| by Gajalakshmi
Paramasivam
( October 16,
2012, Melbourne, Sri Lanka Guardian) I write in response to the Sri Lanka
Guardian article ‘The final agenda for
lasting peace in Sri Lanka’ by
A.R.Arudpragasam
The author
writes ‘Having been the intellectual force behind the heroic struggle of Tamil
people for statehood for the last thirty seven
years, having introduced the concept of armed struggle for liberation,
taking into consideration all its experiences of the past and scientifically
analysing all the problems, noting the LLRC report does not include the vital
issue of solution to the ethnic problem and LLRC report cannot be implemented
without implementing the solution to the ethnic problem, while rejecting
barbaric prescriptions for solving the ethnic problem and anchoring a political
solution on political realities, places the following programme as the final
solution to the ethnic problem and calls on all stakeholders, national and
international, to come together and implement the following agenda, without
delay, considering the merit of the
proposal, support it and engage
in its implementation so that a new, peaceful, dignified Sri Lanka will finally
emerge which all humankind desires.’
Recently, an
intellectual of Sinhalese origin was saying the parallel of this in terms of
the laws of Sri Lanka – especially those that affect the Constitution.
Neither side
presents a wholesome solution. Both sides have presented answers that would
satisfy their respective immediate
circles – the circles that award them status.
1. In his opening answer Arular states
‘Tamileelam belongs to Tamil people, Sinhala Ratta belongs to Sinhala people
and Sri Lanka belongs to all Sri Lankans, resolve Sri Lanka into two equal
sovereign statehoods of Tamileelam and Sinhala Ratta, and Sri Lanka as union of
two equal statehoods, by establishing two separate and equal parliaments for
the two principal nationalities and minorities within them, and a neutral
national assembly for a united Sri Lanka as the permanent solution to the
ethnic problem.’
To my mind, the
parallel of this in terms of Family life – using Arular’s family for example
- is:
‘Father belongs to Arular ancestry / EROS; Mother belongs to single
mother ancestry and the children by default represent the common family – known
legally as the family of Mr. & Mrs. Arudpragasam’.
The parallel of
that for Australians is ‘White Australians are Mainstream Australians; Migrants
and Indigenous groups belong to the
places of their origin – including Arnhem Land ; and the children who were born here in
Australia represent common Australia - the country legally known as
‘Australia’.
Good and Healthy
Governance would naturally merge with Divine Universal Governance which
functions automatically as per our Truth. Neither Tamil Eelam nor Sinhala Rata
has official / legal status. Official / Legal status needs to be wider / higher
than our real status, if we are to actively invest in Common Law and its
Structures. The above ‘answer’ is an
expression of current reality which renders lowest status to those who feel
they are Sri Lankans. They are the parallels of
the children of Mr. & Mrs. Arudpragasam over whom Mr. & Mrs. Arudpragasam
had direct Divine authority to govern. Like with the children of this family,
if Sri Lankans who feel Sri Lankan, earn
higher status than their parents with wider global society – then they earn the
right to govern their parents – both sides parents. The international community
has the responsibility to first support this small group which has lesser
opportunities than either parent to develop to the higher official level.
Parents who limit themselves to the past confirm their ‘attachments’ to the
benefits from those physically close to them. This is the case with claimants
of Tamil Eelam or Sinhala Rata. They both tend to shrink their worlds to what
they are comfortable with.
2. In his answer number 2, Arular states
‘Under the two regional parliaments establish elected District Councils for
each district while scrapping the colonial GA, AGA, Gramasevaka system, the
Provincial Council system and the 13th Amendment.’
This was also a
topic that was discussed with the above mentioned Sinhala leader who kept
saying that ‘rights’ must be ‘given’ to the minorities. Rights are earned and the earned right needs to be
recognized by the government with officially higher status. If Sinhala only leaders and Tamil only
leaders resigned themselves to their respective areas - who is left to make the decision about the
above? As part of the parent group of the armed struggle for Tamil Eelam,
Arular has the responsibility to limit his ‘advice’ to his ‘political family’
or use his official position to make top-down statements. If he is towards Sri Lanka
– then his membership needs to be more junior than those who have remained Sri
Lankans through the conflict. Such aged junior
members of Sri Lanka are the parallels of parents who become dependent on their
children. Then the child becomes the parent and the parent the child. This is
happening more and more in our migrant circles and with parents in Sri Lanka
who are dependent on their children for their living. This is fine so long as
the parents do not seek to have it both ways – seniors for the younger members of the old part of their family (EROS in this instance) and juniors
for their children (global looking Tamils in this instance).
As per my
observations and direct experience, even educated professionals in Northern Sri
Lanka – follow the ‘old colonial systems’
in Administration including Judicial Administration. As per my
understanding, until October 2010, when the
Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act 2010 [Amending Section 529 of the
principal Act] came into force, documents filed in court in relation to
Testamentary cases were not required to be served on Objecting Respondents.
This confirms that until recently, the Central powers responsible did not
consider the citizen to be literate enough to deserve an independent
interpretation and presentation. With ‘Tamil or Sinhala Only’ – we would change
the ‘looks’ of the leadership which is likely to become even more colonial
without inclusion of ‘outsiders’. Like
in marriage, outsiders often provide the ‘opposite’ balancing force to surface
hidden problems – a huge benefit from the armed struggle led by the LTTE.
The question is
whether Arular’s group knows to work the
system Democratically? If yes, then given that Arular’s group is officially of
lower status than a Government (Sri Lankan?) – with the authority to implement
his proposal – Arular needs to ‘ask’ and not declare. Likewise Sinhala
constitutionalists who talk about various structures of governance through
changes to the Constitution.
If on the other
hand either group is seeking to share their empowerment with their respective
home-groups – then they need to demonstrate through their own home-structures
that their recommended structures are already working to help the ordinary
person within their home group govern
her/himself.
The structures
we develop from zero base are our own. We have the right to claim ownership in
others’ structures by including ourselves in those structures and / or by
paying our dues/respects to those who originally developed those structures.
Both ways are demonstrated by the legend about the ‘Divine Mango’ over which
both sons of Shiva-Parvathi – ran the
race of going around the world (becoming global as per our current
circumstances). Elder (Vertical system’s parallel of Majority
voting power in Democracy) son Ganesh paid His respects to His parents and got
custody of the fruit and the status of being the ‘winner’. Younger son Murugan (Vertical system’s
parallel of Minority voting power in Democracy) physically went around the
world, renounced his parental wealth once He saw that the mango had been
already ‘given’ to His elder brother and Murugan established His own Kingdom starting with the
Hill of Palani in South India. Those who develop their own structures from zero
base – would feel enough confidence to establish their own kingdoms for which
they need to be taking up high positions from which they could make global
observations. Ganesh continued with the Governance Structure of His parents.
Both are right as per their respective positions.
In terms of Sri Lanka, the common parent we continue to
recognize through our laws are largely English and Roman Dutch Laws and hence
their cultures. They have now evolved as
UN’s International Laws. Whoever follows these laws more than the other and
demonstrates respect for them is the one continuing with the common system.
This is not the
official Sri Lankan Government which keeps demonstrating that it does not
respect the UN. Tamils of Sri Lanka on the other hand are yet to form their own
Palani. It is not Jaffna which is yet to renounce its wealth from Central
Government. Batticaloa has shifted to become more dependent on Central Government.
The solution as I see it is for each one of us to first decide which group we
belong to and limit our expressions of Governance to those home-groups and
areas. In terms of the rest of the country – we need to consciously apply
global principles and laws which we expect to be used when we so seek – be it
to punish in the name of terrorism / war-crimes or to reward ourselves for
promoting Democracy. We are entitled to use the structures that we have
genuinely invested in and whose
principles and values we uphold. Tamil/Sinhala only investors are entitled to
their ethnic leaderships. Sri Lankans are entitled to global support. Those
driven by Truth are supported and serviced by Universal systems.
 I write in response to the Sri Lanka Guardian articl...){kind=link}