20 August 2022

Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

 

PAULINE HANSON & ARAGALAYA COMPLAINANTS

I protested openly here in Australia, after Pauline Hanson asked me to ‘go home’. https://www.elanka.com.au/pauline-hanson-and-sri-lankan-protestors-by-gajalakshmi-paramasivam-2/

I presented my case as follows, in my letter of resignation:

‘I heard Pauline Hanson on the 4 Corners Programme last night. Ms Hanson suggests that we go back to our countries of origin if we cannot be like them. It hurts that we even have to hear such things. In the name of ‘Freedom of Speech’ we – the new Australians are being made to lose our freedom to live as individuals. If the leadership of Australia is unable to turn it around – to make up for their negligence in failing to hear the cries of new Australians – one has to wonder whether Ms Hanson is expressing what these leaders (and employers) feel themselves in their heart of hearts. This is the million dollar question to which I have been seeking a favourable answer – that the leaders of the country to which we brought our children and made them call it their ‘home’ would ensure that it is ‘home’ for our children. But, my experience during the past 13 years has failed to deliver the answer that I have been seeking so desperately. When an educational institution such as the University of New South Wales also demonstrated that it was no different – I do not wish to waste any more time – hoping.’

 

The reason why I received the pain of Pauline’s declarations was because by then I was ‘Common Australian’. This included Indigenous Australians also. When for example, I heard in yesterday’s news that Umar Patek, the guy who made the bombs that killed 88 Australians, 20 of whom were from my home area, I felt for the victims as if I was part of their community. It is intuitive and instantaneous from a still mind.

 

The letter of resignation was my first act of protest against White supremacy. The resignation was the confirmation of the sacrifice of my earned opportunities at the Medical Faculty of the University of NSW.

I proceeded to take action against the authorities and was ‘failed’ due to the Australian court system using the autocratic ‘inquisitorial system’ instead of the lateral ‘adversarial system’ needed as per Equal Opportunity Law. The court judgments were in effect ‘we don’t care if you leave’. I then wrote my book ‘Naan Australian’ – in the belief that someone, somewhere would identify with my experiences through the institutional processes. This book ended up in National Library of Australia, via Congress library, without my knowledge. That is how truth works.

In real terms, many Tamils consulted with in related matters.

As per the article ‘Saying No to Authoritarian Governance’ at https://www.themorning.lk/saying-no-to-authoritarian-governance/ , a group of academics and professionals are presenting  their mind as follows:

‘We must therefore challenge President Wickremesinghe’s and the government’s attempts to say that there is a difference between an aragalaya (struggle)  and a “kerella” (rebellion).’

As presented above, my struggle was through the structured, institutional pathway. It involved sacrifice of benefits and opportunities earned through that pathway and took me to zero base – as if I had no credits with that system. But because I was true to myself, I was able to connect to the truth of those in that institutional structure. It’s the ‘insight’ one gets in return for genuine sacrifice – for example as a mother knowing the needs of her child.

To qualify as a protest against the President – the protestors ought to have invested at Equal level, or more through the Common structure. Hence the Equal status to the Opposition in Parliament. To require the whole Parliament to ‘go home’ is much more than a protest but a rebellion against a democratically structured institution.

Such a call, to my mind, is the parallel of Pauline Hanson’s call to ask migrants who have come through the structured pathway to ‘go home’. An unstructured pathway could be true or frivolous. When true , it would strengthen the existing structure. When frivolous, it would seriously damage the structure.

Be it Sinhala only group or Tamil only group, they are the parallels of Pauline Hanson and Indigenous Australians respectively.

The call for the President to go home was not institutionally structured. There were provisions in the constitution which were NOT used towards ousting the President through due process of law. As per the above mentioned article, the intellectual group is claiming as follows:

[Sovereignty is therefore in the “People,” and Parliament and the Executive must exercise their powers in a manner that ensures that Sovereignty can be “exercised and enjoyed” by the People (Article 4). Fundamental rights must be “respected secured and advanced” by both these organs of government (Article 4(d) and CANNOT be restricted except when it is legal, proportionate and reasonable, in the manner defined in Article 15.]

 

Article 4 (d) provides as follows:

[4 (d) the fundamental rights which are by the Constitution declared and recognized shall be respected, secured and advanced by all the organs of government and shall not be abridged, restricted or denied, save in the manner and to the extent hereinafter provided.]

Article 14 (1) (e ) under Fundamental Rights provides as follows:

‘14. (1) Every 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;’

Article 9 states:

[9. 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).]

Article 9 separates the county into two entities – one Buddhist and the other non-Buddhist. Where there is relativity – such as ‘foremost’ there cannot be Absolute power and v.v. Fundamental Rights such as those covered by Article 4 (d), do not apply to a group driven by relative power in the constitution. They therefore apply only to those covered by Article 14(1)(e) and Article 10 but not those covered by article 9.

If there were Buddhists in Aragalya, they had the Constitutional duty to follow the Buddhist pathway – according to which they had the duty to renounce desires. The call for the Buddhist President to ‘go home’ by a group that did not earn the right to ‘dismiss’ the president – is an expression of desire.

Every believer in Sri Lanka is a Sovereign Sri Lankan by belief. But to have the authority of the law, and  have the ‘freedom’ to ask the President to go home – they have to have the authority of a fundamental power – undiluted by relativity specifically allowed by the constitution. Natural powers work to deliver as per the belief of each person, including the President in his position and/or Mr Gotabaya Rajapaksa  as an individual citizen.

Mr Gotabaya Rajapaksa is the victim and not Aragalaya complainants.