Gajalakshmi Paramasivam- 10 July    2016  

What has Mr. Blair done that Mr. Rajapaksa did not do?

When LTTE – Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam were labeled ‘Terrorists’ – initially it did not bother me as I considered myself to be part of the elitists in Sri Lankan society and therefore Sri Lankan Tamil society. But later, when I had my own experiences of negligence by the Australian Government which I felt had used me instead of ‘including me’ – I naturally identified with the Rebellious nature of the LTTE and sort of ‘understood’ why they did what they did. Gradually, as I went through case after case of Racial Discrimination complaints by me against the Australian Public Administrators – I learnt through my own experience – that there was a wide gap between Theory and Practice of Equal Opportunity Laws in Australia. Ultimately it was that Truth I realized, that released me from my own expectations of  Australians ‘theories’ used largely for a living. One such abuser - Ms Pauline Hanson through ABC’s  Four Corner’s program on 10 August 1998, touched the raw nerve in me. It was the period of Nallur Festival (in Jaffna-Northern Sri Lanka) and I was already in pain due to feeling the unjust discrimination from Central Administrators of the University of NSW. The letter of resignation I wrote is in Appendix 1.  Now I realize that it was meant to happen as per my Truth which had already become the higher path than the one I was following to do my duty as per the position allocated to me even by the highest Administrator I came across in my Australia. As is my way, I wrote that letter to the Dean of Medicine (the operational unit that needed my services) with copy to the Vice Chancellor who was making use of Ms Pauline Hanson’s criticism, to promote himself.  Like TNA (Tamil National Alliance) in Sri Lanka, as per my Truth I was co-owner of the Medical Faculty by this time – having performed more than my duty and was Opposition as far as Central Administration was concerned. Hence the letter was addressed to the then Dean of Medicine.

Yesterday, when I read some criticism of Mr. Blair due to the Chilcot Report,  my thoughts on Mr. Blair were regulated through my own experience. I believe that Mr. Blair did his duty as he perceived it.  This is also the parallel of the Paranagama Report in relation to Sri Lankan internalized  war. The parallel of  Mr. Blair in Sri Lankan issue is Mr. Rajapaksa and the parallel of Mr. Saddam Hussain is Mr. Velupillai Prabhakaran – who were both killed under similar circumstances.

I could identify with those who then sang the ‘blame-Rajapaksa-song’ , now singing the ‘blame-Blair-song’. I was however, amused and irritated with those who sang ‘Jayawewa/Victory to-Rajapaksa’ back then, now joining the ‘Blame-Blair’ chorus.

I came across one such piece from  Ms Shenali Waduge through her article ‘Tony Blair: Towards A Citizen’s Arrest of a Renowned War Criminal?’ published by - globalresearch.ca

I was actually looking for the law that authorized  Citizen’s Arrest in Sri Lanka, when I came across the above. Mine was in the process of  preparing for the upcoming Testamentary matter hearing in Jaffna. During the preliminary hearing at Mallakam District Court – I was repeatedly attacked by the lawyer representing the other side – through my marriage being second marriage – the judge all the while remaining silent. The real status allocated to me there was that of a Mistress and not that of a Wife. It could happen only from those who did not respect their wives as a combination of mother and daughter - but as ‘dispensers of pleasures’. Every person who steps outside the boundaries of their official position prematurely to attack someone operating within their official position – is confirming that (as Gandhi said in South Africa) – ‘to them their wives are whores and their children are bastards’

Our side lawyer did meekly object but that was lost in the loud tone from the Colombo lawyer who acted like Mr. Rajapaksa’s troops in Vanni where we Sri Lankans had our parallel of the Iraq war. My account of this included in my draft submission for the next hearing is in Appendix 2

That to me was citizen’s arrest of the Lawyer and the Judge who failed in his duty to maintain order as per the law in his area of control. Hence my search for the law that permitted ‘citizens’ arrest’ in Sri Lanka, when I came across the above article by Ms. Waduge, who kept asking me during our interactions as to what it was that we Tamils did not have that they Sinhalese had?   Now I ask – Ms Waduge the question ‘What has Mr. Blair done that Mr. Rajapaksa did not do?’  If Ms Waduge was really seeking in Sri Lanka, through her Truth – she would have identified with Mr. Blair and not jumped on the bandwagon of journalists shouting for press freedom but being seen nowhere near the ordinary citizen driven by Truth.

During the 2009 encampment of Tamils I applied through due process to go to be with the victims and had to wait almost 6 weeks. During the wait, I went often to Swami Sathya Sai Baba Center in Colombo and prayed for Guidance. I needed to know how to provide services – whether to find fault in my mind with soldiers or the LTTE. It’s that finding fault that gives us the position of ‘Opposition’ in our own minds. Due to my mind committed to Law & Order -  I had a ‘blank’ in this regard. Then during group prayers – the question ‘who started this?’ came to my mind and with that the response that ‘it was the LTTE when they sent the bodies of 13 Sri Lankan soldiers back to Colombo’ which triggered off the July 83 riots. At that time a flower fell from Swami’s picture – seated on the throne of Justice / Dharma’. I did not understand why but due to my faith – I accepted that for my purposes. This helped me heal the victims not by ‘judging’ but by sharing in their pain and suffering. That was my protection from the soldiers. Truth always protects us from injustice.

Now, after studying the laws Governing Prescriptive Ownership – applicable in Sri Lanka, I am better able to appreciate that by sending the bodies of the soldiers back to Colombo the LTTE came beyond the line of ‘Personal Law’/ ‘Karma’ developed by themselves as per their own conscience and as revealed to the Tamil community in whose name they started the rebellion. LTTE were claiming Prescriptive Ownership title and they had every right to oust outsiders including those Tamil Politicians who had abandoned them - from their areas of  ‘possession’. But they did not have any right to take action beyond those borders. When they did – they were acting against their own law of ‘ownership by possession’. As an ‘insider’ to the Tamil community – who is helping such rebels cure themselves – I need to identify with their Truth and merge with mine – so that as a group we were more right than wrong. That I believe, would protect our common community from negative karma developed by losing control of our duty due to our desires being stronger. Speed kills Peace.

Along those lines of logic – my belief says  that any identification with the British – through the report – would affect Sri Lankans one way or the other – if even one person is genuinely affected by such identification – for better or for worse.  To my mind, Mr. Blair from whom I did receive a personal response during the time he was Prime Minister – was more with the workers than any other Prime Minister I have written to. Many, including Mr. Turnbull responded when they were in Opposition but once they got into that positive position – I was just another common paper/email.  In terms of Humanitarian feelings – the only Australian Prime Minister I identify with is Mr. Abbott.

To the extent Mr. Blair was driven by his personal law in taking the decisions he did when he was Prime Minister – and did so without acting in breach of the laws of his Nation – nor against any Resolution by his Government, he was right for the British and no other British had/has the moral authority to criticize his decisions and ruin his enjoyment of his achievements in retired life.

Sir John Chilcot exceeded his moral authority to inquire into those aspects that only the Leader of the Opposition had the right to effectively oppose at that time and remain silent thereafter. Like Emotions, Political decisions once made are beyond logical scrutiny by others – especially foreigners. This is due to Experience based intuitive wisdom like that of a mother’s which I believe, Mr. Blair did/does have for his Nation.  It’s Sir Chilcot who brings shame to the British status as Global leaders in Law & Order.

As I often say – Mothers are Feelers and Fathers are Thinkers. A mother’s feeling is beyond reproach by anyone including the father. Likewise a Politician’s. One needs to just make sure that it was ‘feeling’ and not ‘thought’ driven by external forces, that drives orders of postmortems.

 Let’s not use the leaders and throw them when they seem old and unwanted.

Appendix 1

“Dear Bruce,

This morning, in consultation with my husband, I made up my mind to return to Sri Lanka as soon as possible – to a place where I can perform as a Professional in all my creativity.

I heard Pauline Hanson on the 4 Corners Programme last night. Ms Hanson suggests that we go back to our countries of origin if we cannot be like them. It hurts that we even have to hear such things. In the name of ‘Freedom of Speech’ we – the new Australians are being made to lose our freedom to live as individuals. If the leadership of Australia is unable to turn it around – to make up for their negligence in failing to hear the cries of the new Australians – One has to wonder whether Ms Hanson is expressing what these leaders (and employers) feel themselves in their heart of hearts. This is the million dollar question to which I have been seeking a favourable answer – that the leaders of the country to which we brought our children and made them call it their ‘home’ would ensure that it is ‘home’ for our children. But my experience during the past 13 years has failed to deliver the answer that I have been seeking so desperately. When an education institution such as the University of New South Wales also demonstrated that it was no different – I do not wish to waste any more time – hoping.

I am sorry if this causes you any inconvenience, but I am quite happy to hand-over to your satisfaction – to a person of your choice. I am not arrogant to think that I am indispensable – there are so many excellent Accountants in the market (might even ease the unemployment problem!) and I sincerely wish you the very best – for you are a good leader.”

Appendix 2

(i)                 As per the Court Records, during cross examination of the 6^th Respondent when she gave evidence in person  – the only question asked by the Petitioners’ lawyer was :

‘ugfkQkfK "[f p]mf EtAvpfpDkibT?’/’Why do you need the money?’ (folio 131 of the Brief)

The Court-records state thereafter:

It is submitted that an emotion could be recorded as per the receiver’s reception and hence the words and/or actions that constitute an offence/breach need to be clearly stated in a Court of Law. The words stated by Mrs. Gajalakshmi Paramasivam:as per the Appellants’ records were :

(i)                 To the Lawyer representing the 5^th & 6^th Respondents:

I am disappointed with you

(ii)               To the Lawyer representing the Petitioners:

As for you – na[f oR viAl maT `lfl (I am not a woman for sale)

If the proceedings had been recorded accurately – they would confirm that so saying the 6^th Respondent quietly walked away from the bar table. When the 6^th Respondent was near the end of that passage – the Judge called her back and she went back and stood outside the witness box. Then the Judge questioned her as to what that place was? The 6^th Respondent remained silent. The judge asked the question again. Then the judge answered the question and said it was a Court House and not a market place. The judge said further that Administrative rights had been claimed but the behavior was street behavior. When the Judge paused – the Lawyer representing the 6^th Respondent stated words to the effect:

“Your honor ,  to be fair to my client – he (pointing to the Petitioners’ lawyer) kept stating she was not family because this was her second marriage and that she was after the money”

To this the Judge stated words to the effect “But that was dealt with”

When they fell silent – the 6^th Respondent turned around and walked away – out of the Court.

(i)                 On the basis of the above record the disciplinary action was without lawful authority – given that it was said to discipline the lawyer by a member of the Public committed to the Administrative order in Court Processes.

(ii)               The Judge who certified the proceedings without the repeated claims by the Petitioners’ lawyer - that the 6^th Respondent was not ‘family’ and that she was after other people’s money – is clear denial of Due Process of Court on EQUAL footing to a participant taking her lawful position in that Court.

(iii)             It is submitted that that lawful position was disrespected and the Court was disrespected by the Judge who failed to discipline the lawyer to whom a lawful marriage ought to have been a respectable marriage and the person who married through lawful process ought to have been respected on equal basis as any other lawful relative in that family. As per individual thoughts – such a person may be afforded a lesser status by a person,  but those thoughts ought to have been left outside the Court House where lawful status is the highest status. They are inadmissible in Court of Law – even when stated by a legal expert.