Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

07 August  2021

 

DR THIRUCHELVAM’S PROPOSAL

 

The 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.

 

1.    Raj Gonsalkorale quotes: We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. – Albert Einstein

 

Gaja: I fully identify with the above. But it is also essential that we carry the experience of the Problem as ownership Energy as in Janus 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 each side.

2.    Raj Gonsalkorale:  It is strongly suggested that the concept of a Union of Regions authored by late Dr Neelan Tiruchelvam is given serious consideration.

Gaja: (i) the  plan as per Wikipedia:

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 many minorities

(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 6^th 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 ) as follows:

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 and teaching;

 

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 become rulers.

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.