Jain Commission - Growth of Tamil Militancy Chapter 3 sections 15 to 20

Tamils - a Trans State Nation..

"To us all towns are one, all men our kin.
Life's good comes not from others' gift, nor ill
Man's pains and pains' relief are from within.
Thus have we seen in visions of the wise !."
- Tamil Poem in Purananuru, circa 500 B.C

Home

Whats New

Trans State Nation

One World

Unfolding Consciousness

Comments

Search

Growth of Sri Lankan Tamil Militancy in Tamil Nadu
Chapter III - Phase III (1989 -May 1991)

68.2 Dr. S. Chandrashekharan, CW-50, retired as Additional Secretary in the Cabinet Secretariat in 1991. He came on deputation to the Cabinet Secretariat in 1970 and served as Assistant Director until 1980, and as Deputy Director from 1981 to 1985, as Joint Secretary from 1985 to 1988 and thereafter as Additional Secretary till his retirement. He was incharge of Sri Lanka from 1981 to June, 1990 in different capacities. He gave a detailed account of intercepting clandestine wireless messages by the field stations and the processing units at the Headquarters. About LTTE, he deposed,

"LTTE was operating from Tamil Nadu, LTTE was communicating from Tamil Nadu to Jaffna. They used to shift frequently, so their locations would change. When IPKF operation was going on, LTTE's presence was there in Tamil Nadu. They were supporting their war efforts while they were in Tamil Nadu. Baby Subramaniam was Propaganda Chief of the LTTE in Madras since 1983".

Dr. Chandrashekharan deposed about the view of Prabhakaran on the Accord. He said that he has no knowledge at the time of signing of the Accord, whether Prabhakaran was in agreement or not, but at a later stage he expressed his disagreement. He had occasions to meet Prabhakaran many a time.

About LTTE's liaison with the political parties in Tamil Nadu, he deposed, "LTTE was with Shri M.G. Ramachandran till he died. The DMK also found a good opportunity to get in close to LTTE after Shri M.G. Ramachandran's death. LTTE exploited the Tamil Nadu's politics, I would say, to the fullest extent. If the top is with the LTTE, the whole down the line would be with the LTTE".

Here is an officer who, in his official capacity, possesses special knowledge about the Sri Lankan affairs and LTTE activity not only in Sri Lanka but also in Tamil Nadu, and he had been very categorical in expressing his view that if the top is with the LTTE, meaning thereby, if the DMK leadership is with the LTTE, the whole down the line would be with the LTTE.

68.3 The final report submitted to the Government on 'Operation Pawan' records, "The assessment of the Indian High Commission on this point was that the IPKF had completed the major portion of its task and the LTTE could be militarily neutralised in another 8-10 weeks provided it did not get financial and other war like assistance from Tamil Nadu". "However, the supply of arms and assistance through Tamil Nadu to the LTTE continued and it became apparent that LTTE would continue to fight till it was able to salvage a face saving agreement".

68.4 Commodore J.P. Carneiro (Retd.), Commander, Coast Guard (East), Madras, submitted his affidavit pursuant to the questionnaires issued by the Commission. He mentioned the details of seizures. According to his affidavit, he gave the details of the seizures from 1984 to 1991. The total amount of seizures in the year 1989 is Rs.5.5526 crores. There were no seizures in the year 1987, and in the year 1988 the seizures value is Rs.25,400/-. The figure of the total seizures is highest during the year 1989.

68.5 The Commission examined Major General M. Bhatia, Director, Signal Intelligence, as CW/49. He produced Signal Intelligence collation register of intercepts of the period 1990 & 1991. Signal Intelligence of the Tri Service organisation intercepted a large number of wireless messages of the LTTE during this period, which give an indication of the wide spectrum of LTTE activities in Jaffna and Tamil Nadu. The intercepts also indicate that during the period, the LTTE was being supported by the DMK. The intercepts are at Annexure M- 121. Some important messages are excerpted below :-

C/S 14 instructed C/S 32 to meet a person at Nagapattinam to discuss about the situation of Eelam. In case person is not found at Nagapattinam he might have gone to Trichy, Vedharanyam etc. Then C/S 32 replied that the person might have gone to Madras.

C/S PA informed C/S 14 that on 08 Jan Indian High Commissioner at Sri Lanka will explain SL situation to Tamil Nadu Governor and Chief Minister Karunanidhi.

C/S MO informed C/S AC that Indian Ministers Upendra and Unnikrishna are contacting Nedumaran who was a close contact with LTTE and discussing about LTTE stand. Later they will talk to other (militant) organisation accordingly. C/S 14 instructed C/S 48 to go to a place which LTTE Man Durai visited. Man at that place will provide all required item continuously for the month.

C/S 555 passed following to C/S 347 on 21 Jan all Tamil organisation will assemble in Madras to discuss with Tamil Nadu CM and other leader. North Eastern region envoy will also attend later they will go to Delhi to discuss with Indian PM and other party leaders. 4 points of Thimpu talks will be their main point for discussion Sinhalese colonisation in Eastern station be prevented and are already occupied be vacated. Re-election in Eastern States be avoided. Devolution of powers. EPRLF leader Padmanabha, ENDLF leader Gnanesekaran, TELO leader Selvan and EDF leader Bala Kumar will attend the meeting. Invitation is extended to LTTE leaders also. EPRLF stated if points submitted during Thimpu talks fulfilled they won't mind dissolving North Eastern provincial Council and face election. If SL Government fulfill above condition chances of peace likely in Tamil Area.

C/S 555 told C/S 433 that LTTE is behind the Ramanathapuram incident, the van in which LTTE was travelling was carrying drugs when it was stopped by police.

LTTE HQ issued following notification under heading 'Tamil Eelam & Tamil Nadu' "People of Tamil Eelam and Tamil Nadu interconnected with each other historically and racially. Tamil Nadu contributed lot for our liberation struggle and efforts to raise voice in many international forums whenever Sinhalese Government let loose violence and genocide on Tamil Eelam people. I extended staunch support for our armed struggle in Tamil Eelam. Same support again extended for two years when Tamil Eelam struggled against Indian aggressive forces. TN took side of Tamil Eelam and condemned Indian forces, despite being an integral part of India.

We can not rely upon any country for help or support. We have to rely upon our own strength and our own brothers of Tamil Nadu. TN must recognise liberation struggle of Tamil Eelam and we have belief on them. It gives further hope to us by observing recent developments in TN. They did not welcome Indian forces which returned after committing large scale massacares of Tamils. Also TN had not given shelter for those traitors who joined hands with Indian forces.

TN Government raised voice against Cong(I) members of TN assembly who insulted our leader Mr.Prabhakaran. Cong(I) leaders denounces TN Chief Minister. Mr. Karunanidhi as anti- national when he condemned act of killing innocent Tamils. It being an act of anti national for Cong(I) men if some one condemns deliberate extermination of Tamil race. In their view, it would be patriotism if supported genocide. But, people of TN whole heartedly accepted concept of Tamil Eelam, our liberation struggle, our organisation which leads this struggle and our leader Prabhakaran inspite of concentrated effort made by Indian Govt and broadcasting media to spoil name of organisation and our leader through false allegations and fabricated news.

People of TN proud of our leader Prabhakaran and keep his photo in their homes. Cong(I) leaders trying their best to separate people of T/Eelam & TN.

TN must identify these anti-Tamil elements. People of TN express feeling of affection towards their fellow Tamils rather than blind patriotism. Their affection is reflected in action of Kalaignar(Sobriquet of TN Chief Minister Mr.Karunanidhi). Cong(I) leaders supported genocide of Tamils by Indian forces condemned by international communities and amnesty international communities and amnesty international-wing not even by Sinhalese government. This shows anti-Tamil attitude of Cong(I). We need to get support for our liberation struggle from people of Tamil Nadu.

P 458 apprehended one FGD on 251300, 06 miles North east of point Pedro on its way from Vedaranyam to Velvettithurai. Crew members 02 Sri Lankans. Items recovered 15 packages containing sarees, sarangs and 01 speaker system.

P 457 reported Con(N) that she cited one Indian trawler at 062300 West of Delft. Trawler was on its way from India to Pankudutivu. P 457 destroyed the trawler using 20 MM and 12.7 MM guns. Crew members were (01 Sri Lankan and 03 Indians) arrested and recovered 600 litres of diesel.

In a capture report by Jaya Sagar informed Com(W) that one Indian type Vallam with inboard engine was apprehended on 17 Dec. Four miles SW of Talaimannar. Occupants jumped overboard. Contrabands recovered from the Vallam were (1) 20 packages of beedies (2) approx 750 litres of petrol in two cans (3) approx 100 litres of diesel in two cans (4) approx 150 litres of lub. oil in three cans (5) 10 empty barrels (6) 01 used wrist watch (7) cash Indian Rs. 88.

P 468 apprehended 120 ft. FGD at 042015 five miles North of Matakal. Investigations reveals that occupants paid Rs. 3000 per head for ferrying them to India.

P 458 reported FAF 4 that she apprehended 6 smuggling and 01 terrorist boat in the year 1990.

(7) 14 Aug 90 - 0750 - 24 miles N of Pt. Pedro P 454 reported FAF 4 that she apprehended 3 smuggling and 3 terrorist boats in the year 1990.

Com (E) Promulgated by a general message stating intelligence reveal movements of LTTE boat take place between Tamil Nadu and Mullaitivu. Ships/craft on passage/patrol to exercise vigilance and intercept the movements.

Uyilankulam instructed Mannar to inform to inform * to send code sheets Tiger - 1 and Tiger - 2 to his location immediately.

C/s 91 asked PFLT HQ Dharmapuram to pass message directly to C/s 94 as code sheet Tiger - 3 not possessed by him.

68.6 Shri J.N. Dixit was the Indian High Commissioner in Colombo from 26th May, 1985 to 10th April, 1989 and appeared before the Commission as BLW-12. He deposed:- (11th April, 1996)

" The Tamil militant groups had extensive contacts with all Tamil political parties in Tamil Nadu." " Not only the Sri Lankan Government but political forces in Tamil Nadu continued to supply arms and resources to the LTTE, when IPKF operations were going on." " This is my general perception on reading reports that Shri Karunanidhi was critical of IPKF and supportive of LTTE. He was Chief Minister, Tamil Nadu, at that time. Cross sections of political leaders of Tamil Nadu gave assistance to LTTE as parties ( not Tamil Nadu Government ) even after the operations of IPKF commenced." He further shared the information with the Commission. According to him, financial resources, payments and logistical material given by various segments of political forces from Tamil Nadu to LTTE after the Indian Peace Keeping Force launched its operations against the LTTE.

The material supplied and support provided from Tamil Nadu to the LTTE between October - November, 1987 to April, 1989.

4. Different kinds of electrical batteries for military purposes including manufacture of improvised explosive devices.

7. Transition shipping facilities on the Tamil Nadu coast specially from the coast line stretching from Nagapattinam to Rameswaram and Dhanushkodi.

8. Medical facilities were provided to the LTTE cadres in different hospitals in Tamil Nadu specially LTTE cadres injured during their operation against IPKF.

Practically, all regional political parties of Tamil Nadu provided such support. The main figures who contributed to this arrangement from Tamil Nadu were -

(e) Some officials from Tamil Nadu Police in charge of security on the coast line of Tamil Nadu.

It is this continuing support from Tamil Nadu which enabled LTTE to successfully resist the Indian armed forces after LTTE had violated the commitments to which it gave to the Governments of India and Sri Lanka to abjure violence and to join democratic processes as envisaged in the Indo-Sri Lankan Agreement.

This information was given to him during the last two years of his tenure as High Commissioner for India in Sri Lanka. The information was given to him by middle-level figures among the Tamil political figures, residents in Colombo who had contacts with LTTE, by representatives of other Tamil militant groups who were supportive of Indo- Sri Lanka Agreement and by middle and junior level officers of the Indian Peace Keeping Force, during his visits to their areas of operation in Sri Lanka, except the Congress Party all political parties in Tamil Nadu who were involved in continuing to give support to violent activities of the LTTE against Indian Armed Forces.

It may be stated that Shri V. Gopalaswamy did not offer himself to come into the witness box although opportunity was afforded to all Section 8 (B) noticees; but he failed to avail that opportunity.

68.7 Shri Chandra Shekhar, former Prime Minister of India, deposed on 26.4.1994 on the LTTE activities. According to him:

"Yes, that is true that LTTE activities were going on in DMK Government during the DMK Government headed by Shri M. Karunanidhi. I must have written a letter to Home Minister Shri Mufti Mohammad Sayeed regarding the LTTE activities in Tamil Nadu. When I became the Prime Minister, lots of reports were received about the LTTE activities including training camps in Tamil Nadu. I did make a statement in the Parliament regarding LTTE links not only with ULFA but also with all other terrorist groups. I cautioned Mr. Karunanidhi to take steps against LTTE activities thrice but he did not pay heed and his Ministry was dissolved".

Shri Chandra Shekhar did make a speech in Parliament on 10.1.1991 (Exhibit 1). He further deposed:-

"During DMK regime in Tamil Nadu, murders after murders took place including murder of Padmanabha and no arrests were effected. In those days, National Front Government was at the Centre".

"Murders and smuggling of arms and other activities were going on not only during the regime of Shri V.P. Singh but also during the regime of Shri Rajiv Gandhi and during my own regime because of terrorist activities which we were not able to control".

"I had seen the reports on militant LTTE activities in Tamil Nadu from Tamil Nadu Government when I was in the Government and I also received reports about the same from other intelligence agencies. Speech (Exhibit 1) was not a prelude but a warning, caution and a friendly suggestion to behave properly; otherwise, they were inviting trouble".

"It is wrong to say that any ground was prepared or any plan was made for the dismissal of the DMK Government. I am the last person to be pressurised as proved by subsequent events".

There is emphatic denial by Shri Chandra Shekhar that any ground was prepared or any plan was made for the dismissal of the DMK Government. His categorical statement is sufficient to discredit the contention that the I.B. reports were fabricated and engineered to malign the DMK party and dismiss its Government. Rather, from the statement of Shri Chandra Shekhar, it would appear that he had cautioned Shri Karunanidhi on the LTTE's anti- national activities not only once but thrice and, according to him Shri Karunanidhi did not pay heed.

"I also stand by what was alleged and stated in the affidavit of the AICC(I) in respect of LTTE vis-a-vis the then Tamil Nadu Government and the then Central Government headed by Shri V.P. Singh".

Shri Narasimha Rao adhered to the contents of the affidavit of Smt. Rajendra Kumari Bajpai, General Secretary, AICC(I), No.36/92-JCI) in respect of the above subject. The said affidavit states :

"The new DMK Government forged close links with the LTTE and the LTTE was allowed to establish bases in Tamil Nadu. The LTTE militants and operatives were free to move into and out of Tamil Nadu. Smuggling became the order of the day in the coastal areas of Tamil Nadu. Gold, guns, ammunition and drugs were smuggled into the country. There is voluminous evidence to establish that the DMK encouraged the LTTE to carry on these illegal activities regardless of their threat to national security. There is evidence that Shri M. Karunanidhi, leader of the DMK and then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu met LTTE representatives on several occasions. Among the representatives that he met were Shri Natesan and Shri Kasi Anandan. Information received from the Central Government by the State Government was routinely passed on to the LTTE so that LTTE could take evasive action and avoid coming into conflict with the law and order machinery. There is reason to believe that the plans drawn by the Central Government to locate the clandestine communication centres (including wireless stations) set up by the LTTE in Tamil Nadu, were revealed to the LTTE in July, 1990.

That on 19.6.1990, LTTE caused the murder of Shri Padmanabha, leader of the EPRLF (another Sri Lankan Tamil Group) and several of his colleagues in Madras city. The DMK Government made no attempts to apprehend the culprits although it is on record that they travelled nearly 300 Kms. to a coastal village in Thanjavur district and made good their escape to Sri Lanka. The case was never properly investigated. It is prayed that the Hon'ble Commission may be pleased to summon all and every record relating to the aforesaid case of the murder of Shri Padmanabha and others.

That the State Government devised ingenious ways and schemes to provide funds to the LTTE from the State Exchequer. The State Government acquiesced in the LTTE procuring medicines and other supplies for its cadres, both in Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka. The State Government pretended to implement a scheme requiring the registration of all Sri Lankan nationals in Tamil Nadu as well as requiring all house owners to notify the renting out of houses to Sri Lankan nationals. The scheme was a charade. It was never implemented honestly.

That despite the growing number of crimes perpetrated by the LTTE in Tamil Nadu, not a single arrest was made in any of the crimes committed by the LTTE during this period. Secret instructions were issued to the police not to take any action against the LTTE. All organs of the State were threatened or advised to lay their hands off the LTTE. The LTTE was allowed to become a law unto itself. In fact, LTTE established a vast and widely connected network in Tamil Nadu.

That all the happenings in Tamil Nadu were well and fully known to the Government of India. In particular, both intelligence agencies, namely, the I.B. and R.& A.W. reported to the Central Government from time to time about the growing menace of the LTTE in Tamil Nadu. All these reports are a matter of record. The Government under Shri V.P. Singh was fully aware of the matter. Yet it did not take any action against the LTTE or the State Government. In fact, the Government under Shri V.P. Singh turned a deaf ear and a blind eye to the miscreant happenings in Tamil Nadu. It is prayed that the Hon'ble Commission may be pleased to summon all the reports made by the I.B. and R. & A. W. to the Central Government about the activities of the LTTE during the period between January 1989 to May, 1991.

That, as evidence of the DMK's attitude to the LTTE, it is pertinent to note that when the IPKF was withdrawn from Sri Lanka by the Central Government, Shri M. Karunanidhi, the then Chief Minister, publicly declined to appear at a ceremony to welcome the returning IPKF soldiers who had done their duty according to the commands of their Government. Shri M. Karunanidhi and his party leaders made a number of statements denigrating the IPKF and praising the LTTE".

On 10.5.1997, Shri P.V. Narasimha Rao further deposed, "I completely deny that the serious allegations made in the Parliament were only with the concerted effort of the Congress Party along with alliance of the AIADMK party for the purpose of dismissing the DMK Government. We believed the allegations to be true which were levelled against the DMK Government. I did not verify the truth or otherwise of the serious charges levelled against the DMK Government when I became the Prime Minister".

68.9 Shri S.R. Balasubramaniam, Leader of Opposition, Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly at the relevant time was also summoned as a witness by Shri K. Ramamoorthy, President, TNCC(I) and he was allowed to file his affidavit (No.224/94-JCI dated 1.7.1994). In his affidavit, he stated that he was leader of the Congress Legislative Party and a recognised leader of the Opposition in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly and was functioning as a Whip of the Congress(I) Party during the period from 1989 to 1991. He stated :

"During the years 1989-1991 when the DMK Government led by Shri M. Karunanidhi was ruling the State of Tamil Nadu, there were lots of LTTE activities going on the soil of Tamil Nadu. This was the main political step which was being currently adopted in Tamil Nadu Assembly as well as in the media during that time. The LTTE activities mainly consisted of running training camps for Tamil youth in various parts of Tamil Nadu and its smuggling activities with regard to petrol, diesel, drugs, arms etc. on the coastal areas of Tamil Nadu. There was one such camp about which I received relevant information of training Tamil youth at Nemakadu in Sniran area near Udumalpet, Coimbatore district. I made a public statement which was reported widely by the National Local Press. I had spoken about the camp near Sinran in the Legislative Assembly in the month of May itself".

Shri Balasubramaniam produced the report appeared in the Indian Express dated 20.6.1990. He further stated :

"During that period, there were instances of kidnapping of Tamil fishermen from the coastal areas by the LTTE militants who took them to Sri Lanka and confined them there for several days, terrorising and threatening them not to venture in the sea beyond a certain point for the purpose of fishing. There was discussion in Tamil Nadu Assembly with regard to one such incident of abduction from the coastal area of Nagapattinam where 11 Tamil Nadu fishermen were kidnapped in 58 boats of Sri Lanka by LTTE militants". A Press clipping of this report was also produced by him. The report states :

'LTTE continues to train members of Dravida Khazagam (D.K.) Group at Nemakadu in the Sinaro area of Udumalpet. Congress(I) Party Whip S.R. Balasubramaniam alleged on Tuesday. He insisted that despite the denial of the State Government about LTTE camps in Tamil Nadu, there was evidence to show that the Tigers were very much there'. The report states 'The LTTE men were moving from Marayur to Udumalpet at night to collect supplies. About a dozen vehicles used regularly by the militants were easily identified by the locals. The police were apparently adopting a 'no confrontation' approach to the whole issue of LTTE men and their supporters in Tamil Nadu. This was evident when a group of LTTE supporters took out a procession in Coimbatore four days ago condemning those opposing the Tigers and an effigy was also burnt. Strangely not a single policeman was seen. After everything was over, Police had filed a case that a D.K. group was active in Coimbatore supporting the LTTE'".

68.10 On 25th February, 1991, Shri P. Chidambaram intervened in the Lok Sabha and made a speech (Ex. 440) describing in details the LTTE activities in Tamil Nadu when the Statutory Resolution was moved with regard to imposition of the President's Rule in Tamil Nadu.

Shri P. Chidambaram, in his deposition as CW-27, on 21.11.1996, stated : (Annexure M-122)

"My speech in Parliament reflected the position of my party on the issue of the dismissal of the DMK Government and proclamation of President's Rule in Tamil Nadu. That was a political statement made on behalf of my party in the debate on President's Rule. I offered in my speech to lead evidence to substantiate the allegations on behalf of the Party. I had no difference with what I had expressed in Parliament on behalf of the Party."

" I intervened in the Lok Sabha and made the speech on 25.2.1991, marked Exhibit 440, page 505. To the best of my knowledge, what I said then was correct. This is a statement made by me in my capacity as Member of Parliament. I believe I have complete immunity in respect of speeches made by me in Parliament. Information come to political parties and political persons from a number of sources. We also form our own impressions. On that basis, I intervened in the debate to state the position of my party on the discussion which was going on in the House. There were informations and materials with me on the basis of which I made the state in the Parliament. I cannot say now who gave me which piece of information nor the time when information was received by me."

Although, Shri Chidambaram adhered to the contents of his speech in the Lok Sabha made on 25.2.1991, but it looked from his deposition that he has gone a little mild and soft in his deposition as compared to the contents of his speech. He said that to the best of his knowledge what he said then was correct. What he means to say when he made a mention that it was a political statement made on behalf of his Congress Party in the debate on the President's Rule in Tamil Nadu ? and what he meant to state that he believed that he has complete immunity in respect of speeches made by him in Parliament ? Can a Member of Parliament be allowed to speak anything he likes in total disregard of the truth ? Does he want that the House may believe the statement, though it may all untruth and factually incorrect; The question is whether the accusations levelled by Shri Chidambaram in his speech against the DMK Party Rule were nothing but all falsehoods or unfounded accusations ? Making of a political statement does not mean stating all false or unfounded facts.

"....There are four areas which I wish to deal with. When I do so, I would be constrained to make very serious allegations, very serious charges and I would ask the Hon'ble Members to bear with me. I do so with a full sense of responsibility. I take the responsibility for every statement which I made and at the end of it all, I will demand and I urge honourable members to join me in demanding that a high- powered inquiry should be instituted to find out all that has happened in Tamil Nadu in the last two years. I do not want my charges to remain as charges; I do not want my allegations to remain as allegations. Those charged must have an opportunity to defend themselves. Those of us who made a charge must have an opportunity to lead evidence in support of our charge and let the world know what happened in Tamil Nadu in the last two years.

There are four broad heads on which I wish to speak. Firstly is the subversion of the law and order machinery in Tamil Nadu to cater to the needs of the militants, particularly the LTTE.

Secondly is political nexus between the National Front leaders and Ministers on the one hand and the LTTE on the other.

Thirdly is the machinations of key civil servants to advance their personal interests and the political interests of the DMK. And fourthly the massive cover-up indulged in by the V.P. Singh Government and the Karunanidhi Government during the 1990 when intelligence reports had brought to surface all that was going on in Tamil Nadu.

What happened in this period of 12 months between 17th February 1990 and 2nd February 1991 is the most deplorable story in the history of Tamil Nadu. In April, 1990, the 'Q' Branch of the Police of the State of Tamil Nadu established formal contacts with the LTTE. I believe there is evidence that a LTTE leader met the Q Branch and a detailed plan was drawn up on how LTTE activities could be carried on in Tamil Nadu without interference from the Police.

Every movement of the EPRLF particularly of Mr. Padmanabha and other senior leaders, was conveyed by the State police to the LTTE. When Padmanabha came to Madras in the first or second week of June, his arrival in Madras was notified to the LTTE. The location of the EPRLF house was conveyed to the LTTE and on 19th June, 1990, the most dastardly crime to have been committed in recent times in the city of Madras was committed. Almost sixteen or seventeen EPRLF cadres, including Padmanabha, were killed by the LTTE.Not only did they kill them, they traversed 350 kilometers from Madras to Thanjavur coast and this wonderful Central Government and this great Tamil Nadu Police of Karunanidhi could not intercept them or stop them while they traversed 350 kilometers from Madras to Thanjavur coast and escaped by a boat via Palk Strait.The Chief Minister met two chosen emissaries of the LTTE - Mr. Kasi Anandan and Mr. Natesan.

On the 26th of June, 1990, the Chief Minister met these two emissaries. On that day, that is seven days after this murder and assassination, a sum of Rs.four lakhs were paid by the DMK to the LTTE. An hon. Member of Parliament was present at the meeting and at that meeting the Chief Minister is reported to have told LTTE leaders: 'Take me into confidence before you launch any action here so that I can warn my police. Padmanabha is a betrayer, so is Varadaraja Perumal. My only regret is that Padmanabha should have been killed in Tamil Nadu and thereby I have the obnoxious duty of placing a wreath on the body of Padmanabha, but I will not join the funeral procession'.

On 14th May, 1990, the Q Branch of the Tamil Nadu Police registered a case against five persons in Coimbatore. Accused No. 1 was a person by name Aruchami, the District Secretary of the Dravida Kazhagam.... The charge was that the underground arms factory was manufacturing arms, grenades and ammunition. Arul-89 is the name of the grenade which was manufactured. Pasilan-2000 is the name of the ammunition manufactured.

A major operation was set up here to procure boats to use them for smuggling gold and arms into Tamil Nadu as well as smuggling out diesel, petrol and other POL products. Between July 1990 and December 1990, there was an average of two to three landings per week, may be more. During this period of six months, one lakh litres of petrol alone had been taken out of Tamil Nadu. How did this happen? The then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu met Natesan, the appointed emissary, on 2nd July, 1990; ..... a detailed blue-print was drawn up of the villages which will be converted to coastal landing points.

The whole area has been cleared so that the boats can come whenever they like and go whenever they like. On a specific request made by the LTTE, the then Home Secretary said Mallipatnam will also be cleared for these landings.

On 12th December, 1989, Mr. Govindarajan, a Customs Inspector and four other constables were abducted; they returned on the 24th of December, 1989.

They were abducted by the LTTE, taken to a remote place in Sri Lanka, kept as hostages and captious for 12 days and brought back to Tamil Nadu.

An ULFA cell was set up in Tamil Nadu in February, 1990. The objects were the following :

i. Tamil Nadu should have few safe houses which can provide sanctuary to ULFA cadres if they are under pressure in Assam, and if they escape to Tamil Nadu, there must be safe houses.

ii. Medical aid for injured cadres, which was very successfully carried out by falsifying records in the Christian Medical College, Vellore.

....On the 12th of December, 1990, after the change of Government at the Centre, the Chief Minister once again meets Shri Kasi Anandan. On the 19th December, 1990, he meets another Emissary Shri Sachidanandam. He is under pressure from the Central Government, he says. He says: "Paramilitary forces are arriving in Tamil Nadu very soon. Therefore, go into hiding." I charge the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu for having passed on information to the LTTE that the paramilitary forces are arriving and advising them to go into hiding."

"It would therefore appear that Shri Chidambaram's position on the DMK-LTTE link in 1991 was rather stronger that the phraseology he has used before this Commission."

"To a certain extent, I was aware of deteriorating situation of law and order during the period 1989-90."

"It is correct that I made the statement in my speech before the Parliament that no arrests were made in Padmanabha case and the assassins traversed 350 Kms."

"I do not believe that the allegations which I made were wild or false. They were made to the best of my knowledge and information. This statement of mine applies to all allegations contained in my speech."

"I had interacted with my party cadres, about landing points. No cadre of my party gave any date of start of the landing points. During 1989-90 general belief was that these spots had become landing spots and there were activities on these spots. I had this information from my party workers and members of the public."

"Whatever information I had is contained in my speech. I have nothing to add to that."

"If the speech refers to the Home Secretary, then it is the Home Secretary. I think my speech refers to Home Secretary. I have nothing to add to what I have said in Parliament with regard to Home Secretary. There was no occasion for me to verify the nexus between the civil servant and the LTTE. What was the massive cover up for which a reference has been made by you at Col. 507 which states "fourthly the massive cover up indulged in ..... going on in Tamil Nadu." Whatever information I had, I had narrated in my speech and I have nothing to add to that speech."

"My statement recorded on 6.11.96 on pages 11 and 12 in respect of my speech in the Lok Sabha on 25.2.91 is correct. I made a speech as a spokesman of the Party and I intervened in the Debate to state the position of my party on the discussion which was going on in the House, and I made the speech with a sense of responsibility. There was no distinction between my position and my party's position. In fact my position was my party's position at that time."

Q. Mr. Karunanidhi has made a statement before the Commission " I have never been a supporter of LTTE. Are you agreeing with that statement of Shri Karunanidhi ?

Ans. I do not know his position. All I know is DMK during the relevant period, besides other parties, extended sympathy for the Tamil cause as espoused by various militant groups including the LTTE.

Q. Do you agree with the view that after coming to power in 1989, the T.N. Government and the DMK party were great supporters of LTTE.

Ans. I think they were sympathetic to Tamil militant groups including the LTTE. I am not aware of any financial support or any other support given by the DMK Government or the DMK party.

"I think the DMK Government and DMK Party were sympathetic to LTTE when the DMK was in power in 1990 and 1991. I am aware that the DMK Government's representative or the Chief Minister did not receive the IPKF but I am not aware of any shouting in Tamil Nadu Assembly where the shouts were "Long live Prabhakaran." After becoming part and parcel of P.V. Narasimha Rao's Government I did not move for appointment of any High Powered Committee to go into the investigation of Padmanabha murder case, as was demanded by me in the Parliament in my speech on 25.2.1991. It was referred to the T.A.N.S.I.T. and two Commissions of Inquiry have been appointed by the Government I did not make any effort for a separate Commission to go into the Padmanabha murder case."

Commenting upon Shri Chidambaram's deposition where he has denied awareness of financial assistance given by DMK party, Shri Mani Shankar Aiyer drew the attention to specific utterances of Shri Chidambaram in this regard (Ex. 611 & 611A) and stated "-

".... after the DMK and TMC came into a political relationship, Shri P. Chidambaram has started singing a very different tune."

Ex. 611A lists out several press reports of Shri P. Chidambaram's utterances on the subject which were compiled in an article published in Dinamalar, a Tamil daily, Tiruchy edition , dated 12.11.96. Some reports are summarised below :-

Shri Chidambaram charged that -that he had been cautioning the spread of arms culture. rowdyism and the bomb culture in Tamil Nadu.

While speaking to the pressmen in Karaikudi on 3.6.91 he stated that "it was the members of the DMK who created a situation in Tamil Nadu conducive to the penetration and free movement of the persons responsible for the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi"

" talks were held with the LTTE as if the LTTE was not responsible for the killing of Padmanabha and others on June 19.1990 in Madras. I have information that they were given Rs 4 lakhs as financial assistance."

While speaking to the pressmen in Madurai on 13.6.91 he stated that " in respect of the bomb blasts, no investigation of any kind was undertaken during the DMK regime; instead, arrested militants were released on bail bonds signed by the personal staff of former Ministers Thangavelu and Nehru..... Because of the DMK Government was bent upon creating conditions conducive to the activities of the militants, the police held back from taking action. That is the reason for the collapse of law and order in the State."

Shri P. Chidambaram wanted that a thorough probe may be made of the events which have taken place under the DMK Rule in the years 1989-1991 and the National Front Government from December 1989 to November, 1990.

"Finally, I will end with what I said (Interruptions). Let me put it as the first half of May. Sir, I have made serious charges. If these serious charges are denied, that is not the end of the matter. The matter does not brook any delay or indifference. We demand a public inquiry into all that has happened in Tamil Nadu, in the matter affecting national security and public order. Let us not caricature it as a law and order problem. It is not a mere law and order problem, it is a problem affecting public order. It is a problem affecting national security. The Prime Minister must assure this House that a public inquiry will be held and that a high powered inquiry Committee will be constituted to go into all that has happened in the latter half of 1989 and in 1990; into all that the DMK did in furtherance of its clandestine and secret objective of carving out a separate Tamil Nadu in support of secessionism and under the guise of a plea of self-examination for the Tamils. The people of Tamil Nadu demand from the Prime Minister an unequivocal answer to our demand for inquiry and to our demand for elections."

From the above submission in the speech, what he actually wanted was that without delay or indifference, he demanded a public inquiry into all that has happened in Tamil Nadu in the matter affecting national security and public order. According to him it was not only a matter of law and order but a problem affecting national security and he demanded an assurance from the Prime Minister that the public inquiry will be held and a high powered inquiry committee will be constituted to go into all that has happened in the latter half of 1989 and in 1990, into all that the DMK did in furtherance of its clandestine and secret objective of carving our a separate Tamil Nadu in support of secessionism and under the guise of a plea of self- examination for the Tamils.

It is noteworthy that a very forceful demand was made in the House by Shri P. Chidambaram. This Commission had taken upon itself the task to go into events not only for the years 1989 and 1990 but also from the year 1981 to 1991 till the date of assassination under the mandate of the Terms and Reference as understood by the Commission.

The Commission took it upon itself to enquire into the whole gamut of growth of Sri Lankan Tamil militancy in Tamil Nadu. Shri P. Chidambaram, in his deposition, himself offered in his speech to lead evidence to substantiate the allegations on behalf of the Congress Party. It may be stated that Shri Chidambaram was there in the Government of Shri P.V. Narasimha Rao and besides that, he was also given the additional charge relating to matters connected with the assassination of Shri Rajiv Gandhi. The Commission had decided the cut-off date as the year 1981 which was under challenge, first before the Delhi High Court, and thereafter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Even if the Interim Order of the Delhi High Court would have remained in force, the period of inquiry from 29.7.1987 covers the period of the years 1989 and 1990. It was expected from Shri P. Chidambaram that he would place all material and adduce all oral and documentary evidence with regard to the facts and accusations mentioned and levelled by him in his speech in the House on 25.2.1991. The Commission would have been immensely benefited if such a course of action would have been adopted and that would have established his bonafides too. Why he did not choose to act, is best known to him, but I may state that it was an opportunity for him to establish what he said, as demanded by him from the Prime Minister, in his speech. Although the Commission has tried its best to collect evidence, material and information related to Sri Lankan Tamil Militancy in Tamil Nadu and its fallout, whatever was possible.

"I now turn to Shri P. Chidambaram's deposition on 6th November, 1996, page 11, where he has asserted that to the best of his knowledge the contents of his speech in the Lok Sabha on 25.2.1991 are correct. Shri Karunanidhi has in his deposition denied that the contents of that speech were correct. Obviously both cannot be correct. I can only say that as I am a Member of the Party to which Shri Chidambaram once belonged, and on whose behalf he claims he had been the spokesman on 25.2.1991, I can only continue to presume that my party's spokesman was telling the truth as he understood it on 25.2.1991 and that truth has not been altered by the subsequent circumstance referred to at page 6 of his testimony of 21.11.1996 that his new party is now in alliance with the party whom he accused of being both an accessory before the fact and an accessory after the fact to the murder of EPRLF leader Padmanabha in June, 1990.

Since Shri Chidambaram said that he made that speech with responsibility (reference page 12 of his deposition of 6.11.1996) and since the claim of responsibility was laid twice by Shri Chidambaram on the floor of the House, in the course of that speech, I deem it my responsibility to take his responsibility with the utmost care."

Shri Aiyar referred to Shri Chidambaram's speech on 24.5.1995 and 25.8.1995, exhibits Nos. 591 and 592 respectively and deposed as under :

" I accepted the assignment entrusted to me by the Prime Minister to coordinate all matters relating to the assassination of late Shri Rajiv Gandhi,. (iv) the assertion by Shri Chidambaram in his same speech of his personal responsibility to look into " all " matters in respect of the assassination since 24th May, 1995, I am responsible. The Government is collectively responsible but I have a special and direct responsibility." (v) the assertion that Justice Jain will have to "sift the grain from the chaff and then make his report" followed by the promise;

" I have promised Justice Jain every cooperation in completing his tasks and submitting his report..... I will do everything possible to help Justice Jain to give his report as early as possible."

He further referred to the portions of the speech made in the columns 172 to 176 "My duty is to provide all information that the Commission wants, all information that I find is available within the Government, not to deny that information" followed by the pledge: " I promise the fullest cooperation on behalf of the Government to the Jain Commission of Inquiry..... I assure this House that all other matters which require follow-up will be followed up diligently. I shall act without fear or favour. I shall act according to the dictates of my conscience. I am the Minister in Charge." This is the portion of the speech of 26th August, 1995."

He then referred to the reply of Shri Chidambaram to this Commission's notice dated 1.12.1992 wherein he said " I have no knowledge and information having a bearing on the said terms of reference." And he deposed that, it is to be whether these assurances are compatible with his reply. He then referred to his articles on Rajiv's security and also Chidambaram's role under the title "Southern Perfidy" (exhibits 594 - 601).

Shri Mani Shankar Aiyar has been very critical in his deposition regarding the tenor and reflections of Shri P. Chidambaram in his deposition. He has gone much on Shri Chidambaram's political morality with which I am not concerned. Political reasons dominate electoral and political alliances. Generally such alliances have only one aim : "POWER". This Commission does not and cannot enter into that arena. The Commission was only interested as to how events took shape at different periods and for what reasons and motivations. I would have welcomed Shri P. Chidambaram leading evidence to substantiate what he spoke in the House on 25.2.1991.

68.11 As against this evidence, there are the statements of Shri M. Karunanidhi and Shri S.I. Jaffer Ali. The question would be as to how their evidence is to be appreciated. Their statements describe in sufficient details the steps taken and efforts made by the Government of Tamil Nadu in curbing LTTE activity. Shri Karunanidhi has primarily based his statement on his expressions in the public in the form of press reports and he also drew support regarding his view and action on his part from the statement of Shri V.C. Shukla made by him in his capacity as Minister for External Affairs, at Colombo at a Press Conference on 31.1.1991. Before going to Colombo, he had met Shri Karunanidhi at Madurai.

Shri V.C. Shukla had a discussion with him for about 2 hours when he was visiting Colombo to discuss the Sri Lankan problem. Shri Shukla, in his Press Conference (Exhibit 558), said that Shri M. Karunanidhi would go by the national policy that the Indian territory would not be used for subversive activities by any other country. Shri Shukla tried to explain the reservations expressed on the attitude of the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Shri M. Karunanidhi. It is true publicly the stand of Shri Karunanidhi was that he would be all along with the national policy of the Central Government. He continued to represent so to the coalition Government at the Centre and he continued to express himself so publicly in all his utterances. But from the record it appears that he was not adhering to it in practice.

I may refer to his statement. Is he truthful when he deposed, "there were no militants from 1989 to 1991 in my regime"? How far he is truthful when he deposes, "there was no communication base of LTTE in Madras and that there was no base in Trichy"? He admitted that there were one or two bases in the coastal areas. Earlier he deposed, "I know the LTTE wireless stations were there in Tamil Nadu since the time of Smt. Indira Gandhi but there was no LTTE wireless communication established in Tamil Nadu when I was the Chief Minister. Once or twice such wireless equipment could have been seized during my Chief Minister ship". This statement of Shri Karunanidhi does not appear to be correct viewed in the light of the statements of Shri Kasi Anandan, Shri N.V. Vathsan and the other documentary evidence in the form of IB reports etc. on record.

How far the statement of Shri Karunanidhi can be believed when he deposes, "I have met Kasi Anandan. I have not met Natesan." "I met Kasi Anandan before the massacre of Padmanabha (19.6.1990). After his murder, I did not meet him". This statement too is falsified if read in the light of the statement of Kasi Anandan. Kasi Anandan has been very categorical that he and Natesan had come together from Velvettithurai and Natesan had met Shri Karunanidhi. In the light of the statement of Kasi Anandan, it does not appear to be correct that Shri M. Karunanidhi did not meet Kasi Anandan after 19.6.1990. In his subsequent statement, Shri Karunanidhi contradicts himself when he states, "I do not remember whether Kasi Anandan met me in December 1990". He had even met Kasi Anandan after the Padmanabha massacre and met him not only once or twice but more than that.

The statement of Shri Karunanidhi also does not appear to be true when he deposes that no letter was brought to him for the Prime Minister. Kasi Anandan has been categorical that two letters were brought by Natesan, one in the name of Shri M. Karunanidhi and the other in the name of Shri V.P. Singh, Prime Minister. From the I.B. report, it appears that the letter in the name of the Prime Minister was found in the nature of a press release and therefore was not sent to the Prime Minister and the emissary was required to bring fresh letter from Prabhakaran.

The statement of Shri M. Karunanidhi also does not appear to be truthful when he deposed on 17.1.1997, "I had supported LTTE along with other parties, but after the murder of Padmanabha, I withdrew my support". Earlier, on 23.11.1996, he deposed, "I had initially the sympathy not only for the LTTE but also for other militant groups like EPRLF, TULF and TELO. Later, with the killing of peace-minded TULF leader Amrithalingam and TELO leader Sabaratnam, my sympathy started weaning and after Padmanabha massacre, the LTTE completely lost my sympathy". It may be stated that Kasi Anandan falsified this statement of Shri Karunanidhi. The incidents and events which have taken place after Padmanabha killing and the support which was sought by LTTE cadres from Shri Karunanidhi, which has come in the statement of Shri Kasi Anandan and which also find corroboration from the I.B. reports and other documents of the Central Government and the Tamil Nadu Government, it cannot be found that after 19.6.1990, the DMK Government in Tamil Nadu gave no support to the LTTE.

Shri Karunanidhi denied the existence of 40 landing points of the LTTE in the coastal areas of Tamil Nadu. He also denied the existence of any link of LTTE with ULFA and relied on a telex of IG(P), Assam (Exhibit 637). He also denied any contacts of 'Q' Branch of Tamil Nadu with the LTTE in April, 1990. The landing points find mention in the records of the Tamil Nadu Government itself and so far as the other denials are concerned, there are no reasons to disbelieve the I.B. reports. I.B. reports are very specific about the existence of links of LTTE with ULFA and also of contacts of 'Q' Branch with the LTTE.

How far the statement of Shri M. Karunanidhi is trustworthy can be judged in the light of the statement of Shri Kasi Anandan. Shri Kasi Anandan's statement gets substantial corroboration from IB reports as explained. It may be mentioned that spurt in LTTE activity after taking over by DMK Government in January 1989 till the promulgation of President's Rule on 30.1.1991 clearly goes to point out that such a spurt in LTTE activity could only be with the connivance of the State Government and its machinery.

It cannot be found that only at the official level, action was wanting and not at the political leadership level, as stated by Shri V.P. Singh. In the face of clear evidence imputing not only inaction on the part of political leadership but connivance on its part, it cannot be found that there was no involvement of Shri M. Karunanidhi and his Government and the law enforcement agencies in carrying on criminal, illegal, anti-national and nefarious activities by the LTTE. DMK's rhetoric against I.P.K.F. operations against LTTE in Sri Lanka beginning from October 1987 must have come to the knowledge of Shri V.P. Singh through press or otherwise, and after coming into power in Tamil Nadu in January 1989, its continued support was also reported in Press. Can it be believed that Shri V.P. Singh was not in the know of such support. In any case, its likelihood must have put him to caution to be vigilant about such support and he could have gathered information about such support from intelligence and other sources. Inferences are obvious.

It can, therefore, be safely concluded that the growing connivance of the DMK Government with the LTTE having been brought to the knowledge of the National Front Government, effective steps were not taken by the Central Government to check it, whatever may be the reasons.

Coming to the statement of Shri S.I. Jaffer Ali, it may be mentioned that his statement too does not inspire confidence. He was the Chief of Intelligence during the relevant time. He was supposed to gather intelligence and he must be having knowledge about the matters in respect of which his statement is of denial. Is he truthful when he states "no explosives were transported from Tamil Nadu coast, no arms and ammunition were transported through the shore and there was no report on gold smuggling". "I have no information about Kasi Anandan meeting Shri Karunanidhi, I have no information of Baby Subramaniam meeting Shri Karunanidhi". He admits that the Chief of Intelligence is really the eye and ear of the Government and that for the purpose of appointment to this post, the Chief Minister is the pivotal authority.

When he denies the transport of arms and ammunition and explosives and pleads ignorance about Kasi Anandan and Baby Subramaniam meeting Shri M. Karunanidhi, this only shows that he is deliberately suppressing the truth. In the face of sufficient material on record, how can it be taken that the aforesaid statements made by him are trustworthy? He goes on making statements in the same vein. He deposed that he has no information or intelligence about meeting of any LTTE leader or Kasi Anandan with Home Secretary. He also deposed that Tamil Nadu intelligence has also no information about the activities of LTTE at various places in Tamil Nadu. He further deposed that Tamil Nadu intelligence has no information about various wings of the LTTE operating in Tamil Nadu. Pleading want of such intelligence or knowledge is far from truth.

As regards Kasi Anandan, he admits that Kasi Anandan is part of LTTE and one of the second leaders of the LTTE. Despite that, Shri Jaffer Ali is not aware of the activities of Kasi Anandan or about his movements.

It may be stated that he levelled an accusation against Shri Sri Pal, DG(P) and also against Shri P.C. Pant. It may be mentioned that Shri Jaffer Ali was placed under suspension on 9.1.1992 on the basis of the statement given by Shri R. Nagarajan in the Magistrate's court in Trichy. He stated, "on 30.3.1992, I was called by Shri Sri Pal, DG(P). He informed that the Chief Minister wants to release me from suspension and also make me IG(P) if I file an affidavit to the effect that the previous Chief Minister Mr. Karunanidhi helped LTTE. I told him that it would not be possible for me to make false affidavit. I did not make any complaint about it to any of my superiors or to my Government".

By this statement, he means to say that Shri Karunanidhi rendered no help to the LTTE, but that does not appear to be true. In respect of the version of Shri Sripall, he deposed, "I never confirmed from Ms. Jayalalitha what Shri Sri Pal and Shri P.C. Pant told me. I cannot say they were telling truth or lies. I did not give or sign any confidential note in respect of the two officers to any Tamil Nadu authorities or the Central authorities. My suspension was revoked when Ms. Jayalalitha was still the Chief Minister. I did not record any note on any official file about the two officers, even after revocation of my suspension. I did not make any allegation against these two officers before the disciplinary inquiry committee. I am giving for the first time on oath before the Commission and did not disclose it to any one before that date. I know that I am a witness of the Chief Minister today. It is wrong to suggest that I am making such allegations under the influence of Shri Karunanidhi, the present Chief Minister."

How far the version of Shri Jaffer Ali carries credence when it has not been put to Shri Sri Pal and also to Ms. Jayalalitha? If this version would have been put to them, they would have been able to reply as to the truth or otherwise of this version, or as to why such an accusation has been made against Shri Sri Pal. The version given by Shri Jaffer Ali only shows how the police machinery was actually working and functioning. Why such a situation arose that such high ranking officials in the police were accusing each other? Is there any truth in it that such a situation must have arisen as a result of politicisation ? On the question of investigation of Padmanabha killing, Shri Jaffer Ali deposed,

"I deny that there was any slackness on the part of the Tamil Nadu Police in not apprehending the culprits of Padmanabha massacre. There were 12 entry points to Madras city. Unlike in Delhi, in Madras, we do not have a system of road blocks immediately. Control room will have to inform the concerned police stations. The staff will naturally arrange men and material and provide road blocks and naturally it takes time. Added to that, the identity of the assailants was not known. There was no specific information about the vehicle in which they escaped and we had no information about the direction in which the culprits went. The case diary contains all details as to the place which the culprits of Padmanabha massacre visited, house where they took shelter, their mode of transport and on what date and time and the manner of their escape".

The statement of Shri Jaffer Ali speaks only of inefficiency and slackness on the part of the Police. What efforts were actually made to chase the culprits, what the record of various police stations speak in relation to this incident, all that information should have been gathered. Even after the investigation of the incident, Shri Jaffer Ali has not been able to depose where the police faulted. After knowing the details of investigation from the case diary, it was expected of a senior officer like him to have found out where the police faulted. The whole machinery including the Central intelligence agencies should have been geared to the situation in such a ghastly crime. This only shows the apathy of the police force in the investigation of the case and in apprehending the culprits and in bringing them to book.

Having considered the evidence in its totality, question arises, whether reliance can be placed on the statement of Shri R. Nagarajan, given before the Magistrate. In the light of IB Reports, the statements of Kasi Anandan, N.V. Vathsan and other overwhelming trustworthy evidence, the conclusion would be obvious that Shri R. Nagarajan has not given his statement under pressure.

What impelled him to make the statement before the Magistrate on 30.11.1991 is not known although he had been silent in his reply to the charge sheet as well as to the affidavit filed before the Commission but his statement gets support not only from the testimony of Kasi Anandan, from the IB reports and from other evidence, but also from the happenings and the events and the manner in which they have taken place, and the manner in which these were investigated and dealt with. Handling of various happenings and incidents by the police and other machinery of the Government, totally brings out the connivance of the authorities with the LTTE operatives.

The statement of Shri R. Nagarajan finds general support from the evidence on record which has been dealt with in sufficient detail, so it cannot be said that his statement loses all its value because of the letter Ex 552 which otherwise I have already discarded.