Tuesday 1 October 2019

Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

01 October  2019


Some lawyers said in relation to my court cases in Australia as well as in Sri Lanka – that winning was a question of the dynamics between the lawyers and the judge. This means that it is a subjective environment. In both places, I had minority power – even though through belief in law applied as a law abiding citizen I marked myself right. Eventually – that prevailed in what is my current environment.
Yesterday Colombo Telegraph published the article headed ‘Sajith Should Realise Sri Lanka Does Not Belong To The Sinhala-Buddhists’ – in which he stated :
[We prefer to be secular since we respect each other’s religions and Hinduism the major religion in the North from time immemorial has preached that “Truth is One; but Sages call it by different names”]
Today I read the Island report headed ‘Wiggy praises Saji’ which includes the following:
[Former Northern Chief Minister, C.V. Wigneswaran, yesterday, said he was happy about the UNP’s decision to field Minister Sajith Premadasa as its presidential candidate.

Wigneswaran said, in a media statement: "Sajith is young. He received his early education at Royal College, Colombo and then, continued his education at the London School of Economics.

I believe this would have given him a ‘live-and-let-live’ attitude."

The above confirms lack of respect for the positions held by both persons. What gets published in the media is also highly subjective – i.e – as per the dynamics of the personalities involved. Be that as it may – the question of relationship between the particular medium and the common citizen is essential in balanced  reporting. What we read and acknowledge is also driven by the dynamics between the two – the writer and the citizen.

Media Freedom is an entitlement only to one who reports Truth. If ‘Wiggy and Saji’ are being written about – the reporter needed to have known them as friends and not as relatives – i.e. – as individuals and not as officers. An institution / family that is based on truth in one form is structured as per the outcomes it needs to produce in that environment. For example – if that truth is Buddha – then the outcomes that are visible are Buddha’s body parts. But there are also internal parts and functions that are needed to work these externals that are visible. When the person dies we know that the invisible something within that body is no longer there. From then on we relate to that person – Buddha in this instance - as per the values through which that person came into us. Likewise, when a person is not part of our family/institution that we are currently part of. Those who produce outcomes that are not bound by the relationship between themselves and those who consume them – are either lawless or are have been promoted by the lawful path to Absolute level. They are governors. In a Sovereign nation – 20% of believers would have 80% followers.

The reporter  of the Island article has demonstrated that s/he is NOT a believer in Independent Journalism but is part of the consumer – upsetting the Sovereignty of the Media Power in Sri Lanka. Even if the author knew the two personally – and addressed them as ‘Wiggy’ and ‘Saji’ respectively – when publishing – one has to keep in mind the reader who does not know them personally but through their positions. That would bring the laws of that relationship into them – to make the other a fellow traveller along that pathway until the two merge at the destination of One truth.
While I chose the part ‘One truth’ in Mr Wigneswaran’s statement – the Island reporter chose to highlight the following:

[Sajith is young. He received his early education at Royal College, Colombo and then, continued his education at the London School of Economics. I believe this would have given him a ‘live-and-let-live’ attitude.’]

Royal College and the London School of Economics would have rendered the opportunity to form relationships through intellectual pursuits. Whoever used the resources – including the intelligence – of those institutions,  has the duty to produce outcomes at the level of those institutions. If the Island author had meant to confirm that path – then – the religious pathway would not have been highlighted:

"However it is not known whether Sajith has realised the difference between the Buddhist teachings and the institutionalised Buddhism. I have repeatedly stated that giving priority to institutionalised Buddhism is wrong. Institutionalised Buddhism is different from the teachings of the Buddha."

If Buddha’s truth is the nucleus of the Sri Lankan constitution – then using Buddhist structure serves Buddhists. If teachings of Buddha were the Life of the Sri Lankan Constitution – then those who have no knowledge of Buddhism – either through practice and therefore experience or intellectually – as a subject in philosophy – would not be able to regulate their minds through Buddhism. Mr Wigneswaran’s above claim then defeats the claim by Tamils of the need for lateral  Separation  or vertical Devolution of Powers to juniors who have become independent.

Without  truth  – there is no life to the constitution. To those who follow a particular pathway – say Buddhism – the original form is also the form given to their discovery at the end. In Academic language – 20% of Research supports  University activities. The end of Research is truth.
Buddhism is a different pathway to Hinduism. Buddhist research will support 80% of Buddhist followers to live in peace. Likewise 20% of Hindus who do research would support 80% who do not do Research.  Hence a Hindu cannot identify with a Buddhist constitution and v.v.. If indeed – Mr Wigneswaran does identify with the teachings of Buddha in the constitution – then he has the duty to deliver outcomes / judgments in the language of Buddhism – which he refers to as Institutionalized Buddhism.  Leave Sajith alone – I myself am not able to differentiate between Hinduism and Institutionalized Hinduism – except that the latter is the pathway and the former is its life at the beginning and at the end. In a true following 80% would be relatives and therefore would be Institutional  and 20% would identify with the Truth – which is the nuclear force of that group – in this instance the teachings of Buddha.

If Tamils seek secularism – then Mr Wigneswaran would have used the secular part of the constitution – for example – the Dual Citizenship issue relating to Mr Premadasa’s opponent in this Presidential battle – to defeat Mr Rajapaksa through the secular pathway. The two who are doing so – Mr Gamini Viyangoda and Prof. Chandragupta Thenuwara – have by use elevated the secular part of the Constitution while Mr Wigneswaran who carries the title ‘Justice’ is playing the Buddhist fiddle.
Mr Wigneswaran’s first duty in Democratic politics is to diffuse internal claims of ignorance - for example Mr M.K. Sivajilingam’s call to boycott the elections:

[The TNA's attention has been drawn to field a separate Prez candidate on behalf of the Tamil community or guide the North and East Tamil community to boycott the Presidential Election, senior member of the TELO and former TNA MP, M.K. Sivajilingam said. Since the three main Prez candidates, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, Sajith Premadasa and Anura Kumara Dissanayake have failed to provide a suitable political solution to the North and East issue, we have arrived at this decision] Ceylon Today

Boycotting confirms Separate country – which was the goal of Mr Sivajilingam’s  biological relative – LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran. If so - Mr Sivajilingam ought to have not entered Sri Lankan politics at all. Having entered the political pathway – he has the duty to stay in that pathway and show overwhelming majority support for complete separation of powers – through the votes. Winning majority vote of 80% in the electorate confirms the blessings of Absolute power of belief. In other words Mr Sivajilingam if he won 80% of the Tamil votes would confirm that 20% of Tamils actually believe in the Tamil pathway. THIS would confirm the deservedness to be an Independent separate power – as the Judiciary is.

Under such circumstances – war crimes judgment delivered by Tamil leaders would have validity at Universal level – meaning global at current times and beyond our time as an intellectual heritage that would support future generations to come. The above two gentlemen have demonstrated commitment to the secular law and those of us who also follow the secular pathway are thus facilitated to mentally participate and invest in the ultimate punishment for alleged war crimes during Mr Gotabhaya’s leadership. In democracy WE need to first declare our belief and then step back – so others would independently / freely participate and activate the power of belief in their own areas.  THAT would be the permanent warning to not mess around with those who are self-governing. If Mr Gotabhaya Rajapaksa did not respectfully use the secular pathway to regain his Sri Lankan citizenship – then the believer in the secular pathway would naturally reject him. If Tamils overwhelmingly reject him – that is our non-violent punishment for unruly killings including by Tamils during that leadership. In other words Mr Gotabhaya Rajapaksa becomes the Common Representative of those who failed to follow the law. Those who vote to defeat him would liberate themselves from such violence. Those who vote to defeat his opponent – would become like him and those who boycott elections lose their entitlement to be Governors in their own area – even if it is themselves as individuals travelling in the common secular pathway.

No comments:

Post a Comment