Gajalakshmi Paramasivam - Vaddukoddai

Jaffna Heritage Hotel

 Position Power

At the Center of the above is   one of our Trainees Sabanathan Ragavan who is working with Jaffna Heritage Hotels. To me this is confirmation of how our investments as per our positions and beyond help us develop opportunities far beyond our current efforts.  Ragavan took a position as my student and allocated me the position of guru - seeking my blessings at every opportunity open to him. I blessed him from the bottom of my heart and feel I was actually placing myself in Ragavan.  Now that he is working in the prestigious hotel, I feel that I am working there. This was far beyond the efforts that both of us made in our current relationship. Likewise at family level with Ms Rani Karthigesan Sinnathamby (far right) 

Be it the workplace, family  or  social groups - when the outcomes produced on behalf of the whole for Public consumption, could not be identified with by myself as  being of common value -  and I am not able to make a difference to those outcomes, I was no longer a real leader in that group.  When I am no longer heard by majority fellow members – I am no longer  recognized as a driving force  of that group.  Hence I resigned from groups  when the person who until then had  confirmed most valuation for my work , confirmed that I was no longer heard by her/him.  If  I felt that someone had a real need – I would connect  to that person and remain within the group  to support that needy person.

I am a reasonably good follower and completed most of my relationships from a junior position relative to the other person. But where the senior keeps producing public outcomes that are misleading – I take a position to either reverse the roles internally and confidentially or I  leave. The former contributes to strengthening the whole structure from within. The latter minimizes damage from natural forces – including to my mind.

When roles are reversed – ( as demonstrated through the inverted pyramid structure in management) – in majority relationships of a particular category – for example parent-child – within a particular culture, family, institution  - the old senior who is now a new junior needs to consciously take Equal Position with the old junior who is now new senior.  Hence the flat structure in Western nations.

The relationship should not grow beyond the original senior position, as such would deviate us from the total structure that the relationship is a part of. Internally and confidentially the former  senior may submit to the former  junior.

 The challenge in Sri Lankan Governance structure now is being tested due to the old junior Mr. Maithripala Sirisena now becoming the new senior to Mr. Mahinda Rajapaksa. The Sri Lankan Governments of my times, are, as per my observations, not strongly committed to relationships. They are largely interactions on bilateral bases – and hence lead to chaos when the benefits or costs are from outsiders / unknown providers. Where a government loses consciousness of the citizen as representing the Public – it starts separating itself from the Public and other parts of the government itself become its Public.  The Common Opposition is the Public in a democratic government-public relationship.  This was the Tamil Community until the Presidential Elections 2015 when Tamils joined forces with the internal opposition within Government – to dilute this position. Whether  this would bring about  greater harmony depends on whether the Government forms structure that would be the parent structure for all governments – including at family level.

To my mind, the reason why the Rajapaksa regime became chaotic was the same as why LTTE became chaotic. Often the Common Tamil observes that the ‘Boys started off well but went astray’.  This is being said also of the Rajapaksa Government – as has been demonstrated by the defections including by the current President – Mr. Maithripala Sirisena. In both instances – it was due to ‘outside’ money which went towards elevating the status of leaders above the original level.

In countries like Australia – this ‘outside’ money happens not only through global administration which allocates high status that is not earned by the government – for example that Australia is a democratic nation – even though Equal Opportunity practices are more nice style than reality. The common reason at citizen’s level is the ‘open’ end through which senior migrants who fail to complete their relationships within their own cultures – take higher status with new migrants to continue to be the bosses. Given that there is lack of common investment in the relationship – such elevation becomes dictatorship by the senior especially where the new migrant is in need of the benefits and/or is ready to compromise to continue with the benefits.

New  migrants often get paid less than their counterparts  within old migrant groups. Where this is not addressed over long periods, this naturally promotes a society of servitude.  Such is more apparent in nations like Sri Lanka than in nations like Australia – due to the gap between economic and social status between government and the common citizen – as perceived by the common citizen - being  greater in poorer countries than in money rich countries like Australia.  Balance Sheets of Leaders – be it Mr. Mahinda Rajapaksa or Mr.Velupillai Prabhakaran –  would confirm whether they have abused their positions for private purposes. The reconciliation between net wealth at the time of entry and the time of exit respectively, would confirm whether they strengthened or abused their positions:

1.      1.  Personal  wealth at the beginning of the relationship through the position – plus

2.       2. Official remuneration   through the official position – less reasonable expenditure at the level of status of that position - plus

3.       3,  Submissions from their Public (as are made to spiritual leaders) – in appreciation of Service beyond the official position less the known expenditure to benefit that public

The total of the above is  the wealth earned and saved by the leader at the time of exit.

Any wealth in the name of the leader and/or in direct custody of the leader – above this total – is confirmation of abuse.

The Public from whom submissions are received beyond the taxes as per official system – are part of the public – be it the Diaspora Communities or outside governments. Where such submissions are accepted – one has to recognize that they become part of the Public for that leader. Foreign governments, Indian leaders and Tamil Diaspora who funded LTTE but to whom LTTE failed to be Accountable – contributed to the abuse of leadership position by Mr. Velupillai Prabhakaran. Likewise Mr. Mahinda Rajapaksa who kept rejecting unpleasant International Judgments. Both accumulated wealth way above the level of their positions – official and service positions.