Thursday, 12 December 2019

Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

12 December  2019


Tamilwin’s news report regarding Indian Tamil cinema director Kalanjiyam was brought to my attention yesterday. As per that report at

1.     Mr Kalanjiyam came to Sri Lanka to participate in the Great Heroes Day celebrations at the University of Jaffna
2.     He was attacked and wounded by Sri Lankan Armed Forces
3.     Mr Wigneswaran – former Chief Minister of Northern Province urged Mr Kalanjiyam to return home as there was no guarantee for his life if he continued to stay there
4.     Mr Kalanjiyam feared that he would be pushed out of the plane to Colombo but he comforted himself with the thought that it would be an honor to die at the place where his leader had lived.

As per a later report the Army’s action as reported was denied by the Sri Lankan Army.
I was disappointed to note that a Vaddukoddai lawyer Mr Kanagaratnam Sugash was pictured with this Indian trouble maker. To my mind if Mr Kalanjiyam considered himself to be a follower of LTTE leader – he came to Sri Lanka to profit from armed militancy. Given my investment in education including in Vaddukoddai – armed militancy is a distraction which naturally dilutes my investment in education in the same area. Mr Kanagaratnam Sugash who practices law in that area is being disrespectful of his own heritage.

In contrast – Mr Kamal Haasan – also a Cinema cum Political hero - has raised a question at policy level – as to why Sri Lankan Tamils and Muslims been left out of the Citizenship Amendment Bill. This is involvement through policy while Mr Kalanjiyam was interfering with Sri Lankan Tamil issue. As per the laws of Democracy – an Indian has no right to directly participate in Sri Lankan Affairs and v.v.  It was this kind of indiscriminate mixing that led to serious loss of status for the Indian government through the assassination of  the Hon Rajiv Gandhi. It happened because LTTE leader assimilated through cinema power which became political power through Mr MG Ramachandran who was referred to as ‘Big Brother’ by Prabakaran.  This is what Mr Wigneswaran also has inherited after retirement from the Judiciary.
After Vaddukoddai Resolution 1976 – Sri Lankan Tamils are an independent group and it is disrespectful of that independence to attribute credit to those who eliminated those seniors who automatically disconnected with that Political heritage.

The ancestors of the University of Jaffna include not only Sir Ponnambalam Ramanathan but also all those who disciplined themselves to enter University and raise their minds to form higher level  thoughts. It is a memorial of the ‘loss’ of merit based entrance to University through the Standardization policy. It is NOT a memorial for armed militants. The ruling by the University authorities ought to have been respected by all concerned including those like Mr Kalanjiyam who is in the Cinema industry.  Cinema is a distraction that University students cannot afford.
As per IBC news – the ban on LTTE as a terrorist organization has been lifted by the European Union. As per Wikipedia – [ The European Union banned LTTE as a terrorist organisation on 17 May 2006. In a statement, the European Parliament said that the LTTE did not represent all Tamils and called on it to "allow for political pluralism and alternate democratic voices in the northern and eastern parts of Sri Lanka"]

The lifting of the ban confirms that Sri Lankan Tamils as a community have strongly demonstrated commitment to democracy and political pluralism. The timing confirms that the risk of active discrimination against minorities – by the new Sri Lankan government has been recognized by international governments. That is how the system of karma works to balance as per Dharma. Sri Lankan Tamils need to go back to investment in education as our express pathway to being a truly independent community. That is also the best way to oppose the new government driven by wins through simple majority.   The value of higher education is its express pathway to Absolute power of Truth. We learnt lessons through the war. Owning our own mistakes will naturally lead to ownership of the matter. Even if the Sri Lankan Army had taken action in the war area – Mr Kalanjiyam had the duty to recognize that they – as the relatives of those officers who died  in combat had the priority rights to honor their heroes and prevent foreigners from overriding their right to remember and honor their work relatives at that place. Work relatives are higher level relatives than biological and / or cultural relatives. That is the way to true and lasting freedom.

Wednesday, 11 December 2019

Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

11 December  2019


Most of us believe in the Absolute Power through various concepts – Truth / Love / God. A big part of that power is unknown and we recognize it through Effects rather than as Causal Forces. Causal Force – is often recognized through ‘motive’. There are however many Causal Forces that cannot be recognized through motive also. These are usually as invisible as the root.
The manifestation of the Citizenship Amendment Bill, in Indian Parliament is due to strong invisible causal forces. If India recognizes itself as a Regional Leader and if by structure this is not recognized externally, it is understandable that India would ‘include’ militant Energy by including genuine victims of their autocratic parallels in the region. Sri Lankan Hindu-Muslim  power  is Equal to Sinhala-Buddhist power under the current government. It ‘happened’ due to that truth within the silent sufferers who naturally were hurt by the Sinhala-Buddhist declaration by the new President.
The author of Ceylon Today article ‘President Gotabaya and Govt’ for example claims as follows:

[Whether influenced or not by players in India, Sri Lankan Tamils and Muslims as a larger whole shunned President Gotabaya with a greater measure than that which he admittedly later conceded. That rejection was more than adequately chided in terms of Sri Lanka's socio-political truism of being in fact an actually aggressively sustainable electorate under superior pro-Sinhala Buddhist ethno-religious compulsions.]

To my mind – the above author is stating that Sinhala-Buddhism is presented as a Defence front to prevent Indian invasion. It has already been proven that at times of crisis – Sri Lankan Tamils would access India’s Hindu power to which we have natural entitlement.  These are the causal forces that manifest themselves without our knowledge and often we ourselves recognize them only through effects. They often become invisible due to time. But the Energy continues to exist.
Where we know another’s truth naturally – it is subjective power and it confirms common belief. We have a duty to take senior position over  the other – as parent does with a child.  That is how the motive is known to a judge / higher officer through the subjective system.
Where subjective power is weak, we calculate  the reason through outcomes/effects. This is the way of the ‘Objective system’. Hence the following in our Australian Racial Discrimination Act 1975:
[has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of any human right or fundamental freedom in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.]

This is naturally applicable to all non-Buddhists through article 9 of the Sri Lankan Constitution which states:

[The Republic of Sri Lanka shall give to Buddhism the foremost place and accordingly it shall be the duty of the State to protect and foster the Buddha Sasana, while assuring to all religions the rights granted by Articles 10 and 14(1)(e).]

Articles 10 & 14 (1) (e ) state as follows:

[10. Every person is entitled to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including the freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.
14. (1) Every citizen is entitled to – (e) the freedom, either by himself or in association with others, and either in public or in private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching;]

One who believes in Lord Muruga for example would be entitled to kill evil – as in Soorasamharam. As per my knowledge there is no such parallel in Buddhism. Yet the JVP insurrection happened in 1971 when the Soulbury  Constitution was effective. Buddhism foremost clause was introduced in the 1972 Constitution – and as per the effects that JVP produced , a non-Buddhist is entitled to conclude that this was to oppose ‘Socialism’ as interpreted by the Sinhalese youth. I would not classify these youth as  Buddhists. Likewise, the current President who resorted to arms to eliminate the opposition in his position as Defence Secretary. That is Hindu pathway or Secular pathway – depending on which one the person has greater belief in.

Hence how could the new President legitimately claim that he is a Buddhist when he has demonstrated otherwise through ‘effects’?  Kathiragamam in South confirms that a good proportion of Sinhalese are Hindus.  When in ‘free’ environment – a traditional Sinhalese relative to a Buddhist would have demonstrated tribal behavior. This is ok – if not for the declaration that Sri Lanka is a Buddhist nation.

Buddhism being a pure religion would manifest the other side of truth manifested by someone using its name. If there were no borders – such manifestation would happen through other Buddhists who are not Sri Lankans. But where the benefit has been taken within firm borders - the other side would manifest through weaker practitioners without those borders. THIS is how the Sri Lankan Government including the current president have strengthened retaliatory actions within Sri Lanka.
Out of the recent leaders – Mr Ranil Wickremesinghe has committed deeper investment than others in the Common system through Secular laws. His truth would thus diffuse the wrongs committed as per Articles 10 & 14 (1) (e ) to wider world beyond Sri Lankan borders. During last year’s Constitutional Crisis Ranil quietly waited for Secular Law to work through the natural system. He did not react through the tribal pathway as Premadasa has indicated he would have. Sri Lanka without leaders who respect our secular heritage – would continue to tend towards tribalism.

Velupillai Prabhakaran did not take the Hindu pathway. He took the tribal pathway. He became the medium of manifestation for Tribal fighters who were invading Tamil and Muslim spaces.
Often, those who live off the past become disorderly because they deplete the ‘savings’ by their seniors. My husband and I often discuss our last family conflict with his sisters. I said a big  part of his problem was that he wanted to get ‘good name’ from his seniors  whom I could not accept as seniors. From time to time my side seniors also tried to take position over me. I accommodated them to a degree or moved away when this got difficult. But after I had to begin from zero base here in Australia and yet not getting my dues in a new environment I became independent of the subjective system in which I was always a junior. Sometimes it happened because I found it easier to be a junior than an Equal Opposition in a different culture. But so long as I remained that junior – I myself could not see myself as a Senior in the same culture or an Equal in a different culture. It was when Swami Sathya Sai Baba’s miraculous manifestation of holy powder happened on the same day the auditor general’s report upholding  my assessment was published in the Sydney Morning Herald – that I realised that the true power was keeping an account of my genuine contribution. It took me a while to lose consciousness of what I was owed by the human system. But once I made the connection to the Soul Connection – I have  never felt alone.  That is the value of faith / belief.

My husband’s problem was that his sisters did take responsibility for the homemaking activities after their mother passed away. The elder of the two was stopped from school and hence her position was elevated by women who followed Thesawalamai  Codes – albeit subconsciously by effect based habit. After the main architect of that system - the father -passed away – the sisters claimed leadership over all siblings including brothers which  is prohibited by the order of Thesawalamai law. Hence when his sisters ‘took’ credit as seniors my husband was quiet. Beyond a certain point – as a senior in my own system – I could not accept this. The opportunity came through the Testamentary case of my husband’s bachelor brother. I worked tirelessly to apply each known fact through Thesawalamai law and eventually in terms of dowry and muthusum (inheritance), I became the source of clarification to those who had the need to be bound by it. Likewise in Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Australia). The original makers need to endorse us from within -  for us to have peace of mind.

In my husband’s case I said that he failed to uphold that I had mothered him since marriage and that that period is far longer than the one with his sisters which ended when he left home. Most importantly – since I did not claim benefits on that basis – it was a common ownership power which facilitated continuous sharing of energies. In terms of his relationship with his sisters - when he started earning he felt the urge to share his money as a senior and did not submit as a junior – as he would have to his father if his father was alive. By feeling sorry for them – he allowed them to take credit – which became disorderly – considering that I had mothered him more deeply and for longer period. I always paid my respects to the brother who passed away and took over the father’s responsibility more than any other sibling. Hence I had the authority to step into his shoes when he passed away. This was categorically denied by the sisters. Since we were using two different systems - I said to my husband to use the simple test of his own truth. If his sisters had really mothered him – they would have valued my mothering of him – especially when he was in hospital due to injury to his spine through an accident. If I were a block – they would have mothered him by asking about that pain and agony that he went through. It is that sharing of pain that makes us One through the express pathway. Wherever one takes more than one’s share from the common pool – one starts becoming a divisive person. It eventually becomes a curse. This curse often manifests through the young and the restless.

Sinhala-Buddhism – like my Vaddukodai sisters-in-law is restricted as per its current population  to narrower space than Buddhism which is also more limited than secular law in our current environment. To the extent these are based on ancestral powers and traditional laws – they cannot be indiscriminately applied on those who believe in other forms of Absolute Power. They must become invisible truth that would take any form appropriate to the environment. When they are so applied indiscriminately – the other side of benefits-taken will manifest as losses within the space of the leaders responsible. LTTE as well as the Sri Lankan armed forces who attacked outside their areas of belief are guilty of breaching the laws of the land. The Government that had the duty to stay within Buddhist area – but exercised power in majority Tamil area – is guilty of serious breach of the bible of  Sri Lanka – its Constitution – as well as Buddha Sasana itself.

This karma is carried within Sinhala Buddhists who elected the leaders during whose command such atrocities happened. If leaders like Mr Modi are open to sharing in the pain of minorities – then whenever they meet someone from Sri Lanka who by her/his own assessment is a junior to Mr Modi – the power of the minority naturally surfaces to form partnership with Mr Modi and this invokes the old karma which remains unsettled and which was activated by the Sinhala-Buddhism claim. 

Likewise – Muslims and Christians through their own traditional powers connect to mother nations.
One who is an insider identifies with the early warning signs of truth. The author of the above article is an outsider / foreigner to the common Sri Lankan.

Tuesday, 10 December 2019

Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

10 December  2019


In Sri Lanka, we hear most Buddhist leaders actively promoting Buddhism. The real group that they are entitled to govern are Buddhists. When such leaders make decisions on behalf of non-Buddhists – it amounts to illegitimate governance.

This issue has surfaced in India through its Citizenship Amendment Bill which was passed by the lower house last night. As per this Bill - Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian - if they can prove that they are from Pakistan, Afghanistan or Bangladesh would be eligible to apply for citizenship even if they entered India illegally. As per Hindustan Times report ‘Sri Lankan group wants Citizenship Bill to include Tamil Hindus’ :

[Maravanpulavu K Sachitananthan, leader of the Sri Lankan Shiva Senai, a group of Hindus in the island nation, said the situation for Hindus in Sri Lanka was not different from their situation in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh. But the bill has “conveniently ignored the 10,000-year-old history of the Hindus in Sri Lanka,” Sachitananthan said.]
I identify with the above claim by Mr Sachitananthan who is a well respected leader in the Tamil community – including the Australian Tamil community.

To my mind, any unlawful action against a non-Buddhist by a Buddhist officer by logic - amounts to persecution.  The fundamental requirement for one to govern over another is belief that they are Common. To the extent Buddhist  leaders confirm that their leadership is Sinhala –Buddhist leadership – they are effectively renouncing their ruling power over non-Sinhala-Buddhists. Despite that when they punish a non-Buddhist – and the latter hurts – it amounts to persecution.

It is easy and natural to promote good order through religious pathway. But then where the group includes those who are not covered by that belief – one needs to consciously use intellectual discrimination as per a law common to both. Prior to applying that law – the officer concerned needs to demonstrate affirmative action  taken to remove the religious advantage which usually precedes the knowledge of secular law. That is when there is an Equal start / Level playing field on which the secular picture I drawn by the respective parties.  I discovered this through my own experience here in Australia – where according to my discovery- the officers concerned who usually took me to be Indian treated me as a junior-in-law.

If indeed Indian Government has good reason for the purpose of  Regional leadership  to take affirmative action through the proposed amendment to the law – as per Dharma it has the responsibility to include Sri Lankan Hindus in the list. If Sri Lankan government did not declare that its leadership was Sinhala-Buddhist – then any unlawful action would not qualify as having the effect of religious persecution.

Section 9 (1) of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Australia) states as follows:

[It is unlawful for a person to do any act involving a distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of any human right or fundamental freedom in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.]

It usually is difficult to know the purpose unless we are of common belief. Hence ‘effect of’ which could be calculated as per the outcomes.

It is not good enough for Indian Prime Minister Modi to recommend the implementation of the 13th Amendment to the Sri Lankan Constitution. He now has the opportunity to include Sri Lanka’s minorities by religion,  in the list. The moral obligation exists due to the depth of Hindu belief in Sri Lanka. If appropriate action is not taken – Buddhism becomes senior to Hinduism in Sri Lanka and this is false – considering Gautama Buddha was born Hindu. In the region – Hindu is the foremost religion.

Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

10 December  2019


When someone draws my particular attention to a news report – I pay attention as per the person who sends me the communication and then the subject matter. Recently, such a communication was forwarded to me in relation to Dr Kumaravadivel Guruparan with reference to his dual role. Tamil Guardian reported as follows:

 [Sri Lanka bars academics from practising as lawyers

In a circular released last week, the UGC said that “approval cannot be granted”, despite a previous 2013 decision, which said academics could practise as attorneys, if “such work is not an obstacle for his/her routine duties”.
No further explanation was provided by the UGC.]
When I assisted Dr Darshanan last year to present his facts and arguments as per the written law, I learnt about Dr Kumaravadivel Guruparan being the head of law at the University of Jaffna. As per that information - Dr Kumaravadivel Guruparan was a gentleman. When asked why Dr Guruparan had not headed the University Management’s team in the trial - the only reason that Dr Darshanan could think of was that the rules required the inquiring officer to be senior to the one against whom charges had been made. It made sense.  In the process of advising Dr Darshanan I learnt the following provisions in the Universities Act:
Section 45 of the Universities Act Universities Act No. 16 of 1978  :
45. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Council shall exercise the powers and perform and discharge the duties and functions conferred or imposed on, or assigned to, the University.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred upon it by subsection (1), the Council shall exercise, perform and discharge the following powers, duties and functions:-
(xii) to appoint persons to, and to suspend, dismiss or otherwise punish persons in the employment of, the University:
Provided that, except in the case of Officers and teachers, these powers may be delegated to the Vice-Chancellor;
In the case of Dr Darshanan, the disciplinary actions were undertaken by Professor Vasanthi Arasaratnam – then the Vice Chancellor of the University of Jaffna. Even though this was highlighted by the team representing Dr Darshanan – claiming that it was in breach of the above section of the law, the University Council made the decision to uphold those proceedings.
As per my discovery, Due Processes & Laws carry the Energy of the original discoverers to their heirs. All those who respect Due Processes & Laws are heirs and are entitled to access that Energy. In the case of strong commitment – the Energy comes to the heir.  I did not find any input into the above inquiry by  Dr Kumaravadivel Guruparan. Outsiders represented the University Administration.
As per the above report by Tamil Guardian:
[Guruparan was barred from engaging in private practice following pressure from the Sri Lankan military, after he took up a public interest habeas corpus case into the 1996 disappearance of more than two dozen Tamil youth. The incident drew outrage from around the world, with hundreds signing a statement condemning the ‘threats, harassment and reprisals’ against the prominent human rights lawyer and the international human rights organisation Front Line Defenders has issued an urgent appeal.]
The above confirms clear breach of the principles underpinning the Doctrine of Separation of Powers between the Judiciary and the Executive.  The Executive is limited to using the law  to mark rights and wrongs whereas the Judiciary has the duty to show how the causes and the effects upheld by their judgment, connect. In doing so the Judiciary has to have belief in the makers of the law – the Legislature – as if they are the makers. Without such belief they are mere extensions of the Executive. The Judiciary has to also have belief in its ancestors to connect to their mind structure through which their judgment is delivered. That is how we invoke ancestral powers.

In presenting his paper ‘Customary law of stateless nations: some observations on the question of who can reform the Thesawalamai, the customary laws of the Tamils in Sri Lanka’ – Dr Guruparan states:
[Despite the definitive trend towards consolidating the Sri Lankan state as a Sinhala Buddhist state in the post-colonial context, the legal system was left intact in its plural character. In fact, the current constitution seeks to even prevent fundamental rights provisions in the constitution from overriding customary law principles in the event of clash. However, there have been calls for reform, which have focused mainly on enacting a uniform civil code. This project of uniformization advertently or inadvertently aids the monist consolidation of the Sri Lankan state. This paper argues that the Sri Lankan Parliament and courts lack political legitimacy to amend the Thesawalamai, which the paper characterizes as pre-state law, leave alone abolishing it and enacting a uniform civil code. The legitimacy deficit of Sri Lankan institutions is built on the long history of brutal repression of the Tamil struggle for self-determination. The paper suggests that a viable, politically legitimate process for reforming the Thesawalamai can only be put in place if the national question is settled to the satisfaction of the Tamil community in Sri Lanka. It further suggests that placing the responsibility of amending the pre-state law of the Tamils in the hands of institutions which they consider to be politically legitimate and representative is the best path to reforming the Thesawalamai.]

My experience of Thesawalamai connected me to the minds of its authors – our ancestors. Uniform Civil Code is based largely on Administrative laws  introduced later. Likewise the Common Law ruling. The Mallakam District Court as well as the Jaffna High Court in which our side was represented by Attorney at Law Manivannan who is understood to be professionally close to Dr Guruparan, upheld the common law basis of succession – that the intestate estate of an unmarried man without children – was to be shared Equally by all siblings – including those who received dowry. Our Appeal to the high court resulted in the ruling that the Administration of the monies in the UK – was the responsibility of the UK authorities . The case law used was Ratnasingham Vs Tikiri Banda Disanaike and Others. 

At the end – Judge Elancheliyan ruled that our appeal be dismissed and the files be sent back to Mallakam District Court.  The other side sought only Certificates of Heirship and opposed Administration which we sought. When we applied to Mallakam District Court for our certificate – that application was set aside and the matter continues to be unresolved.

Whether we use Civil Procedure Code or Thesawalamai order – the practice and theory would show the order in which our work  outcomes are arranged. When we arrange them as per our true motive and commitment – the end would also be truth. Truth has perfect order.
Dr Guruparan states as follows:

[The paper suggests that a viable, politically legitimate process for reforming the Thesawalamai can only be put in place if the national question is settled to the satisfaction of the Tamil community in Sri Lanka. It further suggests that placing the responsibility of amending the pre-state law of the Tamils in the hands of institutions which they consider to be politically legitimate and representative is the best path to reforming the Thesawalamai]

My question is ‘who/which group within the area covered by Thesawalamai has the true authority to undertake such a change?’ – In terms of Politics – we had Mr C V Wigneswaran as Chief Minister who to my knowledge made zero contribution to review judgments recently made through Thesawalamai law – so to his juniors who made mistakes such review would be lessons that would prevent such mistakes. Those who receive positive review would then feel good about themselves.
The need needs to stem from the People concerned. Where it is driven by the desire of those in high positions – it becomes abuse of power – as Article 9 of the Sri Lankan constitution has become. When there is a law – the executive would need to get more rights than the one over whom authority is exercised. Unless such an executive has ownership/governing power – the source of the authority becomes simple majority – on the basis of who gets more rights. If those rights are by cheating – then they become abuse of power.

Mr Wigneswaran who apparently has high position in Judiciary as well as Politics did not inquire into my complaints as if he was Thesawalamai. At least when I wrote my analyses he could have proven me wrong. He would have if he had felt the need of the People as his. Likewise, Dr Guruparan. Even if I am irrelevant to them – they could have written as per their experience. If they did not have such an experience – then they are not the ones in need of change or Thesawalamai did not permit them access to its soul.

As per the Tamil Guardian article - Front Line Defenders and others from around the world – have felt the need to oppose the ruling against Dr Guruparan. They are all ‘foreigners’ to Thesawalamai Law and its practice. If Thesawalamai’s Dowry system was officially practiced in Ireland – practitioners of Irish law would have weaker support. Given that the support has been lateral – and given that there has been no parallel provision in Thesawalamai law – I conclude that the above mentioned paper by Dr Guruparan is driven by desire for academic status which would then lead to bipolarism.

The law at its fundamental level helps us recognize right from wrong at the level served by the law. As per Thesawalamai law separation of powers exist between males and females in terms of inheritance. The real value is that Energy which can be accessed through pure belief  or discriminative thinking through the pathway used by the original discoverers. Hence as per the principles that separate man from woman – one who makes changes to customary laws cannot cross over to contemporary laws and v.v.

We may not ‘see’ the ancestors who gave us those laws. But they exist and the believer recognizes them and finds her/his logic and therefore peace of mind. Given that majority Tamils access our ancestral powers one needs to be driven by the soul value / truth which need not be proven to be right or wrong. One who is driven by ‘seen’ and/or known outcomes – of money and status would not access this soul power and therefore has no authority to make laws nor change existing ones. Hence the architects of Buddhism Foremost article in the constitution,  have no authority to make changes to  Tamil, Muslim or Secular  laws and v.v. If Thesawalamai Law is amended to suit current constituents – then such leaders become the parallel of Buddhism Foremost architects and are ineligible to make changes to the secular laws.

There was nothing to prevent a TNA MP from initiating such proposal for changes in Parliament. But then that MP loses the moral authority to initiate changes to the secular laws. In a Buddhist parliament a non–Buddhist is the natural Opposition. This non-Buddhist could be a specialist in Secular law, Thesawalamai or Muslim law. Those who are specialists in Secular Law would merge laterally with others who practice those laws. That was how Buddhism Foremost separation isolated Sinhala-Buddhists.

Monday, 9 December 2019

Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

09 December  2019


 Recently, an American of Sri Lankan Tamil origin said to me ‘Your father’s family  is deeply entrenched in to Pillai family - sister married Duraipillai and brothers marrying two sisters’
My response to the above was:
‘              It’s the other way around. My father’s family is the traditional one. A M Pillai Thatha valued his origins with its ancestral heritage. Hence his grandchildren came to Sri Lanka and lived through the heritage A M Pillai Thatha maintained.

At our Opportunity shop at Vaddukoddai Junction we have shown this ancestral hierarchy – with my father’s parents being at the top. To my mind,  every Sovereign form that has time based hierarchy needs to reflect the true picture at the top. Through the recent Presidential elections in Sri Lanka, the minorities in Sri Lanka demonstrated their root power which connects to the Diaspora. By effectively declaring that he represented Sinhala-Buddhists, the President confirmed yet again the 1977 and the 2015 separations of power in National Parliament where Tamils held the Opposition leadership position. The President promoting two thirds majority would dilute the value of investment in democracy. It would promote autocracy which will no longer be tolerated  by Tamils and Muslims.
Mario Arulthas reports as follows under the heading ‘Trouble brews in post-election Sri Lanka’ published by Al Jazeera:
[Two weeks after the election of hardliner Gotabaya Rajapaksa in Sri Lanka, the prospects for justice and reconciliation between the different communities on the island lie in tatters. The victory of Gota, as he is commonly known, sent shockwaves across the Tamil-dominated northeast - where memories of his brother Mahinda Rajapaksa's brutal presidency, marked by mass atrocities and enforced disappearances, remain fresh. 
Gota, who served as defence minister between 2005 and 2015, stands accused of war crimes committed during Sri Lanka's civil war (1983-2009).
The Tamil community were hoping for a victory of Sajith Premadasa, the leader of the United National Party (UNP), who was seen by Tamils as the "lesser evil". While Premadasa also adopted nationalist rhetoric during his campaign, vowing to protect military chief Shavendra Silva from war crimes accusations and pledging to give prominence to Buddhism, minorities were terrified at the prospect of a return to the brutal authoritarianism of the Rajapaksas.
Tamils and Tamil-speaking Muslims went to the polls in large numbers, with the vast majority of the northeastern vote going to Premadasa. But it was not enough for his victory. His opponent, Gota, swept the Sinhala south, winning the election with a whopping majority.]

There is a well known phrase in Tamil ‘Indru Poi Naalai Vaa’ / ‘Go back today and come tomorrow’. This was said by Rama to the then King of  Lanka Ravana when the latter had lost all his weapons in the battlefront. Ravana did not have king status without his weapons and hence Rama would not fight.  Those were the laws of just war. They were not inherited by the current President whose armed forces were in essence - driven by their desires and/or own primitive rules – as confirmed by Brigadier Fernando in London.   

To my mind, the above interpretation confirms that Tamils & Muslims voted for Democracy which UNP represented much more than SLPP. To uphold Sovereignty -  a just fight has to be between Equals. It is for this reason that the party that gets the second highest votes becomes Equal Opposition in a democratic parliament.  The vote of a person dependent on the government is in reality is a dud vote. It was the investment in Sovereignty by minorities that worked to demote Sinhalese who were pampered by their Apparent Buddhist leaders. When the ‘looks’ of a position is more than the substance of the position – it becomes Apparent. Where the substance is strong but is not recognised through ‘looks’ it becomes Energy of the true investors. It then works the whole and manifests Itself as Equal opposition to the apparent leadership. That is the self-balancing nature of Sovereignty anywhere anytime. 

The maximum level to which militants are capable of rising is determined by their sacrifices of earned benefits. The more we ‘show’ the less we have for sacrificing. Undeserved suffering of civilians in the Sri Lankan ethnic war became such sacrificial power. Since it was caused by the government forces – the real power of the Government was transferred to the community of the victims. This naturally forms partnerships with wider world. Every completed experience of Sovereignty renders us our Natural Self Governance structure. Every human being has the duty to preserve that and protect her/his environment from invasions.

Muslims and Tamils of Sri Lanka are no longer a minority community due to their global relatives who never forget that the roots are in Sri Lanka. Anyone who fails to pay her/his respects to those roots becomes a disconnected ‘foreigner’. A foreigner gives handouts. An owner shares.

Sunday, 8 December 2019

Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

08 December  2019


Sri Lanka, as per its Constitution and many Political leaders including the current President,  is a Buddhist  Nation. As per my understanding - Dharma is expressly recognized by Buddhism as the pathway to Ultimate Justice. It starts with Truth and ends with true Justice. As per that pathway, those who are immune to law automatically go into the path of Dharma. This system works as per the Common Conscience of all active participants and delivers outcomes that would enrich all true members of the system. It delivers to each seeker as per her/his/its truth.
In its Media Release dated 07 December 2019 and headed ‘FOREIGN MINISTRY COMMENTS ON THE JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF BRIGADIER PRIYANKA FERNANDO’ – the Foreign Ministry of Sri Lanka includes the following:
[The Government of Sri Lanka continues to maintain that Brigadier Fernando as a diplomat who was attached to the Sri Lanka High Commission in London is entitled to diplomatic immunity as per Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961.]

Article 31 (1) (c ) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 states as follows:
[A diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State. He shall also enjoy immunity from its civil and administrative jurisdiction, except in the case of:
 (c) an action relating to any professional or commercial activity exercised by the diplomatic agent in the receiving State outside his official functions.]

As per my observations – the final punishment was a fine which effectively makes it a civil proceedings.  This is covered by Article 31(1)(c ).

As per the above report:

[During proceedings the Court conceded that the summons procedure was not conducted in the ideal manner and this gave rise to re-trial. According to available evidence, demonstrators who had staged the protest in front of the Sri Lanka High Commission as well as those who protested in front of Westminster Magistrates’ Court during the Court hearings had used flags of the LTTE which is a proscribed organisation in the UK.]
A concerned British  citizen  who felt close to the Sri Lankan Government had every right to initiate such ‘reciprocal’ action against the LTTE supporters. They would have, if their pain was true and if in spirit - they felt part of the Sri Lankan government.

The motto of the University of Jaffna says ‘That which finds truth is knowledge'. Some may find it through Buddhist laws; others through Hindu laws and others through British Law, Sri Lankan Law or Vienna Convention principles.  Brigadier Fernando – if he were Buddhist – acted in breach of Buddhist principles of Ahimsa when he made the threatening gestures towards the LTTE supporters. Article 31 (4) of the said Vienna Convention states as follows:

[The immunity of a diplomatic agent from the jurisdiction of the receiving State does not exempt him from the jurisdiction of the sending State.]

But the actions of the Sri Lankan government as well as Tamil Political leaders confirm that at their respective local levels the above is accepted as politically correct. But where the investment of their Diaspora leaders is strongly through the law of the country of expression – that country has the duty to preserve that deeper investment in common pathway of expression . To my mind, that has been confirmed by the British Judiciary.

The written law is the highest regulated human pathway. If the British Government failed its citizens who have invested in that higher pathway it would lose the moral authority to discipline nations through global conscience that the Vienna Convention represents.

Immunity to top leadership / representation, when taken at the lower level – pushes one to a free  area where truth applies. For example – within a family – one who is true to other members develops the power to work the whole. It is when a family does not have such a leadership that it needs to go to Courts. In courts the same facts are required to be  interpreted as per the law. Some facts would become irrelevant at that level.

 My sisters in law for example claimed that after their mother’s death - they had taken care of the family including the Bachelor brother whose estate was the reason for the court case. As per Thesawalamai Law – sons inherited from the father and brothers. The two sisters were given dowry and hence their anxiety that they would be left out if Thesawalamai was upheld. The resources of the Courts were wasted by hearing such evidence which our side lawyer also did not object to – probably due to his own lack of commitment to the law and its institutions. If indeed that kind of contribution had been strong – other members of the family ought to have settled it internally.  Every educated family, community and country needs to ‘settle’ its conflicts internally through the highest common pathway or invest less in Education. Failure to settle internally  takes  the conflict back to primary levels and we witnessed this through the above matter before the Sri Lankan High Commission in London. Each time a head of state abuses the protection of immunity to hurt those who have followed the law – that karma is reborn in a more powerful part of the world that would demote the state that the person is head of.