, ,

Stateless Refugees

| by Gaja Lakshmi Paramasivam

( July 27, 2014, Sydney, Sri Lanka Guardian) This week, I resigned as a member of the Sri Lanka Reconciliation Forum, Sydney. Logically speaking, there are many reasons why I resigned and also there are many reasons why I ought to have stayed. But these days I recognize that I am ‘letting go’ after doing my best as per my conscious thought. My resignation sadly from the Sri Lanka Reconciliation Forum, Sydney is a mini model of what happened at the University of New South Wales. Both happened due to lack of recognition of the ‘Sri Lankan’ certificate as being equal to the ‘Australian’ certificate until known otherwise through merit based assessment. Hence those who are Australian first would have difficulty ‘showing’ valuation for both at the same level – especially when someone comes without the certification of the official system. The more ‘Australian’ we ‘think’ we are – the less Sri Lankan we ‘think’ we are. At that level – status is relative. It’s when we ‘feel’ that we share in common that it is absolute. Often those in relative area tend to use their higher positions to make claims as if they are absolute.

Dr. Laksiri Fernando for example states in his Sri Lanka Guardian article ‘Tamil Refugees, MH17 & Palestine’:

“It was just few weeks ago that Australia handed over another boat back to Sri Lankan navy with 41 asylum seekers, 37 Sinhalese. Most of them could be economic refugees or similar but the question begs why they flee in this manner with high risks if the economic conditions are miraculous. Sri Lanka has so far refused to accept the present boat load claiming that it originated in India, not Sri Lanka. UNHCR and the refugee advocates have criticized both Australia and Sri Lanka very strongly for the crisis, one creating it and the other refusing to be humane or follow the international norms. Australia is now asking India to take the boat back. All the present indications are that India might agree to abide if anyone is an Indian citizen, not otherwise. India however points out that their refugee intake is double the amount of Australia………….. Even on the question of refugees, although the present Australian government position is unjustifiable, there are many sections who are sympathetic to refugee predicament. At least legal recourse is available for the refugee advocates.”

The question is whether Dr. Laksiri Fernando is speaking as part of the Australian Administrative system – or the Sri Lankan Administrative system. That is when one could assess rights and wrongs using UN policies. Given that the UN itself is struggling to discipline those who ‘caused’ the war-crimes on both sides - one who expects the UN to deliver in the case of Refugees is bound to feel disappointed. The ‘many sections’ of Australian society that are ‘sympathetic’ to the refugee predicament – need to have raised their contribution to Managing Australia beyond the Administrative level. Beneficiaries of the Australian system would tend to translate their actions towards recruiting more like themselves – more beneficiaries.

When we are supported by Natural Energies – even if we live within a very small group – we would be adding strength to the sovereignty of both/all nations involved. The legal recourse to a large degree is for those who seek the logical path. The natural energies of those who identify with the refugees need to be strong for the legal path to successfully recruit those who are healthy for Australia. I do not know of any lawyer who does it for ‘Australia’. Hence those who ‘win’ are elevating the status of the group that the refugees think they belong to – be it Sri Lankan Tamils or Indian Tamil in this instance. The above report confirms also that the Indian Government is no longer seeing value in Sri Lankan Tamil refugees. They thus become ‘stateless’. The only reason I identify with for such an outcome is that these refugees applicants were driven by ‘hearsay’. I identify with such a reason only by living with their group as a community. There is no logical path through which one could identify with such a reason even if it does exist. Until we are part of them - we have the responsibility to use the official path to find the common reason at the global level. In regards to the refugees, until their minds are regulated by their own Truth – they would continue to be the pawns of international players. Those who have become stateless through their own independent thinking – are really global – for they would make a home anywhere in the world. They would be healthy for Australia even if they cannot prove that they are damaged by the war.

Like the above ‘stateless’ group, my reconciliation work is without status – once I resigned from the Sri Lankan Reconciliation Forum, Sydney. But I reconcile naturally – wherever I am and if there is a need for reconciliation at that place at that time. It would be difficult for those who have had the luxury of the ‘logical’ systems to operate in natural mode. Gandhi and Nehru were different because of this. Nehru needed the official uniform while Gandhi was naturally sovereign.