
How Rajiv Gandhi's decision to send troops to Sri Lanka cost him his life
As things turned out, when the IPKF withdrew from Sri Lanka in 1990, it had suffered more than 8,000 casualties, LTTE chief Velupillai Prabhakaran was more powerful than ever, and after breakdown of peace talks, the second phase of the Eelam War raged on, even more brutal than the first.
Then on May 21, 1991, Rajiv Gandhi, who as Prime Minister had sent in the IPKF to the Emeral Isle, was assasinated by an LTTE suicide bomber at an election rally in Sriperumbudur, tragically culminating the country's Sri Lanka misadventure that has long been described as 'India's Vietnam'.
With the latest Nagesh Kukunoor-directed show The Hunt telling the story of the CBI's investigation into the Rajiv Gandhi assassination, here's a recall of the events and decisions that led to the killing.
Seeds of the conflict
The origins of civil strife in Sri Lanka lay in the discrimination and persecution of the country's minority Tamils by the Sinhala Buddhist majority which dominated in all spheres of life in the post-colonial state.
By the late 1970s, dozens of militant Tamil groups had emerged, demanding autonomy or independence for Sri Lanka's Tamil regions — Tamils form a majority in the Northern Province and have a significant presence in the Eastern Province.
Beginning in the late 1970s, the Tamil Nadu government, and later New Delhi, began providing limited support in the form of training, supplies, and finances to Tamil separatists. This was largely borne out of deep sympathies held by India's Tamil population for their Sri Lankan brethren.
Founded in 1976, Prabhakaran's LTTE soon emerged as the most dominant Tamil separatist group in Sri Lanka by the early 1980s. It was the LTTE's deadly ambush of a Sri Lankan army patrol in 1983 that led to the 'Black July' riots which sparked the two-and-a-half decade civil war in Sri Lanka.
As Samanth Subramanian wrote in his book The Divided Island: Life, Death, and the Sri Lankan War (2014), 'The riots were brought under control, but the violence never truly ceased thereafter.'
India's decision to intervene
India's (successful) intervention in the Bangladesh Liberation War had created a template for responding to civil strife in nearby countries.
When the civil war broke out in 1983, India did not want to intervene directly; it simply wanted to resolve the crisis. While New Delhi held sympathies for Sri Lankan Tamils, it was also wary of the possibility of Tamil secession in Sri Lanka leading to demands of a greater Tamil homeland which could endanger its own sovereignty — as such, India simply wanted to be an impartial mediator. At the time, however, both the LTTE and the Sri Lankan government were looking only at a military solution.
Things would change in 1987. That January, Sri Lankan forces placed an embargo on the entire Tamil North, cutting off supplies of even food and medicines. Indian relief ships headed to Jaffna were sent back, prompting Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi to send in supplies via Air Force transport aircraft accompanied by Mirage-2000 fighters.
This show of force brought Sri Lanka President J R Jayewardene to the negotiating table with Rajiv Gandhi. The two inked the Indo-Sri Lanka Peace Accord on July 29, 1987 which kept Lanka whole but forced Colombo to agree to greater provincial autonomy and withdraw troops from Tamil regions.
Rebels were to surrender arms and engage in the political process. The IPKF moved into the Tamil regions vacated by the Lankan troops in order to maintain law and order, seting up its headquarters in Palali, near Jaffna.
From keeping peace to waging war
While technically a part of the agreement, the LTTE never truly came on board, and unlike most other rebel groups, refused to surrender arms. Colombo too was not all that happy. 'There was much dissension within Jayewardene's cabinet… The masses, particularly in the Sinhala regions, vehemently opposed the Accord,' Roshani M Gunewardene wrote in 'Indo-Sri Lanka Accord: Intervention by Invitation or Forced Intervention' (1991).
At the end of the day, the underlying political reasons behind the conflict were far from resolved: the 'peace' enforced by the IPKF was tenuous at best, just waiting to come crumbling down.
And that's what happened after Sri Lankan forces detained two LTTE commanders in Jaffna early in October. The duo consumed cyanide pills while in joint custody of the IPKF and the Sri Lankan military, triggering retaliation by the rebels: the IPKF was now at war with the LTTE.
Initially, New Delhi expected a quick, decisive victory. Army Chief General K Sundarji promised Rajiv Gandhi that it would take '72 hours to seven days' to finish off the Tigers. By mid-October, however, all illusions to this end were shattered.
A disastrous heliborne mission to take out the LTTE's top leadership in Jaffna University on October 12 led to the death of 36 Indian troops, the capture of one soldier, injuries to many more, and damage to Indian helicopters. Brigade-level forces and tanks tasked to rescue the soldiers from the compound also suffered heavy losses. Between October 12 and October 13, the IPKF lost at least 70 men, many of whose bodies were never recovered.
The next 20-odd days saw brutal combat between the IPKF, tasked with taking Jaffna, and the Tigers. By the end of October, 1,100 rebels were killed, but the IPKF too lost 319 soldiers, and more than a 1,000 Indian troops were wounded. While Jaffna was captured , the LTTE's main fighting force and leadership had escaped to the jungles of Vanni in the north.
What followed was two-and-a-half years of bitter fighting against an enemy proficient in guerilla tactics and steadfast in its resolve. Casualties mounted on all sides with no end to the war in sight, even as the IPKF presence in the Emerald Isle became ever more popular in both India and Sri Lanka.
By the time the last Indian soldier had left Sri Lankan shores in 1990, after 32 months, some 1,165 Indian soldiers had died and as had more than 5,000 Sri Lankans.
The fallout of the debacle
The pullout of Indian troops finally began in 1989, after Rajiv Gandhi lost the elections to V P Singh — the Sri Lanka debacle undoubtedly played a part in the electoral result. For India, this episode left deep scars.
'Unfortunately, the Sri Lankan operation ended in disaster and, with the IPKF pulling out without achieving its objectives, it became the most powerful argument against future Indian military involvement overseas,' journalist and former Indian Army officer Sushant Singh wrote in his book Mission Overseas: Daring Operations by the Indian Military (2017).
In Sri Lanka, the Indian intervention was extremely unpopular, and the IPKF was accused of extra-judicial abductions, tortuere, rape, and killing. Even among the Sinhala population, the lengthy presence of an 80,000-strong Indian occupation force was detested: Colombo itself began arming the Tigers by 1989, in a bid to hasten IPKF's departure.
The V P Singh government that succeeded Rajiv Gandhi in 1989 was short-lived. By 1991, India was once again preparing for a general election — and Rajiv had kept a door open for re-entering the Sri Lankan civil war. In an interview with Sunday magazine in 1990, the former PM said he would send the IPKF to disarm the LTTE if he returned to power.
This would be the final straw for Prabhakaran, who held deep seated grievances against the former PM for sending Indian troops to Sri Lanka. The Tigers sent their feared suicide bombers, a 22-year-old by the name Kalaivani Rajaratnam, to take Rajiv Gandhi out. At least 15 other bystanders were killed in the bombing.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Time of India
40 minutes ago
- Time of India
India-US mini trade deal: Will the mega problem remain?
Just before his July 9 deadline, US President Donald Trump sent letters slapping tariffs on several countries, excluding India, which haven't made trade deals with the US. Trump said the US is close to making a trade deal with India. Trade negotiators from Washington and New Delhi held long-drawn negotiations, but disagreements over dairy and agriculture sectors remained the sticking points. Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal has said India won't make any deal under pressure of a deadline. Yet, as per media reports, a mini trade deal between the US and India is imminent and might be announced tonight. This would mean India and the US have agreed to go ahead with sectors and products where agreement could be reached. But the mini trade deal will not mean India's Trump challenge will vanish. While it can offer India significant benefits, it will buy a fragile peace with Trump because the problematic issues will remain and have to be negotiated. On the surface, a mini trade deal may seem like a diplomatic breakthrough, but this reprieve might be temporary. The Trump doctrine of aggressive, transactional diplomacy means that India might continue to face erratic trade pressure from the US even after a short-term agreement is inked. Also Read: How India can play hardball with Trump and win Unresolved core disputes At the heart of the stalled trade talks are India's dairy and agriculture sectors, the areas that have remained politically sensitive and economically vital for the Indian government. The US has long demanded broader market access for its dairy and agricultural products, citing non-tariff barriers and regulatory restrictions as unfair protectionism. India, on the other hand, has made it clear that these sectors are non-negotiable. Indian dairy, for instance, is heavily reliant on small farmers, and allowing US dairy, especially from hormone-treated and meat-fed cattle, into the Indian market could devastate domestic producers and will be culturally unacceptable. Similarly, agricultural subsidies and minimum support prices form the backbone of India's rural economy and food security strategy. These cannot be compromised without causing political and social unrest. Even if these issues are temporarily sidestepped in a mini trade deal, they remain ticking time bombs for future negotiations. Live Events Trump's tariff diplomacy as a pressure tactic Trump has turned tariffs into a geopolitical weapon. From China to the EU to even traditional allies like Canada and Mexico, Trump has shown that he's willing to use tariff threats not just for trade imbalances but also for diplomatic leverage. India is no exception. In fact, Trump has repeatedly claimed that he threatened India with tariffs to deter it from going to war with Pakistan, a highly questionable but revealing statement which has been vigorously refuted by India. This shows that trade under Trump is not just about economics, but about dominance and unpredictability. Even if a mini deal is signed now, it does not ensure lasting calm. Trump could very well return with fresh demands, unrelated to trade, and use tariff threats to enforce compliance, whether on strategic alignments, defense purchases, or even foreign policy decisions like India's stance on Russia. Perhaps the biggest challenge in dealing with Trump is the absence of predictability. His sudden moves or tweeting tariff threats at odd hours make it nearly impossible for long-term planning. For India, this means that even sectors that have not yet come under pressure could be dragged into future conflicts at any time. A mini deal might create short-term relief, but it is no shield against future policy reversals or impulsive trade actions. Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal has publicly stated that India will not work under any deadline pressure. This is a strong and principled stance. But deadlines aren't the only tools Trump uses. He is equally effective with ambiguity and sudden policy shifts. The absence of a formal deadline does not mean India will be free from coercive tactics. A tweet, a press conference or a sudden tariff hike can achieve what a deadline might fail to do. Moreover, India's relative dependence on the US for exports, especially in the services and pharmaceutical sectors, makes it vulnerable to punitive actions, even if not directly related to dairy or agriculture. India's foreign policy has historically emphasized strategic autonomy. But under Trump's transactional worldview, strategic autonomy can be seen as resistance. Whether it's India buying oil from Iran, procuring defense equipment from Russia or taking a neutral stance in US-China rivalry, Trump has often viewed such moves as acts of defiance. This will put India in a difficult position. Any attempt to assert its national interest in global affairs could be punished through tariffs or trade threats. A mini deal, therefore, does not offer protection from the possibility of Trump's coercive actions. "Trump's model isn't a free trade agreement, it's a YATRA - Yielding to American Tariff Retaliation Agreement," Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI) Founder Ajay Srivastava has said. A mini trade deal between India and the US, if announced, will be a welcome development for India, but it may still have the big task of building long-term economic resilience and diversifying its trade partnerships. Economic Times WhatsApp channel )


Time of India
42 minutes ago
- Time of India
India, US likely to announce 'mini trade deal' tonight amid Donald Trump's new tariff measures; check details
US President Donald Trump slapped fresh tariffs on 14 countries on Tuesday, including Bangladesh, Japan, and Korea. In a statement, Trump also announced that he is close to making a deal with India. According to government sources, a 'mini trade deal' between India and the United States is likely to be announced tonight, July 8, 2025. The complete deal is likely to be signed after negotiations between the two countries later this year. The sources noted that this mini-deal is going to be beneficial to the country. US to sign 'mini trade deal' with India tonight Union Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal stated that the Modi government's top priority in trade negotiations is safeguarding India's interests. 'Whatever free trade agreement will be made with any country, it will be done while protecting the interests of Jammu and Kashmir and the whole of India…Today, the world sees India as a reliable partner in trade and industry. People believe that India and Indians do business honestly. That is why today the world wants to increase trade with India. All the developed countries of the world are eager to increase their two-way trade by making agreements with India," he said. 35% tariffs on Bangladesh, announces Donald Trump New trade measures for Bangladesh, Thailand, Japan, and South Korea On Monday, Trump stated that they have already reached agreements with the UK and China and are close to finalising one with India. For others, they have spoken to them but don't see a deal happening; hence, they simply send a letter outlining the terms: if they want to engage, here's what it will cost. The United States has prolonged the suspension of its April 2 reciprocal tariffs until August 1, offering relief to Indian exporters and giving both New Delhi and Washington more time to address outstanding issues and work toward a temporary trade agreement. Donald Trump's new tariffs on 14 countries: Laos- 40 per cent tariffs Myanmar- 40 per cent tariffs Thailand- 36 per cent tariffs Cambodia - 36 per cent tariffs Bangladesh - 35 per cent tariffs Serbia - 35 per cent tariffs Indonesia - 32 per cent tariffs South Africa- 30 per cent tariffs Bosnia and Herzegovina- 30 per cent tariffs Malaysia- 25 per cent tariffs Tunisia- 25 per cent tariffs Japan- 25 per cent tariffs South Korea- 25 per cent tariffs Kazakhstan- 25 per cent tariffs To stay updated on the stories that are going viral, follow Indiatimes Trending.


India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
Praful Patel says staff crunch in civil aviation body
2:14 Elon Musk has launched a new political outfit called the America Party, appointing Tesla's CFO Vaibhav Taneja as its first official member and treasurer. Taneja, an Indian-origin financial expert, will be responsible for managing the party's finances and federal compliance.