Sri lanka and kashmir

If the LTTE is insistent on a separate Eelam,the Sri lankan president is insistent on not accepting it.
how does one side then become a terrorist and why is its leadership vilified?
http://www.dailynews.lk/2008/06/14/sec01.asp
could the same description be also used to describe the sri lankan president?
If one supports the cause of eelam,the questions of kashmir and other separatist movements come up.

India is a secular federal democracy which is ongoing and dynamic.
There is no freeze and no undue influence given or enshrined to any particular group.
The constitution is clear and defines the rules.
Under these circumstances,groups which have taken to the gun are totally without any kind
of justification.
They can be said to consist of elements who are interested in the financial element of an armed struggle.
What are the alternative systems that they propose to put in place?
In Nepal,the monarchy was replaced.
What is sought to be replaced in India?
The kashmiris have been free to voice their opinions,geelani and others are freely espousing pakistan.
India is a collective common country and the kashmiris are a part of the union.
Are there any discriminatory provisions in the constitution?
Why cannot the geelanis talk and rectify any such grouse?
There are many provisions,on the other hand,which give a unique identity to the kashmiris
in our constitution.
The satisfactions and achievements possible while participating in a democracy are thrown away
in the recourse to violence.

In Sri lanka,the majority community discriminated against the minority wilfully and was brutally
insistent on going about its way.
Such a scenario is not possible in India.