Vaiko’s stripes

Whether V. Gopalasamy, alias Vaiko, is right when he insists that he was misquoted on his remarks on Chandrika Kumaratunge and the Liberat...

Whether V. Gopalasamy, alias Vaiko, is right when he insists that he was misquoted on his remarks on Chandrika Kumaratunge and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam is not the issue. Whether or not the MDMK chief hailed LTTE’s attempts on the Sri Lankan leader’s life in his speech at a conference in Geneva, there is little doubt about his general drift on the issue. It was, even to go by his own clarification, an emphatic declaration of support and sympathy for the Eelam cause and the army of Veluppillai Prabhakaran.

Vaiko, in fact, has never made a secret of his strong, indeed extreme, views and sentiments on the subject. He has worn them on his sleeve, ever since his days in the DMK, when he was once reported to have visited Jaffna on a secret mission. In a recent newspaper interview, he has reiterated his view that the LTTE is nothing less than a glorious liberation movement headed by a leader cast in the likeness of the great like Yasser Arafat and Napoleon Bonaparte.

The sheer consistency of the stance may have merited some appreciation if only it had not been so strikingly incompatible with the elementary norms of coalition politics. Vaiko, speaking for a party that is a part of the National Democratic Alliance ruling at the Centre, just has no business voicing an opinion on the internal affairs of a neighbouring country that New Delhi cannot possibly share. This is not the first time, of course, that an LTTE-related issue has created a problem for the NDA as well as the DMK.

Story continues below this ad

The debate over the demand for clemency to those convicted in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, too, witnessed a political divide in Tamil Nadu, as well within the state-level NDA. The MDMK and the Pattali Makkal Katchi, both represented in the Central government, were strident advocates for clemency. And there was hardly any doubt that the demand was dictated less by a concern for human rights than by the parties’ pro-Eelam plank (considering that they had made no such plea for those convicted in the Indira Gandhi assassination case).

With the entire Congress parivar the TNCC, the Tamil Maanila Congress and the Thamizhaga Rajiv Congress opposing clemency until Sonia Gandhi chose to soften the official stance on chief convict Nalini, the DMK government had a hard time coping with pressure on it to influence the Centre on the issue. That was bad enough, but Vaiko’s indiscretions made it far worse. It created the impression that New Delhi was divided on an important foreign policy issue.

The pan-Tamil nationalism, trumpeted by many political parties and outfits in the period when the LTTE found a safe haven in Tamil Nadu, may seem to belong to the past. The Rajiv tragedy is widely presumed to have ended that reckless phase in the state’s politics which eventually led to a national military folly across the Palk Sraits. Vaiko’s reported observations on a Tamil nation with a single land and a single language should be read as a warning against the possibility of reviving that pernicious legacy. At any rate, it should not be allowed to appear as New Delhi’s official stance.