Gajalakshmi Paramasivam
22
September 2018
Not Jaffna only but
Jaffna also
[On Sept 21, 2017, the Steering Committee of the
Constitutional Assembly presented its report on the new constitution to
Parliament proposing the devolution of power within a unitary state.
This proposal is far short of what the
Tamils have asked for. The question is: will the proposals be a step towards
resolving the national question, or simply be an enabler to repeat the
grievances which led the country to 30 years of civil war?] Is
Sri Lanka’s Tamil party selling out the Tamil people?] - By JS Tissainayagam | 4th October 2017
through Asian Correspondent.
Following is part of the presentation by Wikipedia about Mr Tissainayagam who was detained
by the detained by the Terrorism Investigation Division of the Sri Lankan
Police in 2008 and indicted under Prevention
of Terrorism Act:
[The only other pieces of evidence that the Government presented against
Tissainayagam was two paragraphs he had written;
"1.
In a July 2006 editorial, under the headline, "Providing security to
Tamils now will define northeastern politics of the future," Tissainayagam
wrote: "It is fairly obvious that the government is not going to offer
them any protection. In fact it is the state security forces that are the main
perpetrator of the killings."
2. A
part of a November 2006 article on the military offensive in Vaharai, in the
east, which said, "Such offensives against the civilians are accompanied
by attempts to starve the population by refusing them food as well as medicines
and fuel, with the hope of driving out the people of Vaharai and depopulating
it. As this story is being written, Vaharai is being subject to intense
shelling and aerial bombardment."
On 31 August 2009, the
High Court in Sri Lanka sentenced Tissainayagam to a total of 20 years rigorous
imprisonment, for arousing "communal feelings" by writing and
publishing articles that criticised the government's treatment of Sri Lankan Tamil civilians affected by the war, and
for raising money to fund the magazine in which the articles were published in
furtherance of terrorism.]
After my liberating
experiences here in Australia, I now tend to read the work of others at Energy
level. I was in Vaharai in 2005, due to my commitment to Tsunami victims who
were devotees of Kathirgama Murugan. In other words, to my mind, the opportunity happened due to our common
belief. I learnt through that experience – that the Tamils living in that area
had more in common with folks living in rural North than with the folks of urban
Jaffna. It is also the difference between Indigenous Australians living largely
in indigenous culture and those who are multicultural ‘urban-Australians of
indigenous origin’. The measure used to value the former is time based and is different to the measure used to value the
latter – using space they Energized during a particular period.
I believe that by
connecting to Indigenous Australians here in Coogee – I inherited their
ownership value here in Coogee. This happened largely through my workplace
contributions. This has translated as ownership of our home-unit at my level of work
contribution during my period as an employee – even though I was paid
relatively less than ‘Australian qualified’ and / or White Australians who ‘look’
Australian. One has to raise/allow the rising of, one’s work value to Energy level where our the
work of one energizes the other. It is that unseen, unexpected component that
confirms ownership.
True Ownership of Land
in rural areas are defined largely through invisible time basis. Hence the law
of Prescriptive Rights. In urban areas on the other hand, ownership of land is largely
on the basis of money based transfer and/or by inheritance.
Mr. Tissainayagam’s claim would be more appropriate to
urban Tamils rather than the folks of Vaharai who abandoned their rights to
armed rebels – for one reason or the other. The main reason was that their own
sons and daughters were part of rebel groups. Like in politics – their ‘reasoning’
is that of the rebels and therefore – could not be measured by an independent
person except through objectively measurable evidence. Lankan rebels were
formed largely in rural environments.
Mr Tissainayagam himself would
have been measured differently by different groups in Sri Lanka. The pathway
through which the media measured was
bound to be different to the way the armed forces responsible to eliminate
armed warriors would have measured. If the charges were therefore by made by
the government responsible for the armed forces, the measure has to be deeper
than through direct evidence. If indeed Mr Tissainayagam made money out of his
media work far above breakeven level – then the ‘other side’ of that profit also
travels with that profit. If that was not the case, but the Government made
that to be so, then the Government dilutes its own Governance Energy. One whose
work has been raised to Energy level would have transcended that ‘other side’.
One way in which Mr Tissainayagam
could have prevented dilution of his own governance Energy would have been to measure armed rebels with
the same measure as that used for the government – that they were killing the
people in that area – as if they were the government. Since Rebels are not
official - they ought to be measured as per common belief by insiders or common
outcome produced on project basis by outsiders. Former measure would be ‘right’
for that believer and the manifestation valid only for local consumption
covered by that belief. But when bringing it outside the boundaries of common
belief such expressions need to be translated and expressed in language common
to all consumers – including the two sides to the war in this instance.
Truth personal to one is no
longer Truth if expressed in an environment where that expression would produce
profits and losses to outsiders - beyond those who contributed to that Energy
and their heirs by belief. That is the automatic ceiling placed by Truth
Itself. Mr Tissainayagam was right for Mr Obama – who actively practiced
multiculturalism. But Mr Tissainayagam was wrong for the president of a country
whose population is largely driven by Subjective powers and ancestry – which
are vertical measures on time basis. If we were democratic – there would be no
need for separation of powers – even between the Judiciary and the Executive,
leave alone between various cultures. The separations would happen naturally as
Diversity.
Minorities driven by ‘tradition’
alone – as in Tamil only – need to keep their work values local to earn the
right to self-govern. Tamils who follow the Rebels would therefore perceive a
different picture to Tamils who follow National Political elders. Mr Tissainayagam for example states as follows about the Northern Province Chief Minister C. V.
Wigneswaran:
[Northern
Province Chief Minister C. V. Wigneswaran has repeatedly censured
the military’s presence and interference with civic
life in the province. But since he is constitutionally barred from working on
such matters, civilians in the North and East bear the brunt of a militarised
society. The Steering Committee’s proposals will only perpetuate this problem.]
Promoting Mr Wigneswaran confirms promoting
Northern Province politics at the level not of Jaffna Tamils but of rural
Tamils such as Vanni Tamils due to their commonness with the LTTE and its
cadre. But that separates Mr Wigneswaran from the heritage developed by
politicians who took the common path of politics. I live and function as part
of Vaddukoddai and the civilians there do not complain of such interference.
They complain actively about caste based reverse discrimination – promoted actively
by Rebels for their own purposes. Now that there is no active war – the only
measures known to the seniors include at social level ‘caste-based’ measures
which also cause separation when juniors are abused. Juniors being juniors are
highly likely to retaliate on the basis of ‘outcomes’ through which they
falsely elevate themselves. Mr. Wigneswaran was ‘right’ for Colombo, using
common measures. He is wrong for those who have invested in Common Sri Lankan
life, including his own alma mater – the
Judiciary in Colombo. Mr Tissainayagam
would tend to think that Mr Wigneswaran was
right because of his own affiliation with indigenous Vaharai community whose
pain became his at least for the sake of his journalism.
Had I also supported the Wigneswaran camp – I would
not have earned the following appreciation from a journalist of Sinhalese
origin, who is read by a significant proportion of Tamils known to me:
[Felt blessed to hear your voice
after a long time. To my mind, without
your generous help, I would be nowhere.]
Some sections of the Tamil media do recognize my work but on merit
basis. They are not heirs like the above journalist who is humble enough to
take junior position in that aspect of our common work. I am yet to identify
with the Tamil parallel of the above Sri Lankan heir. Most of them tend to ‘tell
me’.
Mr Wigneswaran is a good
example of Tamil Community without independent Judiciary. Jaffna folks who are
the best ruling group in North would naturally oppose such separation where the
current Jaffna Judiciary and their heirs would become the future kings and
queens of the Tamil community. Just because the pro-Vanni group is not able to
identify with the value added through a constitution does not mean we – the pro-Jaffna
group do not.
No comments:
Post a Comment