In the early hours of the morning of Monday, 4 December 2000, at about 5 a.m. Indian Immigration and Police officials, dressed in civilian clothes, arrived at the humble home of 68 year old M.K.Eelaventhan, at Arumbakkam in Chennai, in Tamil Nadu.They informed him that he was to be escorted to the Immigration Office at Shastri Bavan in Nungambakkam. He was taken instead to the Meenambakkam Airport. Eelaventhan's wife was not informed that her husband was to be deported. At the airport, Eelaventhan protested, sat on the floor and refused to leave voluntarily. The Indian officials bodily carried the 68 year old and somewhat frail Eelaventhan to the Colombo bound, Air Lanka plane. Two Indian officials escorted Eelaventhan on the flight to Colombo and handed him over to the Sri Lanka Immigration Authorities. He was given fifty Sri Lankan rupees and asked 'to go home'. The stated reason for the deportation was that Eelaventhan had overstayed his 'visa'. But, there was no court order which authorised the officials to deport Eelaventhan. Indeed, the officials conceded as much, when they adopted the subterfuge of informing Eelaventhan that he was being taken to the Immigration Office at Nungambakkam. If the deportation was lawful, why was it that Eelaventhan was not informed of the deportation at the time that he was taken from his home? Why was no deportation order served on Eelaventhan? Why was no opportunity given to Eelaventhan to contest the legality of the 'deportation order', if there was one? Why was no opportunity afforded to Eelaventhan to take leave of his wife and family and take his personal effects and belongings with him? Why was Eelaventhan denied his fundamental right to protest against a removal which separated him from his wife and family? In any case, why was Eelaventhan denied an adjudication by a court of the lawfulness of a deportation to Sri Lanka - the very country from which he escaped in 1983, fearing persecution for the political views that he held. Again, thousands of other Eelam Tamils continue to reside in Tamil Nadu without proper 'visa' documents. Why was Eelaventhan alone selected for deportation? Why was Eelaventhan denied his fundamental right to equality before the law? New Delhi did not allege that Eelaventhan was a 'terrorist'. New Delhi did not allege that Eelaventhan belonged to an armed militant group. New Delhi did not allege that Eelaventhan belonged to a banned organisation. New Delhi did not allege that Eelaventhan was a member of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. New Delhi did not allege any of this, because it was fully aware that there was not an iota of evidence to support any such allegation. Yes, Eelaventhan was an indefatigable advocate for an independent Tamil Eelam. Yes, he supported the struggle for Tamil Eelam - but he did not agree with all the actions of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. Yes, he was an unswerving supporter of the Vaddukodai Resolution of the Tamil United Liberation Front. Yes, he worked openly and with passion to secure the democratic mandate that the Tamil people had given for the establishment of an independent Tamil Eelam. Yes, he was a committed supporter of the Gandhian S.J.V.Chelvanayagam. Yes, he agreed without reservation with S.J.V. Chelvanayagam's announcement in 1975: "...I wish to announce to my people and to the country that I consider the verdict at this election as a mandate that the Tamil Eelam nation should exercise the sovereignty already vested in the Tamil people and become free." Eelaventhan was a political activist who spoke with eloquence, and wrote fearlessly. Tamil Eelam was very much part of his being. Unsurprisingly, in the 1977 pogrom against the Tamils, Eelaventhan's home in Nugegoda, in Colombo was targeted and destroyed by Sinhala mobs and Eelaventhan sought refuge in the Saraswathy Hall camp in Bambalapitiya. He himself narrowly escaped with his life after an attack by Sinhala workers at his place of employment, the Central Bank in Colombo. After the genocidal attacks launched on Tamils in Eelam in 1983, Eelaventhan sought refuge in Tamil Nadu, where he continued his political campaign in support of the struggle for Tamil Eelam. He was a committed Tamil nationalist. And, yes, it appears that recently, he also issued statements which welcomed Veerappan's stand on Tamil nationalism. There are those who would dismiss Veerappan as a smuggler and a 'brigand'. Kuttimuni and Thangathurai were also reviled as smugglers. Often it is in the adventurous and in the outlaw, that the spirit of resistance to alien rule first begins to manifest. Today, some Tamil Nadu politicians may be content to play the same role that Appapillai Amirthalingam played in Sri Lanka in the period subsequent to 1977 - engaging in the rhetoric of Tamil nationalism on public platforms and buying space for their Parliamentary activity by being quick to condemn, out of hand, all extra parliamentary actions. It is not necessary to agree with everything that Veerappan may have done to recognise the force of the comment of the Karnataka writer Guna on 'What Caused Veerappan": "The social environment that drove Veerappan into the forests as a sandalwood smuggler or poacher had lit in him the fiery fire of Tamil nationalism, as he had witnessed the (Karnataka) State sponsored anti -Tamil violence for ethnic cleansing. So, Veerappan has don a new role..." It is against this backdrop that the true reason for Eelaventhan's deportation emerges. The true reason was not that Eelaventhan had overstayed his residence 'visa' (which had, in any case, expired more than two years ago). Not to put too fine a point on the matter, the stated 'overstay' reason was simply a convenient cover up for a politically motivated act by the executive branch of the Indian government. The timing of the removal, the selection of Eelaventhan from thousands of other similar Tamil asylum seekers, the way the removal was carried out, and the subterfuge that was adopted, prove that the deportation, was directed to stifle the growth of Tamil nationalism - and to send appropriate signals to others who may be inclined to follow the path that Eelaventhan had had the courage and conviction to tread. But, here, New Delhi is wrong. Not because Tamil nationalism has not taken root in the Indian sub continent. It has. But because patently unjust and inhumane actions, which separate a man from his wife and his loved ones, which punish a man for no lawful cause, which deny a man his freedom of speech, which deny him equality before the law, which deny him judicial review of arbitrary executive action, and which make a mockery of the rule of law, will not stifle but will fertilise the growing togetherness of a people. New Delhi may want to pay more than passing attention to the words of Leonard W.Doob in 1964: ".. if people feel that someone with whom they identify themselves has been killed, tortured, or otherwise deprived of some value, their indignation is likely to be great and perhaps long enduring...the emergence of a martyr... facilitates patriotism and nationalism... " (Leonard W.Doob: Patriotism and Nationalism, Yale University Press, 1964 - see also - What is a nation?) Additionally, New Delhi may want to revisit the words of the Bengali writer, Pramatha Chaudhuri in 1920: "...It is not a bad thing to try and weld many into one but to jumble them all up is dangerous, because the only way we can do that is by force...To be united due to outside pressure and to unite through mutual regard are not the same.." Unity will not come by attempting to suppress the growth of the separate national identities of the peoples of the Indian subcontinent. The unity of India will not be secured by actions such as those taken, in relation to Eelaventhan. At the direction of the Indian authorities, Eelaventhan was unlawfully and agonisingly separated from his wife and family, denied recourse to the Courts and arbitrarily handed over to the tender mercies of Sri Lanka - a Sri Lanka which is notorious for its human rights record, where torture of Tamil detainees is 'widespread and standard procedure' and where murder of Tamil prisoners in custody is a recurrent phenomenon. And here, it has to be said that the efforts of some Tamil Nadu political leaders to persuade New Delhi to obtain assurances from Sri Lanka for the safety of Eelaventhan, will be seen by many Tamils as attempts to secure that the fox will look after the chicken in the chicken pen - with care and affection. These Tamil Nadu political leaders (who are anxious to retain their 'influence' with New Delhi) cannot be unaware of the fate that befell Kumar Ponnambalam in January 2000. The price that Eelaventhan will be called upon to pay for his safety, will be to maintain a discreet silence on the Tamil national question - and that, after all, was what the deportation was about, and presumably both New Delhi and Colombo will be satisfied if that particular end result is achieved. The truth is that New Delhi and Colombo have connived in the violation of the rule of law, so that each may advance its perceived short term political ends. |
The truth is that Eelaventhan had sought asylum in Tamil Nadu. He had committed no crime - and that was why no charge was laid against him in a court of law. He was punished by an executive fiat. He was punished because he was a Tamil and because he voiced the pain, the anguish and the aspirations of his people. |