Gajalakshmi Paramasivam
17
January 2019
Gotabhaya Rajapaksa’s
Moral Ineligibility to be President of Sri Lanka
One of my professional friends said to me that if Gotabhaya
were to contest for Sri Lankan presidency she would vote for him. I must
say that I was shocked by it. Somehow, I had assumed that due to our common
professional interests, my friend would reject such a person or at least not be
open about it with me – someone who shared in the pain of war victims including
during the 2009 battle. This lady assisted victims of Tsunami generously and on
one to one individual basis – the lady is caring. What was lacking was the
involvement in the ethnic issue despite cross cultural marriage within her
family. I guess it is to a lesser degree applicable to Tamils unaffected
directly by the civil riots – living outside the war area and time zone. It
helped me read Mr Gotabhaya Rajapaksa through her eyes also. Those of us who
recognize an ethnic problem need to have strong common base on which to feel
Sri Lankan despite the problem, as registered in our own mind.
The commonness comes from ‘feeling’. Intellectual
relationships are thoughts based. Last of all are emotionally driven actions
and reactions. Just last week, I got cross with my husband who started doing
some cleaning work that was generally my responsibility. Param made out that he
was helping me but I pointed out that he was ‘telling’ me how much dust and
dirt was there. My cleaning is a manifestation of my feeling for homemaking.
His was emotionally driven after watching cricket and squeezing this in between,
due to eustress. Param feels for his teaching work as I feel for homemaking
work. Who tells whom under given circumstances depends on whether we feel, think intellectually
or are emotionally driven. Emotions without feelings are extremely negative,
especially because they are distracting. Hence hearsay is not accepted as
evidence in a court of law.
Where we recognize that there is strong cultural
divide – we need to be conscious of using common measures or our own truth. War
crimes would have happened to the extent common measures/rules were not followed. The head of Armed forces
was responsible to ensure that these were upheld during the war. Following is
the latest report that exposes weakness in Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka:
[Dissension still reigns
in the UNP over denial of ministerial perks to some MPs. National List MP
Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka directly hit out at Prime Minister Ranil
Wickremesinghe in this regard, and accused him of paving the way for President
Sirisena to not appoint him in the Cabinet. Fonseka criticised the party
leadership in this manner at the recent parliamentary group meeting.
Quoting the
Constitution, he said the Cabinet had to be appointed by the President in
consultation with the Prime Minister. The size of the Cabinet has to be
restricted to 30 under the 19th Amendment. Fonseka said that the Prime Minister
had sent 35 names including his to the President instead of 30 names.
“The President got the
chance to knock off five names including mine. If there were 30 names including
mine, the President would have appointed all,” he said.
Fonseka implied to say
that the Prime Minister only made way for the President] – Daily Mirror
article ‘Gota’s announcement subdues President’s advocacy for
candidacy’
The
above confirms that Mr Fonseka was driven by personal outcome rather than by
policy in common. That is emotional without feeling for the UNP through UNF
Alliance.
The
conscripted soldier in turn would have not felt bound to Mr Fonseka as leader
of the Armed Forces during the 2009 war nor would s/he have had adequate
knowledge of the rules to make intellectual decisions. The only way one cuts
off the return karma is through truth personal to her/him. Hence the saying
that all is fair in love and war. In
love, you do not calculate and hence do not need laws and rules. In war – the other
side is your enemy and hence you have nothing in common except after the Geneva
Convention. In terms of provisions of the Geneva Convention – the Government
that had the responsibility to train its armed forces is responsible and not
the individual soldier. The individual soldier is protected from adverse karma
when s/he acts as per her/his belief which often is through religious tenets in
Sri Lanka. In the case of a militant combatant who invested in education and
that investment was damaged, the true pain from such becomes her/his moral
authority to damage the other side. Then any excess becomes hers/his. The paid officer
in the army has to consciously follow the rules he was taught.
As
per the above mentioned Daily Mirror report:
[In a further step towards subduing agitation
for candidacy to the President by his loyalists, former Defence Secretary
Gotabhaya Rajapaksa remarked at a function last Saturday in Colombo, that he
was ready for the presidential elections if people agreed.
“I am ready if people are ready,”
he said. This is the first time he directly hinted at his interest in becoming
the presidential candidate. Let alone, Gotabhaya Rajapaksa was widely perceived
as the person tipped to be the next candidate. Against that backdrop, his
remarks gave some sort of certainty to public perception. Though it is not a
formal announcement, it has the intended effect- to preempt lobbying for
candidacy by President Sirisena through his loyalists.
….It is not yet fully certain who would be the
candidate. Be that as it may, it is reported that Gotabhaya Rajapaksa has
applied for the renouncement of his dual citizenship in the United States. The
renouncing of a dual citizenship is a constitutional requirement for a
candidate to contest for the Presidency in Sri Lanka. The 19th Amendment to the
Constitution, has barred dual citizens from becoming the President of Sri
Lanka. He has reportedly filed his application in Washington....]
We are all governors of a place or institution by our Truth. To be eligible as per the law,
one ought to have demonstrated such commitment to the applicable laws at
her/his level of operation. In the case of Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, he had the
responsibility as Defence Secretary, to ensure that the Geneva Convention was
followed in terms of the enemy – the LTTE. As an American citizen he had the
higher responsibility to not be seen to be lacking in commitment to uphold
global principles of war. Until he is cleared of alleged war-crimes – as a
leader - Gotabhaya Rajapaksa would not be morally eligible to govern and lead Sri
Lanka. In addition, as per Article 9 of
the Sri Lankan Constitution, Mr Gotabhaya Rajapaksa has to declare that he did
not act in breach of the tenets of Buddhism as stated in the Buddha Sasana. To
carry Executive powers in relation to Defence, Mr Gotabhaya Rajapaksa has to
demonstrate clear knowledge of relevant sections of the Buddha Sasana in
relation to war – and affirm that he did abide by such tenets.
If there are none, then the question arises as to
which law applies to the LTTE? Given that majority LTTE were Hindus let us look
at what Hindu tenets say ? Lord Krishna whose role in the great war was that of
charioteer did not physically lead the war. Lord Krishna’s word is the Natural
Law of Hindus. Lord Krishna recommended the practice of Natural Justice to those who believed in Him :
[In Mahabharatham, the head of the common family Bhishmar, was
the Commander of the Armed Forces of the majority side. The minority side - Pandavar - whose side included Krishna found it very
difficult to defeat Bhishmar. Knowing
this, Bhishmar informed them indirectly that if faced by one who had once been of the
opposite gender, he would lay down his arms and fight no longer. Shikandi was woman who in her previous life was
scorned by Bhishmar and vowed to kill Bhismar – however many births were needed
for it. Shikandi was born a girl and
changed her sex and fought on the side of the Pandavar. Picking up the truth in
Bhishmar’s message Lord Krishna advised
the Pandavar to place Shikandi with Arjuna – the prince
who led the minority side and at the time when Bhishmar seemed victorious – Shikandi
would move in front of Arjuna. That was how great Bhishmar allowed himself to
be defeated by the brave young ones in his family.
There
are other such examples in Mahabharatham that lead us to a true solution
against an unlawful enemy. Had the LTTE combatants followed those tenets, as
per their truth, the Government forces who killed them or named them ‘terrorists’
would have been acting in breach of Article 14(1) (e) which states:
[Every citizen is entitled to – the freedom,
either by himself or in association with others, and either in public or in
private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice
and teaching;]
And
their masters led by the Rajapaksa clan would have been guilty of failing in ‘assuring to all religions the
rights granted by Articles 10 and 14(1)(e)’ as required by
Article 9 of the constitution.
Truth
transcends time and place boundaries. One who is driven by truth would be
cautious of her/his negative karma from previous life / job. The current
president of Sri Lanka failed to recognize the truth about his previous bosses.
Hence was defeated by the side that represents the heirs (TNA) of the victims
of that government led by those bosses, in the recent battle in Parliament.
This will continue until penance is served.
No comments:
Post a Comment