Sunday 19 January 2020

Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

19 January  2020

‘Non Buddhists Out’ and ‘China In’

Yesterday, I posed the question ‘What If Ranjan is True but Unlawful?’. In that article I highlighted also the question ‘Why only Ranjan?’ raised by Journalist Ayub.

Ranjan was transparent in terms of his ‘recording habit’ and we found this out when he published his recorded conversation with  Mrs Vijayakala Maheswaran after the lady invoked the LTTE name in Jaffna. It was taken as a De Facto  (by Fact)  pathway rather than a De Jure (by Law) pathway. English, Tamil & Sinhalese were the De Facto languages of Sri Lankan society until the Sinhala-only law was passed. Now both – Tamil and Sinhalese are recognized as official languages. In practice and therefore in fact – Tamil is the official language in majority Tamil areas and Sinhalese is the official language in all other areas – including in Colombo Courts at Administrative level. In fact – therefore the Sinhalese Armed Forces who did not speak / understand the language of the territory where Tamil was the language of the People – were ‘foreigners’. Hence the claim of ‘genocide’ by some Tamil leaders. This is proven if even a small percentage of the recordings that were published by Callum Macrae. They were recorded by the parallels of Ranjan in the Sri Lankan Armed Forces.

A journalist asked me in relation to my article – ‘Tamils Out – China In’:

[Have you any information that China had an invisible hand regarding Tamil genocide?]
I responded that I had around 2010 heard some information regarding Chinese involvement but that my feelings were more intuitive as an insider. They were confirmed after I learnt about the fire during the opening ceremony of  Shangri-la resort, in Hambantota – reported by the Daily News on 02 June 2016. The deeper we care – the more intuitive we become. We do not need external proof. This is the fundamental principle of Subjective system. Hambantota to me, is Kathirgamam area and to the extent I believe in Kathirgamam I automatically own Hambantota. When we own – the place / issue – shows us the connections to the extent we need them. Those who have faith in us – like the above mentioned journalist -  will connect and the knowledge will bloom from within them for their own purposes.

Is Ranjan’s experience therefore part of the ethnic issue? Is it not a lesson that ‘outsiders’ have the authority to observe and report and not produce outcomes overtly or covertly ? If a foreigner so produces covertly – then a believing insider would be informed by Natural Intelligence system – known as Intuition – at the time that person needs relevant knowledge based on that intelligence. Those who deeply care about their family would identify with this ‘inner’ connection. They may not even be members of the family by birth or by law. But the sharing of Energies in such families is natural and strong. They do not need ‘external’ help.

This is the core value of Sovereignty – including at national level. One who feels ownership in Sri Lanka will not punish a fellow Sri Lankan any more than s/he would punish her/himself for a mistake. One who has the position and punishes excessively loses the natural protection of Sovereignty. Ranjan in his own way did that with Mrs Maheswaran at a time when Tamils are still in mourning over their loss in the war. To the extent – the Official forces failed to follow the law but followed De Facto pathway frequently taken between ethnic communities in conflict – their government loses the authority to impose punishment on the other side through the law. If we use De Jure pathway for minorities and De Facto pathway for our own community – then we do divide the nation in the eyes of Nature. True Unitary State needs one system – be it De Facto or De Jure.

If we insist on showing Sovereignty knowing very well that we are not sovereign – then we waste precious resources – especially the access to Truth based cures. It is for this reason that we need Separation of Powers between different religious faiths. The wording of Article 9 of the Sri Lankan Constitution is as follows:

[The Republic of Sri Lanka shall give to Buddhism the foremost place and accordingly it shall be the duty of the State to protect and foster the Buddha Sasana, while assuring to all religions the rights granted by Articles 10 and 14(1)(e).]

The above obviously is interpreted as the Government being the  senior having the responsibility. But in democracy – the leading faith is the Opposition of the other groups – which together are Equal in status  to the leading group. This was the 50:50  declaration by the Hon G G Ponnambalam, followed by the Vaddukoddai Resolution which also Mrs Maheswaran invoked during her conversation with Ranjan. Now Ranjan is also getting the punishment that Mrs Maheswaran got. That is the way Natural Justice works – where the stated law used as per the convenience of those with senior status.

Buddhism is a De Facto pathway. Most Buddhist Politicians  treat Hindu deities as lesser powers. This gives them the mind structure that Hindus are juniors to Buddhists. Most followers of religion would tend to ‘relate’  through benefits received as per their prayers. The word ‘Foremost’ confirms seniority in this structure of relativity. Political leaders may think they need it to maintain order. But a group that has responsibility to foster  Buddha Sasana has no moral right to be ‘senior’ to a Non-Buddhist. ‘Assuring’ confirms senior status.

The Separation of Powers between the Judiciary and the Executive is for this reason. The Judiciary has no authority until citizens or government take their opposition to court. Likewise – in religious affairs – a Buddhist would not have the moral authority to judge  a non-Buddhist. The ‘China In’ fact is likely to have happened due to Buddhism foremost being interpreted as majority power in the region. In other words – ‘Non Buddhists Out’ and ‘China In’ has become De Facto in the case of Sri Lanka.

‘Buddhism foremost’ as per my knowledge was not tested in Court. But as per the laws of Nature – if non-Buddhists realize Sovereignty before Buddhists – then they have the right to rule the whole – due to Sovereignty being Absolute Power. Once realised it is always there for the one who realised Sovereignty.

No comments:

Post a Comment