Gajalakshmi Paramasivam
06 July 2017
Unitary
State, Buddhist Supremacy & Biased Sampling
[Constitutional amendments are hotly
debated in the country and it appears to be centred on aspects which could
potentially impact negatively on the unitary status of the country and the
supremacy of Buddhism. The consequences of implementing the 13th Amendment are
also ambiguous and questionable] - The Chief
Secretary of the Asgiriya Chapter Ven. Medagama Dhammananda Thera through Ceylon Today
The
way we interpret the law would vary as per our own mind structure. This mind
structure is strong when based on our Truth. When based on knowledge from
external sources, we need to consciously develop this mind structure – and hence
the system of education.
This
mind structure when developed on the basis of Experience would lead to harmony
with our Natural environment. Where this mind structure is as per External
knowledge – interpretation would vary as per external influence and our
reception of such external influence. Hence Separation is needed so we do not
misjudge. The inner structure regulates the ‘Causal Forces’ from within. External
Knowledge based structures are ‘Effects Based’ with a big component of unknown
causes.
As
per the above confession, Buddhist Leaders consider Sri Lanka to be a Buddhist
State which is strongly threatened by Provincial Councils under the 13th
Amendment to the Constitution. Given that the Buddhist clergy are not experts
in Secular laws, it is highly likely that they would fear the parallel of
Buddhism foremost being made part of Provincial government – i.e. Hinduism,
Christianity or Islam foremost at that
provincial level. We fear our own weaknesses manifesting through others.
The
above confession confirms ‘attachment’ to high status through Buddhism and needs to be
addressed by the Government through Article 9 of the Constitution. At National level, it is ‘effects’ based and
within the Buddhist community it is ‘cause’ based, in the knowledge that
majority Buddhists do not consciously practice the secular law.
Chettiar
v Chettiar , a case law often used in Leave to Appeal decisions in Sri Lanka’s
civil proceedings, highlights the complexity of this problem. Two approaches
are taken in constructing the problem and both are considered to be equally
valid:
“The question must depend on what would be the result of the decision of
the Divisional Court, assuming it to be given in favour of either of the
parties. If their decision, whichever way it is given, will, if it stands,
finally dispose of the matter in dispute, I think that for the purposes
of these rules it is final. On the other hand, if their decision, if given in
one way, will finally dispose of the matter in dispute, but, if given in the
other, will allow the action to go on, then I think it is not final, but
interlocutory. ” Lord Esher, M.R.cited by Hon Justice SaleemMarsoof,
P.C., J. In
StorerDuraisamy Yogendra &BalasubramaniamThavabalan Vs.
VelupillaiTharmaratnam’
(b) In
S. RajendranChettiar& Others Vs S. Narayanan ChettiarS.C.Appeal No. 101A /
2009, escalated from the District Court case No. 428/T
in the District Court of Colombo in relation to the Trustees of the Hindu
Temple known as “Sri Kathirvelayuthan Swami Kovil”, Dr.Shirani
A. Bandaranayake, J includes in her Honor’s reasoning the following:
[After an examination of the
aforementioned decisions, Sharvananda, J., (as he then was) had held that for
an ‘order’ to have the effect of a final judgment and to qualify to be a
‘judgment’ under section 754(5) of the Civil Procedure Code,
“1. it must be an order finally
disposing of the rights of the parties;
2. the order cannot be treated to
be a final order if the suit or action is still left a live suit or action for
the purpose of determining the rights and liabilities of the parties in the
ordinary way;
3. the finality of the order must
be determined in relation to the suit;
4. the mere fact that a cardinal
point in the suit has been decided or even a vital and important issue
determined in the case, is not enough to make an order, a final one.”]
On that
basis – the question that needs to be asked is:
Is the
13th Amendment a final Order to the Ethnic problem or is it
interlocutory ?
The
cardinal point in the suit/problem that
was decided was Devolution of Power to Provincial Councils through which the
Common Problems caused due to Excessive Power at the Central level were
addressed. That shows the way forward for Common Militancy to be addressed at
the local level. But the basic issue of Ethnic Equality remains only partially addressed. The language
inequality has been addressed through the 13th Amendment but not so
the religious inequality.
At
National level, Buddhism foremost law may help maintain greater harmony within
majority race, than would Secular laws. In other words ‘. the order(13th Amendment) cannot be treated to be a
final order if the suit or action is still left a live suit or action for the
purpose of determining the rights and
liabilities of the parties in the ordinary way
The problem
needs to be constructed on the basis of effects – due to lack of facility to
Equal participation at Causal level - by various groups that have their own
internal laws through religion. Inclusion of Buddhism foremost in the Constitution
is one such Effect.
A Constitution that includes Buddhism foremost does
not represent the whole population as if it is applicable to each citizen of
Sri Lanka. In the language of statistics – this process is known as ‘biased sampling’:
[In statistics, sampling
bias is a bias in
which a sample is collected in such a way that some members of the
intended population are less likely to be
included than others. It results in a biased sample, a non-random sample of
a population (or non-human factors) in which all individuals, or instances,
were not equally likely to have been selected. ]
Wikipedia
A Democratic Elected Member of Parliament does not
have the mandate to make laws that advantage a particular group. Article 9
cannot apply Equally to every citizen of Sri Lanka and hence is unlawful in its
constitution. It has no place in a Unitary Constitution. Any Constitution that
includes ‘foremost’ status to a particular aspect – is particular to that group
only. Within that Natural Forces are facilitated through Random sampling. Hence
scientifically speaking, a logical mind would conclude that the Constitution of
Sri Lanka is not binding on Non-Buddhists.
The wonder of it is that the effects confirmed the
core Energy to be enforcement which blocks the path of democracy and self-governance
– except for Buddhists.
No comments:
Post a Comment