Sooriya Kumaran (8 Jun. 2012)

On the point of violence, non-violence and cowardice. It is intimated that MKG would have preferred violence over non-violence if the latter meant doing nothing; or being inactive. Furthermore, to be active, in order to be actively involved in opposing any form of evil is considered a high value, and of moral worth, and an act of chivalry as opposed to cowardice.

The question is for the FRONT NOTE-MAKER: IF a liberation organisation having exploited all manner of violent tactical manoeuvring also engages itself in taking hostage of its people - INNOCENT CIVILIANS as HUMAN SHIELD in order to protect its leadership by the skin of its teeth...What would be the answer of the front note-taker, in all honesty and integrity: Is this an act of chivalry or absolute cowardice??

On another matter: MKG supported in silence the action of the Allied Forces against the mad man in Germany. By this we need to see there are times having exhausted diplomatic means there is a place for violent action - war. IF MKG has tried his non-violent means of action with Mr Hitler or Mr Stalin or Mr Mao et al; one can imagine how things would be in the world today!

Sachi Sri Kantha (12 Jun. 2012)

I answer the hypothetical question posed to me by critic Sooriya Kumaran. Without learning your individual bias (or multiple biases), I refrain from answering your question. I understand your question relates to LTTE in particular and its military tactics or maneuvers. First, will you tell us your military expertise.

On Gandhi's tactics: Whether his satyagraha would have worked against Hitler, Stalin or Mao, has been a perennial question. In my perspectives, Gandhi was equally opposed to colonialism, whether it was from British or German or Russian. It was British establishment historians and Indian historians (who were potty-trained by the British establishment) who exaggerated the fair play of British establishment for myth making purposes. Sachi Sri Kantha

Sooriya Kumaran (14 Jun. 2012)

Gandhi, Nehru, Indira, Rajiv, Banda, and a host of other Asian political illuminatis were all potty-trained by the Brits at varying degrees. Out of the other colonialists British had a sense of fair play but not without grave inconsistencies.

The matter of human shield is not a hypothetical question. Reluctance in answering such an existential enquiry is in it self can be considered as silence. Silence in such moral matters reveals the poverty of intellectual integrity and bankruptcy of ethical/ moral standards.

That is far from chivalry. It is called hypocrisy. It is not near enough to political acumen. Such acts are a complete cover-up of cowardice in the name of liberation struggle.

Mr. Thatchena Moorthy (19 Jun. 2012)

The Tamils in Western countries must help the Tamils in our homeland by supporting various educational programmes and projects that would particularly help war children. I speak as one who lived through riots, war and was a displaced person in my home town. Lastlymy family and I were held as human shields in the last stand by LTTE in Mullivaikkal.

Tamils who have only seen war from distance can have their view points on liberation but for us who have lived the horror it is a luxury. Tamils in west can help but they cannot impose or decide the destiny of the people in the ground.

We must sort our affairs with non violence. There was a time we were proud of our "boys" as they were known in the 70s. They in the end betrayed our trust and killed our own people. Enough. No more violence.

ttpian (28 Jun. 2012)

Dear Editor! MaY i know, why my comments regarding Gandhi's ingeniunity has not been published? it is a truth,he played double game along with Rajaji and my statement regarding the denial (cheating) of handing over the sum of Rs 5000(which was donated by South african tamils) to kappalottiya thamizhan ,was also not attracted the editorial board