Delegates at the UNHR Council should reject the report presented by Navi Pillai as her impartiality is in question.

The UNO according to its Charter is to develop good relations with its member states, to develop, peace and security. UNO is to harmonize the actions of its member states to solve their common economic, cultural or humanitarian problems.  It accepts the equality of all states without consideration of their  economic or political status.  Every one working in the UN System from the Director General to the junior most staff member should be an embodiments of the noble principles laid down in the UN Charter.

All members of the UN System should perform the duties allocated to them without bias, or prejudice  towards any Member State, and with absolute impartiality.  They should extend that impartiality not only to the Member States, but also towards Communities  within Member states without being favourable to one, and biased against another. 

These are the noble principles of the UN Charter that should be emulated by  every  member of the UNSystem.   Therefore in Selecting a Professional Staff Member  as a Head of a UN Commission, those who are responsible for such appointments should be careful to select a person  who could stand upto  those noble principles of the UNCharter,  against whom no finger  could be raised for partiality, bias, or prejudice.

Has the UNO selection board In the appointment of Ms. Navi Pillai as the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights investigated  her suitability  in terms of the Noble Principles of the UN System laid down by the founding fathers of UNO ?

Even though the predecessor of the Present UN Commissioner for Human Rights , the Canadian Ms. Louise Arbour, lacked impartiality due to her being influenced by the Tamil Community in Canada, Navi Pillai the Present UN Commissioner for Human Rights is on the other hand  pro-Sri Lanka Tamils by being herself a Tamil, and suffered for being a Tamil. Therefore she is biased against the Government of Sri Lanka on the question of Sri Lanka Tamils. 

Hence her suitability to present a report on how Sri Lanka eliminated Tamil terrorists, and how it affected the Tamil people  in Sri Lanka is not acceptable. The Secretary General of UNO should not have allowed her to investigate and present a report on Sri Lanka as there is an evident  conflict of interest.

The Board of Selection of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, should not have gone by her qualifications alone, but should have examined her background and her  psychological suitability to hold this very high post in the UN System, as she has to work with countries having  Tamil Communities, to which she herself belongs.

She belonged to the South African Tamil Community.  She was born  and brought up in a  poor ghetto of the South African Tamils in Durban.  She suffered under South African apartheid  system   from her birth, and  throughout  her growing years.  She suffered because she was a Tamil.  

She recounts her child hood in her own words, “ We lived in Clairwood… a victim of race riots in 1949 and that’s what  caused the fear  on part of the residents of Clairwood, including my parents.  With me firstly, when I was six years old  I was the victim of robbery. My mother had given me my father’s entire monthly wages, which was Rs.5 to take to him.  He was a bus driver I was supposed to meet him at the corner and hand his money to him.  Meanwhile he had not asked for the money it was his conductor who had planned that ruse and he grabbed the money from my hand off he went.

My mother beat me up for that. I don’t know why the victim get beaten.  Anyway,and I ended up giving evidence in court at the age of seven in the same Durban High Court where I many years later sat as a judge….. but really what bugged me is that we didn’t get the Rs.5 back and I felt so guilty as a child that I had caused the lost to my parents.” 

The seeds  of racial hatred  was thus born in her from her very tender age of  six years.  The Registrar of the Natal University had advised her against studying law as it was not imaginable that a non-white lawyer gives instructions to white secretaries.  However she overcame difficulties opening her own law practice, as nobody would employ her, and becoming in 1995 to be the first coloured lawyer to appear in the South African Supreme Court.

It had been a continuous struggle against discrimination by the White apartheid South African Government because of her being a Tamil.  Thus she went on to become an anti apartheid activist.  These are remarkable achievements, but they also resulted in her becoming a staunch defender of those who are  discriminated against for being Tamils.  In the mean time LTTE had infiltrated into the South African Tamil Community in Durban and organised a series of LTTE Front Organisations.  They come in contact with the ANC Leaders and organised training Camps.

The LTTE carried out propaganda in South Africa for the Tamils in Sri Lanka.  They began drawing parallels with Sri Lanka and South Africa, equalling the treatment of Tamils in Sri Lanka to  that of the blacks in South Africa.  They drew parallels between British handing of South Africa to Boers with Sri Lanka to the Sinhalese. 

They claimed that in Sri Lanka the Sinhalese have occupied the lands of the Tamils, and made Tamils foreigners in their own homelands.  They did not hesitate to compare Mandela to Prbhakaran.  The LTTE front organisations started working with the South African Parliamentarians, and began collecting funds for the LTTE to campaign against the Government of Sri Lanka.

The anti-apartheid  activist that was  Navineethan  Pillai was certainly in contact with some of these LTTE Front Organisers as she was sympathetic to the cause of the Tamils. Having met these  sympathetic LTTE agents in South Africa Navi Pillai had no reason to believe that the Tamil were terrorists.  They were  only fighting to free themselves from the anti Tamil  Sinhala government.  This must have been driven deep into her mind having herself suffered from apartheid because she was a Tamil.

Her appointment as the UN  Commisioner for Human Rights, was for her an occasion to defend also the rights of the Tamils discriminated against by any government in the world.  But that regrettable psychological bias against any government  which is claimed to have discriminated against Tamils would  not allow Navi Pillai to investigate such a  problem impartially and objectively.  This is what has happened to Navi Pillai in investigating the problem of Tamils with the Government of Sri Lanka.

The problems of the Tamils in Sri Lanka have become her problem, and therefore she is out to take revenge from Sri Lanka Sinhala Government, as she was taking revenge from the apartheid Government of South Africa that discriminated against her for being a Tamil.

Navineetham Pillai is therefore  not suitable to have been appointed as the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.  Her background had not been sufficiently investigated and her  psychological make up  after having been born and  brought up in a brutal apartheid surrounding ,  and suffered  for her accident of birth as a Tamil which would remain a prejudice which will blind her to objective evaluation of political issues involving Tamil people,  had not been taken into consideration in selecting her to  such a high post in the UN System.

Jiddu Krishnamurthy, the well known mystic philosopher had said that each one of us  is a fractioned being.  An individual is therefore fractioned. One fraction is  of the  nationality, one of the religion, another of the social status, another of the profession, and so on.  Hence when one looks at a problem it will be with the fraction that is concerned most with the problem.  That does not allow one to see the whole of the problem.  Only way to be impartial and objective in looking at a problem is therefore to look at the it  as an un-fractioned whole.

Navi Pillai is therefore looking at the Tamil problem in Sri Lanka from the fraction of her Tamilness because of which she herself suffered.  In such a situation Navi Pillai

will never see the reality, and understand  the truth of terrorism in Sri Lanka. 

She will not see that  Sri Lanka government and its Armed Forces after elimination of terrorism is not discriminating against the Tamil Community,  but treating  the people of all Communities  as citizens of one Sri Lanka, without differentiating the people as belonging to a minority Community  or a majority Community. 

In what ever way it is explained, for Navi Pillai the problem is how she sees it.

In that situation the honourable Delegates at the present session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva should reject  the report present by the UN High Commissioner Navi Pillai, and consider her unsuitability to  hold the post of  the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights  and investigate into the problem of Sri Lanka as there is an evident conflict of interest.