posted May 24, 2000 07:02 PM            
Top Stories

New Delhi, May 24. (PTI): India and the United States today ruled out support to any independent Tamil State carved out of Sri Lanka and said there was no military solution possible to the ethnic strife on the island nation.

"The US does not support any kind of independent State in Sri Lanka," US Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs Thomas Pickering asserted and was joined by Foreign Secretary Lalit Mansingh who said "that remains our position too."

Rejecting the possibility of any military solution, Pickering, who had wide-ranging consultations with Mansingh, said Washington supported any constructive role by India in Sri Lanka.

On persistent questions whether any evacuation of beleaguered Sri Lankan troops was imminent, Mansingh told reporters that so far there had been no request from Colombo in this regard, adding that according to reports with New Delhi heavy fighting was still raging between Government forces and LTTE.

The top US official, who also held discussions with Defence Minister George Fernandes, said "everything must be done to avert a humanitarian catastrophe" in Jaffna peninsula.

"Humanitarian considerations are paramount in the current situation to avoid innocent civilians being caught in the crossfire," he said.

posted May 24, 2000 07:04 PM         

Kari modhasinhalaya,

Go and beg India to help you?? Ha...haa...ha....

Filthy beggers..

posted May 24, 2000 07:10 PM            
thoge ammata hukkanawa ...

read you illiterate prick .. we never asked for militray support ... india offered humanitarian assistance which has now been turned down by the Govt because we can manage to kick the LTTE scum out of Jaffna on our own!!

posted May 24, 2000 07:17 PM         

kari modhasinhalaya,

go and kick chandrika's pussy.

posted May 24, 2000 09:50 PM         
>Ranjan_Reborn wrote...
>
>Who care about India and US?

Let us for a moment assume that LTTE managed to convince the SL government to give them their 'Eelam state'. Are you saying that 'LTTE' and will be able to setup and run 'Eelam' without the support or the recognition of India or USA? Seriously?

posted May 25, 2000 04:41 AM            
Lanka_S: India will always recgonize Tamil Eelam as a nation state. It's very evident that Eelam would be an ally of India's.

The USA, on the other hand, will quickly change it's tune once Eelam becomes a reality. And if Trincomalee ever comes into the possession of the LTTE, you can trust on the US to fully support the LTTE for their own personal interests.

posted May 25, 2000 05:34 AM            
Speedy ... I beg to differ ,.. there is no way India will support a seperate ealam state in SL because of the danger that poses to them if the Tamil Nadu Tamils start the same seperatist moves in India ...

The US is also bound by their stance against the LTTE which prevents them from supporting any notion of an Ealam state.

[This message has been edited by thadhasinhalaya (edited May 25, 2000).]

posted May 25, 2000 05:20 PM         
Speedy,

I agree with thadhasinhalaya on this. Even if India and US have not made public announcements regarding their stance against an 'Eelam state' (which the HAVE done), common sense tells you that they will not support such a state because if they do, they run the risk of such divisions emerging within their countries.

posted May 25, 2000 05:48 PM         
I see that UK has joined as well... So much for LTTE operations in UK.

----------------------------------------
India, UK reiterate support to Lanka
By L K Sharma

The Times of India News Service

LONDON: Britain and India reiterated their commitment to the ``sovereignty and territorial integrity'' of Sri Lanka when the subject was discussed on phone by Indian External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh with British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook.
----------------------------------------

posted May 27, 2000 03:27 AM            
Lanka_S: Did you read "The Hindu" today? In an article, "...the BJP does not see a separate Tamil Eelam posing any threat to India".

Even when Jaffna was under the control of the LTTE, there were no problems within Tamil Nadu.

Like I said, Tamil Eelam would be more help to India in the politics of South-East Asia.

AS far as the USA is concerned, they will quickly change their stance and allegiance, once the situation becomes favourable FOR THEM.

posted May 28, 2000 06:58 PM         
Speedy,

>Lanka_S: Did you read "The Hindu" today? In an article, "...the
>BJP does not see a separate Tamil Eelam posing any threat to India".

Yes, but India still maintains that they will not recognize a seperate Ealam state in Sri Lanka (whether it poses any threat to India or not).

posted May 28, 2000 09:26 PM            
-

[This message has been edited by Henry (edited May 31, 2000).]

posted May 28, 2000 09:53 PM         
Henry,

Showing your true colours eh? Critisizing the roots of what you support. How low can you get mate? I just hope you are not related to anyone in India or the region for their sake. You are a shame to all humans.

Even the most illiterate person in India will still have some respect - something which you will never have.

[This message has been edited by lanka_s (edited May 28, 2000).]

posted May 29, 2000 08:48 PM            

[This message has been edited by Henry (edited November 16, 2001).]

posted May 31, 2000 03:04 AM            
Lanka_S:
"Yes, but India still maintains that they will not recognize a seperate Ealam state in Sri Lanka (whether it poses any threat to India or not). "
But that wasn't your original argument was it? You were trying to argue that India would have internal problems of division if Tamil Eelam was established. This argument was useless since the Indian government has itself stated that there wouldn't be such problems.

Whether India would recognize Tamil Eelam is a totally different matter.

Henry: I fear your analysis of Gandhi is an extremely harsh one. He was one of the best things that ever happened to India, and the whole world! Although India and Pakistan were huge mistakes, according to India, it wasn't all Gandhi's fault either.

posted May 31, 2000 04:35 AM            
>>"But that wasn't your original argument was it? You were trying to argue that India would have internal problems of division if Tamil Eelam was established. This argument was useless since the Indian government has itself stated that there wouldn't be such problems"

-- so Ealam in SL is not the first step towards forming similar divisions in Tamil Nadu as well???? ... everyone knows that's been on the grand agenda for ages!!! That is why India categorically refuses to support Ealam in SL ... they know if Tigers force Ealam from SL govt Tamil Nadu will be next!!

posted May 31, 2000 06:18 PM         
Speedy,

Both arguments are linked. Here is my original argument...

"Even if India and US have not made public announcements regarding their stance against an 'Eelam state' (which they HAVE done), common sense tells you that they will not support such a state because if they do, they run the risk of such divisions emerging within their countries."

First of all, India HAS announced that they will not recognize any seperate Eelam state. So you don't need to use your 'common sense' to reason out why they have done so. But if you still want to, I believe one of the obvious reasons for India's decision is because it runs the risk of such divisions emerging within India. Surely they will not admit to that because that shows a weekness.

posted May 31, 2000 06:36 PM            
-

[This message has been edited by Henry (edited November 16, 2001).]

posted June 01, 2000 09:26 PM         
What IS a seperate state?

Q: (Mr. Gamini Weerakoon, Ed, Daily Island): You stand against a separate state created here. But, what happens if it is created? What would your reaction be?

A: (Mr. Pickering): I think it is quite clear that it will receive no recognition from anyone. So, I mean, you could go home tonight and declare your house a separate state. The question of making it effective and functioning in dealing with the Sri Lankan authorities, should you intend to become a government beyond your house, would have its own problems. So, I would say, you know, people try this from time to time, but in effect, it is the international community that is the arbiter of who becomes states and who doesn’t become states through a process of recognition and establishment of relations. At the moment, I see this as sort of becoming a dead planet, if that’s what it wants to be.

posted June 02, 2000 07:30 PM            
-

[This message has been edited by Henry (edited November 16, 2001).]

posted June 04, 2000 07:38 AM         
Henry,

For your information, it wasn't from a Sri Lankan source. (Not that I'm agreeing with your absured accusation of press issuing false reports)