Sri Lanka Stays Neutral in India-Pakistan Conflict, Supports Peace
Sri Lanka has said that it will not take sides in the India-Pakistan conflict. This was reported during a press meeting held by the Sri Lankan government.
Sri Lanka Will Not Join Any Side
Health Minister and Cabinet Spokesperson Dr. Nalinda Jayatissa said that Sri Lanka will stay neutral. He explained that the country follows a non-aligned policy, meaning it does not join any group or side in political or military fights.
He said Sri Lanka wants to be independent and stay out of wars between other countries.
Foreign Ministry Watching the Situation
The Sri Lankan Foreign Ministry is watching the situation closely and gives regular updates to the government.
Sri Lanka Does Not Support Terrorism
The Minister said that Sri Lanka is fully against terrorism. He said the country is ready to help in stopping terrorism when needed.
Good Relations With India and Pakistan
Sri Lanka said it wants to keep friendly ties with both India and Pakistan. The Minister said both countries have helped Sri Lanka before, and any problems between them should be solved by talking.
Sri Lanka Will Not Allow Its Land for War
Dr. Jayatissa also said that Sri Lanka will not let anyone use its land, water, or airspace to attack another country.
Goal Is Peace
He ended by saying that Sri Lanka's role is to support peace, not war.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
8 hours ago
- The Hindu
Sri Lankan refugees of 1990: A dark chapter in T.N.'s otherwise proud history of offering sanctuary to those in need
Tamil Nadu has an enviable track record of providing shelter to those in distress, regardless of their place of origin. But an episode in March 1990, concerning Sri Lankan refugees, marks an aberration to the State's tradition. This episode, involving 1,612 refugees — 353 women and 400 children —remains less discussed in public discourse, and its recall assumes relevance in light of World Refugee Day falling on June 20. Ranasinghe Premadasa's assumption of office of the President of Sri Lanka in January 1989 made a perceptible difference to the presence of Indian Peacekeeping Force (IPKF) in the neighbouring country. Five months later, Premadasa openly demanded the ouster of the IPFK, which went there in July 1987 on the request of his predecessor, J.R. Jayawardene, following the Indo-Sri Lanka accord. The new incumbent made the demand, keeping in mind the separate anti-IPKF campaigns by two diverse militant groups, Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP, which had subsequently abandoned its militant path and joined the political mainstream) and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). After the IPKF's de-induction commenced by the end of July 1989, the LTTE began taking control of areas in the northern and eastern regions. As the end of the political set-up in the then North East Provincial Council (NEPC), headed by A. Varatharaja Perumal of the Eelam People's Revolutionary Liberation Front (EPRLF), became evident, the influx of refugees to Tamil Nadu resumed in a big way. It was against this backdrop that two ships, Harsh Vardhana and Tippu Sultan, carrying about 1,250 refugees, were not permitted for disembarkation of passengers at what was then known as the Madras harbour, on March 8 and 9. Both were diverted to Visakhapatnam, after which the passengers were taken to Odisha (then Orissa) for transit camps in Malkangiri, about 125 km from Koraput town. A report of The Hindu, published on March 10, quoting 'official and other sources,' stated that 'the decision to ferry the refugees from Trincomalee to Madras was taken at a meeting' of the External Affairs Minister I.K. Gujral and the NEPC Chief Minister in New Delhi in January/February 1990. Only on the basis of that decision, both Harsh Vardhana and Tippu Sultan were hired to transport about 1,300 refugees. The report went on to state that 'most probably, the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister [M. Karunanidhi] does not know about it.' K. Premachandran, Sri Lanka's Member of Parliament belonging to the EPRLF, was bitter about the treatment. The passengers, at the time of embarkation at Trincomalee, were assured they could disembark at Madras. 'Imagine their mental agony. They were in the middle of the sea, not knowing what was happening,' the report added, quoting him as having said. P. Upendra, Union Minister of Information and Broadcasting in the National Front government led by V.P. Singh, told reporters in the city on March 9 that there were doubts whether the passengers aboard the ship were 'real refugees or EPRLF cadres.' On the apprehension that the refugees could be the cadres of the EPRLF and Eelam National Democratic Liberation Front (ENDLF), who could have spirited off weapons on board the vessels, Mr. Premachandran said, 'each and everyone was thoroughly checked at China Bay in Trincomalee and the IPKF also made sure that there was not a single weapon on board the ships.' According to Anil Dhir, Bhubaneshwar-based researcher-writer, the then Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister M. Channa Reddy, who allowed the ships to drop anchor at the outer harbour of Visakhapatnam port and gave food and water, however, refused disembarkation of the passengers. A similar stand was taken by other Chief Ministers too, who did not want any trouble in their respective States. Eventually, it was Biju Patnaik who had agreed to take the refugees. 'The fact that he had been sworn in as the Chief Minister just four days earlier (March 5) did not deter him from taking such a vital decision.' Patnaik, who became Chief Minister again after a gap of over 26 years, had again responded to Singh's request for accommodating the EPRLF general secretary, K. Padmanabha along with others, a fact acknowledged by Mr. Perumal in a recent conversation with this writer. That Odisha, despite its modest economic condition, had come forward to accept the refugees did not go unnoticed among parliamentarians. On March 29, 1990, A.N. Singh Deo, Member of Parliament from the Aska constituency in the eastern State, called his State 'a very poor State' and asked Gujral whether the Centre would bear the whole cost of providing shelter to the refugees. The Minister assured the Member that the Centre would bear the entire burden. It was a fact that there were EPRLF cadres among the refugees. But they claimed that they were not 'more dreadful than the LTTE militants,' Sukumar, an activist of the (EPRLF) and an inmate of the Malkangiri camps, told The Hindu, as published in a report on March 13, 1990. But Karunanidhi had reasons to justify his government's refusal to provide asylum to the seekers. On April 26, 1990, intervening in a discussion in the Assembly, the Chief Minister cited law and order as the main reason for the move. 'He felt that militants should be kept off even from neighbouring States,' The Hindu reported on April 27, 1990. Karunanidhi had even suggested to the Central government to shift the refugees, sheltered in Odisha, to Andamans, as a majority of them were militants. A fortnight later, he told reporters that he had discussed his suggestion with Singh and Gujral. Parliament had also discussed the refugee matter. On March 28, 1990, the External Affairs Minister told the Rajya Sabha that 'hospitality does not mean open the door.' At the same time, in keeping with India's 'humanitarian traditions, we have never refused entry to refugees who, as in the present case, felt that their lives were at risk,' Gujral said. He added the refugees were brought by sea and air to the country. Notwithstanding the Patnaik administration's sympathetic treatment of the refugees, most of them did not find Odisha a conducive place to stay. In fact, Karunanidhi had then informed the House that the 'militants' continued to arrive in the city from Orissa camps by train and they were apprehended by the police. In the middle of May, he described the refugees' action of deserting the camps as 'wrong' and contended that 'of those who had come to Tamil Nadu, 190 persons who were militants were taken into custody. Other refugees, including women and children, had not been arrested,' stated this newspaper in its report on May 17, 1990. A few days later, after a protest-fast by 111 refugees at the Central Prison who came from the eastern State, the Chief Minister ordered their release. Within a year, the number of refugees in Odisha dwindled to 218, according to the Annual Report of the Union Ministry of Home Affairs for 1990-91. [As on March 31, 1991, there were about 2.1 lakh Sri Lankan refugees living in the country.] The former CM of the NEPC recalls that a majority of those who left the camps had finally settled in the Western countries. He and his family were initially taken to Mauritius before being taken to central and northern parts of India. He now shuttles between India and Sri Lanka. The episode ended on a further sad note, as the EPRLF's general secretary and 14 others were gunned down allegedly by a killer squad of the LTTE on the evening of June 19, 1990, while he was holding a meeting in a flat at Kodambakkam, a busy locality of Chennai.
India Gazette
16 hours ago
- India Gazette
"We actually got them to reverse the stand they had taken": Shashi Tharoor on Colombia withdrawing statement condoling Pak deaths in Op Sindoor
New Delhi [India], June 10 (ANI): Congress MP Shashi Tharoor, who led a five-member all-party delegation to Colombia, on Tuesday praised the success of their diplomatic efforts. Tharoor highlighted a significant achievement where the Colombian government reversed its initial stance on Operation Sindoor, a move that was seen as favourable to Pakistan. Tharoor highlighted the strong understanding and rapport built with parliamentarians during the visit, which contributed to the success of the diplomatic efforts. Following discussions with Tharoor's delegation, the Acting Foreign Minister of Colombia publicly acknowledged support for India's stand. 'Each of these meetings was very good. In Colombia, one positive thing for us was that we actually got them to reverse the stand they had taken, perhaps without enough thought. When #OperationSindoor started, they had issued a statement expressing heartfelt condolences for the Pakistani victims, having lost sight of the context. Once we had explained all that, they withdrew their statement. The statement was on record for a couple of weeks, but it was taken down as soon as we raised the issue, and subsequently, we got the Acting Foreign Minister to speak to the media and acknowledge their support for our stand, and we had told them. So, all of that went very well. I think particularly, with Parliamentarians everywhere, the level of understanding was first class...,' said Tharoor. Tharoor attributed the success to effective communication and building understanding with the Colombian officials. A private dinner hosted by a former Colombian ambassador allowed Tharoor's delegation to express their concerns and clarify India's position. The Colombian government quickly responded to India's concerns, withdrawing the statement immediately after Tharoor's opening remarks. 'We should talk to people and make them understand. We had a press conference when we arrived, so I sent a signal that we are very disappointed. Then, on the same night, we had a private dinner hosted by an ex-ambassador of Colombia. He hosted a dinner for us, where the Asia director of the Foreign Ministry was also present. So we told them it was not right that you did this, and they understood our problem. The next day was our formal meeting. So before the formal meeting, they talked and made people understand; hence, immediately after my opening remarks, they immediately replied that we were withdrawing it (statement),' said Tharoor. Tharoor's delegation received a warm welcome in Colombia and other countries they visited. They had high-quality meetings with senior officials, including presidents, prime ministers, and vice presidents. The delegation's message was well-received, and many interlocutors respected India's restraint in the face of provocation. Speaking about his delegation's visit, Tharoor said, 'We were all very pleased with how the five countries went through to receive us. We had good results everywhere-- high-quality meetings-- president, prime minister, vice presidents, very senior interlocutors everywhere and at the same time they there was a complete understanding and support for a position on why this whole thing had been triggered off in Pahalgam, what our reaction had to be. In fact, many of the people we spoke to specifically expressed respect for the restraint we have shown in our reaction.' Tharoor expressed satisfaction with the outcome of the delegation's visit, stating that they had fulfilled their purpose of demonstrating India's unity across political lines and delivering an effective message to government officials, legislators, think tanks, media, and the diaspora 'I would say that we have come out of this extreme well. As far as the government is concerned I think the purpose of sending MPs to both demonstrate the Unity of India across political lines and the same time to deliver an effective message to government officials, legislators think tanks and opinion makers as well as media and where appropriate, the diaspora, all of this was very thoroughly fulfilled so I would say that touchwood we have done what they used to do and that way coming home reasonably exhausted and reasonably happy,' he said. Congress MP Shashi Tharoor led the all-party delegation which included Shambhavi Chaudhary (Lok Janshakti Party), Sarfaraz Ahmed (Jharkhand Mukti Morcha), G M Harish Balayogi (Telugu Desam Party), Shashank Mani Tripathi, Tejaswi Surya, and Bhubaneswar Kalita (all from the BJP), Mallikarjun Devda (Shiv Sena), former Indian Ambassador to the US Taranjit Singh Sandhu, and Shiv Sena MP Milind Deora. This diplomatic effort formed a part of India's global outreach following Operation Sindoor, launched on May 7 in response to the April 22 terrorist attack in Pahalgam by Pakistan-sponsored militants that claimed 26 lives and injured several others. Subsequently, the Indian Armed Forces carried out targeted strikes against terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir, resulting in the deaths of over 100 terrorists linked to groups such as Jaish-e-Mohammed, Lashkar-e-Taiba, and Hizbul Mujahideen. (ANI)
United News of India
17 hours ago
- United News of India
Iran-US to hold nuclear deal talks round 6 in Muscat Sunday
Tehran/Washington/Muscat, June 10 (UNI) The sixth round of indirect nuclear talks between Tehran and Washington are scheduled to take place in Oman on Sunday, said Iran's Foreign Ministry Tuesday. Iran and the United States have held five rounds of talks so far, three of which were held in Muscat and two in Rome since the beginning of Tehran's talks with the US on coming to a possible deal on its nuclear programme and the lifting of sanctions. The fifth round was held on May 23 in Rome. In late May, the United States presented a proposal to Tehran through Oman for a potential nuclear deal with Iran. While both sides have acknowledged some progress, a decisive breakthrough has yet to be achieved, due to disagreements on uranium enrichment. While Iran views it as critical to its programme, the US is staunchly against any uranium enrichment on Iranian soil. Amid the ongoing negotiations, the US has called for the dismantling of all Iranian infrastructure built for the process, while Iran has denied American demands, insisting the programme will continue. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said he does not expect talks with the US to yield results and asserted that Iran 'needs no one's permission' to enrich uranium, reports Turkish agency Anadolu Ajansi. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said the US proposal was not the outcome of the previous rounds of negotiations, and Iran would submit its proposal to the United States through Oman, according to Xinhua. He stressed that any proposal disrespecting Iran's national rights, including its right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy and effective sanctions relief, is unacceptable. Baghaei said Iran's forthcoming proposal would be "reasonable, logically sound, and balanced," urging the United States to consider it seriously. "Accepting this proposal serves the interests of the United States," he added. UNI ANV SSP
