Wednesday 10 May 2017

Gajalakshmi Paramasivam
10 May 2017

Family & the Laws of Marriage

[The traditional American Family based on the Holy Family is in the dog house…….We are a Christian country. We do NOT believe in polygamy (Mormonism is a cult, not a religion) as with other countries, like India, Iran (or Turkish harems), Pakistan, many Africans who want to bring their gutter religions and associated gutter cultures to America. Muslims are practically polygamous; even some Hindus (Goa) though polygamy was outlawed in 1956 by the Indian Supreme Court. Sri Lanka upholds polyandry ( one woman sharing many husbands ) by Kandyan Marriage Law........These regressive social systems run counter to our great American traditions of family.] American of Colombo origin in response to article ‘AP, CNN, and WaPo: Fact-Checkers or Fact-Chuckers?

As per my knowledge of the above writer he is of Sri Lankan origin. As per my interpretation of his writings he is NOT a one-woman man in his mind. As per my knowledge of Americans, in general they are not committed to one partner in their life. President Clinton confirmed this while holding that highest position. Hence if as per Christian leaders the law of Christians says ‘One man-one woman’ is the only accepted ‘form’ of marriage, then a mind that is attracted by more than one person towards enjoying marital pleasures – becomes un-Christian. True laws are developed by us when we think we are ‘free’ of supervision by another. President Donald Trump who is also reported to have married three times is also un-Christian to the above writer who claims to be Christian and worse that America is for Christians. As per his stated law, Mr. Trump is dismissed as President of Christian America.

Recently, here in Northern Sri Lankan, when counseling a young mother of three who is separated from her husband, I said that her husband’s loss of self-confidence was due also to being in an environment where sisters in law of other men in that environment were part of the household of the married couple. I pointed to one particular brother whose wife was helped by her parents and sisters in home-making activities as an example. The brother said he had never thought in that direction – meaning enjoyment of sexual pleasures. I then said that marriage  was not just about sexual pleasures but other homemaking pleasures and responsibility.

Humans make laws to suit their purposes in a particular environment. Take for example, ‘Buddhism Foremost’ provision in the Sri Lankan Constitution. How does that provision relate to the above mentioned provision in Kandyan marriage – an excerpt from ‘Hussein, Asiff’s article  "Traditional Sinhalese Marriage Laws and Customs".  If the writer accepts without verification, then there is obviously conflict in the mind that carries both at the same time – the Buddhism Foremost clause and the Kandyan law relating to polyandry.

The mind that does not connect to Belief and/or Common Law becomes disorderly unless it stays within its ‘home environment’. Given that we use the base that we are all born Sovereign, those of us who stay close to home, tend to retain that Sovereignty. Others who leave the birth-home need to work harder and sacrifice more than they did at their birthplace to maintain this Sovereignty. Migrants especially economic migrants carry this higher risk of loss of Sovereignty.

When we marry, we become responsible to develop a system that would facilitate maintenance of  both our Sovereignty. The official laws are there to guide us but on their own they do not lead us to fulfill this wider responsibility. But if a law leads even one person to find her/his Truth and reconcile within, it is valid in that part of the world, that is ‘home’ to that person.

Take for example the marriage of Princess Throupathi and the five Pandava brothers in the Indian Epic Mahabharatham. To many it may be just a story – even a myth to some. But to me it is part of the Case Law that helped me appreciate the role of leading women who facilitate others to find their souls through marriage also. My marriage to Param is my second marriage. Param’s sisters who were included by us as part of our Australian structure, used it against us to have their way. I tried to ‘educate’ them about the injustice of ‘mixing issues’ for personal gain. They would not listen and I kept my distance from them – especially the one in Australia who came to Australia due to my Ownership Energy – Common to Australia and the family.  Eventually when their bachelor brother died they wanted a share in his intestate estate – in breach of the specific provisions of the Customary Laws of Thesawalamai applicable to Jaffna Tamils. I continued to keep my distance but Param insisted on applying Thesawalamai Law. I believe that his respect for his father and his brother who passed away, due to their contribution to his higher education, pushed him to override his sisters.

In the primary Courts of Mallakam – in Northern Sri Lanka, the Colombo lawyer who represented the sisters – kept carrying their message that I was not family. (Appendix). I said words to the effect that I was not a prostitute. Given that Mahabharatham includes the Hindu Bible of Bhagavat Geetha, the experiences of Mahabharatham are part of Hindu cultural Case Law. Later,  during the Appeal hearing, Judge – the Hon Illanchileyan ruled at the first instance the opposition made that ‘not family due to second marriage’ claim – by simply asking ‘Is it a lawful marriage?’. Marriage as per the law is the common measure of ‘right and wrong’ in a Court of Law. A court that disrespects its own boundaries as drawn by the law, and does so to would one who acts within those borders, takes the matter into the area of Natural Justice where only our personal law applies. Our investment in the Common official law is part of that personal law but the letter of the law, as is,  does not apply just because one has official position to judge as per the law. To my mind, Judge the Hon Illanchileyan’s mind has been shaped also by his own investment in the values of Mahabharatham – which was referred to by the Judge when speaking at the funeral of St. Jonhs College teacher the Hon Jeevanantham.

To my mind, in that Mallakam Court, I was like Throupathi who was stripped of her clothes as if she were the slave of the crown prince. The picture above depicts Throupathi judging  the King and all the elders in that Court. Before getting to that position, Throupathi who was called a whore by one of the princes, explains that the wife is not a substance / matter but has her own rights independent of her husband. One who carries such wisdom is truly a Royal.

My issue also got promoted to the Court of Natural Justice and I was able to see the connection between cause and effect through my own Truth.  All relationships based on Truth are sacred relationships. The only laws that are of value to us those that are current in our present environment and those that are used for research purposes – the latter having no value outside scholarly boundaries. Human laws help us develop personal Truth based relationships to cover wider circles. If we used common cultural habits or even the law for selfish reasons and in conflict with our own Truth, we develop mental disorders. That is how the system of Natural Justice works.

At the end of the hearing on 05 September 2013,  the Judge said that the other side had to produce documentary evidence confirming Mrs. Sabanathan’s claim that she did not receive dowry from her father but only a donation.  This happened because during the hearing prior to that the Petitioner Mrs. Mahadevan confirmed in Court that she was given a small dowry by her brother the deceased.   

To my mind the Judge’s conclusion that this construction was happening due to the death of Mr. Yoganathan and not before then – and was done for this specific purpose – was true – but not in my form but for Mrs. Sabanathan who fools people by her claim that she took care of her siblings after her mother passed away. After I got to know her – I said to Param that I had taken greater care of my siblings even when my mother was alive than Mrs. Sabanathan had done. Hence to me she was cheating the family and community and even the Judge when she used that claim in Court.  This was followed by the ‘Not dowry but donation’ claim. 

Last night when my husband rang from Sydney and asked our lawyer about those documents ( no one revealed to us the contents of the documents)  the lawyer said to my husband that there was no such wording in that document. 

At the end of the hearing on 05 September 2013, I was to give evidence. But this was put off to 07 November to facilitate completion of the Petitioners’ side of the evidence.  But yesterday there was no word in Court about the donation documents before I was asked to give evidence. There was no ‘setting aside’ that evidence as being false.  If the evidence is false then the claim is false. Yet, I was the one named as the lowly cheat in that Court.

I  was effectively ‘dismissed’ after the above question by Mr. Yogendra and my response to it.  I looked at our lawyer and he signaled that I could step down. I stepped down, wore my shoes and picked up the file of documents including the exhibits which were effectively dismissed by all that bullying under the leadership of Mr. Yogendra fully endorsed by the Judge. I carried that document file in my hand but this time the clerk said for me to handover all the documents needed to the lawyer.  I looked at our lawyer and he said to leave the file on the bar table. No documents were used in that Court. But they were already in the Court of Natural Justice as per my true intentions.

As I picked up my file I said to our lawyer ‘I am really disappointed with you.’ At that moment Mr. Yogendra who was standing next to our lawyer – at the head of the bar-table also looked in my direction – and I said to him in Tamil ‘na[f viAl maT ;lfAl’  / ‘I am not a prostitute’. So saying, I  walked towards the Public end of the Court. Then I heard our first lawyer Mr. Nadarajah say to me that I was being summoned. I turned around and walked back to the  witness box and removed my shoes. But I did not get on to the box because no one asked me to.  Then the Judge asked me in a stern voice ‘;T '[f[ ;dmf?/ What is this place?’  I was confused. I was wondering whether the Judge was referring to me not being accepted as  a Ceylon Tamil???  I did say ~mamf instead of Omf in Tamil, when giving evidence.  My mother spoke Indian Tamil as she was born and brought up in Burma.  I was wondering whether I was showing signs of my mother through my Indian Tamil for the word Yes.   ~mamf is Indian for Yes.  Omf is Ceylon Tamil.

Besides, Swami Sathya Sai Baba came in my early morning meditation and blessed me. Given that Swami was Indian – I may have brought that pronunciation during the court session. All this was running fast in my mind when the Judge said ‘;T nIti m[fbmf.  cnftil kAtkfkibmatiri kAtkfk PdaT ']fD etriyata? pdicfc ']fD ecalfli nirvak `tikarmf EkdfdidfD ;pfp `TkfKriy tKti ;lfl ']fD kadfdiyacfC.  ecalfLl ecalfbtvid  ndtfEtlfl kadfdibT Mkfkiymf.’ (This is Court house – Don’t you know that you should not show street behavior here in Court? You claim to be educated and sought Administrative authority. But now  through your conduct you have proven that you do not deserve that.  It’s not good enough to say in words. More importantly your conduct must confirm your claim) 
I looked blankly at the Judge for the first part of the above outburst by the Judge. Then the penny dropped – that somehow the Judge had got knowledge of my statement to Mr. Yogendra. It’s often mind reading.

So – on top of being effectively labeled as a prostitute and a cheat – I was now being accused of street behavior. I just stared at the Judge.  The woman in me broke down and cried – silently inside. It really was too much at this point for that soft woman within. 

Then our lawyer spoke out and said to the Judge ‘I apologize on her behalf but her behavior is understandable given that her second marriage was brought before this court again.’  The Judge immediately showed a smiling face to the lawyer and explained that it was not given consideration.  Our lawyer then said to me ‘You better apologize’ . I looked him straight in the eye said ‘No I won’t. I spoke the Truth. I have no reason to apologize for.’

  No one said anything for a few moments and I took my file again – this time from the floor and my bag next to it, wore my shoes and walked away. At the other end of the bar table I bowed to the Judge’s chair  – where my real Lord was seated as per my mind to the extent I spoke the Truth relevant to honor my dead relative,  and walked out of the Court room.

Outside I rang Param and briefly informed him and was still suppressing the crying woman. As I went past the courthouse gate in the tuktuk – Mr. Mahadevan who was just separating from his lawyer walked past the tuktuk and I said ‘n[fbiekdfd nayfkqf’  ‘ungrateful dogs’. THAT to me was a shade of the street behavior that the Judge was using to discipline me in what he considered to be  his kingdom.

No comments:

Post a Comment