 |
| A Sri Lankan Tamil woman cycles with a child walks past a building damaged during the civil war in Jaffna on July 24, 2011. A political party that was closely linked with the defeated Tamil Tiger rebels won control of two-thirds of local councils in Sri Lanka's former war zone, results showed. - Getty Image |
by Gaja Lakshmi Paramasivam
(August 01, Melbourne, Sri Lanka Guardian) There is much talk about reconciliation in relation to the Sri Lankan ethnic problem. My first use of conscious use of Reconciliation was as an articled clerk at M/s Satchithananda Schokman Wijeyeratne & Co – Chartered Accountants. No, it was NOT an exercise of reconciling the differences between the three cultures – depicted in the name. It was to reconcile between the Bank Balance as per Bank Statement and as per our Cash Book.
Using this simple exercise – that most of us perform in relation to home bank accounts – I take it that reconciliation is needed when there are two sides recording the same event – one who has custody in trust and the other the real owner – the Government and the Citizen. In the case of the Sri Lankan issue – we need to recognize that the two sides are the Sinhalese community and the Tamil community. Those who do not see the two sides need to be passive observers and not active participants. No pain – no gain at global level.
At a recent meeting of the two communities here in Australia, a Sinhalese said that according to her most/all migrants from Sri Lanka to Australia were coming for economic reasons. A Tamil said that to him the Boat People from Sri Lanka were coming due to economic reasons. He said he knew this from his own village.
They are both known to have certificates at the higher levels of the Sri Lankan education system. Here in Australia, the Sinhalese lady seemed to be more successful as a professional than the Tamil man. I asked the Sinhalese lady, whether she had experienced racial discrimination here in Australia. My interpretation of the lady’s response was ‘no’. I said I have – that I was a high performer and on merit basis I was measured as an outstanding performer. Hence when I did not know of a reason why I was not being listened to in relation to my work and position, I attributed it to race. I attributes through both – my belief as well as merit – through intellectual derivation through Common Laws of Australia which include Anti Racial laws. I said that like this lady of majority Sinhalese race claiming there was no racial discrimination in Sri Lanka, some of my White Australian friends and colleagues also said to me that what happened to me had happened to them also. As Gandhi said I also said ‘there is room for all our beliefs’. We just need to keep within the boundaries of our beliefs and not speak on behalf of others – to say that their experiences were not due to one reason or the other. To know through belief – they need to have the experience as a person with lesser powers. Those who have belief through other avenues – such as common religion, profession etc – would know through that belief which is the easier and quicker path. That is what we feel with the unarmed Tamils who suffered which would be more easily accessed by those who feel with the unarmed Sinhalese who suffered during all insurgencies in Sri Lanka. Once we use arms – which is a direct basis of merit based assessment – and/or support armed struggle – we block the path to the belief of those who believe in racial equality and those who believe that race is the reason why they were attacked.
LLRC – Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission in Sri Lanka is the proof that the Government of Sri Lanka has accepted that there is an ethnic divide – unless they say that it is a reconciliation between the Government and the Citizen. Be it in Sri Lanka or in Australia we of the minority races accept the Governments elected by the majority races. An educated citizen without power to identify her/himself with the Government and not being able to develop hope that one day s/he would be able to influence the form of Government, would naturally feel depressed and miserable. That citizen often would not have the same level of expectations of another Government – for example – the Australian Government – as s/he would have had of the Government of the environment in which s/he was born and brought up.
The above Tamil said that he had greater difficulty when he moved to Colombo from his home in North than when he moved from Colombo to Sydney. To my mind, that was a major reason why he was/is not as successful as the Sinhalese lady who said she was from the Colombo suburb of Nugegoda. The Tamil ‘saw’ more differences in culture between Colombo and Pandatheruppu in North – than the Sinhalese lady from Nugegoda to Colombo CBD and then from Colombo to Sydney. The lady claimed that she also had suffered due to the quota system on district basis for University entrance. Again – the same question - when is it racial and when is it not racial?
Details of why and how I considered the pain and loss I experienced in Australia to be racial is in my book. Until we know for ourselves without any doubt – we need to be bound by the principles of highest government in the issue. In this instance it is the United Nations. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination was born out of the pain of Sharpeville Massacre, on 21 March 1960. UNESCO confirms this by marking 21 March as the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.
The picture / form of this event as seen by independent observers and accepted by the UN through the above Convention – is the form in which Racial Discrimination is intellectually tested and proven at the global level – which assessment all governments below that level need to accept – the way we accept judgments of our Courts. . Any party to this Convention has the legal obligation to consciously compare with that Sharpeville picture to test for racial discrimination.
On the side of the Government were the Police and other armed forces and on the side of the citizens were Black protestors who were unarmed except for rocks. The event began with unarmed protestors expressing their dissent in relation to the pass laws – by openly declaring that they did not carry the passes as required by the Government of the ruling race. These protestors and offered themselves to the Police (Gandhi style). It ended with the armed forces opening fire and killing 69, including women and children.
The summary is – if the Government is apparently of one race and the governed at that time and place of the event is/are apparently of another and the Government’s side exercises greater power than is needed to defend itself (which therefore amounts to attack/offence) the act qualifies as Racial Discrimination.
When I was repeatedly arrested by the Police at the University of New South Wales – which action was not supported by any law, I was unarmed. The officers of the University who called the Police on behalf of the Vice Chancellor – as well as the Police who arrested me were all White – and I am Black. I was punished as a criminal – sent to prison and was threatened with enforced medication for alleged mental illness. These actions were far above the level of reaction needed to defend any person and/or property I might have attacked. I did not attack at all. Not even mentally, to my mind. I did not resist Police arrest and even went along with verbal treatment by psychiatrists and probation officer. It was when I was threatened with enforced medication that I panicked and pleaded with the medical officers as well as armed officers not to. The medical officers who contacted my husband and heard from him that I was highly regarded by many at the University of New South Wales, including the Dean of Medicine, Professor Bruce Dowton, whom my husband asked the Doctors to contact for verification – that they stopped threatening me with enforced medication. They sent me back to prison – albeit to its psychiatric section this time.
On the basis of educated individual to educated individual – it is rarely that one would come across racial discrimination in a country that has a fairly high status as an educated country. In such countries – racial discrimination often happens between individual/s and the Government whose armed powers are used by the ‘other side’ individuals. Those arms empower the individuals to attack from a position of advantage. Whilst in custody, I was anxious that the police officer who was using bad language with me might use the gun.
It is human nature not to attack its own. This is promoted primarily through the family system. Difference in races confirm that this power to protect is weakened by the differences – as if they are not family. They may or may not be if we think deeply. But strangers do not think deeply about each other. Hence where there is physical interaction/attack, physical differences are taken as part of the reason influencing the attack. Through Sharpeville followed by UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination – all International citizens are required to include race as the major factor influencing actions, when the parties to a conflict are of different races and one has taken up higher position to attack the other – outside/beyond merit / legal provisions. These provisions to be valid, need to be at the UN / Global level and not local level. Once we accept the common parent/government we have to accept their judgment and act accordingly until we are able to prove otherwise through Due Processes.
We may or may not believe in the our parent but so long as we are part of a family headed by our parent – we have to accept their definitions as ours. If the UN says it is ethnic – all Sri Lankans including Sinhalese have to accept that it is ethnic. After all, we are expected to and most of us do – accept governments elected by majority - as our government – irrespective of whether we believe that they are our government or not. The Sinhalese lady who said words to the effect that there was no racial discrimination in Australia is yet to accept the Australian Government as her government, because if there was no racial discrimination in Australia we ought to Eliminate the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 without wasting money. Until this legislation is in force, we need to give our pain and / or loss form through this act – provided the above Sharpeville elements are present. I did not consciously apply the Sharpeville elements. But I absorbed pain and losses beyond reasonable merit margins. Hence I developed belief.
Likewise, the deaths and suffering of all unarmed Tamils due to actions of armed Sinhalese – beyond reasonable limits – naturally develop in Tamils who have invested in and therefore believe in unarmed defence – that the attacks were racially motivated and in breach of the UN principles on this issue.
If we accept a different race as government because of majority rule – then majority race as the responsibility to accept UN as its Government – even though it may not believe in the UN. What’s good for us is good for the majority race – says the law of karma. We say in Tamil – Aanaikku oru kaalam; Poonaikku oru kaalam. There is a time for the elephant and there is a time for the cat. I guess the closest English saying is ‘What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.’
Post a Comment