20 January 2024

Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

 

SRI LANKANS & RACISM

 

The most interesting mail today is headed:

Wigneswaran points out the root cause of Sri Lanka’s Ethnic Conflict’

My morning’s mail was headed ‘RACIAL DISCRIMINATION’. It was shared with fellow members of our Strata community.

I looked for parallels in statements by Mr Wigneswaran:

 

1.   ‘Wigneswaran points out the root cause of the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka very clearly. He states that the Tamils of the northern and eastern provinces, unlike the Muslims and plantation Tamils, “have always occupied the area now roughly covered by the Northern and Eastern Provinces. There had been continuous occupation of the North and East throughout history by the Tamil-speaking people……..In fact, their occupation extended up to Negombo in the Western Province and up to Kathirgamam in the South East. The Sinhalese have never occupied the North and East in large numbers except after 1833 when the country was brought under one administration by the British’.

The above confirms use of residence as the criterion to measure ownership. As a law expert, Mr Wigneswaran, would be aware of the requirement of the following to satisfy belief of ownership:

(a)        Identity of corpus

(b)        Plaintiff’s title

(c)        Defendant’s wrongful occupation

(d)        Damages caused to Plaintiff

 

In Leisa and another V. Simon and another [2002] 1 Sri. L.R 148 it was held that an averment of prescription by a plaintiff after pleading paper title is employed to buttress his paper title. As per my knowledge, Mr  Wigneswaran who was part of the Judicial panel confirmed his logic as follows:

 

“A person is in possession of a house for example, when he or his servants or licensees are living in it, if he or they are absent from it, he would still be held to be in possession, if such absence was only temporary. In this case the brother of the 1st plaintiff (1st defendant) could have been in occupation and still the 1st plaintiff would have been in possession simultaneously.”

 

On the same basis, traditional Tamil areas, would, by belief owned by Tamils even if occupied by non-Tamils.

 

As per Hindu philosophy, Once we take the spiritual pathway, we realise that which is invisible:

 

‘கண்டேனவர்திருப் பாதங் கண்டறியாதன கண்டேன்.’  I saw the  Holy Feet/Pathway ; I realised beyond the seen and the known.

 

Belief is invisible. We do not need to prove it, except when disturbed. Kathirgamam for example is owned in Common by Sinhalese as well as Tamil Hindus, as per their own experiences.

 

The political parallel of paper title in Prescriptive right challenges, is majority vote. When Mr Wigneswaran claims belief based rights , he buttresses his election by  majority vote. It is now time to act . Following is an excerpt from my latest book on Preventing Racism through practice of law:

 

‘Punchi Banda Jayasundara is a Sri Lankan economist. He was the former Secretary to the President, Gotabaya Rajapaksa….

 

Jayasundera along with the Rajapakasha brothers and others were found guilty of economic mismanagement between 2019 and 2022, by the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka which stated on 14 November 2023 that the respondents have breached the fundamental rights to equal protection of the law in terms of Article 12(1) of the Constitution in a fundamental rights petition filed by filed by Transparency International Sri Lanka (TISL) and other four activists.’

 

It is now Mr Wigneswaran’s turn to file a fundamental rights case, through belief in his alma mater.