[On Sept 21, 2017, the Steering Committee of the Constitutional Assembly presented its report on the new constitution to Parliament proposing the devolution of power within a unitary state.
This proposal is far short of what the Tamils have asked for. The question is: will the proposals be a step towards resolving the national question, or simply be an enabler to repeat the grievances which led the country to 30 years of civil war?] Is Sri Lanka’s Tamil party selling out the Tamil people?] – By JS Tissainayagam | 4th October 2017 through Asian Correspondent.
Following is part of the presentation by Wikipedia about Mr Tissainayagam who was detained by the detained by the Terrorism Investigation Division of the Sri Lankan Police in 2008 and indicted under Prevention of Terrorism Act:
[The only other pieces of evidence that the Government presented against Tissainayagam was two paragraphs he had written;
“1. In a July 2006 editorial, under the headline, “Providing security to Tamils now will define northeastern politics of the future,” Tissainayagam wrote: “It is fairly obvious that the government is not going to offer them any protection. In fact it is the state security forces that are the main perpetrator of the killings.”
2. A part of a November 2006 article on the military offensive in Vaharai, in the east, which said, “Such offensives against the civilians are accompanied by attempts to starve the population by refusing them food as well as medicines and fuel, with the hope of driving out the people of Vaharai and depopulating it. As this story is being written, Vaharai is being subject to intense shelling and aerial bombardment.”
On 31 August 2009, the High Court in Sri Lanka sentenced Tissainayagam to a total of 20 years rigorous imprisonment, for arousing “communal feelings” by writing and publishing articles that criticised the government’s treatment of Sri Lankan Tamil civilians affected by the war, and for raising money to fund the magazine in which the articles were published in furtherance of terrorism.]
After my liberating experiences here in Australia, I now tend to read the work of others at Energy level. I was in Vaharai in 2005, due to my commitment to Tsunami victims who were devotees of Kathirgama Murugan. In other words, to my mind, the opportunity happened due to our common belief. I learnt through that experience – that the Tamils living in that area had more in common with folks living in rural North than with the folks of urban Jaffna. It is also the difference between Indigenous Australians living largely in indigenous culture and those who are multicultural ‘urban-Australians of indigenous origin’. The measure used to value the former is time based and is different to the measure used to value the latter – using space they Energized during a particular period.
I believe that by connecting to Indigenous Australians here in Coogee – I inherited their ownership value here in Coogee. This happened largely through my workplace contributions. This has translated as ownership of our home-unit at my level of work contribution during my period as an employee – even though I was paid relatively less than ‘Australian qualified’ and / or White Australians who ‘look’ Australian. One has to raise/allow the rising of, one’s work value to Energy level where our the work of one energizes the other. It is that unseen, unexpected component that confirms ownership.
True Ownership of Land in rural areas are defined largely through invisible time basis. Hence the law of Prescriptive Rights. In urban areas on the other hand, ownership of land is largely on the basis of money based transfer and/or by inheritance.
Mr. Tissainayagam’s claim would be more appropriate to urban Tamils rather than the folks of Vaharai who abandoned their rights to armed rebels – for one reason or the other. The main reason was that their own sons and daughters were part of rebel groups. Like in politics – their ‘reasoning’ is that of the rebels and therefore – could not be measured by an independent person except through objectively measurable evidence. Lankan rebels were formed largely in rural environments.
Mr Tissainayagam himself would have been measured differently by different groups in Sri Lanka. The pathway through which the media measured was bound to be different to the way the armed forces responsible to eliminate armed warriors would have measured. If the charges were therefore by made by the government responsible for the armed forces, the measure has to be deeper than through direct evidence. If indeed Mr Tissainayagam made money out of his media work far above breakeven level – then the ‘other side’ of that profit also travels with that profit. If that was not the case, but the Government made that to be so, then the Government dilutes its own Governance Energy. One whose work has been raised to Energy level would have transcended that ‘other side’.
One way in which Mr Tissainayagam could have prevented dilution of his own governance Energy would have been to measure armed rebels with the same measure as that used for the government – that they were killing the people in that area – as if they were the government. Since Rebels are not official – they ought to be measured as per common belief by insiders or common outcome produced on project basis by outsiders. Former measure would be ‘right’ for that believer and the manifestation valid only for local consumption covered by that belief. But when bringing it outside the boundaries of common belief such expressions need to be translated and expressed in language common to all consumers – including the two sides to the war in this instance.
Truth personal to one is no longer Truth if expressed in an environment where that expression would produce profits and losses to outsiders – beyond those who contributed to that Energy and their heirs by belief. That is the automatic ceiling placed by Truth Itself. Mr Tissainayagam was right for Mr Obama – who actively practiced multiculturalism. But Mr Tissainayagam was wrong for the president of a country whose population is largely driven by Subjective powers and ancestry – which are vertical measures on time basis. If we were democratic – there would be no need for separation of powers – even between the Judiciary and the Executive, leave alone between various cultures. The separations would happen naturally as Diversity.
Minorities driven by ‘tradition’ alone – as in Tamil only – need to keep their work values local to earn the right to self-govern. Tamils who follow the Rebels would therefore perceive a different picture to Tamils who follow National Political elders. Mr Tissainayagam for example states as follows about the Northern Province Chief Minister C. V. Wigneswaran:
[Northern Province Chief Minister C. V. Wigneswaran has repeatedly censured the military’s presence and interference with civic life in the province. But since he is constitutionally barred from working on such matters, civilians in the North and East bear the brunt of a militarised society. The Steering Committee’s proposals will only perpetuate this problem.]
Promoting Mr Wigneswaran confirms promoting Northern Province politics at the level not of Jaffna Tamils but of rural Tamils such as Vanni Tamils due to their commonness with the LTTE and its cadre. But that separates Mr Wigneswaran from the heritage developed by politicians who took the common path of politics. I live and function as part of Vaddukoddai and the civilians there do not complain of such interference. They complain actively about caste based reverse discrimination – promoted actively by Rebels for their own purposes. Now that there is no active war – the only measures known to the seniors include at social level ‘caste-based’ measures which also cause separation when juniors are abused. Juniors being juniors are highly likely to retaliate on the basis of ‘outcomes’ through which they falsely elevate themselves. Mr. Wigneswaran was ‘right’ for Colombo, using common measures. He is wrong for those who have invested in Common Sri Lankan life, including his own alma mater – the Judiciary in Colombo. Mr Tissainayagam would tend to think that Mr Wigneswaran was right because of his own affiliation with indigenous Vaharai community whose pain became his at least for the sake of his journalism.
Had I also supported the Wigneswaran camp – I would not have earned the following appreciation from a journalist of Sinhalese origin, who is read by a significant proportion of Tamils known to me:
[Felt blessed to hear your voice after a long time. To my mind, without your generous help, I would be nowhere.]
Some sections of the Tamil media do recognize my work but on merit basis. They are not heirs like the above journalist who is humble enough to take junior position in that aspect of our common work. I am yet to identify with the Tamil parallel of the above Sri Lankan heir. Most of them tend to ‘tell me’.
Mr Wigneswaran is a good example of Tamil Community without independent Judiciary. Jaffna folks who are the best ruling group in North would naturally oppose such separation where the current Jaffna Judiciary and their heirs would become the future kings and queens of the Tamil community. Just because the pro-Vanni group is not able to identify with the value added through a constitution does not mean we – the pro-Jaffna group do not.
The Right to Oppose did not exist during LTTE rule. It does now under consciousness of supervision of Colombo. Colombo supervision includes supervision of all Tamils of Sri Lanka not attached to that particular area only but to that area also.