Wanton laughter Sir - Much of what Nilanjana S. Roy says about the female 'indulgence' is true ('Laughter the best medicine', May 28). What she should have concentrated on, however, is the strange contradiction female joviality lends itself to. Why is it that loud laughter is considered both a threat and an allurement by the other sex? Or is it interpreted as a threat by the male of the species because it is so alluring? Women's mirth is discomfiting not so much because its 'causes' are uncontrollable - if the American comedian, Tim Allen, is to be believed - as because of its seemingly 'uncontrollable' effects. It might liberate women, but it also sets off a strange chemistry. Like the women themselves, kamini according to Hindu lore, their laughter is also regarded as a sure way to lead men to perdition. It is because of this sexual connotation that only women of a certain age and appearance are allowed to 'enjoy' themselves. If only all women could turn into witches. Yours faithfully, J. Sen, Calcutta Island of contention Sir -Even after extending the ban on the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam for two years, India has expressed willingness to mediate between the LTTE and the Sri Lankan government, if both desire it. Such doublespeak will only deprive India of credibility in the international arena. India had better keep its hands off the issue. A ceasefire can be worked out by either Norway or the United Nations which will prevent the slaughter of Sri Lankan soldiers in Jaffna and save the civilian population there from further strife. The question whether India should intervene militarily in Sri Lanka arose once before in 1983 when there were genocidal attacks on Tamils. Indira Gandhi decided not to send the army since the Tamils would be caught in the crossfire. But the Indian government began training Sri Lankan Tamil youth to defend themselves from the Sri Lankan army. Indira Gandhi did not trust J. Jayawardene, then president, and considered the Sri Lankan government chauvinistic in its linguistic policy and extremist in its religious one. In 1983 she took me to the United Nations (I was the minister for power of Tamil Nadu then) to expose the Sri Lankan government and tell world leaders of the plight of Sri Lankan Tamils. Rajiv Gandhi, unlike his mother, trusted Jayawardane. He sacked experienced advisors on Sri Lanka like G. Parthasarathy and P.C. Alexander and brought in Romesh Bhandari, then external affairs secretary. His 1987 Indo-Sri Lankan accord was inherently defective. The accord should have been between the Sinhalese and Tamils, not India and Sri Lanka. India can at best be a guarantor to ensure implementation of an accord. Also the accord put the onus of disarming the LTTE on India. The accord was presented to M.G. Ramachandran, then Tamil Nadu chief minister, as a fait accompli. He was asked to bring round the LTTE to the arrangement. The LTTE, naturally, was unwilling to vouch for an agreement between India and Sri Lanka. On behalf of MGR, I tried to convince the LTTE. I told them that there were aspects in this to be looked into. For the first time, the Sri Lanka government had recognized the northern and eastern provinces of Sri Lanka as a Tamil homeland. Also, India would act as a guarantor to ensure that Sri Lanka did not go back on its word. Finally, an interim government for the Tamils was incorporated, which gave legitimacy to the LTTE. Unfortunately, the Sri Lankan government betrayed India by arresting LTTE cadres, who committed suicide in Sri Lankan army custody. Naturally, the LTTE was unwilling to go by the accord. Instead of pacifying the LTTE, Rajiv Gandhi ordered the Indian peacekeeping force to disarm them. This fateful decision was taken at a meeting in New Delhi in which I participated. I was told to leave the meeting because I strongly protested the decision. Later, I met G. Partha-sarathy and told him what happened. He told me that Rajiv Gandhi was immature, nothing could be saved. His prophecy came true. The 24 hours within which the Indian government intended to disarm the LTTE became two years, and led to the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi. India is walking into a trap again. Though the present government has said it will not intervene militarily, it has promised humanitarian aid. When Sri Lanka drove the LTTE from Jaffna, it didn't seek help from India. Even today, it claims the Tamil issue is an internal problem. If the LTTE wants to regain Jaffna, why should the Sri Lankan government raise a hue and cry and internationalize the issue? Why should India answer a call from Sri Lanka? Any response will boost the morale of the Sinhalese. The very fact that the Indian air chief chose this time to visit Sri Lanka and stay there for a week caused misgivings among Tamils worldwide. The Indian government's claim that the trip was planned long ago is unconvincing. Could it not have been postponed to an appropriate time? Yours faithfully, Panrutti S. Ramachandran, via e-mail Sir - Mani Shankar Aiyar tries to cover up the IPKF fiasco, cooked up by an empty-headed prime minister, a defunct foreign ministry and a flamboyant army chief ('Sri Lanka: the issues at stake', May 9). Who is Aiyar kidding with his talk of how the IPKF was sent to Sri Lanka to 'keep peace, not to fight with or against anybody'? Is he suggesting that both the Sri Lankan army and the LTTE should have laid down their arms on seeing the IPKF? It is interesting how the LTTE sees the the matter. Initially the LTTE had been confused because while one Indian prime minister had used the Indian army to train its cadre, another had sent the army to fight them. The LTTE humoured the IPKF for a while but when it realized India's two-timing ways, it struck with unparalleled ferocity. It defies reason why India chose to tackle terrorism in a foreign land when it cannot do so on its own soil. The first scapegoat of Operation Pawan was the commander of the IPKF's 54th infantry division who failed to convince the LTTE to behave itself. But the biggest fall guy of the entire unsavoury episode was Rajiv Gandhi. Not only did he fall into the trap laid by J. Jayawardene, but he also tried a double shuffle by holding talks with the LTTE, all the while encouraging the IPKF to fight it. This resulted in his incurring V. Prabhakaran's wrath and caused his assassination. This was one of the most shameful incidents in the history of independent India. Yours faithfully, J.K. Dutt, Calcutta Sir - Jaffna is the old capital of the Sri Lankan Tamil kingdom in the north. In the 16th century, it fell to the Portuguese. Then the Dutch and the British united the three independent kingdoms of Sri Lanka. The Sinhalese in Sri Lanka, despite being Buddhist, assume ethnic superiority over the Tamils. Ethnic conflict will continue unless the United Nations intervenes. Yours faithfully, Biplab Pal, Kharagpur Sir - Surendra Mohan ('An island war at India's doorstep', May 16) rightly says that the fear a Tamil Eelam will fuel separatist movements for Dravidstan and the merger of West Bengal with Bangladesh is pernicious. Such movements will die out in India given its unity in many-faceted diversity. There are no permanent foes or friends in politics and hence, the situation in Sri Lanka calls for a u-turn in policy. India should call for a partition of Sri Lanka along a ceasefire line which both the LTTE and the Sri Lankan army will respect, much like what Bill Clinton suggested for Kashmir. The LTTE obviously will not be able to resist an Indian onslaught. But there is no reason to disregard its call for an independent homeland for Tamils, given that the Sri Lankan government has repeatedly betrayed its promises of autonomy. Nothing short of a separate homeland will satisfy them now. No wonder, most parties in Tamil Nadu support the Tigers' demand. Yours faithfully, Omprakash Mehta, Calcutta Letters to the editor should be sent to: The Telegraph 6 Prafulla Sarkar Street Calcutta 700 001 Email: ttedit@abpmail.com