Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

18 September  2020

 

 

Tamil Eelam Corpus

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 Karunarathna highlights as follows:

[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 Appeal.

 

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.