THE LEFT TRADITION
IN
LANKAN TAMIL POLITICS
Santasilan Kadirgamar
It is attempted in this paper to place in historical
perspective a clearly discernible trend in Tamil politics in this country
primarily in the mid-decades of this century. The scope of this presentation,
in spite of its title, has been limited to the Jaffna district, which was the
scene of the rise and fall of numerous political parties and movements in the twentieth
century. No attempt is made to go into a
larger study including the plantation sector, the eastern districts and the Vanni.
The documentation available for a study of the above topic is limited due to a
variety of reasons. One has to visit Jaffna to have access to most of the
sources if they are still available. The writings on the left movement in
English by researchers and others in most cases have made only passing
references to the history of the left in the north. This is partly due to the fact
that these writers do not read Tamil. Even to those who read Tamil, documents
in Tamil are scarce and not easily obtainable. The University of Jaffna was
founded only in 1974. Efforts were made in the 70s and early 80s to encourage
people in Jaffna to deposit valuable documents in the university library. The
destruction of the Jaffna Public Library and subsequently of thousands of
houses has resulted in the irreplaceable loss of the private collections of
several valuable publications and documents painfully collected over decades.
Consequently
this narrative is in many ways incomplete. It is interpretative and draws
heavily from memories. One purpose is to initiate an on-going discussion. It is
necessary to place on record the memories of those who have lived through this
period, especially those that have
personally interacted with the several personalities mentioned below. One
attempts here to place in perspective what is considered a valuable, memorable
and meaningful period in the history of the Tamils in this country. This is
also an effort to set right the malicious propaganda carried out against the
Tamils by interested parties and groups through misrepresentation and
distortion, without acknowledging this other vital dimension in their history.
Towards a Broader Definition of the Left
The
term left generally signifies socialist or radical movements and has been used
from the time of the French Revolution. In Asia the term became common usage
with the emergence of liberation and Marxist movements. With the fragmentation
of Marxist- Leninist parties into Stalinists and Trotskyites and subsequently
Maoists and several factions, the left came to symbolize and was accepted as a
generic term for all parties and movements with a Marxist Leninist ideology or
an anti-imperialist socialist program. With the collapse of the Soviet Union
and Communism in Eastern Europe there is some confusion regarding the
left/right dichotomy as well as conservative and progressive, especially in
Europe. The same however is not necessarily true in parts of the third
world.
In its
broadest definition, the term left is used as comprising and incorporating a
variety of movements and groups. It does not pre-suppose an ideological
commitment. A ‘left-wing’ position in
modern politics would involve leaning towards such positions as the following
in some mix or other. These would include nationalisation or control of
industry, land reform, state control of the economy, and tax policies that
favour the low and middle-income groups. Also included would be pacifism or
arms reduction, egalitarian policies in education, universal health care, and a
preference for ecological rather than industrial expansionist policies, and
positive discrimination in favour of minority groups. In the Third World one
would add a strong commitment to the rights of peasants and workers, human
rights, civil and political rights, and especial1y social, economic and
cultural rights. It would also include the struggle against imperialism or
neo-colonialism and in the contemporary context exposing and resisting First
World domination in its politica1, economic, social and cultural dimensions.
Increasingly the line between a liberal and a left position has become thin.
Gender issues, rights of children, human rights, refugees and victims of war
find an important place in this tradition.
Every
left movement would have to be defined in the specific situation both in time
and place where it emerges and functions. In the Lankan context one defining
factor is whether the movement has taken a stand against national, especially
majority, chauvinism and a political program that favors justice to the
minorities including the right to self-determination.
Tamil
politics in northern Lanka has been dominated by conservative political
parties, which represented a degree of continuity in Tamil politics from the
mid-1930s until 1983. These were the Tamil Congress from the 1940s to 1952, the
Federal Party from 1956 to 1972 and its successor the Tamil United Liberation
Front from 1976 to 1983. These parties under the leadership of G.G. Ponnambalam
(Tamil Congress and later Tamil United Liberation Front), S.J.V.Chelvanayakam (TC,
Federal Party and TULF) and A.Amirthalingam (FP & TULF) and M.Sivasithamparam
(TC and TULF) represented continuity in Tamil politics. These parties sought to
represent and claimed to represent the Tamils or the Tamil-Speaking people
(including the Muslims in the eastern province) and demanded constitutional
safeguards for the Tamil-speaking people. They were not very much concerned
with the larger issues, that rose above narrow ethnic identities, confronting
all the people of Lanka, primarily economic issues, cost of living, wages,
rights of workers, neo-colonialism and exploitation. Their identity and politics
were defined primarily in relation to Sinhalese politics, originally focused on
fears of discrimination and domination and subsequently by clear and blatant
acts of discrimination, oppression and violence against the Tamils. They gave
first importance to the rights, welfare and aspirations of the Tamil people.
Their politics ultimately led to the secessionist demand in 1976 and is a major
factor that has contributed to the present crisis.
On the
other hand there continued to exist in the Tamil north, throughout these years,
a committed and articulate minority, which we have here referred to as the
Tamil Left. This group persisted in espousing policies that sought to seek
justice for the Tamils within the larger framework of a united Lanka with
justice to all. We attempt here a brief survey of this Left Tradition in Lankan
Tamil Politics.
The Jaffna Youth Congress
This
invariably begins with the anti-imperialist movement that emerged in Ceylon in
the 1920s and was best exemplified among the Tamils by the Jaffna Students’
Congress founded in 1924, later re-named the Jaffna Youth Congress. The Youth
Congress from its inception was committed to social reform, especially the
removal of caste discrimination and oppression, the revival and development of
national literature and the national languages and propagated the teaching of
Sinhalese to Tamil students and Tamil to Sinhalese students. Influenced
profoundly by the Gandhian movement and the Indian National Congress, the YC
attempted to build-up a movement that was to be representative of all races,
creeds and interests. In the 1920’s individuals rather than political parties
dominated Tamil politics. In fact political parties came into existence only in
the 1930s and 1940s. The Jaffna Youth Congress did not perceive itself as a
political movement. It eventually did take a radical stand in favor of
self-government, but for the most part it was concerned with social and
cultural issues and the revival of indigenous 1anguages, literature, cultural
festivals and local industries that had been neglected and discriminated
against through centuries of European domination. (Kadirgamar 1980)
In addition to the Gandhian
influence there was also the impact of western liberal and democratic values.
There emerged a radical fringe, which was of decisive significance in the
political and intellectual life of Jaffna in the twenties and thirties giving
rise to a movement that was nationalist, democratic, anti-imperialist and
anti-feudal. When viewed in the context of the then existing attitudes to
politics, caste, education, the national languages and culture the Youth
Congress is seen to be a movement that was radical and in advance of its times.
In the absence of any major movement in Ceylon that was clearly anti-imperialist
the Youth Congress took upon itself the task of bringing an anti-imperialist
consciousness to the people of this country.
The
Youth Congress was primarily the Tamil north’s response to the Gandhian
nationalist movement in India. In the context of its activities and the
following it commanded there was no parallel movement with a substantial
following in the Sinhalese South until the emergence of the Lanka Sama Samaja
Party in 1935. Gandhi’s visit to Ceylon in 1927 on the invitation of the Youth
Congress was a great success. The warm welcome given to him in Jaffna by old
and young and the tremendous enthusiasm that prevailed, influenced the Congress
to declare in favor of ‘Purna Swaraj’
(total independence).
The YC
had also taken a firm stand in favour of an all-island ‘nationalism’ as against
‘communalism’. This issue figured prominently at the fourth sessions of the YC
held at Keerimalai in 1928. S.Nadesan, in later years distinguished lawyer and
Senator, delivering the welcome address rejected communal representation as a
quack’s remedy and an evil that ought not to be recognised. The YC took a firm
stand in favour of national unity and affirmed that Home Rule or
self-government was the only remedy for the growing parochialism in the
country.
The
efforts made by the Youth Congress to publish a paper did not materialise. The
Ceylon Patriot a secular weekly founded in 1862 was in this period owned and
edited by J.W.A.Kadirgamar. Published in English by the Lankabhimani Press in Chavakachcheri the paper for all practical
purposes became the organ of the Youth Congress. !930 also saw the publication
of the influential Tamil weekly the
Eelakesari. Both the Chunnakam based paper and the Thirumakal Press where
it was published were owned by E.Ponniah who was a staunch supporter of the YC.
The paper gave wide publicity to the proceedings and policies of the Congress,
and to the developments in India which influenced public opinion in Jaffna. The
poems and songs of freedom by the nationalist and anti-imperialist poet
Subramaniya Bharathi received wide publicity in Jaffna and the rest of the country
through the Eelakesari and other publications of the Thirumakal Press.
In
1930 took place the historic Gandhian salt march resulting in the detention of
thousands of Indians. This non-violent struggle received world-wide attention
and had a major impact on the members of the Jaffna Youth Congress. The annual
sessions of the YC took place in April 1931. The prevailing atmosphere was
charged with excitement. There had always been present at the annual sessions
some women. The YC at previous sessions had called upon women to take their
rightful place in the life of the nation. The guest speaker on this occasion
was Srimathi Kamaladevi Chattopadhayaya from India. She had established herself
as a rising star from among the younger generation and belonged to the radical
wing within the Indian National Congress. Young and eloquent she virtually took
the Youth Congress by storm. K.Nesiah delivering the welcome address noted that
she was one who had earned for Indian women a name for patriotism, and courage
as a social reformer. She was in addition an authority on education. The
content of her address struck new ground in focusing on economic issues.
Hitherto addresses at the Youth Congress sessions were primarily concerned with
the political and cultural aspects of imperialist domination and social
discrimination within Tamil society. She for the first time gave an instructive
lecture filled with facts and figures on the nature of capitalism, imperialism
and the exploitation of subject peoples in the colonies. She broke new ground
in providing Jaffna youth with a lecture amounting to a socialist critique of
imperialism. She said:
Under the guise
of a beneficial rule the imperial lords loot rich lands for the benefit of their own kinsmen. Many
a country in thus being bled to the sweet tune of ‘God Save the King.’ The glorious
flag of the British Empire is dyed in the scarlet blood of millions … The
British nation so highly developed commercially, must find fresh fields for
investing its capital and once again our lands come to their help. Thus in the
shape of missionaries of modern civilization and priests of modern culture they
step on to our shores and begin their exploits… In the process of the
establishment of this imperialistic rule by “Law and Order” and, with the
consent of the people, these imperial agents ruthlessly destroy all indigenous
industries, commerce, and institutions and by setting up their own powerfully
organised ones shut out possibilities for starting any national enterprises.
This unequal competition, pronouncedly decided in favour of the rulers, leaves
the country and its people helpless and impoverished. This economic enslavement
is systematic and crushing … In order to discover the remedy it is necessary to
have a clear diagnosis of the disease.
She
was careful to point out that freedom did not mean the mere hounding out of the
white man and a transference of power from one powerful minority to another
equally tyrannical. In the just society that was looked forward to every man
will get for himself and his family what he is actually entitled to by the
value of his labour. On the pursuance of these aims she stressed the need to
organise labour in Ceylon. The speaker concluded with an appeal for cultural
freedom.
It is only when you meet the West as an equal and as a partner in the
search and appreciation of beauty that
the two cultures will blend into each other. But you have lost your bearings
today. The children of the people that created the wonderful works of art at
Polonnaruwa and Anuradhapura are today feeding their hungry souls on Dunlop
tyre advertisements and match labels that adorn the walls of the huts in the
villages. The colossal tragedy of this is but little realised…Art is not a
luxury of or the privilege of the
rich few. It is the life-giving force that touches all ordinary things of
everyday common use with its vitality transforming them into sublime things of
joy. (Chattopadhyaya 1931)
Her
presidential address at the 1931 sessions had an electrifying effect and was a
major factor that influenced the decision made to boycott the 1931 elections.
This was the first time that a woman had been invited to deliver the
presidental address of the Youth Congress. It was also very likely the first
time that a woman addressed a major public rally attended by thousands, in the
whole island.
The
four northern seats remained vacant as a result of this boycott. The YC had
called for a boycott of the elections, the first under the new constitution of
1931, following reforms recommended by the Donoughmore Commission. These
included some degree of self-government and universal adult franchise. A
short-lived attempt was made to develop a mass movement both in the north and
the south on an anti-imperialist platform.
The 1931 boycott has been frequently interpreted and
misrepresented as having been inspired by communal motives. Handy
Perinbanayagam the leader of the Youth Congress on several occasions attempted
to correct this view. He once declared, “nobody who has watched our lives and
noted the price that we have paid for our consistent devotion to the ideal of a
United and Free Ceylonese Nation can accept this view. The boycott was launched
because the Donoughmore Reforms fell far short of complete independence.”
(Kadirgamar 1980)
The
founding of the Lanka Sama Samaja Party in 1935 marks the beginning of radical
Marxist politics in Lanka. Founded by young radica1s, several of whom had been
educated in the west, the LSSP spearheaded the anti-imperialist struggle in
Lanka. In the South the Suriyamal movement
and other social movements laid the foundations for the emergence of the LSSP.
The Jaffna Youth Congress had made common cause with these movements. Dr.Colvin
R.de Silva once declared that the roots of the LSSP were inasmuch in the YC in
the north as in the Suriyamal movement in the south. Philip Gunewardene
commenting on the 1931 boycott wrote from London referring to the YC as, “the
only organisation in Ceylon that has been displaying political intelligence …
Jaffna has given the lead. They have forced their leaders to sound the bugle
call for the great struggle for freedom – for immediate and complete
independence from Imperialist Britain. Will the Sinhalese who always display
supreme courage understand and fall in line?”
When
the LSSP was founded the Youth Congress became the movement in Jaffna with
which the LSSP established solid links. Some members of the Youth Congress such
as P.Nagalingam, K.Tharmakulasingam, S.Sittampalam and K.Satchithanandan joined
the LSSP. Some others like T.Duraisingam initially LSSP later became founding
members of the Communist Party when it was formed in the early 1940s. Several
other members of the Youth Congress remained sympathizers and supporters of
both left parties. Handy Perinbanayagam, though occasionally a critic of the
Marxist left, affirmed that his political sympathies were by and large with the
left. Though they did not formally become members of either the LSSP or the CP
several stalwarts of the YC to the end were identified with these two political
parties. Some later identified with the pro-Beijing breakaway groups. When the
Youth Congress declined the left parties took its place in Tamil politics.
The
question has been raised as to whether a Marxist wing prevailed within the
Youth Congress and if not as to why a Marxist left did not emerge in Jaffna. At
that point in history in the 1920s, in spite of the Bolshevik Revolution,
Marxist ideology had not made an impact on the English educated youth even in
Colombo. The stalwarts of the YC who later became well known leaders of the two
main left parties were primarily anti-imperialist. Their Marxist orientation
took place in Colombo in the 1930s. The members of the YC were above all
influenced by the Gandhian movement. The same was true of several individuals
in the South. In addition the antagonism between Gandhian idealism and Marxian
socialism were too sharp to enable a Marxist radical transformation of Jaffna
youth at that time. These were real tensions that prevailed within the Indian
National Congress itself in the 1920 and 30s.
The LSSP and the CP
From 1935 to 1964 these two
left parties commanded a fair amount of support in the north among the Tamils.
This was not necessarily in terms of votes garnered at successive elections,
though in some electorates the support they received was consistently
substantial as indicated below. In fact at the local government level several
village committees and town councils were headed by leftists. These included
Chunnakam, Manipay, Uduvil, Anaicottai and Puloly in the Jaffna peninsula.
There is a tendency to measure successes and failures purely in electoral
terms, overlooking the influential role played by pro-left elements in the
social, economic and cultural life of the people, and in shaping the thinking
of the intelligentsia. In Jaffna society, semi-feudalistic and conservative as
it was, the presence of numerically small but highly influential left-oriented
individuals had a considerable impact. The support for the left came from a
variety of groups. These included members in government service which the left
parties had help organize into the General Clerical Services Union (GCSU),
Teachers’ Unions, Bank and Mercantile Unions, the Transport (Bus) Workers
Unions, the Cigar Workers Unions, and the Toddy Tappers’ Union. Also included
were several organizations of the oppressed castes (also referred to as
minority Tamils) and land-less labourers. In fact the stand that the left took
on caste discrimination and oppression was a major reason why they failed to
win seats in parliamentary elections. The equal seating that emerged in the
Youth Congress days now became a struggle for equal rights in all aspects of socio-economic
life. The red flag became identified with oppressed castes.(1) The dominant and
hegemonic Vellala caste, which
monopolised the ownership of cultivatable land, education, the professions and
business resisted changes in the 1940s and 50s. Notable changes began to occur
only in the 1960s. The nationalisation in 1961 of assisted schools owned and
managed by religious hierarchies both Christian and Hindu loosened the grip
that the dominant caste had on education. This vital change opened the way for
the members of discriminated castes to move up the social ladder as they
obtained more positions as teachers in schools including promotions to
administrative positions.
But one particular aspect of
the left cannot be ignored. Practically all the highly influential
left-oriented individuals mentioned in this paper came from the dominant
castes. This included leaders from every left party. M.C.Subramaniam of the Communist Party was a notable exception.
He not only rose up to a position of leadership within the party but also took
his place as a nominated member in the 1970 parliament. It must be stated in
fairness to the Federal Party and the later Tamil United Liberation Front that
they once nominated one person from the minority Tamils to the upper house. He
was Senator Nalliah, a prominent member of the FP. Later they reserved one
parliamentary electorate in the Peninsula for a person from the discriminated
castes. It should also be noted that at the District Committee level of the
Communist Party, a fair number of members were from these castes.
Tamil areas in the north and
east were primarily rural societies with minimum urbanization and hardly any
industries. The left parties therefore did not have a substantial workers base
as developed in the south. But support for the left movement came from sections
of the Tamil intelligentsia that had been profoundly influenced by the earlier
Youth Congress. These were not necessarily ideologically Marxists but shared
the socialist and anti-imperialist aspirations of the Marxist left. The
Northern Province Teachers’ Association and the subsequent Progressive Writers’
Association as discussed below, were
among the organizational sources of support for the Jaffna Left.
An All-Island Left and Dual Loyalty – Religious
and Linguistic
While
the left movement had a following primarily composed of sympathisers, party
membership was limited. The closed structure of the parties and the rigid
ideological positions taken inhibited membership. Lanka is a country where everyone
is believed to be an adherent of one of the four major religions, whether he or
she liked it or not. Except for some famous self-proclaimed rationalists very
few denied a religious affiliation. It was extremely difficult for persons with
a Christian identity (even more difficult for Catholics) and for Muslims in
particular to subscribe to Marxist dogma in the pre-Liberation Theology period.
In this context what the Communist Party leadership was able to achieve in
Kerala as early as in the 1950s is significant. Prominent Christians in
leadership positions in the church and church related institutions such as
university colleges, and also in the ecumenical movement including the World
Council of Churches became staunch supporters of the left. The position they
took was to accept the political and economic program of the left as distinct
from a commitment to an ideological position which in the Lankan context was
further complicated by the Communist-Trotskyite perennial dogmatic conflicts.
The numerous splits and fragmentation of the left parties made it worse. It was
somewhat different for Hindus and Buddhists. Both are non-evangelical faiths
and historically never expanded at the point of the sword or the gun.
Philosophically Hinduism is a liberal and tolerant religion where it was
possible to subscribe to its rituals, ceremonies and festivals and still be a
committed Marxist. Buddhism is the most rational of faiths and stripped of its
feudalistic structure posed no problems to potential Marxists. The dominant
ethos of Jaffna society like in most of the countryside in the island was
religious. The Youth Congress being Gandhian had no problems commanding a
following in such a society. The Marxist left was up against considerable
opposition.
Though
the following the left had was numerically small, every major national strike
called by the trade unions received support from their respective branches in
the north and east. These included the 1946 GCSU strike, the Hartal of 1953,
and several strikes by Bus and Railway Workers, Bank and Mercantile Unions from
the 1940s and 50s to the early 80s. Politically this participation in the trade
union movement including strike action was significant. The left movement gave
a great deal of importance to the support derived from the Tamil north. Their
participation gave the trade union movement an all-island national character.
This was of importance at a time when the country was already beginning to feel
the strain of divisive nationalist politics by both Sinhalese and Tamil
political parties and movements. This continued right into the early 1980s even
after the left ceased to have an electoral following in the north, and was
evident in the strike of 1980 in which several workers in the north were
victimised losing their jobs. During this period the Jaffna branch of the
Organization for Justice to the Strikers played a notable role. The left
movement represented an effort to forge national unity placing economic issues,
a socialist program and the rights of workers in the forefront.
The
existence of a strong all-island left movement prevented the break-up of the
country for nearly twenty-five years after de-colonization in 1948. When the Tamil plantation workers lost their
citizenship rights the LSSP and CP took a firm stand supporting these workers’
right to citizenship. In I955-56 when Sinhalese nationalism/chauvinism reached
its peak (under the slogan ‘Sinhala Only’) the left again took a principled
stand that Sinhalese and Tamil should be the official 1anguages of the country.
When anti-Tamil violence broke out in 1956 and 1958, and when the SLFP
government of 1961 broke-up the non-violent Satyagraha organized by the Federal
Party and placed the FP leaders under detention and imposed stringent emergency
regulations in the Tamil north and east, the Left again championed the cause of
the Tamil people. The result was steady support for the left from Tamils
residing in the Western Province in particular and in other pre-dominantly
Sinhalese areas. But there was a dual loyalty and conflict of interests here.
The very Tamils who voted for the left in the south and participated in trade
union action under the leadership of the left supported the Tamil Federal party
in the north and east. They were called leftists in the south and federalists
in the north. There was however always a numerical1y sma1l but committed group
of Tamils who consistently supported the left in the north.
This
dua1 loyalty was partly due to the fact that the left parties at that time did
not take a clear stand on regional autonomy, in response to the FP's demand for
a federal constitution. In retrospect it is evident that this was a fatal
error. It must however be acknowledged that the left parties long before the
Federal demand was made by the Tamils had consistently advocated devolution of
power, calling for the replacement of the Kachcheri
system by decentralised administration. When the Bandaranaike-Chelvanayakam
Pact was signed in 1957 Philip Gunewardene remained a consistent supporter of
the Pact. The reluctance of the Federal
Party to support socio-economic reforms such as the Paddy Lands Act, the
nationalisation of Assisted Schools and similar measures widened the gulf
between the left and the FP. Today the remnants of the one time powerful left
in the south solidly support devolution amounting to if not going beyond the
original federal demand of the FP. But
from 1958 to 1977 the left failed to respond positively to the federal/
regional autonomy demand as well as the ‘no state sponsored colonization of
Tamil areas’ demand that had become a major factor in the late 1950s and
thereafter. There were also lurking suspicions among many Tamils that later
proved to be correct that the LSSP and the CP could make compromises with
Sinhalese nationalist/chauvinist forces that denied the legitimate demands of
the Tamil people.
The NPTA
Significantly
the very influential and powerful Northern Province Teachers Association from
the 1940s to the 60s counted among its members several left sympathizers and
some leaders of the left movement. The NPTA
membership included distinguished teachers and principals of schools who
championed the campaign for free education, for a national system of schools
and for Swabasha (national
languages). Formidable opponents of government's control of teachers, these men
did assert that education was the responsibility of the state, though not
necessarily a monopoly of the state. They remained committed to the role that
education could play in the social advance of the country. They played a
conspicuous role in the All Ceylon Union of Teachers and were regular
contributors to the journal of the ACUT. Outstanding members of the NPTA were
Handy Perinbanayagam, C. (Orator) Subramaniam, N. Sabaratnam, A.E.Tamber,
A.S.Kanagaratnam, A. Vaidialingam and M.Karthigesan. Many of them were teachers
of English and English Literature, but were equally proficient in Tamil and
were deeply rooted in Tamil culture like their counter-parts in India
influenced by the freedom movement. They were community leaders as well and
commanded great respect in Tamil society. They were staunch opponents of Tamil
nationalist/chauvinist politics to the end.
Mr. Subramaniam or Orator as he was
affectionately and popularly known was principal of Skantha Varodaya College,
the school that was best known for its radicalism and counted among its
teachers members of the left parties like V.Ponnambalam. Mr.N.S.Kandiah, the
manager of the London based Tamil Times, was a former teacher at Skantha and
editor P.Rajanayagam together with Dr. N. Shanmugaratnam and others were
products of this school. (2) Handy Perinbanayagam after several years of teaching at Jaffna College
where he influenced a whole generation of students and future teachers was
later principal of Kokuvil Hindu College. In 1954 when Sir John Kotelawala paid
his official visit to Jaffna attempts were made by the local bureaucrats to get
students to line up along the streets to welcome the Prime Minister, a
particularly objectionable practice widely prevalent in this country. Handy
being the educator that he was, found it obnoxious and repulsive to get
students to kowtow to visiting
dignitaries whoever he or she may have been. He staunchly resisted this and
instead extended a welcome to Sir John to address the students in the school
hall. It was here that he put the famous
question to him whether he would grant parity of status to the Tamil and
Sinhalese languages. Sir John heartily agreed and thereby sparked of the
language controversy that was to shape contemporary history.
A.E.Tamber was the distinguished principal of
Jaffna Central College. N.
Sabaratnam became principal of Jaffna Hindu College and in later years wrote
the editorial for the Eelanadu, the Jaffna based Tamil newspaper and for that
matter the only daily newspaper published outside Colombo. This press was burnt
down in 1981 together with the public library but re-emerged only be closed
down by other forces later. A.S.Kanagaratnam
was Principal of the Chavakachcheri Hindu College, A.Vaidialingam of Urumprai
Hindu, and M. Karthigesan of Kopay Christian College. Several of them attained
these top positions only after the nationalisation of the schools. Neither the
Hindu Board nor Christian managers of schools under the assisted schools system
would have placed these men in these positions. The exceptions were Handy and
Orator. In fact A.S.Kanagaratnam was moved out of his position due to his left
affiliations. He was later LSSP candidate for Chavakachcheri in the 1960
election.
The Christian schools, both Catholic and
Protestant were politically conservative in relation to the left. Efforts were
made by Dr.N.M.Perera and P.Nagalingam to persuade the popular Dr. Sampanthar,
of the Moolai Cooperative Hospital, to contest the Vaddukoddai seat as the LSSP
candidate in the March 1960 election. Some senior teachers at Jaffna College
who were close friends of the doctor exerted severe pressure and prevented him
from accepting the nomination. He would have been a formidable opponent to
Amirthalingam and may have won the seat. Soon after the nationalisation of
schools St. John’s College which opted to remain non-fee levying dismissed Banudevan,
the well known LSSPer and outstanding teacher at the College together with
three others for having led trade union action in the school. This was the
period when private schools exploited teachers extensively. In Jaffna the few
schools that went private were all Christian. He fought the case for several
years and finally won compensation which when granted was worth nothing. He was
among those in Jaffna who quit the LSSP in 1964 but played a major role in
founding MIRJE Jaffna in 1979.
The Progressive Writers
In
later years the Progressive Writers in Tamil wielded considerable influence
among the Tamil educated intelligentsia. These included prominent academics
such as K. Kailasapathy, and K.Sivathamby and others such as Dominic Jeeva,
K.Daniel and M.K.Ragunathan. As Sivathamby has placed on record:
By
the 1950s, two trends began to surface, one denoting the emergence of a Tamil consciousness all over the
island in response to the emerging Sinhala nationalism, and the other a
Marxist-inspired literary movement which was nationalistic and at the same time
was opposed to social oppression and deprivation. The former expressed itself
largely in terms of the Dravidian ideology and of the poetry of Bharathidasan,
which were then very much in vogue in Tamil Nadu. But it was the latter trend
of opposition to social oppression and deprivation, led by the Progressive
Writers' Association that created an unprecedented literary impact.”
(Sivathamby 1999)
A whole new
generation of writers surfaced, including several from the Dalit group. These
writers were victims of socio-economic oppression and exploitations linked to
the caste system associated with the rigours of Jaffna feudalism. In their
writings they highlighted the sufferings, humiliations and deprivations based
on caste and class. The Thinakaran
(Lake House group of newspapers) nurtured this new writing of the late 1950s
and the early 1960s, with Kailasapathy as its editor in the period 1958-1962.
In a culture
where literature had been the handmaid of social conservatism, it soon led to
bitter polemics in defining the role of tradition and the social function of
literature. A debate ensued, and the left oriented writers Sivathamby included
and “the punditry were locked in a bitter controversy.” Sivathamby mentions
numerous writers and the debates that followed and adds “this creative
efflorescence marks an important phase in the development of modern Lankan
Tamil literature ... in poetry, fiction, and full-fledged novel-writing.” A
theatrical upsurge, he notes, took place in the late 70s.
In the 1970s,
contemporary Sri Lankan Tamil literature became a part of the educational curriculum
at the university entrance level, and this paved the way for the participation
of teachers and students in the literary debates of the day. Writers became
important social figures. But in politics people were increasingly taking to
the streets resorting to extra-parliamentary action. State intervention
increased and Tamil youth turned to militancy. With these changes literature
ceased to be open. The mainstream media both print and electronic became
over-cautious if not restrictive. Following the 1983 anti-Tamil riots
uncertainty and gloom spread to the North and East and the pattern of life
changed. A new era in Lankan Tamil literary sensitivity and expression had
dawned.
The Fragmentation of the Left
In
electoral terms the left movement in the north reached its peak in the 1960
general election when the left projected itself as a political alternative to
the Federal Party and the Tamil Congress, and to the SLFP and the UNP in the
south. This was shortly before the Sino-Soviet ideological split that led to
the fragmentation of communist parties worldwide. In Lanka this was also the
last general election before the Trotskyites in the LSSP split into several
groups after the historic decision made by the LSSP in 1964 to enter a
coalition government led by the SLFP under the leadership of Mrs. Bandaranaike.
In the March 1960 parliamentary election the
Federal Party won nine seats and the Tamil Congress a single seat. Tamil
Congress leader G.G.Ponnambalam tasted defeat for the first time, the winner being
Alfred Duraiappah who ran as an independent with the support of sections of the
left. In the Jaffna district then consisting of eleven electorates, the left
consisting of the LSSP and the CP contesting separately polled a total of
40,363 (LSSP 25,904 and CP 14,363) exceeding the total votes polled by the
Tamil Congress. With 74.7 voters casting their votes the FP polled 96,870, and
the TC 38,275. Fifteen independent candidates in the district polled a total of
29,231 including Duraiappah’s 6201 votes. Though failing to win a single seat,
it was a remarkable result for the left. The failure to form a United Front and
the inability to grant nominations to independent candidates who had been left
sympathisers due to narrow party and sectarian factors, the forces opposed to
Tamil nationalist/chauvinist vote got fragmented. When the July election came
around and the left formed a united front the results were a foregone
conclusion. The total poll went down to 65.5 per cent as the left demoralised
island-wide put up a poor showing. Even then contesting in only four
electorates the votes cast for LSSP and CP candidates totaled 17,365.
After
this the mainstream left (the LSSP in particular and CP to some extent) never
regained the position they held in the north, and among the Tamils in the whole
island. The Communist Party (pro-Moscow) continued to have a base in Jaffna
until 1983, but remained considerably weakened. The pro-Beijing Communist
parties grew in strength having taken a militant stand on caste issues,
especially in the 1968 struggle for temple entry. There were still some temples
in Jaffna that did not allow members of the oppressed castes entry. The most
noteworthy struggle took place in Maviddapuram.
The Beijing groups dominated May Day in Jaffna until the rise of Tamil
militancy. In the University of Jaffna both in the faculty and among students
the pro-Beijing groups exercised a fair amount of influence. This lasted until
the end of the 1970s. Thereafter the Colombo based left lost its support in
Jaffna. Every split in Colombo had its ramifications in Jaffna. The remnants of
the Trotskyite and the pro-Beijing Communist groups practically became “one man
parties” as they were called in Jaffna.
In
1983 the parties that had branches in Jaffna were the Lanka Sama Samaja Party,
Communist Party, Nava Sama Samaja Party, Ceylon Mercantile Union, Communist
Party (Beijing), Communist Party (Shanmugathasan Wing), Revolutionary Communist
League and the short lived Revolutionary Marxist Party. There were other
factions in Colombo that had a small following in Jaffna. Most parties ran
small offices, had a district secretary and followed the political line laid
down in Colombo. The funding obviously came from Colombo or abroad. In the
post-1964 period the support for the left both in electoral terms and in trade
union following gradually diminished in Jaffna and the other Tamil districts.
But a left tradition persisted without taking organizational forms. This
tradition continued right into the 1980s and an attempt is made below to place
this tradition in perspective.
Karalasingam - Problems of Method and Leadership
The
classic position of the Left on the national question was eloquently put
forward by V. Karalasingham in his “The Way Out for the Tamil Speaking People”
originally published in the Young Socialist in 1962 and later published as a
book in 1963. Written in English a Tamil translation was released soon after,
but had little impact on Tamil youth and their politics. This in spite of the
fact that Karalasingam polled a sizeable vote in the KKS electorate in the
March 1960 election receiving 5042 votes against the formidable Chelvanayakam's 13545. Apparently part of the
support he received came from the aging English speaking class carried away by
his eloquent English oratory. He was probably the only candidate island-wide
who addressed all his meetings in English (1960 and 1970), and yet drew
enthusiastic crowds at a time when the language issue occupied center stage
evoking intense emotions and tension. A second edition was issued in 1978 with
a postscript and a foreword by another noted left leader from the north
V.Satchithanandan.
In the
post-1956 period the Federal party dominated Tamil politics, having won a major
victory in the 1960 March and July elections which were to be later improved
upon only by the Tamil United Liberation Front in 1977. In spite of the massive
electoral victories and the mandate given by the Tamil people neither the FP
nor the TULF were able to find a solution to the problems faced by the Tamils.
Karalasingham’s pungent criticism of the FP is as much applicable to the FP in
1963, the TULF in 1977 and Tamil political movements and leadership in the
present impasse. In the chapter titled “Why have they Failed” Karalasingham comments
that:
It is worthy to note that all the parties that have hitherto gained the
confidence of the Tamil people have done so on the basis of resisting the
chauvinism of the majority community and securing for their people their
legitimate demands. But the period of ascendancy of the Tamil Congress and that
of the Federal Party has signified to the Tamil speaking people not an increase
but a diminution - indeed a sharp and precipitous decline of their fortunes.
What heightens their tragedy is that their present plight cannot be attributed
either to their apathy or their lack of support to the parties, which at
different times spoke for them. Apathy there never was on the question of
minority rights. If anything, the politics of the last 30 years in the Northern
and Eastern Provinces has revolved round precisely this question, to the
exclusion of all others. The popular support for the traditional Tamil parties
has been so enthusiastic and overwhelming as to incur the envy and jealousy of
their rivals.
We have come against a strange paradox. The Tamil-speaking people have
been led in the last decade by an apparently resolute leadership guided by the
best intentions receiving not merely the widest support of the people but also
their enthusiastic cooperation and yet the Tamil-speaking people find
themselves at the lowest ebb in their history. Despite all their efforts the
people have suffered one defeat after another, one humiliation after another.
How is one to explain the yawning gulf between the strivings of the people and
the virtually hopeless impasse in which they find themselves?
The fundamental flaw in the political strategy of the Federal Party is
their conception that the fight for the rights of the Tamil-speaking people is
the responsibility solely of the Tamil speaking people themselves and that it
is only the Tamils who can wage this fight and that they must do this as
Tamils. Therefore it is necessary for the Tamils to build their own exclusive
organizations to lead the Tamil people in their fight." (Karalasingam
1978)
What
Karalaingham said of the FP then has a telling contemporary relevance. “It is
high time that the Tamil speaking people paid attention to the problems of
method and leadership of their struggle as these are fast becoming the key
questions.” He stressed the need for a correct policy to fight the government
and added “the present leadership, because of its close identification with the
past will not encourage any discussion of these fundamental questions - it
would rather see the Tamil speaking people burn themselves out in impotent rage
and despair against the government than permit a critical re-examination of its
politics.” Karalasingham's critique of
Tamil political leadership from TC to FP to TULF has proved to be prophetic.
Not only have they led the Tamil people into the present predicament, but
created the conditions that destroyed them leaving it to
another generation to help the
Tamil speaking people to burn themselves out.
In his
introduction to Karalasingham’s 1978 edition V.Satchithanandan said,
He is republishing these chapters without any alteration or amendment;
the readers will observe that they have stood the test of time ... not so with
the writings of communal leaders ... to illustrate this point, one has only to
read the booklet ‘Minorities and Constitutional Reforms by Mr.G.G.Ponnambalam
in 1939 ... But another booklet ‘Communalism or Nationalism’ Published by the
Jaffna Youth Congress in reply to this booklet - also in 1939 - has become a
document for all time ... After 50 Years of communal campaigning, what a
pathetic admission by the TULF to state in their 1977 Manifesto that the Tamil
Nation ‘gropes in the dark for identity and finds itself driven to the brink of
devastation?’ (Satchithananthan 1978)
Shanmugathasan - Stop Internecine Warfare
Karalasingham
and Satchithanandan did not live to see the bitter and prolonged struggle the
Tamil armed organizations have been involved in through the 1980s to the
present time. But others did. N.Shanmugathasan who died in 1993 has placed on
record his views, which provide a remarkable analysis from the left standpoint
of the failure of the Tamil political 1eadership. Whi1e Karalasingham was a
Trotskyite and a leading member of the LSSP, Shanmugathasan was well known and
widely respected as a staunch Marxist-Leninist who led the split from the
pro-Moscow Communist Party. Commenting on the future of Tamil politics after
the holocaust of 1983 he wrote:
I cannot close this story without a comment on the future of the
so-called terrorist movement in the North. The Marxist-Leninist attitude to
individual terrorism is quite clear. We do not support it because it is based
fundamentally on romantic and petit bourgeois ideology, which is characterized
by a lack of faith in the masses. It places its main reliance on a brand of
swashbuckling ‘Three Musketeers’ type of bravado, which is expected to perform
miraculous exploits against terrific odds. It advocates actions which can be
carried out by a few individuals without the need for popular support and which
can cause enemy losses without securing the support of the proletarian masses.
Where do they go from here? Not only must they not engage in activities
that would alienate them from the people, but they must quickly convert them
into a people’s movement of resistance. They must never make it a closed-door
organization, with excessive secrecy. They must base themselves in the people …
It is important that the different militant youth groups that are flourishing
in the north and east must stop their internecine warfare and unite against the
common enemy ... Fascism would have crept upon us even before we know it unless
the working class and the progressive forces read the symptoms aright and take
counter-action. On the unity of the revolutionary forces of the North and South
depends the future of Sri Lanka.” (Shanmugathasan 1984)
While
being strong opponents of Sinhala chauvinism/nationalism both Karalasingham and
Shanmugathasan represented a consistent position taken by the left movement in
the Tamil north to condemn and correct Tamil nationalist/chauvinist tendencies
from whichever quarter it came. One notable instance was when Sanmugathasan
dismissed Satchi Ponnambalam's book “Sri Lanka, The National Question and the
Tamil Liberation Struggle” (one of the earlier works published in 1984) in a
review in which he deplored the publication of this book as “Tamil communalism
gone mad.” He strongly objected to the misrepresentation of the history of the
Sinhalese people and accused Ponnambalam of denigrating their ancient
civilization. “It is true,” he wrote “the Tamils have suffered violence and the
regional autonomy demand has arisen as a result of these events. Why can’t we
put this argument straight without embellishments, myths and fantasies”
(Shanmugathasan 1983)
It has
been pointed out that Shanmugathasan in later years observed a progressive
content in the Tamil militant movements. There is no doubt a left element or
tendency in the militant movements and this remains an issue that has got to be
addressed. This has been overshadowed by the strident nationalist postures
Tamil militancy has taken and the complexities and contradictions that have
surfaced in the contemporary struggle. It is beyond the scope of this paper to
discuss these issues at this juncture.
Electoral Support and the KKS Bye-election
Other
prominent personalities who occupied positions of leadership or were candidates
at parliamentary elections from 1947 to 1965 included P.Nagalingam, R.R.Dharmaratnam,
A. Visuvanathan (LSSP) and P.Kandiah,
A.Vaidialingan, V.Ponnambalam (CP) M.Karthigesan (CP and later CP-Beijing), and
N.Vaikunthavasagan (editor of the Peoples Voice). These men were actively
engaged in politics. They were mostly lawyers or teachers. Numerous other party
members were teachers (including university academics), lawyers, doctors,
journalists, writers and trade unionists. People like Vaikunthavasagan and
K.C.Nithiyananda were involved in the 1946 strike but later became disillusioned
with the mainstream left parties. They retained a keen interest in politics
bordering on support for Tamil Eelam. Tharmakulasingam's premature death in the
1940s deprived the LSSP of a rising star in the Vadamaratchy area.
Constituency
wise consistently strong following was demonstrated at successive elections
from 1947 to 1960 (March & July) in the Kankesanturai, Pt.Pedro, Uduvil and
Vaddukoddai electorates. In these electorates, especially at the 1956 and the
1960 March & July elections the FP candidates had to fight hard to win
their seats. The polling figures do not do justice to the intense campaigning
and heated debates that took place in these electorates. Significantly the left
polled a sizeable vote against FP leader Chelvanayakam in KKS. In 1956 V.
Ponnambalam (CP) polled 4313 votes, 1960 March V.Karalasingam polled 5042, and
in 1970 V.Ponnambalam polled 8164.
Following
the adoption of the 1972 Constitution Chelvanayakam resigned his seat and
demanded the holding of a bye-election. Mrs. Bandaranaike deliberately delayed
the holding of this election until February 1975. By this time the United Front
Government had established the University of Jaffna (1974) and prominent left
sympathiser Kailasapathy had been appointed President of the Jaffna Campus.
Other well-known left sympathisers like Sivathamby had moved to Jaffna to
assume senior positions in the Faculty of Arts. This was the brief period when
the Jaffna campus was projected as a national campus and a fair number of
Sinhalese students and faculty members were moved to Jaffna. The Federal Party
did not approve of the manner in which the Jaffna Campus was established. The
small but influential Tamil Protestant Christian community was alienated when
the prestigious Jaffna College premises including its valuable library were
taken over by the state to establish the University of Jaffna. It was also the
period when due to the so-called standardisation issue in admissions to the
Medical, Engineering and Science faculties student unrest had begun to take
shape in Jaffna. Bitterness and anger against the United Front Government had
been heightened by the death of nine persons - a result of the rampage created
allegedly by the police - on the final day of the sessions of the International
Association for Tamil Research. In addition several Tamil youth associated with
the Elaignar Peravai (Youth-wing) of
the Federal Party having protested standardisation and the 1972 constitution
languished in jail without trial under emergency regulations. These included
now well-known names such as Mavai Senathirajah of the TULF (presently MP),
Varatharajah Perumal later of the EPRLF and one time chief minister of the NE
Provincial Council and Kasi Anandan later elected TULF MP for Batticaloa in
1977.
It was
in this tension packed atmosphere that the KKS bye-election was finally held in
February 1975. Chelvanayakam contested rejecting the 1972 constitution and
sought a mandate for Tamil Eelam. The election turned out to be a straight
contest with V.Ponnambalam of the CP backed by the SLFP and the LSSP. It was a
much observed and bitterly fought election. Chelvanayakam won with a majority
of 16470 having polled 25927. But V.Ponnambalam polled a substantial 9457. This
was the third highest polled by the left in and after 1947 in the Jaffna
district. The highest ever was polled by P. Kandiah of the CP (14381) when he
won the Pt. Pedro seat in 1956, and the second highest by A.Vaidialingam of the
CP also in 1956 (10,850) in the Vaddukoddai constituency where he lost to Amirthalingam.
The latter was an outstanding member of the Federal Party. He later succeeded
Chelvanayakam as leader of the TULF. Contesting the Vaddukoddai seat at
successive parliamentary elections he had to fight hard to win his seat often
in a triangular contest against the Tamil Congress or independent candidates
and the left. In 1956 the contest for the Vaddukoddai seat was a straight fight
between Amirthalingam (14,937) and Vaidialingam (10,850) of the CP.
Chelvanayakam's victory however was never in doubt but the number of votes
polled by his opponents is significant given his stature in the party and among
the Tamil people.
It was
a remarkable turn out in favour of V.Ponnambalam and the left in spite of the
growing bitterness against Mrs. Bandaranaike and the coalition that she led.
But this very fight put up against Chelvanayakam and his program had a sequel
worth noting. A year later Ponnambalam quit the Communist Party and with him
went the last bastion of the left movement in the north. He expressed his
regret for having contested the 1975 election against the venerated
Chelvanayakam and he signed the nomination papers of Amirthalingam when he
contested the KKS seat in 1977 after the death of Chelvanayakam. Ponnambalam
placed on record the reasons why he quit in a book in Tamil titled "Senthamilar Ahuvom." He had founded
the short-lived Senthamilar Iyakkam
(Red Tamils Movement) arguing in favour of the right to self-determination of
the Tamil people. He revealed how he and the Tamil supporters of the left
movement who had worked hard at the 1975 bye-election had been severely let
down. The United Front had given him the assurance that 48 hours before the
poll the Kankesanturai electorate would be flooded with pamphlets promising a
substantial degree of autonomy to the North and East that would have gone
beyond the aborted Bandaranaike- Chelvanayakam Pact of 1957. At the last minute
the SLFP high command went back on this promise and the CP leadership succumbed
to this betrayal.
This
particular experience destroyed whatever credibility the traditional left had
in the north. The army of young volunteers, in particular, who did the
canvassing for Ponnambalam felt doubly let down, by the local leadership and
the Colombo based leadership. They had seen the document, in fact carried it in
their pockets, and worked for the coalition candidate with dedication and
enthusiasm. The 1972 Constitution and its consequences, the disruption of the
IATR conference mentioned above and the betrayal of 1975 put together marked a
major turning point in the history of the Tamil north.
The
left leadership in Jaffna thereafter was deeply disillusioned. Several remained
in their respective parties out of loyalty to their old comrades and having no
faith in the growing Tamil nationalist forces. Attempts were made to regroup
when V. Ponnambalam having quit the Communist Party had organized the above
mentioned Senthamilar Iyakkam. The
inaugural meeting in 1977 held in Nallur was attended by a few hundred, mostly
former members and sympathisers of the several left parties. The meeting was
addressed among others by Amirthalingam, Sivasithambaram and Mavai Senathirajah
who were identified as belonging to a potential left wing within the TULF. The Senthamilar Iyakkam pledged itself to
maintain fraternal relations with the CP, LSSP and other Colombo based left
parties. It was also resolved to maintain close relations with the Soviet
Union, China and the East European socialist states and the worldwide parties
of the left, V.Ponnambalam having had a variety of close contacts all along.
When the movement sought membership within the TULF, the application was
defeated by one vote within the politburo of the Front, which was dominated by
what was then categorised as the conservative right wing. The TULF was meant to
be a front and not a monolithic party. It failed to broaden its base. This was
one among several factors that led to its decline.
In Defense of Human and Democratic Rights
In the
late 1970s and 80s when the left movement declined both in the north and south
the remaining members of the left became active in the human rights movements
in the north. When the Movement for Inter-Racial Justice and Equality was
founded in 1979 practically all the remnants of the left parties supported it.
In Jaffna several, if not all, the left groups were able to work together on a
common minimum program (unlike in the Colombo dominated south where they were
deeply divided). MIRJE Jaffna while primarily involved in human rights work
provided a common platform on which appeared members of the left parties, TULF
and its breakaway Tamil Eelam Liberation Front and prominent citizens in
Jaffna. It hosted visits by various groups from the south, which included left
sympathisers, journalists, the Student Christian Movement, the Christian
Workers’ Fellowship, and the Devasaranaramaya,
the All Ceylon Peasants Congress, Buddhist Monks and others. Several mass
protests in the form of meetings and Satyagraha sit-ins were organised by
MIRJE, initially by itself and subsequently jointly with a coalition of
organizations both religious and secular groups. The most politicised of these
was the General Union of Eelam Students, which was affiliated to the Eelam
Peoples’ Revolutionary Liberation Front. GUES continued the tradition
established by the left in observing May Day. In fairness to the EPRLF it must
be admitted that while involved in armed struggle that demanded utmost secrecy,
it alone among Tamil armed organisations had a student wing that functioned
openly and among the people. EROS for a while had some activists who organized
an occasional meeting or seminar but did not have the following or the public
profile that GUES had.
Most
of the human rights work though not all was done by one time left party members
or sympathisers. The late Dr.S.A.Tharmalingam was a founding member of the FP
and the later TULF. He subsequently broke away with K. Eelaventhan and Kovai
Mahesan (editor Suthanthiran) in
forming the Tamil Eelam Liberation Front. (3)
Politically he was not associated with the left. Yet he made his house
available for MIRJE committee meetings. He once commented that in his thirty years
in politics within the highest decision making bodies of the above two parties,
he had never witnessed the commitment, dedication and organizational expertise
that he now saw within MIRJE and the left-oriented groups that worked together
within the framework of democratic struggles. That kind of commitment and
organisational ability without indulging in populist rhetoric was a legacy from
the more responsible and democratic forces of the left. One must admit that
subsequently the Tamil Armed Organizations moved to the other extreme from
populist rhetoric to well-organized, disciplined and trained cadres with a
degree of commitment and a capacity for sacrifice unprecedented in our history,
whatever their failures in method and leadership.
Noteworthy
among the mass meetings and Satyagraha were the first ever human rights day
commemorated in Jaffna on 9 December 1979. Satyagraha took place in the
vicinity of the Nallur Temple, the Catholic Cathedral, and the Jaffna Mosque
and in the Jaffna University Campus protesting Emergency 79. About 70 delegates
representing several left groups in the south together with members of Colombo
MIRJE participated. In 1981 in the aftermath of the destruction of the Jaffna
Public Library and three consecutive nights of arson in Jaffna MIRJE took the
lead in documenting and protesting what happened. It was MIRJE members who
visited every site of destruction and documented what had happened. The final
document was drafted by Fr. Paul Casperzs and Regi Siriwardene and published
under the title "Jaffna - Days of Terror." It was on the initiative
of Bishop Deogupillai and MIRJE Jaffna that the first Jaffna Citizens Committee
came into existence in the Bishop’s House. This was composed of about 25
professionals and well known citizens. The whole group registered a strong
protest with the commanding officer of the Sri Lankan Army and the ministers
and officials present at the GA's residence in the Kachcheri premises. The
demand made was that police be confined to barracks and that the army patrol
the streets (the army was not yet involved in violence and pogrom type
incidents at that juncture). The members of the Citizens Committee jointly with
the army patrolled the four main roads in the peninsula for five consecutive
nights until normalcy was restored. (4)
The concerns of the above groups were not confined exclusively to the national question though this occupied centre stage. Support was given to those concerned with the struggles of the oppressed castes and landless labourers in Jaffna’s semi-feudal society. Among these were the activities of Rural Labourers’ Union, and the Non-Violent Action Group. MIRJE members got involved seeking redress for the caste based landless labourers who had gone on strike in Sirupiddy in 1982. Support was also given to protests organised by NSSP District Secretary A.K.Annamalai condemning acts of arson and violence against oppressed caste workers in Punnalaikadduwan.
Sympathy and Solidarity
The
destruction of the public library, created a great deal of sympathy for the
Tamil cause. The 1981 acts of violence more than any other events at this
moment in history internationalised the predicament of the Tamils and the
violations of their human rights. It was not possible for the state or the
Colombo based mainstream media to any longer suppress the truth. Delegation
after delegation from a broad spectrum of concerned citizens and groups from
Colombo and the rest of the country visited Jaffna to gain first hand
information and to express their solidarity with the people of Jaffna. It
however took six weeks for the first foreign journalist to arrive. Thereafter
came a stream of foreign journalists, academics, human rights groups and peace
activists. Invariably most visitors called on the Citizens’ Committee and
members of MIRJE Jaffna, in addition to prominent members of the TULF including
R.Viswanathan the dynamic and outspoken Mayor of Jaffna and the Leader of the
Opposition Mr. Amirthalingam.
The
first to arrive was a distinguished group of church leaders. Led by Lakshman
Wickremasinghe, Bishop of Kurunegala, the group included Roman Catholic Bishop
Leo Nanayakkara, Methodist Conference President Rev. Soma Perera, Fr. Tissa
Balasuriya of the Centre for Religion and Society and Fr. Paul Caspersz of
Satyodaya and President of MIRJE.
Politically left of centre these leaders understood the fundamental
grievances of the Tamil people, though they did not necessarily agree with the
solutions put forward by the Tamil political parties. They had more in common
with the left movement (not necessarily with the left political parties per se) and did have a history of
standing up in defense of the economic, social and political rights of the
working class and exploited peoples of the whole country. Bishop Lakshman
Wickremasinghe never failed to visit Jaffna every year. His address at the
funeral of S.J.V.Chelvanayakam in Jaffna in 1977 in the presence of the largest
gathering ever in contemporary times evoked immediate response and won for him
the unrivalled affection and respect of the Tamil people given to a leader from
the south. Sick and under-going treatment in the U.K. he returned to the
country soon after the 1983 holocaust. Deeply agitated and in failing health he
persisted in visiting the refugee camps in the north and east and witnessed
first hand the irretrievable damage that had been done to his ideal of a united
Lanka. Broken-hearted his pre-mature death was without doubt expedited by the
pain and suffering he had seen. To the end he had remained a consistent friend
of the Tamils.
Representatives
of every left party in the south visited Jaffna in this period including Lionel
Bopage from the JVP. The SLFP, rather late, nevertheless sent S.D.Bandaranaike
and Vijaya Kumaratunge. Both were received initially by representatives of the
Citizens’ Committee. This was probably Kumaratunge’s first exposure in Jaffna
to the escalating crisis in the context of the national question. He was to
play a notable role in relation to this in later years, which also led to his
assassination. The only party that was not welcome in Jaffna at this time was
the ruling UNP, which to this date has neither made an apology nor done any
self-criticism in relation to the massive acts of violence committed in their
years in power.
The
only major public meeting organised in Jaffna to protest the above days of
terror was organized by MIRJE jointly with the Organization for Justice to the
Strikers in October 1981. Participants included a Buddhist monk whose speech
drew the biggest applause in the fully packed Veerasingam Hall when he
unreservedly condemned the incidents in Jaffna. Among others present were Fr. Paul
Casperzs, Regi Siriwardene, Rev.Yohan Devananda and several representatives
from the left parties from the South. Mr. Amirthalingam made the major speech.
It was a remarkable joint protest.
The Final Stage
Other
major protests included the huge Satyagraha that took place on 27 November
1982. It was organised to protest the detention and solitary confinement of
Nirmala. Nithiyanandan, Fr. Singarayar, Fr. Sinnarasa, Dr. Jeyakularajah and
Rev. Jeyathilakarajah. The efforts made by MIRJE to have a joint protest
failed. TULF and GUES refused to participate together, GUES having made the
first move to organise protest. MIRJE representatives participated with both
groups. These were early signs that sectarianism was gaining dominance and
efforts made by the human rights groups in Jaffna were weakening.
While
coming together off and on to protest the escalating violence against the
Tamils, the several left oriented groups in Jaffna were not able to form a
common political front. While standing together solidly in Jaffna, ideological
quibbling, lack of trust and inability to work together in Colombo and the
south prevented continuing joint action in Jaffna. Nor was the TULF willing to
go beyond a certain point in joint action. Mr. Amirthalingam placed the TULF's
position in clear perspective at the above Veerasingam Hall meeting. He first
thanked Fr. Paul, Regi Siriwardene, Yohan Devananda and others who had come
from the south and for demonstrating solidarity with the Tamil people. Having
said that (speaking in Tamil) he quoted a well known Tamil proverb “Aluthalum pillai avale peravendum”
which in English has been translated to read “Though she weeps a mother must
give birth to her own child.” (Jensen 1982)
In saying this he conveyed the often-repeated message that “the struggle
is ultimately ours and it is only we as Tamils who can win our
liberation." This excluvist approach once again illustrated the
"fundamental flaw in the political strategy” of the Tamils that
Karalasingam pointed out. This attitude still persists, though amongst a
younger generation, and has been one among other major factors responsible for
the prolonged nature of the conflict with no end in sight in this country. But
the failure, it must be emphasised, has not been on the Tamil side alone.
The
minimum program for the left in Jaffna in the 1980s was to defend the
democratic and human rights of the Tamil people. At this juncture armed
struggle attracted and absorbed politicised youth. Some of the political
organizations involved in the armed struggle for a period claimed to be
left-oriented. Nevertheless the left tradition persists and is evident in the
writings and activism of a younger generation locally and abroad. Whether this
will take organisational forms is yet to be seen. The fact that there are young
people seeking alternatives is a sign of hope.
The
last attempt made by a local branch to contest an election was when the CP put
up A.Vaidialingam, a veteran member of the party as the mayoral candidate for
the 1980 Jaffna Municipal Council election. Without a campaign of any sorts or
even one meeting he polled a significant and solid 1000 votes. Mr.Poopalasingam
was a well-known left sympathiser in Jaffna. Having started as a small time
newspaper agent he eventually provided left and progressive literature from
both Colombo and South India, and provided the Jaffna public with a newsstand
where every left or pro-left publication published in the south was made
available, including Sinhalese language newspapers. Out of loyalty to an old
but dying tradition he led one solitary token demonstration, by a small group
of supporters through the streets of Jaffna in support of Vaidialingam. It may
be noted that Poopalasingam's three book shops and newsstands were repeatedly
burnt down allegedly by sections of the police force in their barbaric attacks
indulging in extensive acts of arson against the Jaffna market, and adjoining
shops and houses in 1977, 1981 and 1983.
Jaffna
gave one of the highest ‘no vote’ to the 1982 referendum. This was in spite of
a lukewarm campaign carried out by the TULF, and a call to boycott the
referendum by the NSSP. It came to be known that the TULF was not intending to
use TV and Radio time allocated them. When Mr. Amirthalingam was approached
with a request that they use the time in all three languages he confessed that
they did not have the funds to do so - at that time Rs.15, 000 for 15 minutes.
He expressed the view that if it were a parliamentary general election he could
raise a lakh or two in a couple of days in the grand bazaar but not for a
referendum. "The Jaffna businessmen" he said “preferred a UNP
government in power but they wanted us in parliament." The left groups
primarily through MIRJE organised a campaign, which included several meetings
and issued a statement signed by 40 trade unions and other organizations and
included several prominent senior citizens calling for a no vote. Jaffna
University teachers constituted the single largest group (for any campus) of
signatories constituting over thirty per cent, in a joint statement issued and
published in one of the Colombo dailies calling for a ‘no vote’ by university
teachers island wide.
MIRJE
ceased activities in Jaffna in 1987. Prominent members of the original
Citizen's Committee of 1981 moved to other parts of the country and abroad. In
a growing political scenario of violence and counter-violence by several
players including the state, there was no space for traditional left oriented
civic organisations. Mainstream left activism that prevailed for five to six
decades from the 1930s came to an end.
This narrative does not go
beyond the early 1980s and is primarily concerned with the mid-decades of this
century. It is not attempted here to go into the radical, rapid and complex
changes that have taken place among the Tamils, especially Tamil youth, in this
country in the last two decades. As admitted at the very beginning this
narrative is in many ways limited. No attempt is made to place in perspective
or to critically evaluate a continuation of a left tradition within the
movements engaged in prolonged armed struggle. That task necessarily has to be
accomplished by members of the younger generation who have been through it all.
This paper is essentially an
attempt to place on record a vital period in Tamil politics and in doing so
remains a tribute to those, including members of an older generation, who from
a left standpoint established a tradition that respects human and democratic
rights. Some paid the supreme price with their own lives. These were people who
stood for an egalitarian society free from discrimination and oppression, and
for a Lanka in which the Tamils together with the Sinhalese, Muslims and
members of all communities shall live with dignity, self-respect and security,
assured of their political, economic, social and cultural rights.
Acknowledgements
The
above paper has been re-written incorporating comments and answers to questions
raised at the symposium. Hence the transcript of the discussion is not included
here. The discussion both constructive and encouraging was immensely helpful,
especially the critical comments that came from participants who had lived in
Jaffna and had been knowledgeable observers and participants in the evolving
struggles there in the 1960s, 70s and the early 80s. Thanks are due to those
who contributed to the discussion which include the chairperson Dr Carlo
Fonseka, discussant Sumanasiri Liyanage, Jayadeva Uyangoda, Kethis Loganathan,
Rajan Philips, Lakshman Gunasekere, Kumar David, Tissa Vitharna, N.Kandasamy,
Siva Subramaniam, Sumathi Rajasingam and Sivagurunathan.
Notes
(1) The writer
was among the returnees from war-torn Malaysia (then the Federated States of
Malaya) in 1946, without any knowledge or exposure to the caste system that
prevailed in Jaffna. When the 1947 election came around the red flag was
prominently displayed on the streets, on vehicles and at meetings etc. When he
attempted to find out what these people stood for the answer given was that
these were political parties that demanded that the members of certain castes
be given the right to draw water from public wells. It was a shockingly whole
new world for the returnee.
(2) Orator Subramaniam outlived all his
contemporaries and was honoured by the alumni of his school in London and
Toronto. When he passed away in 1996 V.Ponnambalam much against the advice of
members of the family and doctors insisted on paying his tribute, to a leader
who stood by him all along, at the largely attended memorial meeting in
Toronto. He collapsed and died on the platform soon after his speech.
(3) The
J.R.Jayewardene government did not spare Dr.Tharmalingam in spite of his age.
In 1984 he together with Kovai Mahesan (editor of the Suthanthiran) were placed
under detention in the Colombo prisons under the Prevention of Terrorism Act..
(4) The formation of the Jaffna
Citizens’ Committee has not been documented. It became the model for several
citizens’ committees in the towns of the Northeast thereafter. It came into
existence on the first of June 1981. Jaffna MIRJE office-bearers
S.Pararajasingam (secretary) S.B.Arumainayagam (treasurer and later president)
and Silan Kadirgamar (president) had visited every major site including shops
and houses set on fire on 31st May and had drafted a report to be
published in the Eelanadu and also despatched to Colombo. It never got
published or despatched with a total breakdown in communications as the
violence escalated turning Jaffna city into a ghost town where fear reigned
supreme. On the night of June first the arson continued with the destruction of
more houses including the residence of and attempt on the life of V.Yogeswaran
M.P.for Jaffna, the Eelanadu Press, three bookshops owned by Poobalasingam, the
huge Jaffna market and numerous other buildings the most noteworthy being that
of the Jaffna Public Library with its 95,000 volumes. Jaffna gave the
appearance of a bombed out city, though actual bombing was to take place years
later. The event sent shock-waves to the Jaffna community. The Roman Catholic priests
deeply agitated and seeking action of some sort, had gathered in large numbers
at Bishops house. It was in this tension packed atmosphere that two of the
above MIRJE members called on the courageous and committed Bishop Deogupillai.
He was getting ready to personally call on the Commanding Officer of the Armed
Forces in Jaffna Colonel Weeratunge. The Bishop agreed to the suggestion made
by the MIRJE members that he take with him some well-known citizens. Several
who had telephones and had their own vehicles arrived within 20 minutes of
being called. After preliminary discussions the group drove in convoy to the
GA’s residence in the Old Park, opposite the Jaffna Kachcheri where the Army
Commander resided. Some UNP government ministers who had come to Jaffna to
campaign for the UNP at the District Council elections were also present. Bishop Deogupillai and Silan Kadirgamar were
appointed spokespersons on behalf of the delegation. Having registered their
protests in the strongest terms possible these persons returned to Bishops
House and constituted themselves as the Jaffna Citizens’ Committee. It was
proposed that president of Jaffna MIRJE be also president of the Citizens’
Committee. This was declined because it would have inhibited the broader concerns
of MIRJE at that time. Hence Prof. Luther Jeyasingam of the Jaffna University
was elected president. They met everyday for weeks and thereafter once a week
to monitor the situation. The role of the Citizens’ Committee was clearly
defined as that of helping to contain the situation when violence by the
security forces got out of hand. This was to be done by remaining in constant
communication with the GA, the police and the armed forces and documenting such
incidents where necessary and sending them to higher authorities in Colombo.
Given the deteriorating situation this was a delicate task. The understanding
among the members was that this should be done without taking partisan
political positions such as adopting the political program of any political party
or group. At the same time it was to be done without diluting the struggle of
the Tamil people in the pursuit of their legitimate political, social and
economic rights. The primary task was to prevent indiscriminate violence,
defuse the situation and restore normalcy, while defending the democratic and
human rights of the citizens of Jaffna.
Bibliography
Chattopadhyaya
Kamaladevi Srimathi. 1931. Presidential
Address. The Students’ Congress, Jaffna, Seventh Annual Sessions. The Saiva
Prakasa Press. Jaffna.
de
Silva G.P.S.H. 1979. A Statistical Survey
of Elections to the Legislatures of Sri Lanka 1911-1977, Marga Institute, Colombo.
Jensen,
Rev.Hermen 1982. A Classified Collection
of Tamil Proverbs. Asian Educational Services, Madras. (Reprint London,
1897)
Kadirgamar,
Santasilan 1980. The Jaffna Youth Congress. In Handy Perinbanayagam - A Memorial Volume, Thirumakal Press,
Chunnakam, Sri Lanka.
Karalasingham.V.
1978. The Way Out for the Tamil-Speaking
People, International Publishers, Colombo.
Shanmugathasan.N.
1983. Tamil Communalism Gone Mad, in Sri
Lanka News, 15 December 1983.
Shanmugathasan.N.
1984. Sri Lanka: The Story of the
Holocaust, in Sri Lanka: Racism and the Authoritarian State, Race & Class, Vol. XXVI, Summer
1984, No.1.
Satchithananthan.V.
1978. Introduction. In The Way Out for
the Tamil-Speaking People, Karalasingham.V. 1978. International Publishers,
Colombo.
Sivathamby.K
1999. Fifty Years of Sri Lankan Tamil
Literature. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5180/srilitt.html
Web pages of Tamil Electronic Library. K.Kalyanasundaram
This
above paper was published in:
(1) SRI
LANKA: GLOBAL CHALLENGES AND NATIONAL CRISIS
Proceedings
of the Hector Abhayavardhana Felicitation Symposium
Edited
by Rajan Philips
Ecumenical
Institute for Study and Dialogue & Social Scientist’s Association, Colombo
2001
Symposium
was held 27 and 28 December 1999, at the Ecumenical Institute for Study and
Dialogue, 490/5, HavelockRoad, Colombo 6, Sri Lanka.
(2) Sunday Observer carried the first
draft beginning 16 January 2000 to
20 February in six instalments.
Thanks
to Ajit Samaranayake who was editor at that time.