22 September 2017
University doing the work of Parliament?
[But people such as Guruparan and Thananchayan wonder: “Can they trust the results of a process where they believe they’ve sacrificed so much, where they must go to the Supreme Court just to affirm their right to self-determination?
If they get a new Constitution, would it actually represent their interests?] Daily News article ‘Mavai Senathirajah’s landmark decision’
The above declaration was made in the consciousness of the case Chandrasoma v. Mavai Senathirajaha in which the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka ruled that seeking Federal structure was not unlawful. The reasons included the following:
“It is established that there is a clear distinction between words ‘federation’ and ‘confederation’. The main issue in this case is whether advocating the establishment of a federal state is tantamount to establishment of a separate state. It is relevant to consider the manner the federal states were formed in various parts of the world. United States of America, Australia and Switzerland are federal states. Thirteen States which were former colonies of the Great Britain joined to establish United States of America. The reason for uniting under one state is to promote trade and to ensure the security of the States. Six States in Australia in fear of pacific powers united to establish a federal state. In order to remove linguistic and regional differences Swiss federation was formed. Great Britain, France and Italy are examples of unitary states”.
No we did not need the Supreme Court to educate those to whom Tamil Nationalism meant Federalism. We need to be ready to go to Courts to defend our expressions of belief are challenged and/or we are anxious that our Belief based pathway would be blocked by others. It is for this reason that we manifest our belief as ‘facts’. As per Daily Mirror report on this matter:
[The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner at the hearing and in the written submissions based some of his arguments on the Vaddukoddai Resolution passed by the newly formed Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF) on May 14th 1976, which advocated establishment of a separate State. The contention of the Counsel for the Petitioner was that the ITAK has unconditionally and unambiguously endorsed all resolutions of the TULF going back to 14 May 1976.
In regard to this submission the 1st Respondent (ITAK secretary) in his written submissions took up the position that the claims to territorial Statehood made in the Vaddukoddai Resolution adopted over 40 years ago in 1976, at the 1st National Convention of the Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF) presided by Mr. Chelvanayagam, QC, and Member of the TULF and not by ITAK.]
The above mentioned Vaddukoddai Resolution led to the Tamil Political Party TULF becoming the leading party in National Parliament through National Elections in 1977. This meant that Tamils had the Blessings of Natural Forces to have Equal power in Parliament. This happened again in 2015. Every Politician who is true to her/himself – will know that this Equal is the maximum status one is entitled to in a Sovereign State. The 1977 achievement was hijacked by the Tamil militants who were strongly influenced by India’s Tamil Nadu. Once that influence starts – we lose the value of Sovereignty.
One could form a law, based on one’s own true experience and/or inherit from others by paying our respects to them. Once we pay our respects – we are no longer juniors but Equals in status to the one from whom we inherited. A child who pays her/his respects to the parent becomes an Equal in power even though s/he may hold junior position in the structure. The Vaddukoddai Resolution was/is the manifestation of such minds which paid their respects to Common Sri Lankans – whatever form they came in – and this group of Common Sri Lankans included Tamil Political Leaders who gave birth to the Vaddukoddai Resolution. They respected the laws of Sri Lanka, even though they opposed some provisions. It is indeed the duty of an Equal leader in Democracy, to Oppose. But the way it was interpreted by militants was different – they interpreted it as Separatism. That was ok – so long as they separated themselves from Politicians using the official pathway. By hijacking the effects of that resolution militants became guilty of cheating the owners who gave birth to that Resolution. Now there are those who follow the essence of that Resolution at their own levels and there are others who follow the militant leadership. Recently I received an invitation to attend the 30th Anniversary memorial service of ‘Thiyaki Thileepan’ here in Australia, confirming the endorsement of the latter.
When Sinhalese JVP opposed the Government – they revealed their goal to be to overthrow the Government. Most of the time we do not identify with natural causal forces. We tend to learn more quickly through effects. No, younger Tamils like Dr. Guruparan and Mr. Thananchayan, did not ‘sacrifice’. Had they sacrificed, their minds would have risen to higher level thought structure. They ‘lost’ those who would have led them towards Self-Governance through existing pathways including those practiced outside their local territory. One is entitled to take a loss as sacrifice only when one had earned the value – through merit and/or by paying one’s respects to those who have already earned the value.
Unlike Australia and other Nations mentioned by the Learned Judge , the separation happened due to our failure to pay our respects to those from whom we inherited opportunities and wealth. Even in the case of the above discussion, was it a Political Discussion or an Academic discussion? Given that the resources of the University of Jaffna were used should it not have been an Academic discussion with the conclusions shared with the People of Northern Province first?
As per the Daily News report:
[Professor K. Guruparan, head of the Department of Law at the University of Jaffna, was more critical in his assessment of the decision.
“The fact that a political party in Sri Lanka has to go through the Supreme Court and convince Court that they are not advocating for secession, is in itself an attack on free speech,” he said.
To my mind, the above confirms too much external knowledge and very little internal belief. This could happen if the goal is the establishment of a Separate Country in which the likes of Professor Guruparan would hold much higher positions than they do now in the Sri Lankan context. If we take Multicultural Sri Lanka as the parallel of heterosexual marriage, Tamil Only Eelam would be the parallel of same sex marriage. Sinhalase already accepted Sinhala Only and hence tried to make it law and if not for the opposition of Tamils they would have disenfranchised themselves from other multicultural nations including Australia and certainly India – the largest Democracy of our times. By seeking separation instead of Equal Opportunity, Tamil militants – especially the LTTE also was seeking to disenfranchise themselves. Between Tamils and Sinhalese, one got the Terrorist label and the other War-Criminal label. If both are legitimate, then we are separate groups.
The question is – ‘Is same sex marriage for aliens or for fellow Australians of diverse make up?’ Where it is the latter – we are ready to give birth to the laws to confirm our maturity as a multicultural nation. The generation that went through the pain and sacrifices of alienation owns the first right to interpret the law. That is NOT the younger generation that Dr. Guruparan and Mr. Thananchayan belong to. The first right to interpret self-governance laws, is with the generation that had to dumb-down to prevent internal fault finding to save the Community’s dignity as a whole. We migrants dumb-down all the time here in Australia until natural forces takeover, including through issues that are common minority issues to majority group as well.
Neither the Hon Sumanthiran nor Professor Guruparan seems to have the willingness to dumb-down to be with the locals. During a press conference earlier this year as published at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-qtkpZZ8nw Professor Guruparan says that those with knowledge should not use such knowledge to intimidate the ordinary folks. Professor Hoole trained in America for example asks on the basis of a matter that manifested at the University of Jaffna: What indeed are our values in Jaffna? www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/are-tamils-horrified-by-or-tolerant-of-sexual-harassment/
The above matter came to my attention through those who have faith in my ability to heal internally through the system of Dharma / Natural Justice. I learnt through the contacts available to me that there was possibility of misinterpretation by the older generation, of more democratic management practices. I identified with this through my own experiences in Resource Management here in Australia and in terms of Marriage in Sri Lanka where those who carried the old Tamil & Muslim mind-structure through which they had power used my second-marriage to demote me in Courts.
When I read Dr. Hoole’s article I identified with Dr. Hoole’s negative assessment of the immediate past Vice Chancellor Professor Vasanthi Arasaratnam strongly driving his conclusions that Dr. Dharshanan was guilty as charged by the University Council. As per my mind, the Natural rule of Subjective influence is that the same source that you rely on could not be right in one matter and wrong in another. If the University Council was wrong in terms of Dr. Hoole then they cannot become right in the case of Dr. Dharshanan, in Dr. Hoole’s mind. The article seems to be based on private war between Dr. Hoole and Professor Vasanthi Arasaratnam. Dr. Hoole states for example:
[Ramanathan Academy of Fine Arts (RAFA)
The recent case of Dr. S. Dharshanan shows how much Tamils care about protecting women. On Sunday, 18 Oct. 2015, as part of the Sarswati Poosai festivities, children at a famous dance school on Navalar Road, Nallur South showed off their talents. The Chief Guest that evening, like a cat among the young pigeons, was Dr. S. Darshanan, Senior Lecturer and Head of the Department of Music at RAFA.
What was strange was that at a Special Meeting of the Council of the University of Jaffna, on Wednesday 14.10.2015, Darshanan had been interdicted after numerous complaints of sexual harassment by his students and colleagues Yet, it made no difference in Jaffna. He held a great job. He was therefore still fêted at the music school where he extolled religious values in his speech. Several men preying on women (and even boys) continue to be similarly honoured in Jaffna so long as they are educated and hold high positions.
Recently student complaints against Dr. Dharshanan forced matters to a head. Prof. Arasaratnam had suppressed these complaints since 2011. His mother-in-law is her beautician. Cornered, a Special Council Meeting was forced on Arasaratnam when a harassed student threatened suicide. Council Minutes confirm that the complaints date back to 2011 at the University’s RAFA and that they center around Dharshanan and one Mr. Robert Arudsegaram. Complainants included many female staff members of the Music Department besides students. (I have heard of students having to go to staff quarters to meet their teachers where they are met by a staff member wearing only a towel round his waist).]
How did Dr. Hoole come to the conclusion that Dr. Dharshanan was a ‘cat among young pigeons?’ The fact that he condemns the Vice Chancellor to whom he lost the position – could be found in his articles. During those elections when I felt that Professor Arasaratnam was the best choice for that position at that time, I read articles about alleged sexual harassment by the then Vice Chancellor. Abusing laws – be they cultural or legal – is as damaging to our brain as the damage caused to the minds people by the problematic act which a person is being accused of. In this case Dr. Hoole had to have ‘objectively measurable’ evidence that a valid complaint was made by the persons affected, before he wrote about someone else’s experience. It is valid for him to write subjectively about his own experience and about those who are part of himself. Beyond that one needs ‘facts’ provable through objectively verifiable evidence’. To insert in this article the message ‘I have heard of students having to go to staff quarters to meet their teachers where they are met by a staff member wearing only a towel round his waist’ confirms low level thinking order and if I were Dr. Dharshanan I would institute Defamation action against Dr. Hoole and Colombotelegraph who published this article. We are innocent until found guilty by one who has the due authority. Now I understand why I did not feel inclined to support Dr. Hoole to become Vice Chancellor of the University of Jaffna. Dr. Hoole fails to meet the basic requirement of Objectivity needed to be demonstrated in Democratic Management. This weakness exists despite his American exposure or is it worse because of it? Back then my decision was made after praying at Lord Shiva temple within the University. The meditation I felt while there helped me clear the distractions to identify with the need to distract from this kind of deviations. If members of the University of Jaffna did not have the strength to protect themselves we are not eligible to claim that we are self-governing.
It is my understanding that Dr.Dharshanan is incurring high level legal costs – just to move the University Council to hold an inquiry. My question to Professor Guruparan and Mr. Thananchayan is: ‘what contribution did they make to research and find an in-house discovery, through the path of law, to identify the causal forces that manifested this matter which is treated as dead-matter by management? - motivated by the core purpose of Research and Teaching of the University?.. As per today’s communication from the Diaspora the Hon Sampanthan says in relation to the Constitution: ‘ Sri Lanka is a country inhabited by different people with distinct identities, the Sinhalese, the Tamils, the Muslims , the Malays, the Burghers and so on. Sri Lanka is also a functional democracy, in which several political parties function .’
Those using the subjective pathway need to take their place behind those who use Democracy as their main pathway.