Gajalakshmi Paramasivam
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment