Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

26 October   2016

Sauce for the Goose and Medicine for the Gander?

Q: What is Minimum force?

A: “Those minimum actions, including the use of armed force, sufficient to bring a situation under control or to defend against hostile act or hostile intent. All actions must cease as soon as the target complies with instructions or ceases hostile action. The firing of weapons is to be considered as a means of last resort” – The Free Dictionary

The User:

“The Chief Minister of Sri Lanka’s Tamil-speaking Northern Province, C.V.Wigneswaran, has appealed to the people of the province, especially the youth, to be calm as they mourn the killing of two university students by the police.

In a statement released from London, the Chief Minister said that while conveying his condolences to the bereaved families, he would appeal to the people not to express their anger and grief in ways which would have unpleasant consequences.

Wigneswaran said that he would not comment on the incident before the court had given its verdict. All that he would say now is that the apparently, doctrine of using minimum force had not been observed by the police.”

The Matter:

[On the night of 20 October 2016 Gajan attended a social event at Sulakshan's house in Jaffna. After the event Sulakshan was returning Gajan to his student hostel in Chunnakam on a motorcycle when, at around 11.30pm, the pair were shot by police at Kulapiddy junction on the Jaffna-KKS Road in Kokkuvil. According to the police the students had failed to stop at a police roadblock at the junction and sped off. The police opened fire, hitting the rider, Sulakshan, twice in the head and killing him. The motorcycle rammed into a parapet wall on the roadside which resulted in serious injuries to the passenger, Gajan. The police claimed that the students were under the influence of alcohol.

Sulakshan and Gajan were rushed to Jaffna Teaching Hospital where Sulakshan was pronounced dead whilst Gajan succumbed to his injuries shortly afterwards]- Wikipedia

The Action by Minister of Law and Order – the Hon Maithripala Sirisena:

“President Maithripala Sirisena had ordered the arrest of the five policemen manning the checkpoint and a Jaffna court had remanded them till November 4. For their safety the policemen were sent to Anuradhapura prison in a Sinhalese-dominated area” – New Indian Express

Financial Crimes Investigation Division – FCID – Parent Department – Sri Lanka Police - Wikipedia

Minister Responsible - Minister for  Law and Order – the Hon Maithripala Sirisena who is reported to have stated :

 “The objective of establishing the FCID is not to mingle in matters of various companies or individuals and to interrogate them. There are several divisions in the police department to handle such matters. There is deviation from the duties assigned to FCID. They should understand their duties and responsibilities. They should focus on large scale financial frauds……….. Their scope of duties is wide and people and the government expected them to engage in their duties meaningfully without engaging in trivial pursuit of insignificant incidents. My speech at the SLFI was drawn from my conscience. When the Heads of the Forces are taken into custody, I must be aware of it as the Minister of Defence.” – Lankadeepa/Daily Mirror

The Armed Forces responsible for National Security and the Police responsible for internal Law and Order are both under the Hon Maithripala Sirisena. In the case of Defence Forces – the Minister has confessed to  using  his conscience. In the case of Police – the Minister has used his Administrative power to punish them quickly. Did the Minister act as Minister for Defence or as Minister for Law & Order / Police, when dealing with the Jaffna matter? To use the Northern Chief Minister’s mind-order – did the Minister / President practice the Doctrine of use of minimum force when dealing with the Police and the FCID – as per the measures he used in protecting the Defence Forces? Within the Law and Order portfolio, which is responsible for Jaffna Police and the FCID – did the Minister / President use more force with the former than with the latter? If the Jaffna Police confessed to using their conscience would they be released without application of the Law that develops Order?  Is that the reason why lawful inquiry into the conduct of Armed Forces during the war is being denied? If yes, would the Ministry of Buddha Sasana which claims credit for Buddhist Independence undertake an inquiry to improve discipline within Buddhist armed forces and would the Hindu, Christian and Muslim armed forces/combatants be facilitated to be disciplined by their respective Ministries?

These questions need to be asked in terms of the new Constitution – especially in relation to Article 9 through which Buddhism is allocated foremost position and articles 10 and 14 which facilitate ‘freedom’ from conscience driven actions by other religious pesonnel. This means also that Ministries that are natural part of the Minister would be managed more through the conscience than Ministries that are distant relatives - like in-laws in marriage. Multiculturalism promotes healthy relationships including through marriage.

Here in Australia, we are multicultural to the extent of discussing and debating whether same-sex marriages should be legalized. This is part of the progress through medical science which facilitates same sex couples to have children. Same sex relationships as per the conscience of the couple are right and they do not need laws to realize love and happiness – so long as they are within their own community. Equal Opportunity laws in Australia render them a degree of protection from ‘outsiders’. But when it comes to children they need laws because they have to share  Common Resources. The law helps protect our Sovereignty – as individuals and/or as groups of common culture.

Buddhism foremost in the Constitution is to legalize monoculturalism which is described as follows by Wikipedia:

[ Monoculturalism is the practice of actively preserving a national culture via the exclusion of external influences. Japan, China, South Korea, and North Korea are examples of monoculturalism. Usually a monocultural society exists by racial homogeneity, nationalistic tendencies, geographic isolation, or political isolation (sometimes but not always under a totalitarian regime).

Recently, right-wing governments in several European states, notably the Netherlands and Denmark, have reversed the national policy and returned to an official monoculturalism. A similar reversal is the subject of debate in the United Kingdom and others, due to evidence of incipient segregation and anxieties over homegrown terrorism.

Several heads-of-government have expressed doubts about the success of multicultural policies: British Prime Minister David Cameron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, former Australian Prime Minister John Howard, former Spanish Prime Minister José María Aznar, and former French President Nicolas Sarkozy have voiced concerns about the effectiveness of their multicultural policies for integrating immigrants.]

The above is the final global judgment through social order - in relation to my case against Mr. John Howard on the basis of my direct  Experience of his negligence as an Administrator. The legislation through which I took action is Racial Discrimination Act 1975.  The public verdict as stated in Wikipedia more than ten years after my action as an ‘internal’ is that as per his conscience Mr. Howard was more with hierarchical system and less with Equal Opportunity system. Likewise, the President of Sri Lanka. In the case of most of the above leaders – they are ‘former’ leaders. Hence they use their ‘conscience’ instead of using the laws governing their positions. In terms of Equal Opportunity Laws – which are essential part of democracy – where the minority powers – migrants in multiculturalism and youth in monoculturalism -  have contributed more than the custodians of power – towards commonness – there would be rebellion supported by all minorities native to that place/land. That is a promise by the true  law of  Sovereignty.

Conscience is where our Truth resides. One who has position duty has to override personal Truth to do her/his duty. This is the essence of Bhagawath Geetha – the Hindu Bible. The more the leaders use their own truth as the Truth of the whole – and such expressions are disloyal to their positions, the more they contribute to becoming ‘former’.  That is the natural punishment for taking that position belonging to someone else.

The birth of Siva Senai in Sri Lanka around the time the President made the declaration in UN – that Sri Lanka was Buddhist country – is such a manifestation of Equality – as mandated  by articles 10 and 14 (1) (e ) of the Sri Lankan Constitution:

10) Every person is entitled to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including the freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.

 14 (1) (e ) Every citizen is entitled to the freedom, either by himself or in association with others, and either in public or in private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice or teaching;

 Where Siva Senai which carries a Hindu name complains on the basis of its belief that the above rights have been denied partially or wholly – the authorities concerned have the duty to take action to investigate. If at the end of the investigations the authority is not able to identify a secular reason for the damage – that authority has the duty to deliver in favor of the Hindu Siva Senai. When they fail and Siva Senai is genuine in its dedication to Lord Shiva – the Lord of the Mind – the global forces of Siva are naturally invoked. Likewise when a person/group carrying the Multiculturalism name complains genuinely as per its conscience – the global powers are invoked in support.

By separating itself the Buddhist group in Sri Lanka is authorizing the use of Conscience by minority religions – at a lower threshold. That was how Tamils became Equal Opposition in Parliament and the LTTE became ruthlessly clever through this separation and lower threshold. The majority however keep denying this real outcome through the pathway of Truth. If the above articles are upheld in the new Constitution – all non-Buddhists arrested as Terrorists using Secular Laws - need to be released from the custody of armed forces and disciplined by their respective religious Departments using their respect Sasanas/Doctrines.