| by Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

( September 18, 2014, Melbourne, Sri Lanka Guardian) Our culture determines the order in which we think. Racism happens when there is conflict in this order of thinking due to different ethnicity based thought orders. Migrants who use the cultural system of their country of origin are in reality using Jus Sanguinis (Citizenship law by blood). Migrants who use the cultural system of their country of residence are likewise using the objective system of Jus Solis (Citizenship law as per land of birth). The law would help raise our experiences to the common level. But harmony may not be achieved through some laws due to lack of knowledge of higher cultures. We must find the order that fits our own experiences so that our mind is healthy for us.


[For almost forty years since the Vaddukkoddai Resolution of 1976, the North and East of Sri Lanka had been a land soaked in blood -- Terra Sanguinis -- mostly "Tamil blood"]

Applying the thinking order of Thesawalamai – the law applicable to Jaffna Tamils North and East of Sri Lanka is therefore Tamil Land – for better or for worse.

Today, Mr. Sithamparapzillai Kathieravelu – a Sri Lankan Tamil residing in Sri Lanka, raised the following question with a Tamil Diaspora group:

[The "original demand" of the Tamils was not "Tamil Eelam". Tamil Eelam was vehemently opposed by the ITAK (Illangai Thamil Arasu Kacchi). Its then "golden brain" Mr.Navaratnam resigned or was dismissed from the party and was called as a "lunatic" because he advocated "Independent Tamil State", through the frustration experienced by him and others in trying the policy of “live and let live” in a “United Sri Lanka”. There were many who were called by the ITAK as "lunatics" for advocating an "Independent Tamil State" through such frustration. That is history and even now the ITAK is not advocating “separation” and “Tamil Eelam” but for a solution of the ethnic problem “within a “United Sri Lanka” as learnt from the recent resolutions at the party convention which seems to be much in line with the “Vadducoddai Resolution”.

But it seems that there are “others” who view it as a continuation of the “LTTE policy” forgetting or “not understanding” that the LTTE was following the policy of the “Golden brain Navaratnam” which was a deviation of the ITAK policy through frustration of not being able to convince “the Sinhalese Buddhist chauvinists” of the benefits of the ITAK policy.]

My response was as follows:

[I believe that all of us have the ability to lead a sovereign life. In fact I consider it our duty to work and /or sacrifice towards this. Once we achieve this goal – life is beautiful. Just last night – a fellow Australian of Lankan origin said to me that he found it difficult to understand how I was able to stand the insults that came my way from time to time from those who did not know me. I said – that it was because I knew that the insults did not belong to me and that those who made them had the need to position themselves accordingly. So I absorbed and stayed in the relationship – until I knew I could not help the other develop the sense of independence s/he could – with me on the other side.

This would help appreciate the ITAK position at that time. The politicians of that time were still using the British system of governance and hence those leaders in ITAK who were committed to wider systems would have opposed it. Majority Tamils likewise were still using the British system in Public Administration and Judiciary. Even now, in Mallakam Courts – the language may be Tamil but lawyers and judges seem to take pride in using the laws and therefore the thinking order of the British in preference to Thesawalamai order. Hence culturally we have one system and officially another.

You say : [That is history and even now the ITAK is not advocating “separation” and “Tamil Eelam” but for a solution of the ethnic problem “within a “United Sri Lanka” as learnt from the recent resolutions at the party convention which seems to be much in line with the “Vadducoddai Resolution”.]

I myself am in line with this so that we would have natural links with the outside world. Tamils resident in Sri Lanka would be better off maintaining this link through their everyday use of common principles and values. Otherwise those in more affluent countries would be ‘providers’ and those living in Sri Lanka would be ‘aid receivers’.

You say : [But it seems that there are “others” who view it as a continuation of the “LTTE policy” forgetting or “not understanding” that the LTTE was following the policy of the “Golden brain Navaratnam” which was a deviation of the ITAK policy through frustration of not being able to convince “the Sinhalese Buddhist chauvinists” of the benefits of the ITAK policy.]

LTTE lacked the depth to understand and appreciate the ITAK’s core thinking which was driven by multicultural order of thought. That was natural given the leaders of that time. LTTE used civil riots in Colombo to show its power. It did not protect Colombo Tamils. The fact that the LTTE got rid of Tamil leaders – meant that we – the community lost their investment in independence through the wider path. The 1977 election outcomes confirmed that the Natural Forces of karma were in our favour. But those driven by immediate results hijacked the agenda and now we have lost more lives than we did through riots. Our agenda was also ‘taken-over’ by foreigners – including Indians.

ITAK does not need to convince anyone outside the Tamil Community whom they represent. Eventually these are different paths to the same goal of sovereignty as a community. An individual who is her/himself sovereign – shares this with any community s/he is a part of. They are the real leaders. Others need collective / group power to travel towards this goal. When majority in a Community are self-governing, using whatever is available in their current environment – the Community is naturally self-governing. Whether others accept this or not is secondary. At the moment majority Tamils are NOT self-governing in their own areas of power. We need to restructure our cultural systems to include global participants. That’s when we would look beyond the Sinhala Buddhist custodians of power. So long as we blame them for faults we ourselves suffer from – we would not be able to look beyond – even when we live in USA]

The Canadian author Gam Vaesiya claims that Vaddukoddai was Sinhalese as it was occupied by Sinhalese before Tamils. This confirms that he is driven by the Jus Solis (Citizenship law as per land). Such a person would be a misfit outside his land of birth. I conclude therefore that Mr. Gam Vaesiya is suffering from mental conflict by living in Canada with a thinking order based on land of birth. It is my understanding that Canada follows the land basis and not the blood basis. Most multicultural nations actively recruiting migrants would tend to use Land basis and hence the Objective system of management.

Within the same nation systems would change to suit the current contributors. Australia was ‘White only’ until a few decades ago. It was right for majority living on this Land at that time. But when the UN moved towards multiculturalism – Australian leaders decided to move towards multiculturalism and hence our current order of thought which is different to the order of thought prior to 1975 when the Whitlam Government introduced the Racial Discrimination Act . Practitioners of the principles governing racial equality would become more global minded than those driven by racial superiority. Sinhala only legislation in the 50’s on the other hand made Sri Lankan order of thinking more local. Likewise Tamil only order of thought. In both instances it was against current immigration to ethnic homelands.

This would be damaging to migrants entering areas practicing the ‘other system’ - due to inner conflict of thought between the two systems. Ultimately it is more about the individual’s quality of thought that would lead to realizing and enjoying Sovereignty.

I enjoy this feeling and the path I followed was the path of Jus Saguinis – i.e. being Sri Lankan to the Australian following principle of Jus Solis for himself and using Jus Saguinis in listing me as Sri Lankan to punish me. I identify that order of thought – of double standards in the Canadian Sinhalese Gam Vaesiya also. It is easier for me to accept the reality of the status allocated by custodians of power to whom I am an ‘outsider’. If we do not have common laws and principles through which we form relationships to become insiders – it is better for society that we stay within our local borders – even if that is a nation of One. The Sovereign person is naturally connected to other Sovereign persons. That is the law of Nature – whichever path we take.

ARCHIVES FROM AUGUST 2007 TO JANUARY 2015