| by Gajalakshmi
Paramasivam
( October 21, 2012,
Melbourne, Sri Lanka Guardian) This morning’s mail included some from
Raj Jayadevan one of which is about the talk that Professor Damien
Kingsbury gave in Melbourne under the topic “Why
are the Tamils fleeing Sri Lanka?” and reported by Chris
Slee.
As per the report - “Repression
of peaceful protest led to the rise of militant Tamil groups, among which the
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) came to dominate. Kingsbury said that
during the war both the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE used terrorist
tactics and attacked civilians.”
This is confirmed by
the UN Report also. The question is how many of these perpetrators have been
brought to justice through International Laws?
As per the article “A
tale of two Tamils: High value assets in SL, criminals in India”
by G Pramod Kumar of FIRSTPOST ‘This week saw the
curious case of two influential Sri Lankan Tamils, wanted in India on
sensational criminal cases but close to the island’s government, making news
again. One of them is “KP” or Kumaran Pathmanathan who once allegedly
controlled LTTE’s transnational finance and arms procurement network, and the
other is an anti-LTTE Tamil leader and minister Douglas Devananda who had
survived many attempts on his life.’
We are not able to see
a commonness in the application of Law even at regional level. As
per Dharma that the Sri Lankan Government is required to be committed to
through the Constitution, once leaders such as KP are ‘excused’ –
all below them in positions within LTTE are excused. The first responsibility
and therefore blame, lies with the leaders. In a Dharmic/Righteous system
a lower level person would not be punished more than a leader in the name of
the same crime.
In terms of Australia
which now has greater leadership responsibility at the UN due to its membership
in the UN Security Council – to the extent of its acceptance of its fellow UN
member – the Sri Lankan Government - ‘excusing’ LTTE leadership, the Australian
Government also has the moral obligation to lift bans on the parallels of KP
and below – here in Australia – including in relation to ‘security checks’ when
processing refugee applications.
As per Chris Slee’s
report : ‘ The government won the war in May 2009. An estimated 40,000
people, mainly civilians, died just in the final few weeks of the war as the
government bombarded the LTTE's last stronghold.
Since then, Kingsbury
said the victors “continue to behave in ways that continue the atrocities of
the war they have won”. Tamils face detention without arrest, arbitrary
execution, torture and forced displacement. Tens of thousands of Tamils cannot
return to their homes and farms in areas occupied by military bases.’
To my mind, anyone who
says in relation to the Sri Lankan ethnic conflict ‘The government won the
war’ is assessing the issue at surface level. As an academic, I expect
Professor Kingsbury to appreciate that there are different levels at which one
identifies with an issue. The deeper our research the wider the spread of our
teaching. Information without this root connection carries the risk of abuse when
used by those in high positions. Without our own research and/or belief in
those who have had the experience, we accumulate egoistic tendencies.
As per my direct
experience with Professor Kingsbury, he is amongst Australian Academics who are
not able to work their own University system. To use University language - the
depth of our teaching is as per the depth of our
investment in research – directly and/or through our investments in deeper
investors. The depth of our solution is as per the depth of our investment in
the problem. I find that those who were actively discussing the Sri Lankan war
during and soon after May 2009 which recorded the highest numbers of dead and
injured in this ethnic conflict, have failed to demonstrate at least equal
level of participation in helping the victims. Those who publicly criticize
and/or praise one side or the other – have the responsibility to publicly show their
current work to uphold the basic principles and values underpinning such
criticism.
Professor Ben Saul of
Sydney University stated through ABC - ‘Australia's trying to
demonstrate to the world that it's a good international citizen as it seeks a seat
on the United Nations Security Council and at the same time it's tearing down
the UN human rights system which Australia helped to build after the Second
World War.’
ABC’s Kerry Brewster
reports ‘ Premakumar is among 38 Tamil refugees whose indefinite
incarceration has been challenged by Professor Ben Saul. He lodged a formal
complaint with the UN's Human Rights Committee in August 2011, arguing
Australia is breaking international laws by detaining them indefinitely because
of adverse ASIO security assessments.’
Relative to that is
Professor Kingsbury’s report : “Disappearances have become “routinised”,
with people being abducted every few days. Not only Tamils but also some
dissident Sinhalese, including journalists, have disappeared.
These are the conditions
that cause people to flee Sri Lanka. “People become refugees for many reasons,
but desperation is always the driver,” said Kingsbury. “No-one willingly gives
up their home and their community and then attempts to undertake a
life-threatening journey for any reason other than they believe their future is
under threat.”
I know of many, who
left their homes in Sri Lanka to live in Australia under refugee status, for
lesser reasons than desperation. I therefore conclude that Professor
Kingsbury’s investment in this part of the issue is much weaker than mine. When
it comes to ‘telling’ top-down, Professor Kingsbury is not second to Sri Lankan
academics close to the Government. Professor Kingsbury did not follow the
principles underpinning laws of Equal Opportunity when he ‘told’ me to remove
him from my email list. I took that as a heritage of colonialism from his
ancestors. To that extent Professor Kingsbury lost the right to criticize
top-down - the Sri Lankan Government on ethnic problems. All of us have the
right to criticize through our own direct experiences. Others who have not had
the direct experience would need to limit their criticism to intellectual
analyses and/or their official positions in a common system.
During my latest visit
to Sri Lanka, I shared my feelings with families whose youth seek to go
overseas, including to Australia by boat - without preparing for life in these
new countries. Mothers left their children and sons their parents – towards
earning more money in these countries. I also left Sri Lanka in 1982 - before
the latest conflict – to earn more money. But I prepared myself for life in a
new environment and had the intention of returning after earning enough money
to build a home in Colombo – which was my home since the age of 17. All
my three children were born there and this to my mind, contributes strongly to
the feeling of ‘home’. I continue to be highly respected in those circles even
today. Relative to that, I have lived for 27 years here in Australia
– as an Australian and yet am taken as per my ‘looks’ including by Australian
Academics and the Police. That surface assessment is the basis on which weak
judges deliver judgments. As per my direct experience - Australia is yet to
invest deeply in Racial Equality. This could lead to abuse of power through the
UN Security Council, unless we consciously address the issue at our leadership
level.
Each of us as
Australians, has the right to share in that membership but none of us has the
authority to use those powers through surface assessments. The parallel of UN
Security Council at the University of New South Wales – is the Security
Office. Likewise at any Australian University. In the
case of the University of New South Wales, despite its delegated powers to
remove me from the University (if I was found to have acted in breach of
applicable laws ) the Office of the Vice Chancellor called
the Police, through the Security Officer, to have me arrested and removed. In
other words the Vice Chancellor used the power of the Security
officer’s position to protect himself from any possible attack. That
University was my ‘home workplace’ due to my work beyond the level at which I
was paid. The real position earned by me is as per the level of real work
performed by me as per my genuine assessment of the needs of the institution.
We develop this position as employees, employers, citizens and governors. My
earned position was governing position and yet I was treated by the
Administration – like a criminal. One governor would have recognized the other
– as the Chancellors – Sir Anthony Mason and Dr. John Yu did. So
long as the experience is left ‘open’ – the University system would
in real terms have less than global status – especially in issues where I am
continuing to actively invest. That is the way of Truth. They may have the
official status but not the real one – not even as a University of global standards
– due to lack of investment in their ‘other side’ by the
leadership/management. As per my observation, when it comes to ‘internal’
matters – such as email systems – Professor Kingsbury is also part of this
residual of Colonial leadership. Hence his criticism is taken as not being
connected to the root of the Sri Lankan issue which is primarily seen as an
ethnic issue by the world.
As stated in a recent
article ‘As a Hindu, I tend to find completion through lessons
embedded in legends known to me. The six faces of Lord Muruga (Who
according to Hindu legend went around the world, renounced parental
wealth and established His own kingdom) to my
mind, depict our five outer senses and the sixth inner sense.’
This sixth sense is our own investment at root level of the issue. We need to
manifest that to give it form through this matter to identify with the complete
picture for our purposes. On that basis, the way I interpret the refugee events
in relation to Sri Lanka-Australia would be different to the way Professor
Kingsbury would. Given that I am recognized naturally as part of the group
having the direct experience – I conclude that my expressions are more valid
than Professor Kingsbury’s – the same way his was taken as being more valid than
mine by other academics – including from Harvard and the University of New
South Wales. All those who remained silent are taken to have taken the side
that looks like them.
To my mind, I had the
Australian parallel experience of those fleeing Sri Lanka. Ultimately we live
with our minds and not as per others’ sight. What others see as outsiders would
help us give more ‘wholesome form’ to our experience. When we are
true to ourselves we register the experience through our own Truth which also
leads us to identify with others’ Truth which may or may
not be confirmed by the picture they ‘show’. It was by remaining within my
Truth – however painful the outer experience was – that I feel a more wholesome
part of Australian environment.
In marriage – it is
common to say ‘for better or for worse’. I did not abandon Australia after I
had the ‘better’ part. I was tempted to and hence my resignation from my substantive
position at the University of New South Wales – after I heard Ms Pauline Hanson
on ABC’s 4 Corners – tell us migrants to go home. I am staying and sharing in
the ‘worse’ part through my own positive karma in Equal Opportunity and
Universal Oneness. This is the value I share also with Sri Lankans with whom I
naturally connect. Towards this I work and wait to discard their ‘maya’ /
delusions – including of better life in Australia. Most predecessors of these
‘fleeing Sri Lankans’ do not share their Truth with those back at home – due to
fear of losing status. Once we stay on and share in any area that
has become ‘home’ we would feel more wholesome. I do believe that there are
exceptions at all levels where individuals are actively persecuted by the
‘other’ side. I make myself an ‘outsider’ to that environment – even
if it includes leading academics and politicians. In those instances I observe
from a distance the manifestation of their Truth. That way I allocate equal
status as I to them and not higher or lower. I also continue to
connect to them as part of wider society and not my immediate environment. That
to me is the better approach for foreign leaders to take with the
Sri Lankan Government or the LTTE.
We may be legally
‘Australians’ but not in real terms. To majority mainstream – we migrants from
the Indian Subcontinent are ‘Indians’. The common Australian –
including the Police who react naturally – translates this - the country of our
birth - to read as our nationality. Many migrants accept
this so long as there is no loss of benefits. I did not - despite the pain of
being in Police custody and in being sent to prison and being labeled as a
mentally ill person. By accepting these natural flaws in our system – and
recognizing them as my ‘other side’ – without reacting and taking
revenge – I became a stronger Australian. My loss became an investment through
this ‘acceptance’. This is the lesson I share with Sri Lankans seeking to
‘flee’ without preparing for life in Australia.
