17 March 2019
Reconciliation or Opposition?
This morning, I received an email from a Senior Sri Lankan of Sinhalese origin, under the caption ‘LTTE village & a Sri Lankan Military Officer show the world what Reconciliation & Peaceful Coexistence is all about.’ This was an article by Ms Shenali Waduge who strongly opposes Tamil Nationalism claims. In the case of New Zealand tragedy, the Prime Minister wears the attire that the victims would identify with. It is like the current Governor of Northern Province wearing the Veshti – when meeting with the folks of Northern Sri Lanka on Public Day. The victims of war at Visvamadu, in Northern Sri Lanka, would have cried with LTTE leaders also. Such shows of emotions would not be taken beyond their local time and place boundaries by a civilized society. It leads to suppression of the intellect which requires higher platform than emotional platform and requires the ability to see both sides at the same time in the one mind. In both of the above cases – the attires are worn to facilitate the emotionally driven victims with the caring service provider. One could be more effective by taking an intellectual stand – wearing the attire of a different culture. Visvamadu to my mind, was part of Vanni area which came under the control of LTTE until they were defeated by the Sri Lankan military in 2009. Neither the LTTE nor the Sri Lankan Army had local ownership through natural life in that area. In 2003, when I was returning from Nallur temple to Kilinochchi (Capital of Vanni) – the morning after Shiva Raathri – an elderly man who said he was from Vattakachchi, said to me ‘Sister, please come to our area also’. I took it as him acknowledging the leadership of an educated person – which meant that to that elder – LTTE was also an occupying force. Only those to whom that area is ‘home’ through natural living, have the natural right to allocate leadership. Others are ‘taken’. Government by natural rights duly expressed through votes – is the foundation of democracy.
The guy who violated New Zealand’s democracy is an Australian. Our Prime Minister said that New Zealand was our family. Hence, the attacker - 28-year-old Australian citizen Brenton Harrison Tarrant, is family to New Zealanders. Using natural living as the base criterion – White Australians had to fight against indigenous Australians to raise Australia’s status in wider world – especially in the eyes of Europeans of their culture. The fact that the policy was changed in the 70s does not mean that the thinking of the people changed. Hence to Brenton Tarrant, non-whites might have seemed like occupiers – the same way Muslims in Northern Sri Lanka were seen by the LTTE – resulting in the expulsion of Muslims from Jaffna. This kind of ‘only’ syndrome is necessary to generate extraordinary cleverness in those who are indigenous to that area. Brenton Tarrant was obviously clever to have avoided the authorities.
Here in Australia also, we are pursuing Reconciliation. Brenton Tarrant obviously rejected reconciliation. Even in families – we have those who reject multiculturalism – which often happens through marriage. Rejections often happen through those who have custody over richer wealth (money and status) who see no reason as to why they should share their wealth with an outsider. The dowry system addressed this by gender based separation – through which daughter inherited from the mother and son inherited from the father. The daughter took her inheritance to her new ‘home’.
Where there is culture based separation, cultural lineage is more clearly identifiable than when two groups assimilate. Equal Opportunity policies automatically recognize the need for separation to the extent they preserve one’s natural feeling of ownership. One who feels ownership feels independence. So long as such is expressed within the boundaries of the structures that facilitated that ownership – they are healthy. That is why we maintain heritages as fixed assets. Brenton Tarrant had every right to practice his cleverness within his ‘white-Australia’ heirs. Killing worshippers in the mosque is like asking Indigenous Australians to leave urban areas developed by White-Australians. The parallel of that in Sri Lanka was for calls from the likes of Ms Waduge for Tamils who claim separate state to go back to India which is a heritage source to majority Sinhalese.
Reconciliation is a program and to the extent we ‘see’ benefits from it – we are limiting its value. The moment we ‘see’ the outcome as a substance – we need to separate and become each other’s opposition. That was the lesson that Sri Lanka’s Truth taught us by promoting Tamils to Equal position in 1977 and later in 2015. That Truth is now an inalienable National structure of Sri Lanka and everyone who recognizes that Truth has the higher wholesome experience. The experience Sri Lanka itself. Others who don’t – would be happier limiting themselves to their separate corners. The outcomes developed through one system should not be used indiscriminately in another.