Gomin Dayasri: Legal Luminary who forged peace amidst diversity

APPRECIATION

By Dr D. CHANDRARATNA

The 30year war against the LTTE rebel group will undoubtedly be recorded by future historians as one of the most turbulent periods in the history of our country. Fortunately, it also brought out a group of public intellectuals from within the professions into a non-political arena, to counter the sinister forces, both internal and external who were adamant in undermining the sovereignty and territorial unity of the nation.

While the military were engaging the LTTE in battle, an ideological movement fanned by nationalism(s) of many sorts were dominating the print and the electronic media, some inviting geopolitical rivalries to enter the Sri Lankan struggle. It is in that war theatre that Mr Gomin Dayasri, along with other senior legal minds, such as, H.L de Silva, S. L Gunasekera, and S.A Wickremanayake, were in the forefront, fighting separatism and marshalling forces for unity and territorial integrity of the island. They were canvassing a common Sri Lankan identity (eschewing narrow identity markers), for a unitary state, equality and equity within a constitutionally structured legal framework, as the only option for a peaceful ending. Mr Gomin Dayasri argued most vociferously to uphold the unitary character of the state, and the sovereignty provisions in the 1978 constitution to remain unchanged. He along with S. L Gunasekera stood firm against many attempts at constitutional reforms, in the direction of federated structures, mooted both inside and outside of the Parliament. In all his legal arguments, this constitutional lawyer unhesitatingly admitted that the violence was but a manifestation of deep seated valid social and economic grievances of the Tamil people, which were sadly capitalized by Sri Lankan and South Indian politicians in their narrow quest for power.

A close legal adviser to former Prime Minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike, in the early stages of his career, he appeared in many cases of national significance throughout his lengthy legal career. Notable among them was the 2006 case where he, along with a few other lawyers, successfully argued before the Supreme Court that President J. R. Jayewardene’s 1987 Proclamation merging the Northern and Eastern Provinces had no force in law. The petitioners were successful in getting the Supreme Court to declare ‘with crystal clarity and irrefutable logic’ that the Presidential proclamation was null and void. A vast amount of documentary material was presented by the hard-working petitioners, to establish the point that the merger was a political contrivance, with the concealed objective of ultimately seceding the so-called Tamil Homeland from the State of Sri Lanka and establishing the State of Eelam. (H.L de Silva, A Nation in Conflict, Visidunu Publications, p. 399)

Mr Dayasri was a petitioner who argued against the 19th Amendment in a Fundamental Rights petition before the Supreme Court in 2015. After the then President Maithripala Sirisena dissolved Parliament in 2018, Mr Dayasri was also one of those who petitioned against that decision. He told the Supreme Court that while he argued against the original 19A, since it was later passed by Parliament, President Sirisena was now duty-bound to act in accordance with it, and the dissolution in less than four and a half years, without a Parliamentary resolution, was unconstitutional.

This goes to prove that Mr Dayasri was no lawyer-politician ever, and his standing on matters of national interest was always as an unattached intellectual. Ethical integrity in his professional life was never compromised. Returning to a television interview that Mr Dayasri did with Mr Faraz Shakuketaly tale on the Bond Scam, shows how distressed he was, when the institutions of justice do not act with the essential degree of impartiality and objectivity.

Mr Dayasri often went public that, ‘as lawyers we have a responsibility to come forward.’ As a professional he canvassed widely for the involvement of all professionals ‘to participate in matters of national interest. Such participation, he remarked, involves the expression of opinions, ideas, involvement in discussion and debate on public issues of national importance’. An educated man, returning from the cloistered chambers of a courthouse into the hurly burly of political debate, he did not become the hack writer for any political class, but was always the arbiter or the umpire enthroned above all.

Most Sri Lankans were aware that Mr. Gomin Dayasri appeared free in a number of cases of national importance; on the question of merger-demerger of Northeast, the question of increasing powers of the Chief Minister of Northern Province, P-TOMS case, and in the last land matter case of Shirani Bandaranayake, just to name a few.

Mr Dayasri made an effective contribution to every subject of national importance and had the will and strength of character to be actively engaged. Those admirable qualities nurtured in his formative years in the family background, and at Ananda, the premier Buddhist College in the country, stood well in his life. Ananda has imbued him with a sense of social responsibility and moral character, to stand up for what is deemed fair and just for all. His concern and involvement in politics was without affiliating with any political party, and devoid of a partisanship to any narrow ideology. History proves that the paucity of men and women of Dayasri’s ilk has contributed to the pitiful errors committed by the political classes that have managed Sri Lanka since independence.

His writings, and other media briefings and interviews, exemplified his brand of knowledge, the passion for justice and equal treatment of communities, and the vision of an intellectual elite in the destiny of our country. His arguments were plausible, reasoning was compelling in a time when our society was rocked to its core with violence and terror. He took head-on both foreign interests and non-governmental organisations interfering on the national question of falsehoods cultivated by peripatetic civil society activists. Mr Dayasri was unhesitant in articulating the fraud, the chicanery and hypocrisy of those who managed the war from the citadels of power, without mincing words in complete disregard of where they were in the hierarchy of power. Most of all, he was full of wit and sarcasm of the most biting kind.

I remember quoting in one of my books his sardonic comments of INGO activists making scandalized comments of the armed forces. He wrote in the Defence website once that, “Sri Lanka is a stopover paradise for these foreign busybodies, (NGO’s included) who could live majestically on their allowance. There is exotic food, sun and surf, safaris and misty mountains within easy reach and a population extremely friendly. NGOs provide them with freebies and roll out the red carpet. An orchid garland on arrival goes a long way. Afghanistan and Iraq, though easily available, is considered a death sentence while the only threat in Sri Lanka is the cancellation of the visa”. On the question of human rights allegations thrown at the Sri Lankan government, without a shred of evidence, Mr Dayasri was unabashedly straight forward. He wrote once about the UNHRC and its agents who were trenchant in their criticisms of the military that ‘We have faced the full blast of sniper fire and multi-barrel attacks in the name of fake diplomacy. Equally difficult has been to overcome the onslaught from Western sources appearing in pseudo humanitarian garb to preach sermons which they fail to practice’. Such left-handed compliments were many.

We, as old Anandians, are immensely proud of the contribution made by our esteemed colleague and friend. Dayasri’s memory will be cherished by those that are left behind. Hope and pray that your samsaric journey will be short.