Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

26 September  2017

Who Owns the Constitution?

[Chairman of the Public Representations Committee on Constitutional Reform Lal Wijenayake says no party can criticise the new Constitution as all parties representing Parliament are involved in the interim committee to formulate a new Constitution.

Speaking at a program held in Kandy, Lal Wijenayake said a 21 member Steering Committee lead by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe was appointed.

Lal Wijenayake said MPs Bandula Gunawardena, Dinesh Gunawardena and Prasanna Ranatunga represent the Joint Opposition while MPs R Sampanthan and MA Sumanthiran represent the Tamil National Alliance in the Steering Committee.] News Radio Report: No one can criticise new Constitution –Wijenayake

The representatives of  various Political parties have the opportunity and responsibility to contribute to the making of a law as per their  belief which is also taken as the belief of the group that elected them. Belief based outcome IS above the law made by those who came into those positions for lesser purposes of money and status. Hence the Sovereign status enjoyed by Sri Lanka within the Global Community. We need workable laws to regulate the distribution of  inputs and outputs at the lesser levels.

The official Opposition in Parliament therefore is elevated by law to Equal status as the government, to diffuse through intellectual work,  the value of components included in the proposed law. If all members of Parliament were taken to be acting on the basis of Belief – then the outcome represents of Absolute  value. When Absolute value is given physical form at the primary level it would divide into Equal halves – each side seeing their side physically and needing the intellect to see the other side mentally.

Hence the Opposition in Parliament, has the additional responsibility of objectively criticising the outcome projected through the law, on behalf of those who would be offended/damaged by  a section of the Public through actions that could be measured through this particular law. This ‘section’ is taken to be 50% until known otherwise. In other words it is taken as non-belief based power opposing this law.

When this component is known otherwise the following structure needs to be recognized:

(1)  Where majority of the law makers Believed in the issue, they would include minority as part of themselves – as parents include children in a family. Under the circumstances, majority that ‘includes’ and does not offend and alienate, would follow the higher laws of nature  and therefore would regulate the minority naturally, with the support and guidance of Natural forces. Under those conditions, one does not need any  human law because   common belief would naturally work the system to keep the offenders in minority/junior  status. Under those circumstances the corrections happen internally and confidentially. Hence all is fair in Love.

(2)  if the offenders are part of majority and that majority alienates by Particularising that which ought to be Common, the power of the Law is needed by minority side to oppose the offenders’ group on Equal footing, so that the offending tendency does not quietly grow like cancer, due to cover up and impunity. Then a law that shows Objectively measurable  inputs and  outputs becomes is necessary so that the whole does not get damaged due to cover-up on emotional basis. Minority group is empowered to become Equal for this reason. Since they cannot be equal at numbers level – they have to show additional input at the objectively measurable level to maintain the Equal status through a combination of Numbers and Work visibly above the level of majority. Successful militants do just that.

The  Opposition in Parliament has the Administrative Power and Duty to criticize on the basis of projected outcomes, after majority decision by a subcommittee has been derived. The Business approach to Financial Management starting with Zero Base Budgeting which the current Sri Lankan Government has claimed to have committed itself to, works on this principle of Equality between objectively measurable inputs and outputs at the breakeven (zero advantage) level. If those who represent Tamil National Alliance in Parliament are in minority in this Committee on Constitutional Reforms, they have the duty to present logical arguments that would show in picture form in the mind of the most junior member of their side – the inputs (causes)  and their projected outputs (effects) to ‘fill the gap’.

Gandhi did just that when he said in South Africa that the new laws of the empire under General Smuts’ Administration, would have the effect of  showing all non-Christian mothers and wives as whores and their sons as bastards. Gandhi naturally developed  higher thinking structure due to foregoing pleasures / benefits within his reach to become part of the poorer/junior most  environment he was serving. Hence he was able to produce that ‘subjective’ loss of status, as picture in the minds of majority would-be victims of unjust laws. It’s the other side of ‘Sinhala only’(past) and Buddhism foremost (current) provisions in the Constitutions of Sri Lanka. This increases the power of majority – leading to the deterioration of their mind power vis a vis their counterparts in Non-Buddhist communities.

Religion is a healthy pathway due to Belief. Secular pathway is more suitable where non-believers in religion are on the rise.

As per the Island report ‘Prelate calls for referendum on new constitution’ :

[ A referendum should be held on the new constitution proposed by the government, Venerable Anunayake of Asgiriya Anamaduwe Sri Dhammadassi Thera told the Highways and Higher Education Minister Lakshman Kiriella.

Ven. Sri Dhammadassi Thera said so after receiving a copy of the interim report submitted by the Steering Committee appointed by the Constitutional Assembly.

The Asgiriya Anunayake Thera told the minister that it was not sufficient for the draft constitution to be passed by the Parliament and it had to be approved by the people directly.]

The above is in breach of Article 9 of the Constitution which places the responsibility of using Buddha Sasana/Code  as the highest measure. This would work as in (1) above if majority Buddhists and therefore majority Sri Lankans were Believers in Sri Lanka. It is the parallel of General Smuts’ law that recognized only Christian marriages as being lawful. The mind that is insecure in an environment where majority were/are Non-Christians would resort to such top-down measures which are in conflict with Democracy even when they may be better for the whole in terms of status and money. The above Buddhist leader has confirmed that :

(1)   He did not believe that Buddhism based belief was the strongest force driving Buddhists in current Sri Lanka

(2)   Majority Buddhists carried that status for lesser purpose than ownership. Hence they needed to ‘show’ the picture through the more appropriate ‘secular’ path of Referendum. In other words, Buddhism ranks below the secular pathway even to a Buddhist represented by this Buddhist leader.

The Island reports further on this as follows:

[ A copy of the interim report was also presented to the prelate of Malwatte most Venerable Tibbatuwawe Sri Siddhartha Sumangala Thera.

The Most Venerable Mahanayake Thera said that he was not in favour of the executive presidency under any constitution. ]

The above confirms Article 9 of the Constitution through which Buddhism and therefore Buddhist leader has the highest status in the country. It is therefore understandable that he would not want a secular leader above him. The name of pathway we follow to get to the position is the name of that position that we achieve. If a non-Buddhist were the executive president, then such a president is entitled to be the executive of all positions generated through the secular pathway that Democracy clearly is. In a Subjective secular system that Sri Lanka currently follows in most areas, executive presidency would work well where juniors are driven by ‘effects’ and seniors by ‘causes’. The above monk is confirming that the Politicians of Sri Lanka using the secular pathway are not capable of leading in Administration through the subjective pathway. The extreme example of this was the previous regime which ‘killed’ to attack and win and therefore acted in breach of Article 9 of the Constitution. More importantly, if Buddhist monks accepted that as just leadership, that could would  mean to a true Buddhist that  Lord Buddha had already vacated the leadership position of that group.

Like in the case of Buddha – who is the less visible governor within the Buddhist community, the president could be kept symbolically reminding us of the past. But given that the Buddhist monks benefited from such presidency – they do not have the right to judge / decide either way.

In the Ceylon Today editorial headed ‘No one is above the law’, the editor states:

[ Defence Secretary, Kapila Waidyaratne, categorically denying any possibility of the LTTE raising its head again, has clearly stated that Security Forces personnel accused of crimes will have to face the law of the land.

The comments made by the Defence Secretary is timely, in the backdrop of UNHRC High Commissioner Prince Zeid Ra'ad Al –Hussein's meeting with President Maithripala Sirisena in New York on the human rights situation in Sri Lanka and the President's response to the comments made by the UN's High Commissioner for Human Rights at the 36th session of the UNHRC in Geneva a week ago.]

LTTE went through many name changes prior to holding this name. Just because I qualify to be listed as Hindu by others, does not mean that I am a Hindu by belief. Likewise Buddhists. A leader of an armed force, has the authority to project on behalf of another only when they are part of the other. To state that LTTE would not raise itself again -  contradicts the following expression by the editor:

[Despite bringing an end to the three decades of separatist war, successfully, Sri Lanka faces an arduous task of improving the human rights situation as well as spearheading the peace and reconciliation process to strengthen unity and integrity in the country. ]

So long as the power of the junior is stronger than the power of the senior – the possibility of war / conflict exists. LTTE carries strong negative karma due to their elimination of  Politicians through whom the leadership opportunity was created. To most who sought through the Political pathway – the Hon SJV Chelvanayagam was the leader of Tamil Nation and hence they refer to him as Father of the Nation. Those to whom militant leader Velupillai Prabhakaran became the ‘Thesiya Thalaivar’ / National Leader  the Hon SJV Chelvanayagam cannot be ‘Thesiya Thalaivar’. The separatists war happened not only between Tamil militants and the official government but also between those who were committed to  the Political pathway and those who wanted to ‘see and show’ results by forming coalitions with outsiders such as Indian Tamils. This would happen again and again where India’s Tamil Nadu Government is disorderly and the Sri Lankan Government covers up its wrongs through majority power. It is better to face the devil than be surprised. LTTE was merely the surface medium through which the disorderly politicians had passage for the separatism they espoused, including through Sinhala only, Tamil only and Buddhism foremost.

The weakness could be cured only when those who have it recognize it in their mind’s eye – as the Indians who followed Gandhi did, due to their own suffering of indignity. So long as Tamils are fearful of finding fault with the ‘boys’ even for disciplinary purposes – the next batch of militants are already in the making including in the minds of Indian Tamils as well as Diaspora Tamils who celebrate militancy. Whether it is right or wrong – depends on the measure used. It certainly is not the current constitution of Sri Lanka to which non-Buddhists cannot claim ownership.