Thousands of Bengladesh refugees who fled Libya stand in a queue of around five kilometers walk from the Ras Jdir border post to the Choucha refugee camp on March 4, 2011. Heavily armed pro-regime forces are manning the Libyan side of the border with Tunisia, and fewer than 2,000 people fled across on March 3, the UN refugees agency said today.'On previous days, between 10,000 and 15,000 fled every day into Tunisia. Yesterday less than 2,000 made it across the border,' said Melissa Fleming, spokeswoman of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. : Source :- Getty Image
by Gaja Lakshmi Paramasivam
(March 23, Melbourne, Sri Lanka Guardian) As per Christian Bible God said ‘Thou Shall Not Kill’. Lord Krishna – the Hindu God said ‘When it is your duty to fight, fight without being distracted by death.’
The question has been asked through Sri Lankan Guardian article ‘Right to kill Gaddafi : Yes or Not’ ?
The simple answer that comes to my mind is - if we kill in the course of Duty or in self defence – then it is the right type of killing. That would confirm the dignity of the person doing her/his duty and/or honor the community that has prevented more unjust deaths.
To my mind - in terms of the Libyan leader, unless the UN has the direct mandate to punish the leader, any specifically targeted killing of a person would be illegal. At that level –outsiders, have the responsibility to consciously use merit basis and hence have to have a clear ‘yes’ answer by genuine application of the relevant law. Utmost care needs to be exercised before the leader is attacked because it is also about the morale of the people through that position.
In terms of Dharma / Righteousness, a Libyan civilian who believes that the Government and its agencies have killed without just cause has the mandate to attack and even kill the leader as per her/his faith in the nation as a whole. That would be like removing a part of our body so we could continue to live. Similarly, a government killing its own people on the basis of faith . In Sri Lanka when Tamils were killed outside the boundaries of the legal system, it is only genuine faith that would protect return attack on the attackers, through the system of Natural Justice / Karma. As per faith – there needs to be no ‘hierarchy’ on calculated basis. Hence one needs to take the other side as being Equal.
Yesterday’s Sri Lanka Guardian (An Alliance of Equals) reported President Obama as saying in relation to Latin America ‘our vision for the hemisphere is founded on the idea of an alliance of equals which I have pursued since assuming the Presidency of the United States.’
When we feel we are common – the fruits of our work would be distributed equally at the physical level. If this ‘alliance of equals’ is not extended to Libya, then Americans need to consciously apply merit basis.
Using our local Sri Lankan example – the rebel movements JVP and the LTTE both claimed the faith basis to kill in the course of executing their challenge against the Government of Sri Lanka. To my mind - to the extent they included those who invested and sacrificed at the Government level – including through Public Administration, they had the moral right to kill to protect /defend their investments. To the extent they forced their people to fight – they were confirming that they lacked the belief and to that extent their killings were not as per Dharma and they would have accumulated negative karma as individuals and for their groups.
Mr. Karu Jayasuriya, a senior Sri Lankan politician says in his article entitled ‘Egypt proves that every tyrant has his day of reckoning’ says ‘People argue that Sri Lanka is no Egypt, and that the Sri Lankan president is no Mubarak. But there are parallels to be drawn here, because while they may differ in appearance, every autocrat speaks the same language, plays the very same game. Hosni Mubarak thought he would rule Egypt forever. Eighty two years old and still sporting jet black hair, Mubarak believed until 24 hours before he was forced to step down, that even though he would not contest the country’s next election, it was his son Gamal who would emerge victorious in scheduled polls in September this year.’
To my mind, one needs to be careful not to mix up faith based hierarchy with dictatorship. There are elements of the latter in most leaders of democratic countries due to minorities of all forms. It is not just the Guna/Quality of the leader that drives the outcomes but also the Guna / Quality of the People. Hence one needs to be careful not to criticize/demote without just cause. Mr. Jayasuriya says ‘Hosni Mubarak thought he would rule Egypt forever.’ This is not a democratic claim – for in a democracy one must consciously prevent oneself from thinking for the opposition. One must ‘wait’ until the opposition produces its side one needs to surface the opposition’s weaknesses through the opposition. That is what I did – here in Australia. More seriously undemocratic is the following statement by Mr. Jayasuriya ‘Eighty two years old and still sporting jet black hair, Mubarak believed until 24 hours before he was forced to step down, that even though he would not contest the country’s next election, it was his son Gamal who would emerge victorious in scheduled polls in September this year.’
The word ‘belief’ has been recklessly used here. Belief is sacred and is personal to each individual. Belief is valid only when expressed by that person. Belief resides in the inner sanctum of our being. In a court of law, we use the affidavit to express our beliefs, because belief cannot be proven externally through objective evidence. It could be confirmed but not proven. Unless we ‘feel’ with the people of a country – we do not have the right to express the projected outcomes of their actions except through common principles and values. Egyptians are not Sri Lankans nor Libyans. It would be morally wrong to apply faith based outcomes of one, indiscriminately to the other. Today it may be about governments; tomorrow it would be about our family and community leaderships. To most of us – our families and communities are the forums in which we use our political knowledge. Hence we need to be careful about what we bring inside our homes.
In terms of individual’s rights in such instances – the personal example that comes to mind relates to officers of the NSW (Australia) Sheriff breaking open the lock on our front door and entering our home to confiscate our family assets to pay the University of NSW – to recover fees of external lawyers they hired.. My husband and I did not physically resist them – for that is not our way. But we prayed for all to hear. After they entered, one of the officers asked us whether he would still be affected by our prayers - given that he did not have ‘faith’? I said ‘yes’. I said, to the extent he did his duty and duty alone – he would not be individually affected by his actions; but that he would be affected as part of his organization if the organization was being unjust.
At each level, most of the time we do have choices. In the case of the above officers for example, they could have said that they did not have authorization to enter the building that our home-unit was a part of. They acted illegally by influencing the employee of the management of our building to allow themselves entry into our Security Building. In their list of assets to be collected were religious items. I do believe that our open prayers influenced them not to touch those religious items. We concluded that to that extent they were able to believe that we were not punishable. They exercised their ‘choice’ and said ‘No’ through their discretionary powers.
Belief is not easily developed. The faster we think of benefits the slower the development of belief. The level at which we make sacrifices towards common cause or principles and values is the level at which we have the moral right to act to defend. Our sacrifices are the foundations of our belief.
The external attackers of Libyan leadership need to consciously work out their boundaries as per the UN guidelines. Otherwise the individual and the country of that individual would be personally responsible for the karma – for better or for worse.
Post a Comment