Tuesday 11 April 2023


11 April 2023

Gajalakshmi Paramasivam




A Sri Lankan of Tamil origin referred me to four discussions, in response to my article of 06 April, headed ‘THE CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS & THE PRESIDNCY’.

Three discussions were on the platform by the Centre for Policy alternatives and there was one on the discussion the meeting between the Tamil Community in London and Tamil MP Mr Gajendrakumar Ponnambalam.

I responded as follows to the Tamil discussion at "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjA04O_7e7A&feature=youtu.be:

This sharing is confirmation that you and I are common minded in this issue. Below is why?


1.   On 08 April, I wrote under the heading ‘13A IS INDIAN LAW IN SRI LANKA’

2.   Today for the first time, I heard and this was through Gajendrakumar Ponnambalam – that the Supreme Court had stated no less than 32 times that the 13th Amendment was NOT workable. As a lawyer – Gajendrakumar accepted the Supreme Court verdict. As a lay litigant, using the truth in my own form, I felt that the 13th Amendment is invalid due to the base being the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord.  Gajendrakumar in fact highlighted this when he insisted on knowing which group the questioner belonged to? When we are part of a political group we are bound by the policies of that group. If we are speaking as individuals, our personal belief is our policy. The questioner mentioned that the audience included many from various groups.  But when Gajendrakumar asked him which group he belonged to, the questioner was evasive.  This meant that he lacked the confidence to say that it was his belief. One who lacks confidence to express his belief, needs group support and has the duty to speak on behalf of the group, regulated by the Group’s policies.


The presenter Mr Balasingam Prabhakaran highlighted the unethical comments by a Tamil media personality. This female known as Nila, confirms why we are not yet a Nation.  Nila is disrespectful of the founders of Tamil Congress whose wisdom is Tamil heritage. Disrespecting such elders is the problem that limits our progress. We may disagree but not disrespect.  I have, on many instances expressed disagreement with various politicians. But never have I disrespected them even in my thoughts. This confirms my ‘grooming’. To be eligible for ‘separation of powers’ (which ought to have been the core purpose of 13A) we need laws that would confirm how we would exercise our sovereignty. The group that best demonstrates this is the true leader in Tamil Nationalism. Every individual who is sovereign is naturally supported by the Universal power of Sovereignty.

It is not clear as to when the meeting in London took place. I received your mail today – 2 days after I wrote that 13A was invalid. Gajendrakumar stated its parallel in terms of BTF – which carries the British Government’s endorsement in Geneva. In contrast he has had to go through NGOs to Geneva. In other words – he can identify with vested interests of the British government. That is the value of his pain. True pain endured results in intuitive intelligence that empowers ownership.’


When listening to Dr Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu and Dr. Asanga Welikala, I listened as a member of the minority communities in Sri Lanka. Neither mentioned the imbalance through ‘Buddhism Foremost’ article in the Constitution of Sri Lanka.  This article was inherited by the 1978 constitution. This article is in the language of the lay citizen.


If the constitution was irrelevant, the current discussions are also irrelevant. Even when the articles in the constitution are not actively practised, the purpose in the mind of the person/group that gave birth to the article / law, continues to live through the heirs of the maker. They are the equal other side in Democracy. They are neither juniors nor outsiders.  They are our opposition players.  Common footing is essential to maintain this equal opportunity to perform. A law without such equal footing is not democratic. Such a law will not work in a democratic structure.


If the law is belief based, but autocratic, the structure needs to be autocratic.

As it stands now, article 9 which states that which states - 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)


is the provider and articles 10 and 14 in the Fundamental rights section are subordinate articles of article 9. A fundamental rights article has to be sovereign and needs to stand on its own power. This power is derived from our belief. It is this belief that has absolute power of Truth.


The test of ‘Beyond reasonable doubt’  is based on belief. When one believes, one has no doubt.


Given that majority Sri Lankans follow religion, independence of religious belief is fundamental to social harmony . Article 9 disturbs the harmony of belief.


The Centre for Policy Alternatives ought to appreciate that Alternate Policies are legitimate only on the basis of belief. Only a government has the authority to make laws that are lacking in belief. Such laws need to be equally balanced through the ‘adversarial structure’. They are ‘calculated’ laws that facilitate connection with communities outside our circle of belief. They lack the independence of absolute power.


The Opposition in democracy has Equal status due to belief being an absolute power. Minority without belief is junior power and is not entitled to Equal protection of the law as specified in article 12(1) of the Sri Lankan constitution.

This status was confirmed through the 1977 Parliamentary elections when Tamil members of Parliament became the Equal Opposition. This was preceded by Vaddukoddai Resolution of 1976, which facilitated Tamils to exercise their belief-based vote.

On the part of then government, led by the introducer of ‘Buddhism foremost’  article in the 1972 Constitution, Mrs Sirimavo Bandaranaike, the  fall was exponential. The introduction of the said article was preceded by JVP uprising in 1971. By using the Constitution to discipline youth, that government confirmed lack of confidence in its own natural religious power.


Later, when the Tamil group became Equal Opposition in Parliament due to members of majority religion, indiscriminately crossing sides the effect was the Constitutional Crisis in 2018.


The discussions facilitated by the Centre for Policy Alternatives and the Edinburgh Centre for Constitutional Law confirm lack of wisdom in the philosophy of Democracy.


No comments:

Post a Comment