Norwegian Loyalty

by Gaja Lakshmi Paramasivam

(June 12, Melbourne, Sri Lanka Guardian) I write in response to the article ‘Rajitha urges fresh dialogue with Norway’ by Shamindra Ferdinando, published in today’s Sunday Island.

Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe hands over CFA
 document to then Norwegian Ambassador Jon Westborg -File Image

As per my investment in the Ceasefire aspect of the war – manifested through the agreement between the Hon Ranil Wickremesinghe and the LTTE in 2002, Norway was strongly influenced by the faith that Tamils of Northern Sri Lanka had in Norway. Without that investment, Norway did not have the moral authority to get directly involved. To the extent Norway used that faith to get involved, it had the obligation to deliver as per the Trust of Tamils and not on merit basis. On merit basis one has the responsibility to calculate and show – wins and defeats. Not when one is driven by Truth. One conscious of Truth lives in Peace.

Public Service is service only when one works without being conscious of money and/or status from that work. To the extent one is conscious of wins and defeats – one is using the Public for Business.

The above article says about the Government Representative’s discussions with Norwegians ‘The minister said: "I told them in no uncertain terms that the LTTE was responsible for causing the war. The President didn’t have any other option but to respond to their conventional military challenge. Sri Lanka shouldn’t be held responsible for defeating the LTTE." ‘

Once the word defeat is expressed – it shows a ‘business’ basis and not ‘service’ basis. If LTTE is seen as having been defeated, then the Sri Lankan Government is seen as being the side that ‘won’. In other words, the Government used the LTTE to do business – military business.

The article says also ‘Commenting on the ongoing 17th Sessions of the Human Rights Council in Geneva, Minister Senaratne said that the country shouldn’t take lightly the growing international pressure on the human rights front.

It would be a grave mistake on the part of the government to play politics with the HR issue, he said. "We have to address these issues sensibly, without letting hotheads confuse the issue by making idiotic statements. We aren’t in a position to take on the entire world, though having conclusively defeating the LTTE." 

Again the talk about defeat. At Human Rights level - there are no wins nor defeats. There is just restoration of basic rights as per the civilization of a society. This level varies from group to group. Again, the Human Right of a Minority – such as that of a Tamil in Sri Lanka – be they LTTE or otherwise, would look different to that of a Sinhalese. Equal Opportunity would be part of a Fundamental Right of a minority power whereas Priority Opportunity on the basis of inherited power would be the Fundamental Right of majority power. The majority’s power to elect government and is taken as representing government and the higher status that goes with it until known otherwise, is thus balanced through minority’s right to Equal Status until known otherwise on merit basis.

During my war here in Australia, to claim my right to Equal Opportunity to express myself, White Australians claimed that they also went through similar pain and loss and therefore did not believe that my pain and loss happened due to racial discrimination. I have heard this argument being presented also by Sinhalese – including those who have certificates that they are Human Rights Specialists. Equal Opportunity to migrant is the parallel of Inherited Status to one born in the country on the side that is seen as the hier. The older the residence the stronger the value of that inheritance. In a democracy, the ability to elect government through majority vote is balanced through the right to claim Equal status until known otherwise. This is however rarely practiced even in Western countries. In America too – we witnessed, American president being questioned on whether he was born in America. If a migrant could not be president of America then Americans by policy are acting in breach of Equal Opportunity principles and therefore fundamentals of Democracy itself.

Recently, when going through sections of the customary laws of Tamils of Sri Lanka, I was impressed that the dowry given to daughters was balanced at the fundamental level by the inheritance to sons. Daughters who leave parental home to live with the husband’s side are the parallels of migrants whilst sons who stay at home and submit their earnings to enhance ancestral wealth are the parallels of natural citizens. According to Thesawalamai sons are not to ask for any share of wealth until they get married but it is the parents’ duty to pass on paternal inheritance to the sons. The gap between such inheritance and dowry (which is usually more than inherited money) is the status inherited by the sons. Likewise, natural citizens and majority race that has the power to elect government. They should not expressly seek economic progress so long as they have the power to elect government. They have the primary responsibility to focus on Service without profits or losses.

With such consciousness of inherited power – majority race would lose consciousness of wins and losses – i.e. – doing business with the Public. Any such business needs to be through issues above the base line. Then the Government would act as per Dharma.