The LTTE became a Rebel group based on belief. They
had their laws as per that belief. In
Sri Lanka, Prescriptive land rights are often upheld in North as well as in
South. Since I was a victim of it in Colombo for almost 30 years, I was
strongly conscious of expressly opposing it in Thunaivi, Vaddukoddai – where such land-grab was widespread. Mr
Wigneswaran as Chief Minister did open a building built on such a land in
Thunaivi. In contrast, we donated land to build Development Secretariat in the
same village and it was opened by the Government Agent. Somehow, the powers of
the land seem to manifest the truth – each as per her/his own.
The parallel of the above is our Land matter in
which the opponents offered to settle out of court. I declined. My belief would
not let me settle out of court.
In the Appeal judgment regarding that case, his honour
Justice N. Bandula
[In his evidence the 1" Defendant,
Piyadasa states that he was in possession of this land for
which he claims prescription since 1962.
He also states
that since 1962 - 1992 no one
interfered with his possession. Then he goes on to allege that he made a plan in 1968, and
therefore the corpus for which he is claiming prescription has
to be the corpus he came into
occupation in 1968. However, there has been a partition decree delivered
in 1973 in DC Case No.12462/P in the District Court of
Colombo for a larger land of the same
property. That Partition
decree divided the said
larger land called "Ramsay Gardens" into 06 lots and lot 1B, containing perches 17.3 is the subject matter and corpus of this present
It appears that the Corpus that the respondent Piyadasa, stated that he was in occupation
since 1962, has to be a part of the same Corpus,
prior to partition in the year 1973. According to the deed of declaration that
Piyadasa wrote on the 04.05.1988, the Corpus that is described in the deed is
not the 1962 land, but one of the lots after Partition. Therefore, the assertion that there was no dispute as to the
Corpus, has to be rejected.]
Is the corpus of Tamil homeland as it is now, the
same as the corpus that prevailed at the beginning of the armed war by rebels?
Likewise, is the corpus of Tamil homeland as it is now the same as it was in
the era referred to by Mr Wigneswaran in Parliament recently? The rights by law
are already in the Constitution including in articles 10, 14, 18 & 19 .
Now, after Dr Suren Ragavan became Governor, followed by Ms PSM Charles, who is
a Tamil, the Administration is also effectively Tamil. In terms of religion,
belief based separation and privacy is also assured in the Constitution. Mr
Wigneswaran’s claim that Tamils were the first community in Sri Lanka therefore
contradicts the claim for separation of powers on the basis of specific land
areas covering North & East. The corpus then was the whole country. Now it
is made up of different pockets. The armed struggle intensified after the 1983
pogrom in Colombo. Colombo Tamils need Equal rights and not separation. Most
Tamils who emigrated from Jaffna to Colombo do not return to Jaffna. They all
seek Equal Rights which may not be understood by Jaffna Tamils who are natives
to Jaffna only.
This confusion happened also in the recent case that
was filed by Mr Deniswaran against Mr Wigneswaran. In his media release, Mr
Wigneswaran has stated that there was a misunderstanding between the parties.
As per my understanding Mr Wigneswaran stated that he removed Mr Deniswaran
from the position because one who accused Mr Deniswaran was also in the same Cabinet
– and Mr Wigneswaran says he thought that it was inappropriate for both to be
in the same cabinet at the same time. That is a one sided political view – like
that of a lawyer. In Administration both have to be present in the mind of the
Administrator to represent their respective sides. Likewise, in the mind of a judge.
Parliamentarians are entitled to be driven by
emotions – which are one sided - if and only if they are belief based. The
parallel of that in a court is Affidavit evidence. By removing Mr Deniswaran,
Mr Wigneswaran confirmed political ruling instead of Administrative ruling that
is required of a judge. If after all evidence is heard the judge is not able to
decide, then and only then is s/he entitled to use her/his own belief through
discretionary powers allowed by law. Mr Wigneswaran therefore confesses to
changing the Administrative corpus which takes into account both sides on Equal
footing, into political corpus made up of only one side.
One wonders whether this is because of the ‘only’
syndrome? The LTTE were one-sided as were the Sinhala politicians who listed
them as terrorists. In politics – the leader packages and the followers blindly
follow. Not so in administration. LTTE believed and they declared and fought
openly for separation. But all those who think they are Sri Lankan foremost –
would take the intellectual pathway unless they lived and felt one with other
communities. Such folks have the duty to take the common pathway and not the
one side only pathway.
Most of us are empowered in our old age by the heirs
we developed through our truth. We may or may not see those heirs physically
but the moment we realise truth, the Energy exists. When someone is in need –
such Energy goes to them. It empowers them as well as the senior who made the
discovery and/or followed due processes that uphold that discovery. If we
therefore follow the one-sided political path or the de facto path – then the
corpus of today’s Jaffna is very different to the one where Justice on Equal footing came first to King Ellalan
into whose kingdom I am able to live in virtual reality of truth.