Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

25 September  2019

Spiritual Gurus & the Law

At a time when community discussions are active in relation to Religious Guru and Politician, I received the Hindu Council of Australia Newsletter – with an article under the heading :

[Police case against visiting Hindu Guru dismissed

A New South Wales court has dismissed a case against a Hindu spiritual and Yoga guru Anand Giri Maharaj and termed him as Innocent in its judgement. The case was brought against him by two women devotees who alleged that he had touched them inappropriately. NSW Police investigated the case and decided that there is no substance in the case and dropped all charges…] http://hinducouncil.com.au/new/police-case-against-visiting-hindu-guru-dismissed/?mc_cid=5777c24364&mc_eid=df19ffa017

The Sri Lankan community discussion is taking place on the basis of Colombo Telegraph  article headed ‘Ezhuka Tamil Is A Subterfuge By Wigneswaran To Shore Up His Sagging Fortunes!’ Canadian Tamil.

My objection to the author Mr Thangavelu was based on the following accusation against Mr Wigneswaran – former Justice of the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka:

[“He also murdered and buried a young engineer who dared to challenge the nefarious activities of Premananda”]

When I do not have direct knowledge in a matter – I read up usually the presentation by Wikipedia. How I receive ‘what happened’ is interpreted by me as per my own investment in the issue which the matter represents.

I do value Mr Thangavelu’s participation and also Mr Wigneswaran’s. Structurally – Mr Wigneswaran’s position in Northern Sri Lanka is far more important to me than Mr Thangavelu’s position within the Canadian Tamil Community.   Below is how I related to the above:

We all have relationships in families. In civilized families such relationships are far more important than individual likes and dislikes. If at least one member of a family loves another member and/or the structure that provides protection to all members – that family is a respectable family. Likewise,  in a community and nation. The Tamil community of Sri Lanka needs the structures developed by our ancestors to balance the lawlessness of armed militants. If we gave ‘form’ to the positions developed by militants – it would naturally disenfranchise intellectuals who followed the law. We would thus end up being a less civilised community than we were before the ethnic war.

There is no doubt in my mind that at least some of the militant leaders were genuine. Their truth will work for them in the environment where their truth is the law. But once they come out – the common law needs to apply. In the current Northern and Eastern Sri Lankan environment we need to use inherited structures of our intellectually driven ancestors rather than the ones we made in war environment. Belief in them is Absolute power. I learnt this from my own commitment to Thesawalamai customary law. The Jaffna courts dismissed our claim but the ‘truth’ of  that structure that we respected  blocked the Administrative process on the basis of Civil Procedure Code. It also stopped the younger generation taking over power by hiring Colombo lawyers to defeat Jaffna lawyers. My assessment of young Jaffna lawyers is that they do not know the difference between horse and donkey illustrated as follows in chapter 12 of my book ‘Naan Australian’:

[By asking for Objective evidence for Subjective decisions, Australian Judiciary was declaring that it did not know what a horse was  nor what a donkey was.  Rani our engineer friend shared  this humor with me. Rani said that when in Sri Lanka she went for a face to face  examination to qualify as a professional -  Rani was asked a technical question for which Rani did not know the answer.  Rani took a punt and gave the accurate answer to a question that was not asked.  The examiner had then said words to the effect ‘You have revealed that not only do you not know what a horse is but also what a donkey is’. Rani is generous in her sharing of  her experiences. We connect naturally on many common values. Rani and Mano (both daughters) are great examples of  Equal Responsibility as children. They did not ‘wait’ for the sons and fathers of the family to take responsibility at the wider level.  They became the sons and fathers of their families. Ranis and Manos  are a huge reason why Tamils need self-governance.  They have contributed to it at family level. ]

The complainants in the above mentioned Sydney matter are two women from the Hindu community. My question is ‘why did they not seek internal remedy or were they ignored by the internal community mechanism? The Hindu Council of Australia, analyses and concludes as follows:

[Priests and teachers often have to touch others. When a Teeka is applied on the devotee’s forehead as a mark of welcome and respect or God’s blessings, it does involve touching the frontal third eye part of the forehead by a finger. Some rituals of baptism involve touching the head crown of the devotee by the priest. Another priest has told me that during funerals when family members of the departed are breaking down with sorrow, it is not uncommon for a priest to hold them in their arm to console them.

The strict rule that should be adhered to by all religious people is no touching without explicit permission. In practice, this permission may be implicit and a touch may be considered acceptable depending on the circumstances.]

Last year I was surprised when our granddaughter said that her teacher had excused herself from similar protocol – just to express verbally that she appreciated the flowers that were given by our granddaughter who was graduating from high school. I was surprised because it was new including in relation to Australian practices when our children were in school. But I appreciated very much – the progress made in this regard to protect minorities who often do not have the courage to oppose seniors/majority.

The ladies may be genuine. But their first complaint needed to be within their culture. Likewise in the case of Mr Thangavelu if he were hurt by the religious following of Mr Wigneswaran. By using this in politics – Mr Thangavelu was demonstrating that he did not know Politics nor Judicial system. I responded as follows to him calling me ignorant:

[Mr Thangavelu,

You have stated in your article in relation to Mr Wigneswaran:
“He also murdered and buried a young engineer who dared to challenge the nefarious activities of Premananda”

You say :
“Gajalakshmi Paramasivam is an ignorant woman whose knowledge about Premananda/Wigneswaran relationship is zero.”

I admit that my knowledge is from my internet search. But I could not find your murder accusation of Mr Wigneswaran in the internet. I consider it seriously Defamatory that you would make such an accusation without any evidence. In terms of how I register the message in my own brain – that is as per my truth and how I measure Mr Wigneswaran in this regard. It is disrespectful of the Justice system of Sri Lanka and the internal management of justice within the Tamil community. You owe it to us to withdraw that comment and apologize to Mr Wigneswaran.]

The judiciary is not always right. I realized this through my Court experiences in Australia and Sri Lanka – as an individual without portfolio. Hence the media is also not reliable. The only true reliable judge is our own Conscience which carries our Truth.

In information management there is (1) Data (2) knowledge and (3) Intelligence. Sri Lanka’s Easter bombings highlighted lack of ‘Intelligence’ . When information is received at the surface level for short term benefits from outside – for example war-victory claims by the government against its own citizens – there is drought of truth going towards intelligence bank. Where Knowledge goes out at the same level as it comes the receivers become dull and we become mere wasted bodies with time. Knowledge in excess of our needs burns the receptors out. They age quickly. The truth in a matter goes to the deeper part of the sense where it meets the brain. When the contribution by the Armed forces was used to claim ‘victory’ over internal citizens – that confirmed such zero contribution to common belief.  It confirmed that that government had no right to Administer the Tamil community.  

If the government of Sri Lanka had believed in the Tamil Community – it would have connected to the Indian Intelligence through Tamils – especially the militants who were trained by India. When we copy others – there is no work for the ‘deeper common facility’.

In the above Indian guru’s case – if he were a true Yoga guru – he would not have touched the bodies of his followers. Yoga is to develop independence from the body. If it was established that he did touch the ladies against their express rejection – then he was guilty.

These are culturally unknown areas for the Australian judiciary. Had it used the ‘teacher-student’ ruling of current times – the magistrate is likely to  have arrived at a different verdict.  The greater the emphasis on body the higher the risk of radicalization.