Gajalakshmi Paramasivam – 28 March 2016
Man of the Junge and the Boat stopper
Yesterday, I wrote:
‘The above as per the original caste system is in the same order as the Vice Chancellor of an Australian University not going to the office of the cleaner – nor even talking to the cleaner as much as s/he would to an academic. The cleaner’s family is not likely to produce a Vice Chancellor the same way a toddy tapper community is not likely to produce a principal of Jaffna College nor an Aborigine living within her/his community becoming the Prime Minister of Australia. The reason is – as highlighted by our immediate past Prime Minister the Hon Tony Abbott - the ‘lifestyle choices’ made by those communities’ Lifestyle Choices by Jaffna – their Sovereign right?
This morning I read in The Australian:
‘Tony Abbott: I was right to defend Sri Lanka rights record’
As per this report:
[Former prime minister Tony Abbott has defended his ‘decision to cosy up to former Sri Lankan strongman president’ Mahinda Rajapaksa.as part of his efforts to stop the flow of asylum-seeker boats.
In a 3,700 word essay published over the weekend in Quadrant, Mr Abbott praised his decision not to join the “human rights lobby against the tough but probably unavoidable actions taken to end one of the world’s most vicious civil wars”……. In his essay, Mr Abbott wrote that he was sure former Sri Lankan president Mahinda Rajapaksa would have been pleased Australia did not join the chorus of international criticism.]
The problem with the above is that Mr. Rajapaksa, like Mr. Howard, lost his position as head Administrator of his country. The decision by Mr. Abbott might have been as per his personal truth. But if the investment by Australians in Human Rights systems that Australia has committed itself to – was greater than the Truth as known by Mr. Abbott, actions based on such personal truth would ‘shrink’ the official system. The LTTE itself made this mistake in terms of Tamil investment in self-determination. This earned them the label that they were juniors who ‘did not bring the harvest home’ for Tamils. The actions of the Sri Lankan Government in 2009 likewise, confirmed that the Government did not bring the harvest home for Sri Lankans.
Every citizen who invests genuinely in these principles, laws and values – accumulates ‘rights’ at the global level. When a group – even if it is the government – which has invested less than the consolidated cumulative value of this investment by the citizen uses its own truth to act on behalf of the whole – it fails to bring the harvest home.
Mr. Mahinda Rajapaksa – is confessed to have claimed that he was a man of the jungle:
[The undiplomatic nature of some of the comments made by the former Norwegian minister, whether they were true or not, must be the result of his somewhat bitter last encounters with the former president. To mention a case in point, during an interview former “The Hindu” Editor N. Ram had with Mahinda Rajapaksa in July 2009 the latter’s secretary Lalith Weeratunge had intervened to say: “It was about March 2006 when Mr. Solheim came to see H.E. after he became president and had also said, in the midst of other things: ‘Prabhakaran is a military genius. I have seen him in action etc., etc. to which the President had responded: ‘He is from the jungles of the North. I am from the jungles of the South. Let’s see who will win!’ It was very prophetic. Later the President met Minister Solheim in New York and reminded him of their conversation on the ‘military geniuses,’ of the jungles of the North and South, and who would win. The East had by that time, in 2007, been cleared and the President had said: ‘Now see what’s going to happen in the North,[ it will be ]the same.”] Daily Mirror - The Solheim claim: ‘Mahinda planned to offer the North to Prabhakaran’
That was the Lifestyle Choice made by Mr. Rajapaksa. By becoming the Leading Opposition in Parliament in 2015, the Tamil Community confirmed yet again - that it had invested in its Sovereignty more than it had been credited with – officially by Sri Lankan leaders. Natural forces combine to support and add strength to the victim who invests in the official system more than the official punishing her/him/it. Mr. Abbott himself seems to have contributed to this negative force by not joining the ‘chorus of international criticism’. One may use one’s personal Truth to protect one’s own but if that were made official – it diminishes the structure that supports the whole that one is part of. The then Vice Chancellor of the University of NSW did this when I assembled peacefully in 1998 - to demonstrate my ownership through Due Process. He was dismissed – which as per my insight was due to my relatively deeper investment in the system of democracy – strengthened by fellow owners of the University – including the Chancellors. Mr. Howard in turn hired expensive lawyers to have my complaint against him dismissed – and he himself was dismissed by the People. When one who has been denied her/his earned position and that person practices the relevant law (in this instance Equal Opportunity laws) more than the official and the official punishes her/him – the good spirits naturally support the victim and this force of exponential value returns the karma to the perpetrator with a negative manifestation for the perpetrator.
In most religions we look to ‘leaving the problem to god’ once we have done our best. In Democracy we leave the problem to the Public – so their Truth will manifest in a free environment. Voting, to my mind is based on this. Votes in a ‘free’ environment – could be ‘belief’ / ‘common faith’ based and/or external thought based on the seen and the heard . When one is ‘free’ – the latter represents the former and hence majority rule.
When information is received on the basis of faith – it would steady the mind and the mind that votes with such steadiness would support the government from within – even if the form is different. What is shared is that ‘belief’ / ‘common faith’. The calculated vote needs to be based on common principles for it to support the structure. Hence Equal Opposition in Administration.
Democratic Courts are required to facilitate at least Equal level ‘facts’ as presentations of law that form the picture in the Judge’s head. Where presentations of law are greater than the ‘facts’ the matter is overregulated and the judgment tends to be an enforcement on the Public. Where facts are greater portion of the picture than the presentation of the law – it contributes towards new policies and/or natural Energy in support of the Public. Often Courts deliver unreliable unjust decisions due to premature use of discretionary powers as per the judge’s ‘Lifestyle Choices’. This could happen also when the investment in the law by the judiciary is lower than the investment in the same law by the citizen who comes to court. As per my experience in Australia, this is the case with our judiciary who rely heavily on lawyers and tend to underestimate the litigant who has followed the law until s/he has discovered the truth at the end of that pathway.
If Mr. Abbott’s choice - to not support the International voice against the Rajapaksa regime in relation to allegations of war crimes – was as per his feelings – that would have protected Australians – so long as it is not claimed to be the best practice under the circumstances. If even one innocent Tamil was killed in that battle by an official soldier – it was the Government that would have committed Terrorism. Mr. Rajapaksa himself has revealed – that the fight was between two ‘jungle’ groups. Certainly there were Tamil civilians who also celebrated the wins by the Northern jungle group and mourned its defeat. But they also did not add to the true investment in global values of the UN. They failed to add their Energy to those who did invest at that level. But as per the results – the latter group even though a minority within a minority – had the blessings of the gods and hence the political Equality at national level. Sri Lanka did support Australia – not by stopping the boats – but by recognizing the right of the asylum-seeker who believes in Sovereignty in one form or the other. If even one such asylum-seeker is Australian – s/he would naturally eliminate the evil forces even if they physically enter Australia. They are all natural governors who quietly govern their groups.
If Mr. Abbott looks deeper he would know that he paved the way for the current President – his Excellency Maithripala Sirisena with similar inner structure as himself. Both are swans and not lions when they are natural.