07 August 2021
DR THIRUCHELVAM’S PROPOSAL
system of Karma is the source of Common law
for majority in the Indian Subcontinent. As per that system – we would make
connections between Cause and Effect in the highest structure we invested in.
One who seeks solutions to her/his particular problem would find it difficult
to identify with the Common solution.
Yesterday when I wrote under the title ‘IPKF WAS
INVITED BY SRI LANKAN PRESIDENT’ in response to Indian Journalist Mr Sathiya
Moorthy – I took a regional approach. As if in appreciation – I received
communication from a Human Rights group in Sri Lanka. In addition, I was
invited by a Sri Lankan of Sinhala Buddhist origin - to begin a discussion on
the article ‘Framework for a new Sri Lanka: A Union of Regions’ by Raj Gonsalkorale – a senior member of the
Sri Lanka Reconciliation Forum, Sydney. The article was published by the Island.
This discussion is on the basis of Common National
values which has the power of transcending community level thinking and therefore
manifestations at community levels. I begin by sharing my response to selected
passages from the article by Raj Gonsalkorale.
with December facing the past and January the future. If both are active – they
are like the two sides of one coin and hence 50% of the solution must come from
Gonsalkorale: It is strongly suggested
that the concept of a Union of Regions authored by late Dr Neelan Tiruchelvam
is given serious consideration.
Tiruchelvam, along with G. L. Peiris, were the lead authors of President Chandrika Kumaratunga's 1995 constitutional reform and devolution plan (also known
as the "GL-Neelan Package" or "The New Deal"). The
plan involved turning Sri Lanka from a unitary state into a "union of regions", merging
of the Northern and Eastern provinces, expanding the subjects devolved to provincial councils, establishment of a mechanism to resolve disputes between
the central and provincial governments and greater recognition of Sri Lanka's
(ii) Opposition: The plan went beyond the Thirteenth Amendment and was federalism in all but name. The plan, which
was released on 3 August 1995, was generally welcomed both in Sri Lanka and
abroad but was attacked by Sinhalese nationalists and Tamil militants. The plan was
subsequently watered down so much that even the TULF refused to support it and
the plan was never implemented.
(iii) My Reality: The
two sides were Sinhala Politicians and Tamil Politicians – until Vaddukoddai
Resolution 1976. When in 1994, Neelan became Vaddukoddai MP through the
National list – he inherited the Vaddukoddai Resolution’s Energy, which
underpinned his above proposal. But by
then the LTTE and other militants – in an act of plagiarism - interpreted the
Vaddukoddai Resolution as their mandate to Separatism – so they would be kings.
The government promoted this by passage of 6th Amendment to the
Constitution on 08 August 1983 – which effectively prohibited formation of
Separate State. The government’s interpretation was at the same level as that
of the Tamil militants. This is likely to have developed through the unjust
killings by government forces of their own Sinhala Buddhist youth who rebelled
through JVP in 1971. The ‘Buddhism Foremost’ clause in the 1972 Constitution indicates
this strongly. That is likely to have sown the seeds of Vaddukoddai Resolution
as an Opposition to ‘Buddhism Foremost’ clause . If Lord Buddha were to write
the Constitution – he would have not had Article 9 or if that was considered necessary
for higher thinking – Buddha would have written articles 10 & 14 (1) (e )
10 [Every person except
a Buddhist is entitled to Freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including the freedom
to have or to adopt a religion or belief of their choice.]
14 (1) Every Non-Buddhist
citizen is entitled to
(e ) the freedom,
either by himself or in association with others, and either in public or in
private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice
Every law has to confirm
Sovereignty. If Buddhism was thought to be more important than any other culture
– then articles 10 and 14 have no place in the constitution that specifies
this. As per these articles I (citizen) am the queen/king. As per article 9
Buddha is the king. A leader elected by
me – a non-Buddhist has also got to be a non-Buddhist.
One may be tempted to
think as to how an article that is passive can bring about active conflict?
This is when we need to
go to Einstein’s declaration ‘Everything
is energy and that’s all there is to it’ Unless Cause and Effect are
fully balanced there is no Energy. If we make a law that is not balanced – then
the outcomes confirm Einstein’s other declaration:
“Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results.”
That was exactly what JR
Jayawardene did in relation to Buddhism foremost article and made himself the
Executive President. But he did not act like Buddha. Doing the Buddhism
Foremost article again brought about the insanity demonstrated by the 1983
riots – now known as the Black July pogrom. This made it easy for the LTTE to
Foremost is relative. It ranks
below Sovereignty. It is therefore disrespectful of Buddha. That Sovereign
power caused the insanity. The problem with relativity is that at the emotional
level – the two sides follow each other. When we take pleasures only pain
follows us as a sovereign mind – like the Covid19 that spreads exponentially.
When ‘invest’ – taking less benefits than our costs – the gap becomes positive
Energy. In a Constitution both spread exponentially. They may seem apparently
static. Plagiarism is negative exponentially for this reason. Likewise, ‘pleasure
clauses’ in a constitution bring about imbalance in the mind of the maker.