The following are excerpts from a recent interview with Lionel Bopage, who was in the 1971 JVP leadership, conducted in Sinhala by Sirasa TV’s Ten Questions program hosted by Wasantha Masinghege.
Lionel Bopage, the first General Secretary of the JVP, was here recently from Australia where he is domiciled. Now 82, Bopage was among the key figures involved in the formation of the JVP and was a member of its early ‘Committee of 21’ leadership.
He joined the movement at the age of 24, influenced by his father’s involvement in the Communist Party and his own commitment to left-wing politics. He later became increasingly critical of the JVP’s position on the national question and resigned from the party in 1983.
Following the 1983 ethnic riots, Bopage was detained for six months despite maintaining that he had no involvement in the violence. Amid death threats during the second JVP insurrection, he eventually fled Sri Lanka, first to Japan as a UN refugee and later to Australia, where he worked in research and development for the Australian Federal Government.
In the interview, Bopage reflects on the 1971 insurrection, the ideological differences that led to his departure from the JVP, his life in exile and the transformation of the movement into a political force now leading the NPP government. While expressing hope for the present administration, he stresses the need for long-term reforms, public consultation and a stronger role for civil society.
Q: You have returned to a Sri Lanka that is very different from the country you left. How do you feel about being back?
A:The climate remains the same, although the heat (climatic) is difficult after so many years in Melbourne. But what is more important is the change in the political atmosphere. I see a sense of change which is encouraging, although I remain cautious.
There is still a deep sense of community in Sri Lanka, despite the economic difficulties. But there is also considerable stress and what I would describe as a simmering anger in society.
Australia is a developed capitalist country with a large middle class and a significant immigrant population. Sri Lanka still has a large oppressed rural population and remnants of feudal social structures. The social values are also different.
For example, Sri Lankan families generally look after their elderly members at home. In Australia’s more individualistic and busy society, elderly people often move into aged-care facilities. Sri Lankan villages retain a strong sense of mutual dependence, whereas Australians tend to lead more private lives. Yet Australians are very willing to help when there is a crisis.
I also observe a great deal of impatience and aggression in Sri Lanka. You can see it particularly on the roads. Australians, despite not being a Buddhist society, generally display greater patience, calmness and willingness to listen to others.
Q: Looking back after more than five decades, how do you assess the 1971 JVP insurrection?
A:I now believe that the 1971 insurrection was a historical mistake and should not have happened.
I joined the JVP when I was 24. My father had been involved in the Communist Party, and I was influenced by progressive publications such as Nava Lokaya. During the early underground period, I used the alias ‘Laiya’ and was part of the Committee of 21, which formed the core leadership of the movement.
The JVP was being pushed towards armed struggle. The United Front government had established a committee specifically to suppress us, and this created a vicious cycle. The more we felt suppressed, the more we believed we had to arm ourselves.
The decision to attack on April 5 was a desperate one, particularly following the arrest of Rohana Wijeweera. But we had already lost the element of surprise because of the premature attack in Monaragala on April 4, which affected coordination.
Looking back, I believe the tragedy could have been avoided if the JVP had been provided with a legal and democratic avenue through which to express its grievances.
Q: You resigned from the JVP in 1983. What was the fundamental reason for your departure?
A:The central issue was the national question. While I was in prison in the early 1970s, I met Tamil youth who had been arrested after protesting, including over issues concerning language and university access. I came to understand that many of their grievances were legitimate.
Between 1972 and 1973, I was involved in developing the JVP’s position on the national question. Together with Rohana Wijeweera, I supported the right to self-determination. That did not mean supporting separation; it was a democratic principle.
However, after the 1982 Presidential election, some within the party blamed this position for the JVP’s poor performance among Sinhala voters. The party increasingly moved towards a nationalist position.
The situation became particularly difficult in 1983 when I issued a press statement condemning the killing of a Tamil fisherman by a southerner. The leadership asked me to stop speaking about self-determination.
I could not accept that. A General Secretary has to believe in the principles of the party he represents. I am a Marxist, and a Marxist accepts the principle of self-etermination. I could not call myself a Marxist while remaining in a party that rejected that principle.
Q: What ultimately forced you into exile?
A: By 1989, the situation had become lethal. I was facing death threats from more than one side. After the 1983 riots, I was detained for six months even though I had no involvement in the violence. During the second JVP insurrection, the threats became even more serious.
With the help of friends, I eventually fled to Japan as a UN refugee and later settled in Melbourne. My family joined me there, and we received assistance from a Christian community with accommodation and integration.
I subsequently worked in research and development for the Australian Federal Government until my retirement. I continue to live in Australia because my family is settled there. I have no property in Sri Lanka and depend on my Australian pension.
Q: Did you ever imagine that the JVP would one day become the leading force in government?
A:Honestly, no. I never expected to see a JVP-led government in my lifetime.
I supported Anura Kumara Dissanayake at the 2024 Presidential election because I considered his platform the most progressive one available at the time.
But we have to be realistic about what the present government is. This is not a socialist government. The NPP was not elected to establish socialism. It is operating within a capitalist framework and pursuing what can broadly be described as a social democratic program.
It is also constrained by the IMF agreements inherited from the previous government.
I hope the government succeeds because its success is ultimately the country’s success.
Q: How do you assess the present Opposition?
A:I am not happy with its current role. Parliament should not be a place merely for making wild allegations or exchanging verbal tirades. The Opposition should critically examine government policies, challenge proposals that are unrealistic or harmful to the people and stand up for people’s rights.
A large part of today’s Opposition has previously been in government, and many of the problems the country faces are the result of policies adopted by those governments. If the present administration is attempting to correct those problems, the Opposition has a duty to assist when the proposed measures are in the national interest.
So far, I have not seen an alternative program capable of addressing the country’s existing crises. I would welcome a political force that is better than the incumbent government. That would be good for the country. But at present, I do not see such an alternative force. If one is to emerge, it must ultimately come from the people.
Q: What would be your advice to the present government?
A:It must move away from what I call a ‘firefighting mode’. Governments inevitably have to respond to immediate crises, but temporary solutions cannot substitute for long-term systemic reform. The government should focus more on addressing the underlying causes of the country’s problems rather than simply dealing with one crisis after another.
Most importantly, it must consult the people and civil society organizations.
History has shown us what can happen when governments lose their connection with the people. We have seen examples in countries such as the Soviet Union and China where governments moved away from genuine engagement with society and eventually went down the wrong path.
The government should therefore listen more carefully to civil organizations and the public. I would also like to see the JVP and its political offshoots, including the Frontline Socialist Party, put aside personal animosities and work together where they can for the benefit of the country.
Q: After everything that happened, what is your hope for Sri Lanka?
A:I hope the present change in political direction succeeds. But no government should be given blind loyalty. People and civil society must remain engaged and continue to question governments. What matters is not whether a particular party remains in power, but whether the country moves towards a society in which people have greater freedom, dignity and opportunity.
The government must remain connected to the people. If it does that, it has a better chance of avoiding the mistakes of the past.
from The Island https://ift.tt/O9Ekn3B
The heat is awful these days and it is certainly going to get worse. With that in mind, I’m giving you, this week, some beauty tips to help you … let’s say ‘Beat the Heat!’