The Indian press counselor {letters, June 29} says "we did not create the ethnic crisis in Sri Lanka, nor have we encouraged either the Tamils (or any breakaway group) in Sri Lanka in acting against the integrity and unity of Sri Lanka."

That Sri Lankan Tamil militants are using India's southern-most state of Tamil Nadu as a training and staging ground for separatist terrorism in Sri Lanka is acknowledged by militant leaders themselves and is well documented by Indian and Western media. In an editorial Nov. 4, The Hindu, a Madras newspaper, cited several instances of terrorism perpetrated in Tamil Nadu by Sri Lankan Tamil militants and asked how it is they are allowed "to get away with murder and mayhem and that in the host's own home." The Press Trust of India reported that Tamil Nadu police seized wireless communication and an "awesome arsenal" when detaining 1,000 Sri Lankan Tamil militants on the eve of last November's South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation Summit in South India. The militants were released, and weaponry was returned after the summit.

Regarding the assertion that the Sri Lanka government had second thoughts about the Dec. 10 proposals, Indian analyst Ajit Bhattachariya says in the June 10 Deccan Herald "it is not even correct to blame Colombo for the failure of the talks. It was the LTTE that rejected the December 19th proposals. . . . The truth is that the Liberation Tigers have used India to gain their own ends."

Regarding the economic blockade, testifying before the congressional subcommittee on Asia and Pacific affairs on March 12, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Robert A. Peck said:

"On Jan. 1, the militants in Jaffna announced that they would begin to expand their takeover of some of the functions of local government. This prompted the Sri Lankan government to institute a limited blockade of Jaffna Peninsula in an attempt to cut off fuel and aluminum going north."

There was no blockade on food, medicine or other needs of the civilians.

The Indian press counselor has said that "India was left with no option but to air-drop the supplies." The Sri Lanka position has always been that, while it saw no need for additional supplies from India, it would be willing to discuss modalities for receiving and distributing such aid in the interest of good neighborly relations.

The Sri Lanka government in reply to the Indian message of June 1 to send relief supplies by sea informed India on the same day as stated above. India also on the same day "thanked the Sri Lanka government for agreeing to participate in this humanitarian undertaking in the spirit of good neighborly relations." India despite this offer took unilateral action to invade Sri Lanka's airspace. Subsequently, there was world condemnation of the invasionary air drop.

The London Times on June 8 editorially commented:

"For India to infringe Sri Lanka's airspace was to bully its tiny neighbor, not treat it as a friend. To draw an unlikely parallel, it was as if the United States had showered food on West Belfast while the British Army was conducting an operation against the IRA. How far Sri Lanka's Tamils needed supplies is a question open to debate. It is hard to believe that they needed them quite so badly. There is certainly no evidence to suggest it."

NAREN CHITTY Press Counselor Embassy of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka Washington