13A IS INVALID DUE TO ARTICLE 9
True service is based on need. The Service provider needs to feel the need of the beneficiary as if the need is hers/his/its. That is when exponential power of Truth / the Soul leads the solution.
As per the Hindu report headed ‘India raises Sri Lankan Tamil issue in U.N.’ at https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/india-raises-sri-lankan-tamil-issue-in-un/article65883402.ece :
[In its statement at the 51 st session of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, India said it has “always believed in the responsibility of States for promotion and protection of human rights and constructive international dialogue and cooperation” guided by the U.N. Charter. “In this regard, the Indian delegation notes with concern the lack of measurable progress by Government of Sri Lanka on their commitments of a political solution to the ethnic issue — through full implementation of the 13th Amendment of the Constitution, delegation of powers to Provincial Councils and holding of Provincial Council elections at the earliest,” India said. The terms of Sri Lanka’s nine provincial councils expired about three years ago, and they have remained defunct since.
The fundamental Human Right is based on the Sovereignty of a human. When humans group together as family, work institution, country, the laws applicable to such grouping need to uphold that Sovereignty at group level also. This is the fundamental requirement of that group to claim sovereign rights. If India is true to itself about protection of Human Rights in Sri Lanka, it would recognize Sri Lanka’s need to protect its sovereignty through its constitution, as its own need.
The test of Sovereignty is Equality when the whole is divided into many parts. The Constitution becomes unstable due to relativity. If relativity is considered essential to one part, it needs to be offset through another section applicable to that part of the group or the parallel needs to be provided for to other parts of the group. The 13th Amendment to the Sri Lankan constitution addressed this at the level of Language which is the skin of a community. It failed to address the ‘Relativity’ issue of religion. The confirmation of belief in the common , renders one the authority to declare ‘ownership’ as in Affidavit evidence or Deed of Declaration in relation to Prescriptive rights. Where there is evidence of relativity, one is NOT entitled to make such declarations of ownership.
The Constitution of a nation is its Declaration of belief. Where a constitution includes advantage to a particular section/community, the believers in that part become indebted to the other parts. This is indicated in the report as follows:
[However, making a rare departure, at the ‘Interactive Dialogue’ segment of the ongoing Council session, India said Sri Lanka’s current economic crisis “demonstrated the limitations of debt driven economy and the impact it has on the standard of living.” ]
The ‘other parts here are other member nations of the UN which represents the globe.
The example of this ‘loss of sovereign power’ by a leader is highlighted in Mahabharatham by the Pandava queen Draupadi whose husband Dharmar offers his wife also as stake in the game of dice. Dharmar / Yudhishthira loses and the winner claims that the wife was his slave. The queen then sought to know whether her husband lost himself before or after offering his wife as a stake? This is narrated as follows at https://www.dollsofindia.com/library/draupadi/
[Yudhishthira was very fond of gambling (game of dice). But he was no expert. Shakuni, maternal uncle of Kauravas, was a very experienced player. Yudhishthira went on losing. He offered his chariots, horses and elephants as stakes and lost them; and eventually he lost his kingdom, Indraprastha, as well. Finally he and his four brothers became the slaves of the Kaurava king. He lost Draupadi also in this gamble. The Kauravas having won, Duryodhana ordered that Draupadi be dragged into the court. The Pandavas bent their heads in shame. Yudhishthira now knew what an unjust action he was guilty of. But it was now too late and regret was of no use. When Draupadi heard this news she was dazed. But instead of meekly obeying her husband Yudhishthira , she sent back a query which none could answer. She questioned her husband Yudhishthira, if he had pledged her before or after he had lost himself in the gamble. She argued that if he had pledged himself first, he had no right over her as he was already a slave. She later challenged the game as illegal as she argued, that Duryodhan, a Kaurava, had not placed his brothers and wife as a matching stake. Mahabharata tells us how the assembly started to hiss loudly when Yudhishthira staked Draupadi. ]
In terms of the Sri Lankan constitution, the parallel is ‘Buddhism foremost’ article which fails the test of Sovereignty, due to its relative power. One who lost her/his/its sovereignty does not have the right to make laws including for her/his/its part of the whole – in this instance – Buddhists. The constitution of Buddhists is ‘Buddha Sasana’ and not the Sri Lankan constitution. Buddha Sasana being a heritage, those who activate article 9 would therefore invoke poverty exponentially – as happened when Silk Road heritage was awakened for economic purposes, which are relative, and out came the Corona virus.
The Central government which has lost its sovereignty as per Buddhism Foremost article has no authority to devolve power to provinces. If the Indian government had believed in Krisha – He would led them to realise this Doctrine of Delegation of Powers.
Post a Comment