India says no defence pact with Sri Lanka

  • 7 Jan 2006 06:11:55 GMT

    This goes to prove that India will not get directly involved with a hardline govt in SL. Indian seriously considered a defense pact with CBK/Kadirgama and Ranil. Now with Mahinda in power - its a definite No.

    THe LTTE once again calculated correctly, that a MR presidency would be advantageous to them.

    Mahinda, the JVP and Mangala Ponnaweera has NO CLUE on what they are doing, as far as foreign policy is concerned. Mahindas trip to India was a disaster.

  • 7 Jan 2006 07:05:11 GMT

    Quote: `THe LTTE once again calculated correctly, that a MR presidency would be advantageous to them.`

    This is correct. MR presidency is advantageous to LTTE, but not in the way it is implied. JHU, JVP and LTTE are sides of same coin and they help each other for each other`s survival.

    With having MR presidency, LTTE has just got itself locked in a low intensity war, which will justify its existance.

    However MR presidency is not advantageous to SL tamils. Getting MR elected as president have seen the end of creating tamil state under a federal structure for all the practical reasons. The tamil case has gone back to two decades.

    For all the purposes India is already deeply involved in SL, defense pact or no defense pact. And territorial integrity of SL is guranteed.

  • 7 Jan 2006 07:18:15 GMT

    Hey maninder

    long time no see? i thought you ok?:))

    have you had a good xmass and new year?

  • 7 Jan 2006 07:19:26 GMT

    `india says no defence pact with sri lanka`

    whats the catch then?

  • 7 Jan 2006 07:40:24 GMT

    Good to see you again tigeress and happy new year!

    I wasn`t gone. It is just that I became a little busy in the workplace. New year was restricted to a quite evening dinner with my girl and kids in a restaurant in Phuket.

    How was your new year?

    No defense pact with SL for the time being is an Indian position for some time now. There is nothing new in it. When we say that India is playing a well thought out plan in SL, we mean it.

    The ultimate objective of India in SL is to establish a secular and plural democracy there. And India sees LTTE, JVP and JHU as the obstacles for the evolution of political process in SL to that direction.

    India is determined to see a united secular and plural SL. Forces of violance and intimidation will not be allowed to succeed in India`s immediate neighbourhood.

  • 7 Jan 2006 07:46:31 GMT

    Maninder :

    I sincerely hope you are correct.

  • 7 Jan 2006 08:02:37 GMT

    Thanks maninder, I`m OK, nothing so interesting during Xmas or new year.just exchanging presents with family gathering of mine this year.had a good long break from work thats all.wish you all the best in the new year.


    how do you see the indo-lanka accord now?if India do not help,gosl might get help from paki or china?

    or indo-lanka accord dead in some sense?

  • 7 Jan 2006 08:51:28 GMT

    India will honour whatever accord that she has signed with any country. India has never unilaterally reneged any international agreement that she signed since indpenedence.

    It is sure that in case the war officially breaks out, GOSL will be recieving significant military aid overtly and covertly from various countries including India.

    It is also sure that India, US or UK will never allow or accept a tamil eelam led by LTTE in SL. As visiting Indian naval chief put it recently India `underwrites the territorial integrity of Sri Lanka`.

    LTTE has burnt all the bridges with propagating hatred idology, the assasinating of civilian personaliies of international staure and forming alliances with various terrorist organizations in south and south east asia.

  • 7 Jan 2006 09:19:02 GMT


    *India do have some international disputes even today with northern neighbors against what was agreed during independent.

    so I`m not sure whether the Indians are still interested in lanka-indo accord.

    if eelam archived by ltte I`m sure the ltte will transform it self according to the united far as united nations concerned ltte is not a terrorist.

    you Indians invading eelam will be considered as `India`s international dispute`

    (indo-lanka accord signed not because of humanitarian ,the well famous assault on Rajive by sla cemented the bullying attitude of India)

    TO INVADE eelam you have to go through to the security council at the UN.

  • 7 Jan 2006 10:04:46 GMT


    India has not reneged unilaterally on any international agreements that she has signed.

    India do have international disputes in the absence of any agreement. But if there is an agreement, there is no dispute.

    Taliban declared themselves a nation in 1996. But nobody except Saudi Arabia and UAE recognized it.

    If LTTE goes for UDI, who will acknowledge it as a nation? Not even Norvey. Also, with its history of assasinating a former prime minister of India in Indian soil, India will never tolerate LTTE acquiring capabilities of any nature that is a potential threat to India`s security.

    With Prabhakaran and Pottu Amman convicted by a court in India and subsequently being sought by interpol, legally India needs only an invitation from GOSL who represents SL in UN, to help it capturing Prabhakaran and Pottu Amman, to justify any overt involvement in SL.

    Also, you might have noticed how UN sent a high profile represenataive to SL to show its concern over kadirgamer`s assasination.

    Tigeress, you didn`t get it. India or IC cannot afford a separate country to be created along racial or ethnic lines in South Asia. It will have terrible ideological consequences for India.