Saturday, 15 December 2018



Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

15 December 2018

Contempt of Court v Freedom of Speech

To my mind, Contempt of Court is valid only to the extent  Freedom of Speech on the basis of Belief is not restricted. Next to Truth that connects us Universally are laws that connect their believers subconsciously as well as consciously. As a litigant I believe I have every right not only to share my facts with the Courts but also to share my court experiences with the Public. I do not have the right to criticize the judges while the matter is being heard. As per my mind, I have not done that at any time. In terms of the recent decisions by the president of Sri Lanka – every investor in Sri Lanka has the natural  right to express her/his experience and interpretation of the law as per her/his belief. Interference happens only when one interrupts and overrides the interpretation of a senior within that institution – in this instance the Parliament and the Judiciary.

Mr Ranil Wickremesinghe was careful not to do that with the President’s Administrative ruling. He kept referring to the matter as being a question of law. I conclude that that was how his genuine commitment to law came to his support in his hour of need. Something that Mr Sirisena did not have.
There are reports that a Contempt of Court case has been filed in the Supreme Court against former Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva. The case is reported to have been  filed by Professors Chandraguptha Thenuwara, Hewa Waduge Cyril and Prashantha Gunawardena, under Article 105(3) of the Constitution of Sri Lanka. This article states as follows:

[(3) The Supreme Court of the Republic of Sri Lanka and the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Sri Lanka shall each be a superior court of record and shall have all the powers of such court including the power to punish for contempt of itself, whether committed in the court itself or elsewhere, with imprisonment or fine or both as the court may deem fit. The power of the Court of Appeal shall include the power to punish for contempt of any other court, tribunal or institution referred to in paragraph (1)(c) of this Article, whether committed in the presence of such court or elsewhere : Provided that the preceding provisions of this Article shall not prejudice or affect the rights now or hereafter vested by any law in such other court, tribunal or institution to punish for contempt of itself.]

At Mallakam District Court, lawyer Yogendra, representing our opposition claimed that I was acting in contempt of court – by sharing my experience outside court. The District Court judge asked our lawyer Mr Kanagasingham to warn me. I wrote my feelings that it was not contempt of court to share my experience. In any case there was no mention of any judgment by me of the judge at that stage while the matter was in process. Even later when the judge said that I was behaving like a street woman, I shared my experience – including through Naan Australian book. I did not know what the law said. But I had already lost trust in that Court and I shared how I felt.
To my mind, Truth cannot be subdued by any human law. If Sri Lanka did have such a law – Mr  Yogendra was free to take action against me. I would have then considered such a law to be unjust law.
I therefore do not understand as to how these three professors who are NOT part of the Court system could have been affected by expressions by Mr Sarath N Silva. A member of the law profession has every right to do so on the basis that Mr Silva was part of the Judiciary as an elder. A lawyer who respected Mr Silva would therefore have conflict or excitement in her/his mind due to the active investments s/he has made  in the current Judiciary. But not others outside that circle of influence. It will be interesting to learn how the Sri Lankan judiciary handles this.
Article 14 (1) (a) states:

Every citizen is entitled to – the freedom of speech and expression including publication’
Freedom from restrictions help us bloom as individuals and as sovereign groups. Gays are recognized by law so they are not made juniors by heterosexuals.  Likewise age, gender, race etc. To my mind lawful acceptance as equals  is the release from suppression of nature.
The basis of that freedom is one’s Belief. The Petitioners have the onus to prove that their belief based rights have been damaged by Mr Silva, if their action is not to be in breach of Article 14 (1) (a) of the Constitution.

Article 105(3) of the Constitution is about the power of the Courts in contempt of court. The contempt itself needs to be felt by the Judiciary and its various support services. In terms of general public – to my mind the parallel is Defamation action.



Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

15 December 2018

How the President became Minority Power

Roman poet Lucretius said ‘one man’s meat is another man’s poison’. In democracy the poison is recognized as minority. If both sides believed – then they are both right but are of different cultures. This is the core value of democracy.

The Supreme Court of Sri Lanka delivered the verdict that the President’s dissolution of Parliament was unconstitutional – i.e. – bad in law. But as stated by the president, if the president believed that he was doing good for the nation, then as per the ruling which has been accepted by majority Parliamentarians, the president represented  minority power. In essence  this is what Mr Sirisena has been complaining about – that he was a minority power in that government.

Alan Keenan of Crisis group, who is recognized as a political expert -  made many suggestions  to bring about closure to the current political crisis. One of them was that Mr Wickremesighe should magnanimously step down because Mr Sirisena is not able to work with him. On hearing that, I cried out ‘Oh No!’. The reason is that Sri Lanka would lose the confidence in the Judiciary as an Equal power to political powers. If Mr Wickremesinghe stepped down that would have the effect of pampering  Mr Sirisena. Pampering is as bad as abandoning.  The Supreme Court verdict that the President’s decision was unconstitutional  restores faith in ordinary citizens that they have the  ability to use their heads to regulate their emotions. The fact that there were no commotions at public level – and the president also contributed to this – confirms that we have, as a Nation become more accepting of the head ruling over emotions. Mr Keenan in this instance lacked insight into the common Sri Lankan.

Mr Sirisena as an individual is a little more than a year younger than I. Mr Wickremesinghe is about a year older than I. Hence as Sri Lankans we grew up as common generation. When common is distributed it becomes base of Equal Opportunity. As an independent person of that generation, I identify  with both sides as they are – i.e. equal opportunity to choose to be on one side or the other but not both at the same time. As per my current status as global citizen I have the duty to add myself to one side or the other to preserve my own heritage. That was Mr Wickremesinghe in the political development in which I did not have direct say. But after a long time I felt even. In 2009 – when I sought approval to go to the camps the senior Health official stated to me ‘Don’t go there and claim separate state’. I felt hurt but the need to get there was deeper and therefore manifested majority thoughts in my mind. I submitted my pain to Lord Buddha in that room. Some of it was offset by the Hon Rajitha Senaratne’s Administration in 2016 when recognition for war affected women health workers’ needs  was acknowledged as per my representation. The Supreme Court verdict – 9 years later finally balanced the equation for me. To my mind, Buddha in leaders who delivered the decisions,  delivered that verdict.

 I learnt through my Australian experiences that we do influence through the commonness we feel. I have realised that I do this with my family also. Often when nothing else seems to work, I am able to work the system. I believe that that is what happened in the Sri Lankan issue also. We must therefore not wish for this or that – directly as per the Court ruling. The court ruling has confirmed the restoration of the Independence of the Judiciary at the top. This needs to now be shared with the juniors in Judiciary also. That is when the common Sri Lankan would reap her/his return for investing in higher laws that connect us to wider world.

In true  politics, no one is wrong. We are all believers who divide as minority and majority. The Parliament through belief showed majority support for Mr Wickremesinghe as Prime Minister. If Mr Wickremesinghe steps down now – he would be insulting the Parliament. As per article 42(4) of the Constitution:

‘The President shall appoint as Prime Minister the Member of Parliament, who, in the President’s opinion, is most likely to command the confidence of Parliament.’
The stepping down of Mr Rajapaksa – as announced by his son would, in the eyes of the President, leave that position vacant. He then has to confirm the new person as per the above section. It’s his duty and not an option. If he fails – the members of Parliament have the option of filing another Fundamental Rights petition in Court.

If the president appoints someone other than Mr Wickremesinghe, the Parliament has to then continue to outvote such decision but not stop supply.

Now that Mr Sirisena is minority power – he has the opportunity to better appreciate how other minorities – especially Tamils felt when our belief in ourselves as a community was dismissed by law-makers who used majority power to make laws that would prove we were wrong – bad in law. 

This was the basis of the 6th Amendment (August 1983) to the constitution. Accordingly Article 157(A) of the Constitution includes the following:

[(1)No person shall, directly or indirectly, in or outside Sri Lanka, support, espouse, promote, finance, encourage or advocate the establishment of a separate State within the territory of Sri Lanka.
(2) No political party or other association or organization shall have as one of its aims or objects the establishment of a separate State within the territory of Sri Lanka]
In Australia, State is the parallel of Province in Sri Lanka. The Constitution of Sri Lanka, defines Sri Lanka as Republic in Article 1 and as State in Article 2. :
[1. Sri Lanka (Ceylon) is a Free, Sovereign, Independent and Democratic Socialist Republic and shall be known as the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.
2. The Republic of Sri Lanka is a Unitary State.  ]

I did not find a definition of ‘State’ in the Constitution. If State is country – then by recognising it – the group that recognizes it – also becomes guilty. That is catch 22 in this instance.
The timing of the sixth amendment confirms the anxiety felt by the then government led by Mr J R Jayawardene. One who is committed to Truth will read this as fear of ‘takeover’ by minorities who become majority through their belief – as Tamils and/or as Hindus in this instance – invoking India’s  powers. The parallel of that is the RAW Terrorism  accusation by the current President. If one becomes Mr Sirisena without the frills – one would identify with this fear – which was expressed through Mr Wickremesinghe as the agent of India.

Most Sri Lankan leaders who use the system of autocracy to ‘tell’ rather manifest independently – as per democracy  - would fear Tamils and Hindus due to India’s power. To the extent they lose Tamils and Hindus – India includes them and they become India’s agents in Sri Lanka. The training in India of Tamil militants after Black July 1983 experience which intensified due confirms how this worked. More and more Tamils felt motivated to join because they felt backed by Indian government – which to them confirmed that they were majority power at regional level.

  Likewise,  relatives of Christian emigrants who are able to realize more freedom in Western Nations  naturally influence Sri Lankan voters to the extent of common belief. The gap between our investment and return is our ownership capital – confirming  our ownership in Sri Lanka. Unjust takeovers through physical powers -  actually deepen the value of such minority ownership until minorities work the system through the roots. Once we are part of the roots – the power is universal.
Now it is President’s turn to keep fighting to establish his belief as being of equal value to that of Mr Wickremesinghe’s. Without Mr Wickremesinghe the President’s mind would not become active.

In this instance from a Tamil perspective – Mr Wickremesighe represented the global Tamil while Mr Sirisena represented  the local / traditional Sinhalese of highest status– strongly attached to seniority / majority power and its complacency.

Friday, 14 December 2018



Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

14 December 2018

Law is the President of Executive Power

The Law helps us feel good or bad about ourselves as independent persons. Those of  us who believe in the path of law, already delivered our judgments about who was right and who was wrong as per the Constitution of Sri Lanka, in the recent manifestations by the President and the Parliament. All of the Judges who delivered yesterday’s verdict regarding dissolution of Parliament would have studied and practiced English Law. To the extent they believe in those laws – they become global. But in the mind of non-believers and non-practitioners – they would be ‘foreigners’.

The level of Executive power that would lead us to self-governance needs to be sealed as per the Consolidated Actual level of contribution to the laws governing that position. To my mind, it was Mr Mahinda Rajapaksa who was giving the orders through the body of Mr Sirisena. The mind of Mr Sirisena was lacking in self-confidence in that position, and for this we need to blame Mr Wickremesinghe and Madam Kumaratunga for being driven by their desires to topple Mr Rajapaksa for which Mr Sirisena without mind of his own at that level, became  the medium. They – especially Madam Kumaratunga, failed to groom him into that position to the level of her own contribution.
President Sirisena obviously is not a deep  believer in law as stated. He did not have to be, to become President. But to use the provisions of law to justify his actions – as he did when terminating the services of Mr Ranil Wickremesinghe as Prime Minister – was abuse of executive power. Law is the President of Executive power. Belief in law would have prevented Mr Sirisena from bypassing Parliament and dismissing Mr Wickremesinghe  and appointing Mr Rajapaksa – whatever the technical wording of the law. Believers correct the technical errors in the law.
‘Appointing’  is when merit is used. Article 42(4) states as follows:

[The President shall appoint as Prime Minister the Member of Parliament, who, in the President’s opinion, is most likely to command the confidence of Parliament.]
Once the order ‘shall appoint’ is used, ‘opinion’ should not be used in a provision of law. To appoint, there has to be merit based reasoning. To state ‘shall’ – the law’s representative  - in this instance the president, ought to have already weighed the pros and cons and therefore the outcome that such process leads to – is upheld.

If the president were to use his opinion it has to be belief based. Otherwise his decision is frivolous and has the effect of being vexatious.
Both - the process of law and the expression of belief  of the individual cannot be applied to a particular aspect of the matter, unless such a person is believer of the law that is being used. If the belief is culture based, then there has to be separation in the mind between the two pathways. The decision maker must have the confidence of his own belief to declare that decision – as happened in 1976 through the Vaddukoddai Declaration by Tamils.

One is top down ownership through intellectual derivation and the other is bottom up through belief. The latter suits local environment and the former suits investors laterally in wider world. If snap elections was the motivation – then it confirms lack of belief. The mind of the believer changes only with truth. A leader needs to share her/his truth discovered at the highest level but without damaging the belief of other investors in the institution / nation. If election call was driven by benefits – that would destabilize the foundation of democracy.

Where a nation is driven more by belief of voters and less by belief of the leaders it is a democratic nation. Where it is the other way around – it is an autocratic nation. Both are ok so long as they are not mixed indiscriminately for the purposes of immediate pleasures.

Many questioned as to why Mr Rajapaksa did not wait for Parliamentary elections at the natural completion of the current term. To my mind, it was because he was distracted by the possibility of becoming president again and used the local government election victory. The current crisis manifested outcomes that confirmed that when law and order is reliable – the voters would need less and less handouts in return for votes. The Sri Lankan Parliamentarians have undergone treatment to know that where belief is weak and therefore such quid pro quo transactions are on the rise – their own existence is threatened.

Much of the treatment came from the Public who shared their own truth freely. Our expressions of belief cover the whole that we believe we are part of. In the case of Mr Sirisena that whole is a fraction of Sri Lanka. Minority in belief is wrong in law and v.v. So why worry? – just stay in our own worlds – however small they may be and enjoy the freedom of expression without fear of defeat or desire for victory.

Thursday, 13 December 2018



Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

13 December 2018

Judicial Immunity & Presidential Immunity

Whatever the final outcome of the current political turmoil within the Parliament of Sri Lanka, there has been healthy sharing of ideas and beliefs especially through regulated media. An email is also such a medium when the user is firmly regulated on the basis of appropriate principles – in this instance global principles and/or personal belief that the sharing  would be of value to the other side also. Those covered by belief  are immune from  fault-finding.

Immunity from prosecution is often granted to leaders who are taken to have Governing power over the whole. Governing power is Absolute in value. Executive power is relative in value. Judges’  immunity is also limited  in real terms to their use of  Discretionary powers after Judicial powers have failed to produce a lawful outcome or produce an outcome that would damage the fundamental rights of the other side. The rest of the Judge’s decision is liable to be scrutinized in higher courts. Judge of the highest court is immune from such scrutiny her/his judgments also.

Likewise Parliamentary privilege covered in Sri Lanka through Parliament (Powers and Privileges) Act.

One of the early lessons I learnt through Tamil culture is that one does not find fault with the guru. A student who believes in the guru would not see any fault in the guru. That is when guru and disciple become One. Then the guru delivers through the disciple and v.v. In democracy the customer is taken as right, until proven otherwise,  due to the requirement that the supplier must bring the customer as part of her/him/itself.

In the Colombo Telegraph article headed ‘Executive Presidency- Absurdity Of The Immunity Cover!’ – the author Mr Lukman Harees refers to the following case brought against the then Attorney General - Mr Shiva Pasupati – a Tamil. The case was named ‘Mallikarachchi vs. Siva Pasupathy

It ought to have been named Mallikarachchi  vs Attorney General – as  the highest legal power within the Government. The individual is mere medium of the government.
Justice Sharvananda, also a Tamil is quoted by the above author as follows:
[In the SL Context, Sharvananda CJ in Mallikarachchi vs. Siva Pasupathy explained the immunity granted to the President as follows: ‘…the President is not above the law. He is a person elected by the people and holds office for a term of six years. The process of election ensures in the holder of the office correct conduct and full sense of responsibility for discharging properly the functions assigned to him. It is, therefore, necessary that special immunity must be conferred on the person holding such high executive office from being subject to legal process or legal action and being harassed by frivolous actions. If such immunity is not conferred not only the prestige, dignity and status of the high office would be adversely affected but the smooth and efficient working of the Government of which he is the head would be impeded. That is the rationale for the immunity cover afforded to the President’s actions both official and private’. ]
I mention Tamil with a reason. The above matter was decided in November 1984 – when the Executive Presidency was strongly active. The two gentlemen – one representing the highest legal Administrative power of Sri Lanka and the other the highest Judicial power, confirm inner powers through which they got to those positions despite obvious discrimination against Tamils – especially in Administration at the individual level. They motivated other Tamils to have ‘hope’ of reaching  the parallel positions to that of the President through the political pathway.

When Mr Arjuna Mahendran let us down as Governor of Central Bank, he seriously damaged this hope. He proved to be mere trader. By appointing Mr Indrajit Coomaraswamy the Wickremesinghe leadership restored that confidence in the Tamil community. 



To me,( a genuine practitioner of law ) Belief is the basis of any immunity – either  from judicial orders or executive orders. This applies also to the citizen. Given that majority citizens do not have active knowledge of law but are subjected to administrative rulings and judicial orders, their representatives have immunity from prosecution which they are required to share with their constituents to keep legal actions to minimum levels. But individuals being fallible and therefore not worthy of such immunity – as was demonstrated by Mr Sirisena – exceed their powers of belief . But like I said about Attorney General  Shiva Pasupathy and Chief Justice Sharvananda, the President’s position is the highest position through which most citizens would develop political belief and hence the purity of that position is maintained to facilitate development of wholesome faith. Likewise guru position and for that matter any CEO position. One of our trainees who now works for Jetwing, continues to address me as CEO due to attributing this guru position. He is a strong  reason why I stay at Jetwing in Jaffna. Jaffna is the base of my fundamental values in education. Jetwing is an appropriate institution through which to show the heights to which such fundamentals would lift us. Jetwing is also the parallel of our home here in Coogee in fundamental standards of health and security in holiday area.

Belief is the basis of self-governance. Whoever holds that highest position in any field, needs to be seen as being faultless. This is necessary for structural purposes. It however does not hold in love and war – where belief overrides relativity.

The current Sri Lankan president declared war against minorities – by ‘dismissing a Prime Minister elected by Parliament’ and ‘appointing’ one of his liking. In the court of  Dharma – the moment the one uses powers for relative purposes – one loses the belief based immunity. Hence both Executive powers and Governance powers cannot be applied to the same part of the matter at the one time.
The true governor begins with the voter’s belief , escalates it to the highest possible level through Administration and presents that as her/his Belief. One who condones bribes to change religions / political alliance – confirms stagnation at voter level. If majority Sri Lankans vote for Mr Sirisena to be President – then Sri Lanka as a whole would isolate itself from the high end values of globalization.

As per Daily Mirror ‘TNA MP for Jaffna district Dharmalingam Sidaththan told Daily Mirror that his party extended conditional support for Mr. Wickremesinghe to get the required majority to become the Prime Minister.
This is so very wrong. It does not cover democratic Tamils. Any quid pro quo deal carries with it relative value and would lack the power to raise locals to National and Global level thought structures that only Belief has. Belief will teach its own lessons to those who damage belief based fundamental rights. Relativity is mortal; Belief is Divine.



Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

13 December 2018

Victory for Parliament of Belief

The good news came through an Australian of Sri Lankan-Sinhalese origin, who was the first to  respond to my yesterday’s article ‘Parliament of Belief’.  That was belief based sharing and it would be right for both of us. I wrote back stating ‘Great news for Tamils also’.

Why is Ranil Wickremesinghe better for us Tamils than Mahinda Rajapaksa? The reason is the identity with the higher status of law and therefore higher education that Northern Tamils have strongly invested in. It is that heritage that renders the Tamil Community belief in itself to be of world standards. Belief alone could sustain us as a community provided we did not seek external relations. Due to the war, a good proportion of Tamils have become citizens of other nations also. To the extent they believe in their relatives and community in Sri Lanka and to the extent they invest in law based self-governance in their new nations – the belief based sharing is continuous. That is the Global Parliament of Belief.

When a group is experiencing pain due to damage to their Belief – it confirms damage to Fundamental Rights. The Belief of the voter, actively relating to Local Government in her / his area – would look different to the Belief of the voter actively relating to National as well as  Global Governance that Sri Lanka has the duty to contribute to.  

Mr Sirisena at best relates through Provincial level Belief.  Mr Sirisena  won the position of Presidency through promises especially to Tamils, of abolishing the Executive Presidency due to which Tamils suffered more than any other community in Sri Lanka. Had Mr Sirisena stayed within his area of belief – he would have not invoked Sooniyam (Tamil) / Black Magic / the Dark side of Sri Siddha Suniyam Deviyo (Sinhalese) on himself.  

Votes are like cash and belief is the Feeling of Common ownership. From time to time – Mr Sirisena stated that he was doing what he did – for his beloved country. The LTTE also stated that they were the sole representatives of Tamils of Sri Lanka. Mr CV Wigneswaran stated in his recent Australian interview - that his group would present the unanimous mind of the Tamil people. But then he was critical of the EPDP (Tamil) group which he claimed was driven by money. That shows that the ‘unanimous’ claim was not one based on belief but wishful thinking – a different version of  ‘Sole Representatives’ claim by the LTTE. As the Armed Forces of  Tamils – the LTTE had the DUTY to prevent the rape of Tamil school girls by the Armed Government Forces. It was disrespectful of them to hijack the outcome and blame it fully on the Armed Soldiers. This excess of military force also contributed to the 1983 riots in Colombo Sri Lanka. It was excessive to the extent they did not take responsibility for their failure to protect the young ones.

But the problem in Colombo was due to President J R Jayawardene who, like Mr Sirisena overrode Prime Minister Premadasa’s  decision to follow normal procedure and send the bodies to the villages of the slain soldiers. This resulted in damage to Tamils to whom Colombo was ‘home’. The first attacks were around Mr Jayawardene’s home area.

The Land that we believe in does not know the difference between believers on the basis of their race or religion. One has to use or bypass such external subjective aspects to ‘believe’. Where one is strongly driven by apparent subjective powers – one confirms that s/he is not a believer. When we believe, the land and we are one.  Hence the decision by the then President purely for political purposes manifested as damage to Tamil properties during his rule – starting with his home area – where Nagalingam (Tamil name)  Stores was the first victim. President Jayawardene wanted to ‘show’ through those who were not usually part of his natural environment. Prime Minister Premadasa had that intuitive connection with the ordinary Sinhalese but by position he was junior to Mr Jayawardene. Likewise Mr Wickremesinghe in terms of global issues, due to his higher level education.

But this time, the Tamil Parliamentarians have confirmed through their active support to Mr Wickremesinghe that the Tamil community’s investment in Governance has also been raised to the global level. Australian media is actively publishing the outcomes of yesterday’s votes.
Manifestations of belief would often be based on hardship for the person and/or group. Yesterday’s victory in National Parliament – confirmed that the 2015 Tamil votes during Presidential elections were by purpose for Mr Wickremesinghe and not for Mr  Sirisena. Hence it’s victory for Tamils who seek to be globally connected.

Wednesday, 12 December 2018



Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

12 December 2018

Parliament of Belief

Today, I listened to Australian – Bala Wigneswaran’s interview of Mr CV Wigneswaran - the one and only Chief Minister of Northern Province of Sri Lanka. Must say I was impressed by the maturity demonstrated by the Australian. Interestingly, Bala highlighted the confusion that the ordinary citizen may have between the Tamil People’s Council and the Tamil People’s Alliance. To me – they are not oriented towards service to the People democratically. Tamil socialists K. Nesan and V. Gnana identify with this as follows in relation to the Political grouping:
[In his inauguration speech, Wigneswaran defined a 10-point program to promote “people’s politics.” However, he indicated that he would continue the policies of the TNA, which has tried to negotiate an improvement of conditions for Tamils in the aftermath of the 1983-2009 Sri Lankan civil war with the US-backed government of President Maithripala Sirisena. Wigneswaran said, “Negotiations with the government to solve the ethnic conflict are halted. In order to restart the negotiations, we must again start to exercise pressures nationally and internationally.”
Only two days later, however, Wigneswaran’s perspective of negotiating with a friendly government in Colombo went up in smoke. Sirisena sacked Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe in a political coup that has plunged Sri Lanka into a constitutional crisis. Sirisena nominated as prime minister former President Mahinda Rajapakse, who oversaw the crushing of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and the massacre of thousands of civilians as the war ended in 2009.] ‘Wigneswaran’s Tamil People’s Alliance: A trap for Sri Lankan workers’ – published by World Socialist Website.

In many ways Sirisena-Wickremesinghe alliance is the parallel of Wigneswaran-Sumanthiran alliance. This is also age and gender related separation example
DBS Jeyaraj in his article headed ‘Tamil Peoples Council (TPC) Launched in Jaffna as Political Alternative to Tamil National Alliance (TNA) with Northern Chief Minister Wigneswaran at the Helm’ has listed the names of the inaugural members of the Council. I could not find even one female name in that at a stage where Affirmative Action is needed. This confirms that the two main subjective discrimination factors within the Tamil community – gender and caste - would not be addressed by the Tamil People’s Council. Race is not a discrimination issue for Tamils living in majority Tamil areas, except when they become National Policy and Tamil leaders share their emotions and/or belief based interpretations. Likewise, religion for Hindus in majority Tamil areas. Race is a major issue for those Tamils living as minorities in majority Sinhalese areas and Hindus living in Buddhist areas. Likewise, race due to religious differences  is an issue for Muslims and Christians in areas, including Tamil areas, where they are minorities.

During 2003 ceasefire time when I worked to develop administration for Northern Province through UNDP Project, I raised the issue of gender based discrimination – when the young guy who was distributing the agenda notice left me out but gave the men on each side,  I raised the issue with Mr J Maheswaran who chaired the meeting. Ms Thamilini – the head of LTTE Ladies wing said she would listen to me later. The matter ended there. But someone with Common belief in Nallur Murugan made me feel included recorded as follows by me:

[During my project to help the Tamil Tigers develop their Administrative system, I came across within the Tamil Tiger group many with whom I shared common faith and this  included Mr. Balakumar previously  the leader of EROS (Eelam Revolutionary Organisation of Students). During a meeting with the Tamil Administrators – both Government as well as LTTE  at Vattakachchi – in Vanni -  I said that I had gone to Nallur Temple on the morning after Shiva Raathri (the Big Night for Shiva) instead of attending the first meeting. I said I had not received notice regarding the first meeting but that Nallur Murugan (above picture) called me and I went. Then Mr. Balakumar asked me with much fondness
/ ‘How did Nallur Kanthan call you?’ Balakumar is no more now but I still remember and appreciate that sharing in what was an alien environment for me. ] Chapter 12 ‘Naan Australian’.
As Bala Wigneswaran highlighted during the interview,  most politicians do make promises that they are not able to fulfil even when they win power. That is really not an issue with the People except when they are emotionally high. Most elected leaders fail to listen, with their ear to the ground, to the grassroots. Once in power they pursue their own agendas. The above mentioned observation ‘Wigneswaran’s perspective of negotiating with a friendly government in Colombo went up in smoke’ confirms that Mr Wigneswaran did not connect to Mr Wickremesinghe as a Common Colombo citizen. Had he done that he would have identified with the development of that very commonness between Tamil Parliamentarians and the UNP – whose common opposition was the SLFP led by Mr Mahinda Rajapaksa.
On 20 October – through my belief based  article I voted for Ranil’s side in the Parliament of Belief. Every expression of Belief is a vote. It may even be technically incorrect but the Belief will manifest its other side, as per our cumulative credits. Our Lady of Fatima appeared not to the ruler but to the children of faith. Likewise, Mother Abirami:
[One day, the King visited the temple to pay homage to Lord Shiva. On noticing the peculiar behaviour of Subramaniya Iyer who was a temple priest, he inquired the other priests about the individual. One of them remarked that he was a madman while another rejected this categorization explaining to the king that Subramaniya Iyer was only an ardent devotee of Goddess Abhirami. Seeking to know the truth himself, Serfoji approached the priest and asked him what day of the month it was i.e. whether it was a full-moon day or a new-moon day. Subramaniya Iyer who could see nothing else but the shining luminant form of the Goddess before him wrongly answered that it was a full-moon day while it was in fact a new-moon day. The king rode off informing the former that he would have his head cut off if the moon did not appear on the sky by six in the night.
Immediately realizing his mistake, Subramaniya Iyer supposedly lit a huge fire and erected a platform over it supported by a hundred ropes. He sat upon the platform and prayed to the Goddess Abhirami to save him. He cut off one rope after another in succession on completion of each verse of his prayer. These hymns form the Abhirami Anthadhi. On completion of the 79th hymn, the Goddess Abhirami manifested herself before him and threw her earring over the sky such that it shone with bright light upon the horizon. The area around the temple sparkled with bright light. Overcome with ecstasy, Subramaniya Iyer composed 21 more verses in praise of the Goddess.
The king repented his mistake and immediately cancelled the punishment he had awarded Subramaniya Iyer. He also bestowed upon the latter the title of Abirami Pattar or "priest of Goddess Abhirami"] - Wikipedia

The details in this legend may not be technically accurate. The hymn ‘Abirami Anthathi’ by Abirami Pattar  is true and works all the time for the true believer. One with belief identifies with the manifestation through the other side. Mr Wigneswaran’s statements lack belief in Northern Sri Lanka as if he were Northern province.  Likewise, Mr Sirisena with the Buddhists, leave alone Sri Lankans.
Immunity from prosecution is granted to those who are required to express and act within their belief and no more. In the case of President as an individual, such immunity is strongest. But to be truly protected by such – Mr Sirisena should be like Buddha for majority Sri Lankans covered by Article 9 of the Constitution. Expressions of belief help us develop and maintain self-confidence. The status of Equal Opposition in Parliament in 2015 was the manifestation of Tamil belief. That is the base of our Tamil Sri Lankan ownership on Equal footing – achieved in spite of  Sinhala only and Buddhism foremost policies – or rather because of them. By showing opposition without violence – we developed deeper belief . When minority belief becomes equal to majority belief – and this has been manifested by minorities independently – as in Vaddukoddai Resolution 1976 - the manifestation happens of  the free will of Nature. We just become the media of Nature.

If even one believer who the leader claims to represent – i.e. Tamil in the case of Mr CV Wigneswaran and  Sri Lankan in the case of Mr M Sirisena, manifests opposition on the basis of her/his belief – the leader will fall. True believers would identify with the fall. Mr Wigneswaran was required to be leader of Sinhalese as well as Muslims in Northern Province and not just Tamils. Likewise, Mr Sirisena – was required to be leader of all Sri Lankans and not just Buddhists. During his time at least one Sri Lankan must have invoked the other side. Hence the fall from grace.

Tuesday, 11 December 2018



Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

11 December 2018

Show of Superiority complex

I heard a Sinhalese say it at the Sri Lanka Reconciliation Forum, Sydney. I read it again today in the Financial Times article  Sri Lanka’s number one problem’

[During the ethnic unrest in 1983 and the height of separatist war in 2009, some would have emigrated in search of safety. But by and large most people emigrate in search of better jobs, better income, better luxuries of life, better healthcare, better education for children, better caring during retirement, etc. Hardly anyone left the country in search of a better political system. ]

I believe that we see ourselves through others when at least one is honest with her/himself. If the author of the above article is Tamil then – s/he does not care about Tamils. That is ok – so long as s/he does not use our pain as her/his opportunity. If the above author is non-Tamil – then s/he is seriously guilty of racial discrimination for taking superior status to declare on our behalf. The above author is certainly not Sri Lankan.

Financial and status outcomes confirm our core values. Unless our costs – the total of - money, time and sense of commitment are returned at least to break even – we have the duty as human beings to (1) take our position at levels higher  than those allocated to us by the custodians of power and equal to them and do so non-violently; (2) identify with our deeper ownership than the custodians of power and influence manifestations through the power of belief and prayer (3) and/or move away from that place – taking only the Truth of our experience with us.

As part of the five basic elements, Earth carries ownership energy. It is for this reason that practitioners of Yoga tend to sit at the same place during meditation. Likewise time and hence anniversaries. During 1983 riots and 2009 war, the homes of thousands of Tamils were damaged by hooligans – who seriously disrespected the law of the nation and the laws of humanity. Every civilian who genuinely suffered but did not retaliate – left a curse there for the attackers and ownership blessings for themselves and their heirs. Whatever they found in the new nations belong to those nations and cannot be directly related to the pain and loss suffered    in the land called Sri Lanka. Each nation needs to be self-balancing. I emigrated in 1982 but I did suffer in 1977 when I was pregnant with my third child. Colombo is still home to me because I did not retaliate even in thought. I felt sorry for myself but gradually got over it. Now I feel sad. That is our resilience, which core value we bring with us to our new nations.

Here in Australia also I suffered due to my loyalty to my Sri Lankan education. But I did not take revenge. I shared my pain and loss through my book ‘Naan’ Australian and did so after I could not stand the discrimination and therefore insult to my origin any more.  Despite all that, we as a family, do enjoy relatively parallel status here in Australia – as we did in Sri Lanka. The gap is filled by us through (1) above - take our position at levels higher  than those allocated to us by the custodians of power and equal to them and do so non-violently.

That is called ‘user pays’ facility in Public Service. The status is equalized with the Service Provider who cannot tell us. For structural purposes – we keep it at Equal level and no more. I do that all the time with those who ‘tell’ me to take them off my email list. If they do not know how to use the ‘block sender’ facility – they are indeed my very young juniors in email facility. So, I Practice Gandhi’s non-violent non-cooperation. If I use the email facility for personal or commercial benefits - then I have the duty to unsubscribe them. If I did not follow these laws of Dharma – then the internet would not respond to me when I need information.

The author and her/his community has much to learn about Democracy, leave alone Human Rights.