RAW ,Research and Analysis Wing of IndiaIntelligence Agency met with President Rajapakshe of Sri Lanka when he visited iTrupati in India on February 14.
This was a closely guarded secret.
In 1988, A. Verma, then chief of the Indian secret service, met President J. R. Jayewardene to confirm the implementation of the Indo-Lanka Accord to which India was a signatory. What Professor Rohan Gunaratne revealed in his book titled, Indian intervention in Sri Lanka, in relation to this meeting and the events connected therewith is noted hereunder:
Later it was ferreted out by the journalists.
The last meet of RAW Chief with the president of Sri Lanka was with the deceased prime Minister Jayawardene.
The after math is in the story below.
As of now, the issues India has with Sri Lanka are.
Devolution of Powers for the Tamils.
China’s dominance in Sri Lanka
Tamil Nadu Fishermen’s killing by Sri Lanka.
For Sri Lanka.
The issue of Genocide case against Rajapakshe.
Tamil Nadu Politicians stoking Eelam Issue.
Investment by India in Sri Lanka.
Obviously you do not discuss these issues with an Intelligence Chief!
Story:
February 14, 2013, Colombo. Sri Lanka Guardian) The Indian media reported that Alok Joshi, Chief of India’s Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) had visited President Mahinda Rajapaksa at the Guest House at Tirupati, where he was staying. In practice, a meeting between the Chief of the country’s secret service and visiting foreign Head of State is a rarity. J.R. Jayewardene is the only head of Sri Lanka to have had a meeting with the chief of ‘RAW’. Usually, the chief of ‘RAW’ meets the leader of a foreign country only when there is a crucial issue pertaining to India or a perilous situation involving the country of that leader.
In 1988, A. Verma, then chief of the Indian secret service, met President J. R. Jayewardene to confirm the implementation of the Indo-Lanka Accord to which India was a signatory. What Professor Rohan Gunaratne revealed in his book titled, Indian intervention in Sri Lanka, in relation to this meeting and the events connected therewith is noted hereunder:
“On 26 April 1988, A. Verma, the head ( Read an exclusive interview with A.K. Verma which published by the Sri Lanka Guardian on 2008) of RAW, flew into Colombo. Verma’s visit was known only to a handful of men in Indian and Sri Lanka. In Colombo, only three men knew about it. They were M.M. Gunaratne, Director-General, Intelligence and Security, Ministry of Defence, under whom the Special Task Force (STF) and National Intelligence Bureau (NIB) were placed, Zerny Wijesuriya, Director, National Intelligence Bureau (NIB) and President Jayewardene himself. Even people like Dixit, the high profile Indian High Commissioner, Gamini Dissanayake, influential minister and co-architect of the Accord, General Sepala Attygalle, Defence Secretary, General Cyril Ranatunge, the General Officer Commanding the Joint Operations Command, and W.M.P. B. Manikdewela, the Secretary to the President did not know. Lalith Athulathmudali, the National Security Minister, was also not fully informed – perhaps he would have been partly informed by the effective private intelligence network he operated.
In India, Rajiv Gandhi, the Prime Minister, Grirish Chandra Saxena, the National Security Adviser to the Indian Prime Minister, Chandrasekaran alias Chandran of RAW and only two or three other officials knew. Subsequently, when two prominent Sri Lankans in the government became aware of the RAW connection, they were very annoyed.
Verma travelled undercover and spent about 48 hours in Colombo. He tried to convince Jayewardene the LTTE was interested in joining the mainstream and that he should cooperate with the negotiating intermediary – RAW. Verma held discussions with M.M. Gunaratne on the morning of 27 April. He was well informed about the conflict, and had personally negotiated with the TULF, the militant groups including the LTTE, and was keen to obtain certain assurances from President Jayewardene before he once again met with Kittu in Madras. Verma stated that all Tamil groups were agreeable to enter the political process. He stated that the LTTE too was keen to do so, but subject to certain conditions being satisfied.
RAW head meets Jayewardene
28 April 1988 was historic day when the head of RAW met President Jayewardene. According to a high level source in New Delhi, Jayewardene was cautious. However, he cooperated at least at the beginning, and even Gandhi who intensely disliked the LTTE thought that with the support of Jayewardene, India will be successful in striking a deal with the LTTE. Verma said the LTTE is keen to “surrender 700 of the estimated 1,000 big weapons the LTTE have in their possession and they would like to retain 300 weapons for their security.” Verma added: “With the surrender, a ceasefire would be announced. The LTTE would thereafter publicly support the Accord. The balance weapons will be released gradually, once the LTTE feels assured that a climate of security has descended on the North and East.” Verma asked President Jayewardene whether he could respond to the LTTE by announcing that the Government of Sri Lanka will hold elections in the North and East for once council (under Article 37 A of the Provincial Councils Act). This was to be done when the groups were ready to enter the political process and before the date of the elections for the North and East was to be announced, and soon after all other elections were completed. Verma stated that a referendum as stipulated in the Accord would subsequently be necessary, for people to accept or reject the merger.’ Verma requested Jayewardene to make two other public statements regarding two LTTE requests as an explicit demonstration of goodwill and gesture towards the LTTE. One was to be on the release of detainees in custody. RAW was told that 3,634 had been released and only 627 were in custody, and that even they would be released in due course. The other request was on the use of the 1982 electoral register for the elections. The President agreed to the latter.
The Verma Committee on Crime against Women , in its report has rightly concluded that the identities of the Rape need protection.
Another point comes to my mind.
Nobody approves a Rape much less a one which involves gang Rape as in the case of Jyoti Singh Pandey a.k.a Nirbhaya, Delhi.
(By the way, as one of my readers pointed out how is it that Jyoti has two surnames?)
The rape accused have been arrested.
Under Law none is guilty, unless proved”
The media have been flashing the accused’s names with regularity and in fact they have already completed the trial.
What if they are proved ‘not guilty?”
Is it not proper to afford them the secrecy of their identities?
In a frenzy one should not forget the basics of law,otherwise this will be taken as a precedent for the later cases.
( Ram Singh, the bus driver, and his brother, Mukesh Singh, were both arrested in Rajasthan. Vinay Sharma, an assistant gym instructor, was arrested in Delhi,[41] as was Pawan Gupta, a fruit seller. A juvenile whose name has yet to be confirmed, though he has been referred as Raju a 17 years and 8 month oldminor[44] and native of Uttar Pradesh was arrested by the police at Anand Vihar terminal in Delhi. And, Akshay Thakur, a man who had gone from Bihar to Delhi seeking work, was arrested inAurangabad in Bihar(wiki))
The Verma committee goes on to make some profound observations.
Verma Committee on Rape
”
“If human rights of freedom mean anything, India cannot deny the citizens the right to be different. The state must not use oppressive and repressive labelling of despised sexuality. Thus, the right to sexual orientation is a human right guaranteed by the fundamental principles of equality.
Pointing out that we need to remember that the founding fathers of our Constitution never thought that the Constitution is a “mirror of perverse social discrimination,” the report says, on the contrary, it promised the mirror in which equality will be reflected brightly. “Thus, all sexual minorities, including transgender communities, are entitled to be totally protected.”
“We must also recognise that our society has the need to recognise different sexual orientations as a human reality. In addition to homosexuality, bisexuality, and lesbianism, there also exists the transgender community. “In view of the lack of scientific understanding of the different variations of orientation, even advanced societies have had to first declassify ‘homosexuality’ from being a mental disorder and now it is understood as a triangular development and neurological underpinning owing to genetic reasons,” said the report.
Suggesting that correct knowledge must be disseminated in respect of sexuality and sexual choices without enforcing gender stereotypes, the report says children need to be able to access informed, non-prejudiced sources on sexuality. Challenging the perception of sexuality as being purely heterosexual is an ongoing agenda for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender activism and for counter-socialisation efforts. “Collaborating or networking LGBT activists is a beginning to understanding different sexuality experiences,” Justice Verma says in his report.
Recommending the use of theatrical resources and films in school workshops, which has proven to be extremely effective in gauging gender relations, the panel calls for the use of such audio-visual material to encourage respect and understanding for all genders and sexes.
What does The Committee want to convey?
1.Homosexuality along with Lesbianism, has to be guaranteed by The Constitution .
2.’Raping,Gang Raping,Sodomy,Public Exposure, Pedophilia belong to ‘sexual orientation ‘ and Sexual Minority?
So, The Constitution has to approve of it?
What does the media have to do?
To high light more of the lurid details on-screen and print?
I reiterate that Rape is a vile Crime /along with Kidnapping and has to be dealt with severely but one should exercise caution in arriving at conclusions before the trail is complete.
You must be logged in to post a comment.