25 June 2024 12:48 am Views - 932
The UK Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission on Friday rejected an appeal by the Transitional Government of Tamil Eelam (TGTE ) to lift the proscription on the LTTE in Britain as a terrorist organisation.
During the hearing of an appeal the TGTE argued the LTTE should not be proscribed in the United Kingdom as it seeks to pursue its political and ideological objectives through non-violent means.
Britain was one of the first few countries that proscribed the LTTE. It was in the height of the war between the Sri Lankan armed forces and the LTTE, the UK Secretary of State on March 29, 2001 added the LTTE to the list of proscribed organisations, under the Terrorism Act 2000.
The ruling on Friday by the Appeals Commission was the end of a protracted legal battle fought by the TGTE to get the LTTE de-proscribed in the UK. On December 7, 2018, the TGTE applied to the Home Department to remove the LTTE from the list of designated organisations.
Following a review process that entailed the commissioning of assessments by the UK’s Centre for the Analysis and Assessment of Domestic and International Terrorism Threats, the Secretary of State turned down the application on March 8, 2019.
On October 21, 2020, the Appeals Commission allowed an appeal to this decision. However, the Secretary of State took a new decision to maintain the ban on the LTTE, and the decision was notified to the TGTE on August 31, 2021. Despite the TGTE lodging an appeal against that decision on October 12, 2021, the Commission on Friday dismissed the appeal and ordered the proscription of the LTTE in the UK to continue.
It is interesting to note that these attempts to get the ban on the LTTE lifted were being made by an organisation that wants to carve out a separate Tamil state within the territory of Sri Lanka. Hence, there is little or no doubt that the TGTE wants to revive the LTTE which has never renounced violence or its objective – a separate state - to launch an armed struggle to achieve that objective.
Ironically, Tamil political parties in Sri Lanka no longer want to fight for a separate state, whereas only the Tamil diaspora groups and some leaders of Tamil Nadu have been campaigning for one. Despite the Tamil leaders in Sri Lanka being hesitant to openly clash with those overseas Tamil leaders over this, they have occasionally shown their frustration.
Tamil National Alliance (TNA) leader R. Sampanthan’s speech at the 14th annual convention of the Ilankai Thamil Arasu Katchi (ITAK) in May 2012 was one of the best cases in point. While asserting that “it was the TNA, led by the Ilankai Thamil Arasu Katchi, that primarily represent the Tamil people, following the end of the armed conflict” and the “ITAK does not have a history of armed struggle, which has always rejected such struggle,” Sampanthan appealed to “those who living abroad to think beyond their personal estimations and ideas, and always give importance to the situation of those living in the homeland.”
He added “The diaspora’s political initiatives and public statements on behalf of the Tamil people in Sri Lanka must not negatively affect the situation here. It is the efforts that are made by the people in Sri Lanka, which are made in accordance with the situation in Sri Lanka, and with sensitivity to this situation that will finally bring about concrete results for the Tamil Nation.”
During the Northern Provincial Council election campaign in 2013, C.V.Wigneswaran who assumed office as the Chief Minister of the province subsequent to that election also expressed similar sentiments on the actions of the Tamil Nadu leaders. In an interview with The Hindu, he said “When politicians in Tamil Nadu say separation is the only solution, the Sinhalese masses – many sections of which fear that Tamils would collaborate with India and form a separate State – get very annoyed. We get affected by what is being said there.”
Yet, these messages do not seem to have reached those who campaign in other countries for a separate state in Sri Lanka or they pretend not to have heard those messages for political, financial or survivalist reasons.