| by Gajalakshmi Paramasivam
( April 18, 2014, Melbourne, Sri Lanka Guardian) There is much criticism in relation to India’s vote against the US sponsored resolution at the UNHRC. To me, the vote that matters most is mine, because it gives me the ‘experience’. It gives me the experience because of my deep investment in the issue. I now vote for the issue rather than a particular side. That matters to me in balancing my own thinking. To the extent I feel ownership in an issue, I believe I influence the outcomes through natural forces. I believe that I am therefore a continuous natural voter in issues where I have invested deeply.
I am really an outsider in relation to the military side of the Sri Lankan Tamil problem. I am however, an insider to Elimination of racial discrimination anywhere. Many commentators are to my mind, insiders to military activities in Sri Lanka and are outsiders to Elimination of Racial Discrimination. They tend to indiscriminately mix the two. At the surface level, the two need to be kept separate.
This week we Australians witnessed the resignation of the Hon Barry O’Farrell from his position as the Premier of New South Wales. The resignation happened due to the investigations by the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC). To me such happenings are ‘confirmations’ of my own experiences. I did, as an ordinary citizen, take action against the then Minister for Education of the State of New South Wales, for failing to act as per the law in relation to my experiences at the University of New South Wales. When I complained to ICAC – they dismissed my complaint. During his press-conference in relation to evidence given by himself to the ICAC, the Hon Barry O’Farrell emphasized that it was important for citizens to come forward and give evidence to help the authorities. I identify with this. When we complain and/or give evidence for the purpose of a public inquiry – without being driven by wins – we have the EXPERIENCE. Once we have the experience, what happens thereafter with that group becomes further confirmation of our own discovery. This to my mind is the reason why we must have closures – genuine and independent closures which complete the journey. All earned benefits to the extent they were not received - become ownership powers from which ‘rights’ flow. They are the rights developed in return for responsibilities.
India may now be taking on more an Observer role than a participatory one. Many Sinhalese have expressed their concerns about the threat of India taking over Sri Lanka. If Sri Lankan Tamils were to join forces with Indian Tamils, then Sinhalese would be the minorities in that part of the world. Hence all that Tamils of Sri Lanka have to do is – consider themselves to be part of the region rather than merely belonging to one country. They must however feel so naturally and without expectations of benefits. But those who want to play the game directly are likely to use others with high status to win cheaply. How India is read depends on each one’s investment in India and/or in common cultures. The deeper our investment the more participatory we become – even though this is not be visible to the surface investors’ eyes.
Nothing happens due to one person’s energies. Where the unknowns are greater than the known – they cannot be given reason. One who is part of the experience – identifies with and appreciates the path of Natural Justice which keeps confirming to the genuine person upholding justice beyond her/his duty – that s/he has the blessings of Higher Powers. India due to its spiritual powers – would naturally influence Sri Lankan outcomes - much more than the voters at the UN. To reconcile the two – one needs to know the inner workings of both at equal level. One who has been practicing the values UN claims to stand for – would identify with the outcomes through her/his experience. Through such an identification, I feel that India continues to positively influence Sri Lanka – even though on the surface some may read it as per the ‘seen’ outcome only.
Our vote is the net value of our experience. Whether we have the legal or administrative right to express that vote or not – those who have had the ownership experience – influence the outcomes – even by staying ‘at home’. To the ordinary citizen without the high status to vote, therefore, having the experience through inner search is far more valuable than debating on the basis of visible outcomes.