Anton Balasingham, the LTTE's ideologue, in an interview to the NDTV in London recently, regretted the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi as a historical, monumental tragedy. 'What has happened is, since we rejected the Sri Lankan accord there were a lot of events that took place creating a gulf between the LTTE and the Govt of India and the Indians later sent an IPKF - Indian Peace Keeping Force to disarm the LTTE and eventually broke out into an open confrontation. We fought a guerrilla war against the Indian army for 2 years and finally the Sri Lankans. We had a negotiation with Sri Lanka and secured the withdrawal of the Indian troops in the 90's and of course finally it was followed by the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi'. Much discussion was generated by this 'confession' of the LTTE, 15 years after the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi by a human bomb. Was this indeed a confession as claimed by some, or is it part of the LTTE's larger strategy?

In the course of leading evidence in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination trial, the Special Investigation Team of the Central Bureau of Investigation had marked an interview of LTTE leader Sadasivam Krishnakumar alias Kittu, recorded in an audio cassette by a journalist of Frontline Magazine in London a couple of months after the assassination. Kittu, one of Prabhakaran's closest aides, was then heading the LTTE's international secretariat. Kittu said that the LTTE had not assassinated Rajiv Gandhi. But what was relevant to the case in what Kittu said was that no decision in the LTTE was ever taken because Kittu or Balasingham wanted it to be taken, but it was always taken after deep analysis by Prabhakaran.

Balasingham has been the official face of both the LTTE and Prabhakaran. The latter has used Anton Balasingham to put forth his views. It follows that the statement that Anton Balasingham has made was made only after it was cleared by Prabhakaran, after deep analysis as usual.

Therefore, if Balasingham said it was a monumental tragedy which needs to be viewed in the context of the IPKF-LTTE confrontation, it is as clear as is possible in the circumstances that the LTTE was making a confessional statement about their role in the assassination. Of course, in the known style of the LTTE, it can be, and indeed was denied; as a confession by the LTTE. Why did they have to make this statement in the present context? That gives a clue to the strategy of the LTTE.

When the LTTE succeeded in getting the IPKF off its back, using subterfuge and a highly productive publicity campaign against the Indian government mounted from Chennai, Prabhakaran was at the height of his popularity, and the LTTE was accepted as a liberation organization by all western capitals. It was only a string of high profile assassinations and terrorist attacks consistently over a few years that finally led to the ban on the LTTE by the United States and the EU and some other countries, seriously affecting the space in which the guerrillas could operate. And now, if their vital war supplies are affected by concerted international action, then without assistance from India and access to Tamil Nadu, the Tigers would face serious trouble to their very survival. This has led to the 'confession' and the characterizing of the assassination as a 'monumental historical tragedy'. Please remember that Balasingham also said that '... And we call upon the Government of India and people of India to be magnanimous to put the past behind and to approach the ethnic question in a different perspective.'

Now we may look at recent developments in Tamil Nadu when, during a rally, pro-LTTE slogans were raised, and there were criticisms over training of Sri Lankan officers in Tamil Nadu. There were demands that they should never be trained by India, and voices that the ban on the LTTE was 'debatable'. More Sri Lankan attacks on the LTTE and there are going to be more demands to stop the genocide against the Tamils. Refugees are going to stream into south Tamil Nadu in huge numbers. The LTTE would then need all the support that they were used to getting in Tamil Nadu, even when the IPKF was operating against them in Sri Lanka. Without that support, t he LTTE would face trouble.

Would they have not got such assistance without the 'confession'? With the evidence that we had against the LTTE and specifically against Prabhakaran in the assassination, the LTTE had become taboo in the state. Their support was gone, except for a few die-hard backers of the Tigers. In this context a contrite LTTE facing extinction, with the Tamils defence less in the Northeast of Sri Lanka was a line that they could try. Hence the expression of regret for the tragedy and the request to be magnanimous. Current developments in Sri Lanka only strengthen this line of thinking.

While the Tamils of Sri Lanka need all our sympathy and consideration, knowing as we do how treacherous the LTTE is, it would be dangerous to give them any quarter. Let us not forget that they had trained and let loose our own boys in the forms of Tamil National Retrieval Troops and Tamizhar Pasarai to create mayhem in Tamil Nadu.