A critical note on People’s Struggle Alliance press briefing in Jaffna
By Ragavan
The People’s Struggle Alliance, a coalition including the Front-Line Socialist Party, the New Democratic Marxist-Leninist Party, various student activists, and individuals, held a press conference in Jaffna on July 23, 2024. This date holds symbolic significance due to the state-sponsored violence against Tamils in July 1983.
I watched the conference online and wish to critically engage with the issues addressed by the speakers. I concur with their views on the economic challenges faced by Sri Lankans and their opposition to the IMF deal for managing the debt crisis. The argument that an unmandated government entered into an agreement with the IMF, thereby burdening ordinary citizens with debt repayment while those responsible for accruing the debt face no consequences, is accurate. The Alliance strongly opposed the IMF agreement and the involvement of multinational corporations and foreign governments.
The Alliance’s stance on the majoritarian Sinhala-Buddhist state structure, violence against Tamils and other minorities, the brutal conflict waged against Tamils by the armed forces, military occupation in the north and east, land grabbing under the guise of archaeological excavations using distorted history, and the lack of justice for the disappeared are all positive indicators.
Contradictory statements
However, I am deeply concerned about the contradictory statements from three Tamil speakers from the Alliance regarding the ‘national question.’ There appears to be no consistent approach to this issue. The speakers asserted that, unlike other parties, the Alliance’s political programme is genuine and people-centered, and they called on Tamils to join their struggle. However, they did not clearly define the solution to the ‘national question.’ The speakers introduced themselves as members of the Alliance and stated that the press conference aimed to briefly outline the party’s position on socio-economic issues and the ‘national question.’
One speaker, Swasthika Arulingam, mentioned that the 13th Amendment is part of the constitution and that political parties are claiming they will fully implement it. She stated that such declarations would not solve the ‘national question,’ and instead, the Alliance proposed suyadchi units (self-rule units). However, she did not explain why the 13th amendment has not been fully implemented. The Alliance also failed to clarify what these self-rule units entail. Will they retain the province as the self-rule unit as outlined in the 13th Amendment, or are they proposing a different model? Any move to relegate the unit of devolution without substantial power-sharing will likely be viewed with suspicion by Tamils in the North and East, and Muslims in these provinces may also be wary. Therefore, it is crucial for the Alliance to clarify its position on the unit of devolution, the powers to be devolved, and mechanisms to prevent the central government or the Executive President from unilaterally retracting devolved powers without the province’s consent.
My understanding is that the lack of political will in the south, coupled with the immense power vested in the executive presidential system, is a major impediment to the full implementation of the 13th amendment. Provincial Governors, appointed by the President, have the authority to dissolve Provincial Governments. The unitary government has been reluctant to grant police and land powers to Provincial Governments due to its majoritarian nature and fear of backlash from Sinhala Buddhist elements. Furthermore, if the southern polity is unwilling to fully implement the 13th Amendment, which is already part of the constitution, how does the Alliance plan to convince them that self-rule is the solution to the national question? The key political task is to campaign for the abolition of the executive presidency, advocate for devolution of powers, and disseminate a counter-hegemonic discourse to challenge the majoritarian mindset. Without creating such a discourse, these proposals have no meaning.
Meaning of Suyadchi
Let me elaborate on the meaning of Suyadchi in the Sri Lankan Tamil political parlance. The Federal Party in Sri Lanka campaigned for a federal state structure where Tamils in the north and east could form a federal government within a united Sri Lanka. However, in 1968, V. Navaratnam, a Federal Party parliamentarian, left the party and founded Tamil Suyadchi Kazhagam (Tamil Self Rule Party), advocating for an independent Tamil homeland. The LTTE leader Prabakaran was inspired by the Suyadchi Kazhagam’s campaign and formed the LTTE in the 1970s. Thus, Suyadchi implies the right to secession and the formation of an independent, sovereign state. Therefore, when a political party invokes Suyadchi, it suggests the right to self-determination and secession. A more appropriate political term might be regional autonomy (Manila Suyadchi), meaning granting more political powers to regions within a united state. However, regional autonomy should not be defined along ethnic lines, as this could create divisions among Tamils, Muslims, and Sinhalese within those territories.
Swasthika Arulingam did not say that suyadchi (self-rule) was based on the right of self -determination concept. She said that it was only a proposal.
In contrast, another speaker, Senthivel, stated that the ‘national question’ has long remained unresolved by the state or political parties in Sri Lanka, and the Alliance’s solution is to acknowledge the right to self-determination for Tamils and establish ‘suyadchi’ (self-rule). He also mentioned that there are four nationalities and several ethnic groups in Sri Lanka.
Unitary state structure
Another speaker, Rajeevkanth, expressed the Alliance’s position as fully opposing the unitary state structure and advocating for Suyadchi (self-rule) for Tamils. He said that Tamils have waited for a long time for Suyadchi and that the Alliance has proposed a solution for Tamils to govern themselves under Suyadchi. He emphasised that while the Alliance does not oppose the 13th Amendment, it acknowledges that the amendment does not resolve the ‘national question.’ He further stated that, unlike other southern parties, which often say one thing in Tamil regions to gain favour and propagate racism in the south, the Alliance has a written policy statement clearly defining Suyadchi as the solution for the Tamil people.
This position seems similar to Gajendrakumar Ponnambalam’s party’s ‘one country, two nations’ policy.
Furthermore, Rajeevkanth mentioned that in 1983, thousands of Tamils were killed and there has been no accountability until now. This statement is factually incorrect. When the People’s Alliance government came to power in 1994, former President Chandrika Kumaratunga made a public apology. In 2001, she appointed a truth commission, and 1, 278 people submitted claims for compensation. The commission submitted a report on the violence, accepted 949 cases, and a total of 72 million rupees was paid to the victims. In 2004, at a meeting to mark the 21st anniversary of the pogrom, she made a second public apology, declaring that every citizen in the country should collectively accept the blame and apologise to the tens of thousands who suffered. While these measures may not be sufficient and exception, at least the head of state made a public apology and accepted accountability. Tamil nationalists, however, seem to have a selective memory on this issue.
‘National question’
I do not understand Sinhala and am not fully aware of what the Sinhala speakers said about the solution to the ‘national question.’ Unfortunately, their speeches were not translated into Tamil or English (except Pathirana, who spoke in English, and Uduwaragedara, who briefly spoke in Tamil). Uduwaragedara also mentioned that the Alliance’s proposal is Suyadchi. My understanding is that the Alliance’s official position is to devolve power to regions, not based on ethnicity or identity, with regional governments established as self-governing bodies without central government interference, operating under a bicameral legislative system.
Instead of clearly presenting the Alliance’s proposals, Rajeevkanth invoked Tamil nationalist sentiments in a populist manner. Senthivel also stated that the solution was based on the right to self-determination and ‘suyadchi.’
In the Sri Lankan context, especially in the north, not only social class but also caste plays a crucial role in social stratification. The conspicuous absence of addressing caste discrimination at the press conference is notable. If the Alliance has a social justice agenda, it is questionable why caste and gender issues were not highlighted. While it is true that Tamils, Muslims, hill country Tamils, and other minorities lack political power, full democratic rights, and social justice in Sri Lanka, experience has shown that competing nationalist ideologies are often exclusive, intolerant, and undemocratic, as ethnic identities are constructed in terms of superiority and cultural uniqueness rather than equality, fraternity, and liberty. Historically, divisions between ethnic groups have deepened due to competing Sinhala and Tamil nationalisms and the war.
Lessons from the past
Lessons from the past suggest that territorialising ethnic identities has an exclusivist agenda, as evidenced by the eviction of the Muslims from the north during the LTTE rule. Therefore, while combating Sinhalisation and Buddhisisation is crucial, and any move re-draw the provincial boundaries of the Northern and Eastern provinces in a manner favouring Sinhala majoritarianism should be resisted, the demand for autonomy from the North and East should be rearticulated in regional terms as opposed to ethnic terms in order to ensure power-sharing is not exclusive to one ethnic group. There is a need to shift the discourse of resistance in the North-East of the country from one predicated on exclusivist narratives like Tamil homelands to inclusive ones that embrace all the people who currently inhabit these two provinces regardless of their ethnicity, religion, culture and language. It is through such an epistemological shift accompanied by inclusive policies and programmes that a new, robust idea of regional autonomy that can challenge the ongoing Sinhalisation and Buddhisisation of the region can be created.
Devolution of power to regions is essential for a democratic society. However, as Rosa Luxemburg warned, national self-determination can be a dangerous distraction from the imperative to collaborate with labour movements. Sri Lanka faces a severe economic crisis, debt burden, and exploitation of labour and natural resources by multinational corporations and governments. The marginalised, such as workers, peasants, plantation workers, women, LGBT+ individuals, and oppressed castes, are the most affected. The Alliance, as a progressive movement, ought to address fundamental issues such as devolution of powers and class, caste, and gender divisions, as well as exploitation and dispossession, to unite the people.
Furthermore, the most affected community in Sri Lanka is the Malayaga Tamils, especially plantation workers, who have been disenfranchised, ostracized, exploited, and marginalised. Malayaga Tamils are often overlooked in the national consciousness and treated as outsiders. The speakers were silent on Malayaga Tamils when discussing suyadchi, as if it applies only to Tamils in the north.
Therefore, the Alliance should clarify what they mean by self-governing units and their solution to the ‘national question’ (I prefer the term “question of minorities”). I also want to point out that the interpretations by Senthivel and Rajeevkanth are misleading and may reinforce the conventional belief among Tamils that the Alliance proposes self-rule for Tamils in the north and east or regional autonomy based on ethnic/linguistic lines. Additionally, any mechanism created for the implementation of regional autonomy should address caste, gender, and class-based discrimination in the north, east, and other provinces.
Marx once said, “The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a mountain on the brains of the living’. He said that it is like a beginner learning a new language tends to translate back into their mother tongue. They only truly assimilate the new language and express themselves freely when they stop recalling their native language and fully immerse themselves in the new one.
In a country like Sri Lanka, where ethno-nationalist politics has polarized the communities and made them see each other as enemies, we need a new language to talk about our political future under a framework of devolution which emphasizes inclusiveness rather than exclusiveness.
During the Aragalaya protests, a democratic atmosphere emerged organically, leading to critical reflections and engagement within Left and progressive groups regarding past injustices committed in the name of nationhood, the failures of nation-state building in the post-colonial context, and the exclusion of ethnic minorities. These issues have been extensively discussed and debated. Within the communities, there is a growing consensus that political leaders have distorted the facts to wield power, using divisive politics as their tool to deceive the people.
Although there was a crack in the Sinhala Buddhist majoritarian ideology during Aragalaya, a century old political and social discourse cannot be expected to be transformed within a short period of time.
In those protests, a fresh outlook and new modes of thought emerged, highlighting the need for progressive forces to advance the incipient ideas introduced by the youth. However, reactionary and divisive political forces are still present and may attempt to regain their influence. This is only the beginning, and building an inclusive democratic society is challenging but essential. The progressive forces within the Sinhala community have a duty to address state injustices and violence against ethnic minorities, often justified in the name of nation, patriotism, and sovereignty.
Historically, to oppose the majoritarian nationalist ideology, the Tamil political leadership in the north and east constructed a defensive Tamil nationalist ideology, which mirrors Sinhala nationalism in its discursive relationship to the minorities within the region. Tamils from these regions are depicted as a unique people with an inalienable right to a separate state. These ideologies operate within the socio-political landscape and continue to play a divisive role, framing political, social, and economic crises in reductive ways solely in ethnic terms.
It seems that the Alliance has not properly engaged with these burning issues. Instead, it is attempting to appease Tamil nationalist elements, which is counterproductive. The paramount task is to ideologically challenge the undemocratic, ethnocratic, neoliberal state structure, which is the root cause of the political and economic crisis that Sri Lanka is faced with today. Changing/ challenging the character of the state in the ideological terrain and disseminating a counter-hegemonic ideology—a new language that partially emerged during the Aragalaya — is the foremost task. Without such an epistemological shift, proposals and statements are meaningless.
Ragavan is a Tamil activist based in London who participated in Aragalaya protests in London. He is also a member of the Movement for People’s Struggle – UK, a solidary group supporting Aragalaya.
from The Island https://ift.tt/g0hVGfd
