Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

22  September   2016

Awakening the   Hindu Ruler of Sri Lanka

A young Australian devotee of Sri Sathya Sai Baba said to me long time back that they were encouraged to sit at the same place during their regular Yoga sessions.  Yesterday, my friend Malar arranged for us to meet at Park Road, Colombo 5 because that was a familiar area for me due to Park Road being my area of  residence back then. It so happened that the spot at which Malar asked me to meet her was opposite my last address at Park Road. It was while living in that area that I bought the land  over which a Buddhist Sinhalese claimed Prescriptive Title and sold it to someone else. Yesterday, even when I stood there and looked at 220, Park Road, which was once my home – I felt a surge of gratitude – to the system of Truth – that has not only facilitated me to enjoy good homes including those owned by family members who preferred me as a tenant, to outsiders. Before going to Park Road I visited my land about 10 tuk-tuk minutes away from Park Road. I noted that there was hardly any change since my last visit and thanked Lord Buddha opposite the gates for looking after my interests in the property. I noted with appreciation that someone had kept some water and flowers in front of Buddha statue. I prayed to Buddha to continue to protect my investment in Colombo including through that land. To my mind, the land beckoned for me to uphold my hard earned and hard saved entitlements. The Land wanted me to take care of it through the righteous pathway of my belief.

Even as I stood there – I was able to feel the connection between my current contribution  to Sri Lankan National Policy through my own experiences and the legal arguments I recently submitted my legal arguments to the Judiciary, in my Colombo Land matter. The Land matter is being heard through Prescription Ordinance 1871. That was a period of British rule. As per published reports - the last king of this land which is now being called Sri Lanka was King Sri Vikrama Rajasinha. This monarch is seen to be wearing the Hindu third eye symbol of Pottu in his forehead.  One could therefore conclude that Sri Lanka has Hindu heritage at Ruling level. That heritage would respond to believers in that heritage and not to those who live off their own current credits – as LTTE did. Last year around this time – it so happened that I stayed at Raja House – where also I noticed the picture of the above King who reflected Hindu culture.

This morning I read the Sri Lankan President’s speech at the UN General Assembly delivered yesterday. It is reported to have included the following passage:

[Sri Lanka is a Buddhist country, where Theravada Buddhism is practiced. There are solutions in Buddhist teachings to most of the problems faced by the people in this world. Similarly, those who follow other religions like Hinduism, Islam and Christianity too can find answers to these problems by these great religious philosophies.]

As per Wikipedia:

Fourth Buddhist Council

The Fourth Buddhist council of Theravada Buddhism was held at the Anuradhapura Maha Viharaya in Sri Lanka under the patronage of Valagamba of Anuradhapura in 25 BCE. The council was held in response to a year in which the harvests in Sri Lanka were particularly poor and many Buddhist monks subsequently died of starvation. Because the Pāli Canon was at that time oral literature maintained in several recensions by dhammabhāṇakas (dharma reciters), the surviving monks recognized the danger of not writing it down so that even if some of the monks whose duty it was to study and remember parts of the Canon for later generations died, the teachings would not be lost.

After the Council, palm-leaf manuscripts containing the completed Canon were taken to other countries such as Burma,Thailand, Cambodia and Laos]

History seems to be repeating itself in a new form. One needs to ask whether it is due to this indiscriminate mix of secular principles with religious principles that has brought about the problems of starvation back then and excessive enjoyment of pleasures including through drugs in the younger generation. Theravada Buddhism did not protect the Buddhist clergy from starvation back then nor did it save land from bloodbath during our generation. I recently asked a Buddhist who said words to the effect that she wanted  to give happiness to her husband who is mentally weak. My question to the wife was whether she was happy? If one is not happy how can one facilitate happiness to another – especially the person with lesser mental capabilities depending on her? This is my question also to the Sri Lankan President – as to how Theravada Buddhism could protect the lay citizen when its clergy  did not protect themselves first?

The essence of the leadership problems experienced by Sri Lanka is contained in the above message delivered at the UN.  It’s not different to the Prescriptive Title Claims by the Buddhist occupier of the land which I purchased through my hard earned and hard saved money. That was true investment of the essence of my WORK EXPERIENCE – largely in private sector. The Neither the Executive nor the Judiciary were able to protect my title to that Colombo land. Hence the land beckoned to me to protect its Truth. The following is an excerpt from my submission to the Judiciary this week:

[Experience v Theory

(i)                 The Base used for these Arguments is that the judgment is in breach of  the fundamental values underpinning Sections 3 & 13 of Prescription Ordinance 1871. It is submitted that the essence of the Law governing Prescriptive Rights is that Experience based Title is of higher value than Legal Title sans Experience. It is submitted that in a Court of Law,  legal Title ranks higher than Title by possession – except when the possessor satisfies the requirements of  Absolute Ownership Value with no recognition whatsoever of another’s title in any form through any pathway.  This kind of Absolute value is demonstrated by full physical possession and complete independence OR adversity/opposition of Equal value to any other form of Title. The Appellants argue that the  judgment appealed against FAILS to demonstrate that:

(a)   the Court had this expectation of the Defendants

(b)   the Defendants satisfied this requirement of complete OR Equally Opposite Experience through physical possession

(ii)                           The validity of this exception is highlighted as follows by Hon Justice Saleem Marsoof, P.C., J.  through  Storer Duraisamy Yogendra  &  Balasubramaniam Thavabalan  Vs. Velupillai Tharmaratnam:

[The decision of five judges of this Court in the Rajendran Chettiar case is not only binding on this Bench as it is presently constituted, but also reflects the practice of Court both in England as well as in Sri Lanka. As Lord Denning, M. R. observed in Salter Rex and Co. v. Ghosh [1971] 2 All ER 865 at page 866 – “Lord Alverstone CJ was right in logic but Lord Esher MR was right in experience. Lord Esher MR’s test has always been applied in practice.”]

(iii)                         It is argued and submitted that the above principle applies also in the case of Prescriptive Rights – where the Absolute value of Experience based Belief developed through an independent or adverse pathway, is respected and recognized as being of higher value than the legal title which often includes theory which may not be applicable to local environments. It is submitted that Logic is relative whereas Belief is Absolute in value. Where theory is practiced – the two would meet at the destination of ownership.

(iv)                         It is submitted that the Prescription Ordinance requires the claimant of Prescriptive title to have had this Experience through wholesome possession.

(v)                           To be accepted at that level – pure of legal logic – Experience based Belief needs to stand on its own rights and not be relative to the logic of any alternate system – in this instance legal title. It is submitted that to be entitled to ownership through the logic based legal pathway – one does not need Belief. Knowledge that one has satisfied the requirements of the legal pathway alone is enough.

(vi)                         To claim Prescriptive rights on the other hand, one needs Belief which is confirmed by wholesome possession – as in blind faith. One who Experiences has Belief. It is submitted that the  facts before the Court were not constructed by the Defendants to satisfy the above requirements of the law that that Ownership Experience was had by the 1^st Defendant and inherited by the 2^nd Defendant.

(vii)                       It is submitted that the Conflict between the Legal Title and the Prescriptive Title is addressed by the Prescriptive Ordinance by  requiring the claimant of Prescriptive Title to have completed the pathway of possession and have reached the Destination of  Realised  Ownership

(viii)                     It is submitted that one such requirement is to travel independent of the Legal Titleholder. Hence the Requirement of Independence or Adversity. Where the Claimant claims no knowledge whatsoever of the Legal Titleholder/s, the requirement of Independence needs to be satisfied. Where the Claimant does confirm knowledge of Legal Titleholder/s and their activities in relation to ownership of the property – the requirement of Adversity needs to be satisfied. It is submitted that the latter needs confirmation of Separation of Powers and Consciousness of Equal & Opposite status.

Using the above to analyze the President’s declaration that Sri Lanka is a Buddhist country – I would conclude that such is the parallel of Prescriptive Title by physical  possession as opposed to Legal title by Common Law. Gandhi said about a similar ruling in South Africa of his time:

[I want to welcome you all. Every one of you. We have no secrets. Let us begin by being clear... about General Smuts' new law. All Indians must now be fingerprinted... like criminals. Men and women. No marriage other than a Christian marriage is considered valid. Under this act our wives and mothers are whores. And every man here is a bastard.]

If the Sri Lankan President’s statement were interpreted through Belief in Gandhi – he would say to members of minority religions:

[Every Hindu, Muslim and Christian is a de-facto citizen of Buddhist Lanka]

If Sri Lanka is declared a Buddhist country – then all non-Buddhists are migrants. We then have to travel Independent of each other and hence the Hon  Wigneswaran’s claim of Separation of Land  becomes valid – so Tamil areas would be Hindu country. Where belief is chosen as the basis to name a place – and one section is described as country – others also become countries. THAT was what the LTTE was fighting for through its own pathway.

If on the other hand a title Adverse to the legal is claimed – then the two oppose each other on Equal platform. This was thrown away by the Lankan President – at the UN – an Assembly that has the foremost responsibility to uphold Equal footing towards which one needs to have Equal Opposition at the top. Yet as per published reports the UN Chief sang his own Separate tune about which it is reported:

[UN Chief Ban Ki-moon hailed Sri Lanka’s “deepening” efforts to heal the wounds of war, in his final opening address to the UN General Assembly in New York yesterday.]

UN Deaf  leading the Lankan Blind????

Did Sri Lankan rulers ever speak the Truth at the UN for them to find solutions through the UN’s stated values? One who speaks the Truth at least to himself at the UN – and no untruth - would find the solution at the UN. I did that as a consolidated Australian-Sri Lankan. Towards this one has to raise one’s mind above the physical to include the other as mental. The challenge is now open to all minority religions to continuously take the ‘other side’ of the Buddhist Government. When our thoughts are based on belief – there is an automatic hierarchical positioning. The mind of a Buddhist therefore comes with this advantage endorsed officially. This is fine. But what authority does the Buddhist President have to make a mockery of UN values of Equal Opportunity through Equal Opposition?

Effectively the President of Sri Lanka has declared that there is not one Sri Lanka but four countries – One Buddhist Lanka, One Hindu Lanka, One Muslim Lanka and One Christian Lanka.  That is how UN values of Equal Opportunity can be maintained. Those driven by the physical need that physical separation. Thank you Mr. President for sharing your True basis. No more claim of Unity Government under the current leadership – says King Sri Vikrama Rajasinha, a Sinhalese who practiced Hinduism with DIGNITY of his Sovereignty.