Gajalakshmi Paramasivam
10
November 2018
If Tamils are Neutral, Truth says they Assimilate
[Tamil National People’s Front Leader Gajendrakumar Ponnambalam
yesterday urged the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) to be neutral without being
partisan to either side for the sake of Tamil people in the North and the East.]
– Daily News article ‘TNA should be
neutral’
As Opposition to the TNA , TNPF has the responsibility to become the side
that TNA opposes. A Tamil citizen without portfolio has the authority to speak
from either side. But Political leaders have the duty to take positions. Tamil
people of Sri Lanka and not just North and East of the current structure – are represented
by the TNA. Otherwise no Tamil politician has the authority to expect any
contributions through themselves to Lankan Tamils, from the Tamil Diaspora and
wider world.
If TNA takes
neutral position – then TNPF has the duty to take the position of the party
that it identifies most with, at the national level. But TNPF has the duty to
interpret the law (constitution in this instance) as per its own principles and
values and take the side of the party that is closest to its interpretation. In
my case that has been the side led by Mr Ranil Wickremesighe. We are not
representatives of those driven by local faith alone. We get educated to become
part of professional communities which are then integrated with our local
environments through us. Mr Ponnambalam has a rich heritage from his own family
in the legal profession. He has the duty to interpret as per that heritage. The
best example of such a merger is Gandhi himself.
TNPF may not hold any seats in National Parliament.
But its duty to the people who voted for them is to show the ‘other’ side to
TNA – so one could work out the full
picture through the leaders’ presentations based on principles and values.
Ultimately, for the voters and other investors the value is how they govern at
their respective local levels.
As intimated to our Northern Sri Lankan lawyer yesterday,
through email, with copy to Mr Wigneswaran as well as Mr Ponnambalam, the
Registrar of Mallakam District Court says that a litigant has to move a motion
in Court through a lawyer even to know the current situation in regards to a
legal matter. Mr Ponnambalam is
demonstrating that he is against this. As per the above mentioned article for example:
[Ponnambalam was of the
view that the TNA should not think of the benefits of the party hierarchy when
a decision is taken with regard to the present situation in the country.]
Agree that benefits should not drive policy
decisions. The ‘right’ policy would naturally deliver the benefits to all
concerned. But as a lawyer is Mr Ponnambalam aware of the courts in Northern
Province denying the litigants Equal Opportunity to participate in the Court
experience through simple administrative processes? The lack of lay litigant
participation evolves as militancy by some members of the public who push /
threaten the judges to deliver as per their emotional demands. The reason for
this disorder is the ‘possessiveness’ of the structure as if it were a
collection of benefits.
As highlighted by professionals during this
Constitutional crisis – we need civil activists to make up for the negligence
of politicians to participate in Public life as ordinary citizens without
political portfolios. It’s like the monarch incognito to find out how the ordinary citizen felt about the monarch. It is
because I do this in Northern and Eastern Sri Lanka that I identify with their
needs as if they were mine and they continue to seek advice. The folks in
Vattukoddai for example state ‘If this happens to you with lawyers – imagine what
our plight is?’ I was appalled by the serious
lack of order by the lawyers appointed by the University of Jaffna and the
distance that the University Administrators kept from the inquiry – during an
inquiry after an academic was dismissed without following due process. This is
the parallel of the dismissal of the duly appointed Prime Minister of Sri
Lanka.
A People’s revolution must happen before such a
move. Then that would be a natural exercise of the Sovereignty of the People to
preserve their Sovereignty. Citizens need to be in pain for a long time due to
such regime – to warrant such a revolution.
Between the two sides Mr Rajapaksa’s side
demonstrated such perpetration and hence any official representative of Tamils
has the duty to vote against such a leader and not remain neutral – which amounts
to sitting on the fence. Ordinary Tamils have already done so against Mr
Sirisena’s decisions. That must be respected at all times.
If we stay neutral – then we assimilate due to
dependence on local political leaders. We need to take a firm stand through the
law – to demonstrate our diversity and therefore ability to integrate.
No comments:
Post a Comment