Friday 22 March 2019

Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

22 March 2019

UN, the Diaspora and the True Constitution of Sri Lanka

This morning’s mail brought the UNHRC recordings in relation to Sri Lanka. I paid special attention to two personalities I am familiar with due to my own interest in them as members of our community. They are Mr. Gary Anandasangaree who represented Canada and Mr. Gajendrakumar Ponnambalam who represented the Association Bharathi Centre Culturel Franco-Tamoul. Neither has demonstrated development of an institutional base in Sri Lanka’s war affected areas. Both are sons of Sri Lankan politicians who seem to have inherited the one-way path of politics which seems to be senior to  their investment in the discipline of law.  In democracy they have to be Equal and separate.

As most of us would identify with through our own families, relatives are those who carry common roots working towards common outcomes. Without that ‘commonness’ we are individuals only. When we connect the outcomes with that common root – we are able to ‘relate’.

Mr. Gary Anandasangaree confirmed relationship with Canadian Tamils of Lankan origin and Mr. Gajendrakumar Ponnambalam confirmed relationship with French Tamils of Lankan origin. The UN by its very structure is formed as per current values developed on Equal footing. Relatively speaking Mr. Gary Anandasangaree demonstrated more merit and status through Canada, than did Mr. Gajendrakumar Ponnambalam.

Such global representation confirms the real status taken by resident Tamils in such global forums. We may be the senior-most member of our family. But in terms of common community and society – the relativity is as per our contribution to ‘commonness’ at community and society levels. In a ‘free’ environment – where we are facilitated to act independently  - the position we take confirms our true relativity. UN may allocate Equal status as per its policy. How we use that Equal status as our base depends on the depth of our commonness with other members through the issue concerned – in this instance Human Rights.

As per my direct experience, Mr. Gary Anandasangaree’s investment in Current Sri Lankan Tamils is largely dependent on private Canadian Tamil investment in Sri Lankan Tamils – largely through individuals at family level. As per my own family – a good proportion of which is in Canada – this is nowhere as deep as mine. I know of Mr. Gary Anandasangaree’s family through my mother who was a family friend of Gary’s family. My mother shared with me as to how clever Mr. Gary Anandasangaree was but not any common value developed directly with those victims left behind in Sri Lanka.

Mr Gajendrakumar Ponnambalam’s group in Sri Lanka includes Mr Manivannan who is also a practicing lawyer. Mr Manivannan represented us at the Civil Appellate High Court of Jaffna but when President’s Counsel Mr Parathalingam who represented our opposition came to court -  Mr Manivannan was socializing openly with Mr Parathalingam while I stood alone and later walked over to the Registrar’s office on my own to complain against officers of the court who blocked my entry on the basis that I was wearing a skirt. I was wearing a long skirt which covered my ankles. But Mr Manivannan did not accompany me to add his strength to upholding the rights of the ordinary skirt-wearing Jaffna Tamil woman. When subsequently  that rule seemed to have been withdrawn, I concluded that my complaint had reached the right brains.
Truth finds Its way to manifest the other side of Itself manifested by a believer in the system. Mr Manivannan’s  ‘commonness’ with Mr Parathalingam PC was stronger due to their investment in legal practice whereas my relationship was current. Had Mr Manivannan been strong in his wisdom in Thesawalamai law, which that case was about – he would have taken the position of senior to Mr Parathalingam PC. I demonstrated such seniority when I took Equal position in that court when Mr Manivannan was absent for political reasons. When Mr Parathalingam PC stood up in court and stated that he would move to have our appeal dismissed and thus influenced the judge to warn me  - I stood up and stated that I would represent myself. The parallel of that is for a war victim to represent her/himself at the UN. In court, I realized that Mr  Parathalingam was using Administrative weakness in court, to his advantage. But Administration is the common stage on which l had equal rights as Mr Parathalingam PC, as per my democratic assessment. In real terms I was his senior. My contribution to Legal Administration through my own experience – empowered me from within to take my true position at that moment in court when our lawyer was absent. We won that round and eventually we blocked the passage of the legal verdict which dismissed our facts. That is known as Soorasamharam – the elimination of demon by Divinity.  It also demoted Mr Manivannan politically when he participated in the local government elections in Jaffna. The stronger believer in the Land wins as per her/himself. Mr Gajendrakumar Ponnambalam would naturally be infected by such weaknesses in Administration due to being in the same political group as Mr Manivannan.

We become managers of a system by sharing in ownership pain. Until then we are largely beneficiaries only. A person who fails to experience parental pain – remains a child.

Since the victim’s groups currently residing in Sri Lanka were not directly represented by anyone at the UN – my conclusion is that the current competition is between global Tamils and the Sri Lankan Government. Be it the Canadian politician or the Sri Lankan politician – neither has the right to represent citizens of two countries at the same time. Principles on which Dual Citizens are prevented from being elected to parliament apply to all such official representations.

The need is for the two – Lankans and Canadians/French to be continuously connected through small structures of global standards that Tamils currently resident in Sri Lanka would be able to work independently. Without such connection expressions of such participants confirm frivolousness. Yesterday for example I received the following complaint from my ‘media group’:

[K Shivajilingam's threat to divide the Republic of Sri Lanka into not two but four states is a direct violation of the Constitution 157.
157A. (1) No person shall, directly or indirectly, in or outside Sri Lanka, support, espouse, promote, finance, encourage or advocate the establishment of a separate State within the territory of Sri Lanka.
(2) No political party or other association or organization shall have as one of its aims or objects the establishment of a separate State within the territory of Sri Lanka.
(3) Any person who acts in contravention of the provisions of paragraph (1) shall, on conviction by the Court of Appeal, after trial on indictment and according to such procedure as may be prescribed by law, –
(a) be subject to civic disability for such period not exceeding seven years as may be determined by such Court;
(b) forfeit his movable and immovable property other than such property as is determined by an order of such Court as being necessary for the sustenance of such person and his family;
(c) not be entitled to civic rights for such period not exceeding seven years as may be determined by such Court; and
if he is a Member of Parliament or a person in such service or holding such office as is referred to in paragraph (1) of Article 165, cease to be such Member or to be in such service or to hold such office.]

I responded as follows to the above:

[Thank you. Mr Shivajilingam is neither an elected leader to represent Sri Lankan Tamils at national level, nor does he have an official position through which to express on behalf of law abiding Tamils. Hence his remarks are frivolous and vexatious. Reacting to them would also be frivolous and vexatious]

The Truth is that ‘Buddhism foremost’ article invalidates article 157A. Buddhism is senior in autocracy but is taken as being Equal in Democracy. Division happens when diversity is recognized. Separation happened in 1972 on the basis of religion – as Buddhist state and non-Buddhist state. Hence the Buddhist state cannot ‘tell’ non-Buddhists not to separate on cultural basis. THAT is the provision of the real Constitution of Sri Lanka. A true Sri Lankan would identify with this heritage based protection.

No comments:

Post a Comment