21 April 2019
Rule of Which Law – Buddha’s, Rama’s or Ravana’s?
[Rule of law is not an abstract principle. It is not a political polemic. It is intended to create a real lawful civil society in which individuals and society are protected by a framework and an approach based on the application of principles and rules adhered to by all that does not privilege the politically powerful.
“Law, at its very foundation, is conceived and derived from values. These values inform and underpin a fair and reasonable expectation of how power should be organised, exercised and controlled at the private and public level. These values find their expression not only in the formal law, but also in societal expectations, behaviour and actions. These transcend cultural boundaries.”] Sarath De Alwis in Sunday Observer article headed Ahimsa’s plaint: State sanctioned ‘Hinsa’
Which Rule of Law did Sunday Observer follow to publish the article by Mr De Alwis above others – say for example mine headed ‘Rights based Presidents’ ? We do not know. In a ‘Free’ environment, it is the editor’s own Truth which may or may not follow the same path as say ‘Uthayan’ the Tamil Newspaper’s editor’s or even Lasanatha Wickrematunga’s.
Let us take for example the law that Buddhism is the foremost religion of Sri Lanka. This is a true statement. But to be valid in the Constitution, and be law to all Sri Lankans – non-Buddhist Sri Lankans have to take lower status in any forum where the Rule of Law has to be applied – starting with the Courts. When we know that a law is unjust we need to rely on our Truth which would pave Its own pathway for us to follow. If Lasantha had reported as per his pathway of Journalism and the rule of law applicable to Journalism in common that would given his work eternal value – with or without the lawsuit by his daughter Ahimsa. It would be interesting to see whether or not what happened has jurisdiction over what happened between individuals when they were Sri Lankans.
Take for example the report ‘Sri Lanka’s first satellite ‘Raavana-1’ takes off’. Raavana was king of Lanka and a Hindu. But unlike Rama, Raavana went outside his natural circle to desire Seetha. The laws of marriage that Rama was committed to and practiced were different to the laws of marriage that Raavana followed. One was close to de facto association level whereas the other was beyond the firmly regulated pathway. During Rama’s time more than one wife was permitted by law. But Rama practiced Equality in marriage and Seetha was Rama’s one and only wife. That was Rama’s personal law. Had Rama been like Ravana - he would have enjoyed more pleasures of marriage and therefore would have lacked the courage to protect his wife from far. To me that is how all of us develop divine powers.
Yesterday, I wrote as follows:
[If we are right to us as per our conscience then we are right as per the system of Truth. Whenever there were unjust laws, those who lived by their conscience – fought against such laws. The value of their work and sacrifices in doing so automatically went towards righting the Universal balance. Jesus was such a leader.]
Today is Easter Sunday – the day on which Jesus was able to resurrect Himself. That was the Divine power to negate the destruction of the body and give life to one’s values as per one’s laws. The then Ruler – however much he followed his laws did not have that power. Likewise, Raavana.
But the Truth that the minds that named the above project were clever - came out through the name. This also confirms that they were not committed to being good at global level. Raavana being Hindu, would work better for Hindus who are largely Tamils, empowered by Tamils all over the world. Like the LTTE they also would apply their rule of law which would oust Rama followers to go beyond Sri Lanka to enjoy the higher value of intelligence. Mr Gotabhaya Rajapaksa returning to Sri Lanka confirms he seeks Raavana life of inequality. He may get followers in the Tamil community also – if Tamils as a community merely use global avenues without respect. When we respect - we develop ourselves to become owners and not users. This is why we have relationships through which we respect service providers and earn the right to be service providers. Without respect we are mere associates driven by immediate outcomes.
I do not know about Ms Ahimsa’s case details but Mr Samathanam’s has many holes – confirming that he did not practice the spirit of Canadian law when in Sri Lanka. This is obviously a political move to influence would be voters – and if the allegations of war-crimes are true - then losing the elections would balance the books. This has not been done by the UN – which confirms that the UN lacks the courage of its own maintenance of the global system to take action against the Lankan Government. Hence the divide and rule approach.
Post a Comment