Thursday 22 August 2019

Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

22  August  2019


Justice Gyles asked me whether according to me the racial discrimination was ‘conscious or subconscious?’ I promptly said it was ‘subconscious’. Then Dr John Griffiths who is now himself a judge of the Federal Court of Australia and who back then represented my opposition in the case on the basis of Racial Discrimination Act 1975, jumped up and said words to the effect that an adverse finding would seriously damage his client – a young migrant. To my mind, Dr Griffiths read the mind of Justice Gyles and hence his pleading. My complaint as usual was dismissed – as I recall it   - as being ‘frivolous and vexatious’. But in the reasoning – Justice Gyles did indicate strongly that the opposition who was my senior  by position – was overwhelmed by wisdom. I knew that Justice Gyles had come to the conclusion that I had proven my case. But Dr Griffiths influenced him to deliver otherwise.

Back then I went to Sydney’s St Mary’s Cathedral and cried. This week when I heard that Cardinal Pell’s appeal had been unsuccessful I was wondering whether I also had contributed to excessive punishment of the Cardinal. The deeper we go, the more common the reasons become. I genuinely feel that the Cardinal is being punished excessively and by those with a different mind-structure to when the offenses are alleged to have happened.
Some of Cardinal Pell’s alleged offences would have been subconscious. Knowing our Australian Judiciary – through my own experiences – I feel strongly that the judgment is strongly anti-church and goes beyond Mr Pell as individual. The rule of Natural Law – is that the person on the other side has the natural authority to return the pain to sender. But in civilized societies – the issue is raised to higher level – so others in common society learn and prevent such pain from occurring in the future to any member of that society. This also preserves the sovereignty of that society.
To the extent I was hurting and Cardinal Pell (who did write to me as Bishop Pell  in response  but without addressing the issue ) – did not share in that pain – the pain I submitted to Jesus became his problem. When I watch the priest at Nallur temple - going through  the ceremonial processes with dedication  -  I felt that he was the medium through whom the prayers of majority  devotees  are heard. The pathway is the common processes which connect the minds – each as per their true dedication to the processes.  The priest himself invokes the minds of  ancestors who shared their mind through mantras and the ceremonial processes. To the extent – we focus during the ceremonies we connect to their minds. Then when we take authority as needed – they take authority. This I believe is the reason why we seek blessings. In the language of the Court – lawyers ‘plead’ and ‘submit’ for this reason.

Yesterday for example – a lady who looked a little bit older than I stepped into the spot between the till and I. I was seated on the floor – meaning to standup when the Holy procession came into the outer hall of Nallur temple. The till that is fixed to the floor - protects me from getting pushed back by the crowd that has to make way for the ceremonial procession.  But yesterday – there was a narrow gap between me in sitting position - and the till. When the lady stepped into that – I could not object but felt it was unfair that she did. When the procession entered – I stood up and the lady said – to go behind her! I promptly said ‘you stepped into the spot that I thought was mine and I kept quiet even though I was seated there a long time - because there was a gap. But now I happen to be in front of you and you cannot ask me to go behind you’. The lady smiled and said that she had noticed me waiting there every day. I said ‘all the more why you should not ask me to go behind you.’ The lady smiled and said ‘o.k.’ We then continued to pray from our respective positions.  I must say I was surprised by this acceptance. I know that I look different due to my presentation which is not traditional to Jaffna. But what is different is the acceptance of my reasoning – which would have been taken as ‘insubordination’ about a decade ago. The emigration of family members to Western Nations seems to have made multiculturalism more acceptable to the Traditional Jaffna Tamil.
When we submit with belief – we hear the real judgment in our own minds from our own conscience. To me, what happened to me was due to my race. Like the Priest in terms of the temple – it was Prime Minister (John Howard at the time) through whom my complaint was submitted to the Lord of Australia. When Mr Howard was dismissed by his electorate – I felt that I had also derived my own judgment against him. The main reason was that Mr Howard failed to pay his respects to the Equal Opportunity aspect of Australia which is multicultural. Mr Howard failed to learn and chant the Equal Opportunity mantras with faith in the UN.  Likewise many political leaders in Sri Lanka. Professor Charles Sarvan Ponnuthurai includes the following in his recent communication headed ‘  A real dilemma – with the note - THE WRITER IS SHARING A LETTER TO A FRIEND WHO WAS MEETING RAJIVA WIJESINGHE AT A CONFERENCE

[…On the one hand, though we wish to interact, to pretend there is no ‘racism’ and carry on pleasantly, interestingly, with social and mental gain by being in such a group, is to allow ‘racists’ to get away with it; to eat the cake and still have it; to pretend we don’t know that such individuals hunt with the hounds while occasionally keeping company with the prey. 
It will also convey to ‘racists’ that their ‘racism’ doesn’t, after all, matter. “We can get away with it. We don’t need them but they need us”, etc. Vae victis.   
Therefore, in some way we must signal to such ‘racists’ that their true nature is recognised and, what’s more, that it causes disappointment and pain.
This is a problem many Tamils face in social, academic and professional life, and each one of us must work out her or his own modus vivendi. It’s not easy, not easy at all. 
PS. Of course, we know many Sinhalese who are not 'racist' but even here, I wonder. 

Would it have been enough in the days of slavery to think, "I don't personally own any slaves. So the fact that others of my people do, has nothing to do with me". 
Is that sufficient? What, if anything, are they doing about the gross injustice being committed?
Or am I thinking in impossibly high standards? 
Martin Luther King said: More than the words of our enemies, what pains us is the silence of our friends]

Is the Catholic Church in Australia paying now for its silence back then? If yes, do the courts have the authority to punish an offender through intellectual means for a punishment that happened due to natural balance through belief? One Sri Lankan Tamil who complained about sexual abuse by a relative was questioned by me as to why she had not moved away from that relative or complained against the relative to her immediate family? The response was that she did not want to lose the benefits that she was enjoying in that circle. I then said for her not to complain because she expected benefits from a different circle.

The above is true of most racism complaints that are outdated and/or out-placed.
Every one of us who complains through our belief is ‘heard’ by Truth – which is the consolidated Energy of all those who are true to themselves in that sovereign environment. Most Tamils known to me in Australia – have not complained against racism for the same reason why I did not until I could not take my own demotion by myself  any more.  Most want to live and support their families to live. The ones who would be punished are those who find fault with Sinhalese government while remaining silent in Australia. Tamils of my parents’ generation likewise practiced caste based discrimination – outside workplace. The excess returns to us as Racial Discrimination.

Friends who are silent need not be guilty of doing nothing – if they actually believed that the discrimination was merit based in a society to the development of which they have contributed more than the alleged victims. That merit based testing is crucial to using intellectual measures to identify with unjust racism. In my complaints – except for the above matter – the merit based application was not used – because the other side was untouchable – way above my position. The test in such cases is whether the victim or the alleged perpetrator failed on merit basis allocable to their respective positions. Objective proof is applicable only when both sides are  at equal level. Logical proof is applicable when there is a reliable relationship between the two in an environment. Deeper than that is belief based ruling.

Habit based ruling and Belief based ruling may look the same and they would tend to be so in an environment of common belief – for example Buddhist community in Sri Lanka. But when it comes to a different community – one is limited to merit base alone – with discretionary powers being allowed on the basis of belief. If the belief in the issue is stronger in the victim – then the one who is being judged is the official in that position. That was how Mr Howard got dismissed and later Mr Rajapaksa after the 2009 excesses.

If Mr Gotabhaya Rajapaksa is elected president – then that would confirm that Tamils are no longer Sri Lankans, or that the Sinhalese with majority power do not feel connected to Tamils or that the Tamil claims of war crimes are not belief based and qualify within the following natural law:
[The rule of Natural Law – is that the person on the other side has the natural authority to return the pain to sender.]

As per my observations Sinhalese who felt pain under that regime – would naturally be connected to the minds of Tamil victims of that regime. This could even be the soldiers who are now accused of war crimes at international level. So long as they used pure belief – they are not likely to suffer. But if they come outside that circle – especially in global environments – in positions that require use of international laws – they would become victims of their own habit of following their leader.

No comments:

Post a Comment