lanka, “India wants warships it lent to Sri Lanka back” [13]. An Indian military senior officer who did not wish to express his identity publicly in Hindustan times 2009 stated that “They (The Indian Coast Guard) feel the Sri Lankan Navy doesn’t need the vessels, with the LTTE dead and gone.”

This statement itself holds a proof for the intention of Indian government providing warships to supporting the war on Eelam Tamil nation.

In 2006, India quietly gifted five Mi-17 helicopters to the Sri Lankan Air Force with the condition that these helicopters would fly only under Sri Lankan Air Force colours [11]. Nitin A. Gokhale, NDTV’s defence editor, in his book, “Sri Lanka – From War to Peace” [11] writes:

“Sri Lankan defence sources later told me that these helicopters played a major role in several daring missions launched by the Sri Lankan Air Force to rescue the Army’s Deep penetration units and the eight-man team whenever they were surrounded by LTTE’s counter-infiltration units or when injured soldiers had to be airlifted from deep inside LTTE held territory”.

On 09th May, 2009, in an interview to Times Now, Mr.Ranil Wickramasinghe - Leader of Opposition in 2009 and Ex – Prime Minister of Sri Lanka accepted India’s help to Sri Lanka to win the war against LTTE [14]. In his Interview he explains:

“In the security sphere, India and the developed countries gave us the assistance from the time I was prime minister. There were an embargos, but during the peace process they agree to come in with security co-operations, for instance, the destruction of LTTE ships would not have been possible without the help of India, US and some other countries. LTTE network abroad was also broken up. There have been training, there have been Intelligence co-operations, exchange of views and India did also provide radars for Air defence in Sri Lanka.

The Norwegian report “Pawns of peace”, in page 59:

“……..India nevertheless criticizes Norway in private meetings for being too ‘LTTE friendly’ and underlines the need to ‘put the LTTE in its place’. Concerned with the LTTE’s military build up, particularly at sea and even in the air, India provides vital radar and intelligence information to the Sri Lanka forces. Delhi maintains it will not provide offensive military assets – due to the political sensitivity of Indian weapons being used against Tamils – but off the record, it does not object to Sri Lanka purchasing weaponry elsewhere……”

The above statement further exposes the covert role India played in strengthening Sri Lanka army in order to weaken LTTE in accelerate the genocidal war.

Gotabaya Rajapakse (Defence Secretary, Sri Lanka) in his interview to “Indian defence review” [15] in 2010 further explains clearly about the India’s role in the war. Excerpts from “The Indian Factor” in his interview titled “Winning Wars: political will is the key - Defence Secretary” follows:

"President Rajapaksa decided that he would consciously go out of his way to keep New Delhi aligned to Colombo's military objectives in its battle with the LTTE ………………………………. So President Rajapaksa ensured that he briefed the Indian leadership. We also ensured that our line communications were open at all times. From our side Basil Rajapaksa (Senior Advisor to the President and Member of Parliament), Lalith Weeratunga (Permanent Secretary to the President) and myself interacted extensively with MK Narayanan (former National Security Advisor, India and now Governor of West Bengal), Shiv Shankar Menon (former Foreign Secretary, India and now National Security Advisor) and Vijay Singh (former Defence Secretary and now Member, Union Public Service Commission). Between the six of us we had continuous dialogues. Whenever there was a sensitive issue, we met and discussed and resolved it. This helped the SLAF to continue its military operations absolutely unhindered."

"A day before the Dravida Munnettra Kazhagam (DMK) supremo and Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M Karunanidhi went on a fast on April 27, 2009 at the Anna Memorial in Chennai protesting against the SLAF offensive against the LTTE, Menon called me on my cell phone at 4.30 pm. The Indian team wanted to visit Colombo for urgent talks. I went straight to the President's office and got his sanction and called Menon back within five minutes. Within six hours of Karunanidhi going on fast we could defuse the crisis in Tamil Nadu by issuing a statement announcing the end of combat operations and shelling inside the 'No Fire Zone', which led to the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister ending his fast. This was a classic example of quiet, corrective diplomacy between two officially designated government teams."

"The manner in which President Rajapaksa tackled India was a key factor of our military success……………………..We knew that while other countries could or would resort to economic sanctions, only India had the power to militarily influence the course of our war operations. So it is to the credit of President Rajapaksa that he was successful in keeping New Delhi aligned with Colombo's military objectives.”

Satish Nambiar and Vijay Nambiar Duo:

On March 12, 2009, a meeting was conducted in UNHQ to discuss on ongoing conflict in Sri Lanka. It was attended by various heads of UN including Chef-de-Cabinet Vijay Nambiar. A report on civilian casualties in Vanni from Jan 20, 2009 to Mar 7, 2009, collected and compiled by OCHA with first-hand information was discussed primarily. OHCHR suggested releasing this report of number of civilian deaths. But Vijay Nambiar opposed the release and wrote an e-mail to OHCHR on Mar 12, 2009 and recommended her to tone down the numbers.

Quote: "I would strongly implore some dilution of tone and rigour in reference to numbers in your statement" (Charles Petrie Report, Page 67, Para 83)

This act of not revealing the death count is an intention to keep the international community away from the issue, thereby tacitly facilitating the killings of Tamils.

Vijay Nambiar served as Deputy National Security Advisor in India prior to joining UN as Chef-de-Cabinet [16]. He is younger brother of Satish Nambiar who as a consultant to GoSL advised dissolving the military capabilities of LTTE. Norwegian report “Pawns of Peace” talks about Satish Nambiar involvement in Sri Lanka as below (page 41):

“………..help is sought from Satish Nambiar, a retired Indian general, who drafts a revised plan, suggesting a phased dismantling of High Security Zones matched by simultaneous dismantling of LTTE operational capacities….”

To further proves the Indian complicity, this report further brings in Lalith Weeratunge’s (Permanent Secretary to the President) Interview to Daily Mirror in 2010.

Lalith Weeratunge’s excerpts from the Interview in Daily Mirror:

“Sri Lanka's use of heavy weapons was eventually stopped as the part of a political deal with the Indian government”.

In relation to Weeratunge’s statement on Indian role, this report brings in the statement issued by Prof Boyle exposing Indian complicity.

Weeratunge’s statement shows that the Congress led Government of India temporarily stopped the GOSL’s war tactics against the Tamils, thus proving it could do so. But only for the demented purpose of getting itself re-elected in 2009 parliament election, not for the purpose of terminating the GOSL’s genocide against the Tamils, which India obviously could have done and so did temporarily. India therefore violated its obligation under article 1 of the 1948 Genocide Convention, to which both India and Sri Lanka are contracting parties, “to prevent” the GOSL genocide against the Tamils.

Furthermore, India also thereby became complicity in the GOSL’s genocide against the Tamils in violation of article 3(e) of the Genocide Convention that prohibits and criminalizes “complicity” in genocide. The Government of India failed and refused to terminate the GOSL genocide against the Tamils despite the facts (1) that the GOI obviously had the capability to do so and (2) that the GOI obviously recognized it occupied a position of trust with respect to the Tamils in Sri Lanka.

For these reasons, both the Government and the State of India are legally responsible for the commission of the international crime of complicity in Genocide in violation of the 1948 Genocide Convention. India has an obligation to pay reparations for this international crime to the Tamils on Sri Lanka—both severally and jointly with the GOSL. Indeed, the Government of India and the GOSL conspired together to commit genocide against the Tamils in violation of article 3(b) of the 1948 Genocide Convention prohibiting and criminalizing “conspiracy” to commit genocide.

The same is true for those Highest Level Indian Government Officials who made these reprehensible, condemnable, unprincipled and criminal decisions. They had the mens rea (criminal intent) necessary to constitute the international crimes of complicity in and conspiracy to Commit Genocide. These Highest Level Officials of the Indian Government are personally culpable for the commission of the international crimes of complicity in Genocide and conspiracy to commit Genocide. These Highest Level Officials of the GOI must be prosecuted for these crimes—both in India and elsewhere”

Conclusion:

Through various evidences presented here, it is evident India had criminal intent in executing genocide on Tamils and Tamil Home Land in the Island of Sri Lanka. This intent has taken the forms of aiding, abetting and/or being complicity. It can be summed up as follows.

1. Prepared a conducive environment to initiate genocide. These preparations were offered both militarily and diplomatically. Military aids during the period of 2000-2007 to destruct LTTE Naval Vessels and diplomatic pressures to EU in 2005 to proscribe LTTE amounted to tilting power in favour of one party that is GoSL. By fortifying one party with all might, India helped GoSL to unleash genocide without any retaliation from LTTE and also subdued any diplomatic pressure arising out of public protests in EU.
   
2. India had the capability to act to stop the genocide and was reluctant to act. This indicates its acceptance of killing Tamils. This act of not willing to prevent proves its intention.
   
3. India also warded off those states who express concern on war crimes happening in the Island. By keeping them at bay, India played a crucial role to ensure genocide took place without any hindrance. Acts of diplomatic dissuading and deceiving by the Government of India, kept the international community out of the issue and it facilitated complete genocidal onslaught against Tamils.

These 3 summations clearly describe the role of India in aiding, abetting and being complicity in Tamil genocide.

With Regards,


(Vijayshankar Asokan)

References:

1. Prof. Boyle : hold Emergency meeting of UNSC to stop Tamil genocide – May 12, 2009, TamilNet.com
2. By crushing LTTE, I fought India’s war: Rajapakse – Sutirtho Patranobis, May 29, 2009, Hindustan Times.
3. India’s policy dilemma – John Cherian, May 13-26, 2000, Frontline.
4. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/sri-lanka/navy-modernization.htm
5. India’s covert role in Sri Lankas ceasefire – M.R. Narayan Swamy, Feb 17, Indo-Asian News Service (IANS).
6. India emerges as main designer of ‘Asian model’ in Norway report – November 16, 2011, TamilNet.com
7. http://www.oecd.org/countries/srilanka/49035074.pdf
8. http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/asia/south-asia/sri-lanka/206%20India%20and%20Sri%20Lanka%20after%20the%20LTTE.pdf
9. Sea Tigers — threat to Indian security - V. Suryanarayan, Jul 28, 2004, The Hindu.
10. Sri Lanka: A call for arms – Sandeep Unnithan, Sep 28, 2007, India Today
11. Sri Lanka – From War to Peace – Nitin Gokhale, 2009, Har-Anan Publications Pvt Ltd.
12. Behind the Sri Lankan blood bath – Brahma Chellaney, Sep 10, 2009, Forbes.
13. India wants warships it lent to Sri Lanka back – Ragul Singh, Nov 10, 2009, Hindustan Times
14. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s44hpjZB6kc
15. http://www.defence.lk/new.asp?fname=20100429_05
16. http://www.rediff.com/news/2005/mar/30nsa.htm

Chronology:

03.11.14  Tamil Nadu researcher testifies to OISL on Indian ..

16.11.11  India emerges as main designer of ‘Asian Model’ in..

Related Articles:
12.01.13   Nambiar, India's proxy in UN, complicit in white flag killin..
13.11.11   LTTE losing, SL winning was Norway failing: Norway report te..
11.11.11   Norway ‘LLRC’ distributes blame, washes hands of victims aft..
12.05.09   Prof. Boyle: hold Emergency Meeting of UNSC to stop Tamil ge..