Archives

by Somachandre Wijesuriya

O. A. Ramiah's article, 'Rohana Wijeweera-Reminiscence and Reflections' (DN-21-11-2002) deserves undivided attention of any person who wishes to understand the JVP as a political phenomenon. Ramiah is an official of Ceylon Plantation Workers' Red Flag Union. The contents of the article are of paramount importance because it has been written by a trade union leader and therefore, reflects on the theoretical consciousness of the working class leadership of this country.

There has been a number of books and literature published on the JVP phenomenon. Justice A. C. Alles's book is a good record of the history of the 1971 uprising. A couple of books and articles by participants themselves have been published. Among them 'JVP-Origins, Expansion and Politics' by four authors namely, Vasantha Dissanayake, Patrick Fernando, Sarath de Silva and Ranjith Kumara (Diyesa Prakashana) analyses JVP from a retrospective viewpoint. Out of these, the first named two were activists in Kegalle district. This book tries to learn from the mistakes of JVP.

It maintains that JVP only gave organised expression to the burning rage of the people, which manifested as personal assassinations and terrorist acts. (Introduction)

Another activist Victor Ivan ('71 April Rebellion - Lake House Investments) says that Wijeweera was not conversant with the Marxist doctrine but pretented to be a Marxist. (P 17) He perceived the Revolution as conquest of state power by armed struggle of a group. Ivan says that Wijeweera had a Norodnik awareness of the suffering of the peasantry but has not admitted the urban workers' leading role in the revolution. Except, the Alles' book, I am not aware whether others are available in English.

Revolution

Ramiah had met Rohana consequent to the April insurgency and after JVP legalised and Wijeweera, released. Wijeweera had told Ramiah 'Rama, only the JVP will lead the proletarian revolution'. Apparently, Wijeweera may have believed that he was engaging himself in some kind of revolutionary activities.

Therefore, in order to understand Mr. Ramiah's articles as well as Rohana Wijeweera's politics it is necessary to clear terminology.

Firstly, there is a difference between the two words 'Revolution' and 'Rebellion'. In clearing terminology, another word that might be useful is 'Putsch'. Let us take some examples.

The English revolution (1640-1660) is an example of a revolution. The king of England, Charles I, was executed during the revolution and Oliver Cromwell ruled the Commonwealth comprising England, Ireland and Scotland. That revolution started the process of reducing the absolute monarchy, which ruled by divine right, to that of a constitutional monarchy.

The Industrial Revolution of UK was possible only under such historical conditions. The French Revolution of 1789 overthrew the absolute monarchy of France and established modern capitalist era over feudalism. The American Revolution won the independence for Americans from the British and was supported by the French. The most recent revolution was the Bolshevik Revolution of Russia (1917), which established a socialist regime in the world after overthrowing a feudal order ruled by the absolute monarchy Czar.

Revolution is defined as forcible, pervasive, and often violent change of a social or political order. Revolution is an extreme political option of a dissenting group, a course taken generally when more moderate attempts to achieve reform have failed.

On the other hand, rebellion is an armed opposition to an established government or other authority by a portion of those subject to its jurisdiction. A rebellion that is successful in overthrowing a government is considered a revolution. A revolution may not be always beneficial to society. Politically considered, the ugliest blot in European civilization, Adolph Hitler's political revolution in Germany, was the answer to the Bolshevik revolution.

A putsch or a 'coup de tat' is a sudden attempt by a group to overthrow a government. We had a demonstration of this in 1962 by a group of military personnel, which was unsuccessful. A number of such putsches in the Middle East were successful. Najib of Egypt, Gadaffi of Libya etc were army officers who acted under the influence of Baath Socialist Party. They were not revolutions in the classical sense but the focus was on liberating the economy from foreign domination. Essentially these putsches brought the national bourgeoisie of these countries to power.

Ramiah

Ramiah's article betrays an element of personal adulation, as he knew Rohana from the days of Peking Wing of the Communist Party, led by Shanmugathasan. However, Ramiah makes three grave theoretical mistakes in his article. They are certainly due to a lack of clarity of the history of international revolutionary movements, than to his adulatory confusions.

He says, 'Rohana Wijeweera, the leader of the JVP, led the first armed struggle in the post colonial and post independence period storming the powerhouse of the bourgeoisie and exploiting classes by launching the insurgency in April 1971, just hundred years after the proletarians of Paris "stormed the heaven" as Karl Marx described the Paris Commune Revolution. Though different in character and politics, the class element of the insurgency cannot be concealed even in defeat'.

This is Ramiah's first mistake. The Paris Commune can never be compared with the first JVP uprising in any similarity of character or politics.

Consequent to the defeat of French in the Franco-Prussian war, on March 18, 1871, the workers of Paris expelled the bourgeoisie rulers from the city and took power into their own hands. Ten days later, they set up the Paris Commune, the first proletarian state in the world. It was entirely a new type of government because all its political and social measures were taken in the interest of the working class above all others.

It lasted for 72 days and fell, under the blows of external and internal reactionary forces. The French bourgeoisie collaborated with their conquerors the Germans, on the small matter of obliterating the Communards.

After the fall of the Commune, the International Working Man's Association (the First International) headed by Marx and Engles led the movement in support of the Commune and organised protests against the atrocities committed by its suppressors. 'The Commune' Lenin said, 'taught the European proletariat to pose concretely the tasks of socialist revolution'.

JVP

Rohana Wijeweera had no ideas of establishing a proletariat state like the Communards. In the case of Communards, the workers' interests were above others. JVP has not declared such a standpoint. The above quoted book, 'JVP-Origins' (Wasantha, Patrick at el) has this to say of the political philosophy of JVP 'Based on a class analysis, JVP opinionated a petty bourgeoisie view.

The classical elements of the petty bourgeoisie - hypocrisy, unpricinpled vacillation from one idea to another, impatience, idealism, anti-dialectical positions-are the hallmarks of JVP outlook'. (P.197) The various pamphlets released by the JVP addresses 'Patriot Citizens' (Desha Premi) and not the working class.

Therefore, the comparison of 1971 JVP uprising with that of the Paris Commune is erroneous.

The second mistake of Ramiah is his comment of Mao that 'political power grows out of the barrel of the gun'.

This is contrary to the Leninist position that all bombs are useless without the working class participation in the revolution. Ramiah maybe aware that Lenin was vehemently against acts of individual terrorism of the Narodniks in Russia. In fact, Lenin's brother was hanged by the Czarist regime in connection with a failed assassination of the Czar. Apart from that personal experience, Lenin explained that mere hatred against the oppressor is not a winning formula in revolutionary politics.

The Chinese revolution would have been successful in 1927 and not 1948, if not for the pact with Chiang Kai Chek dictated by the Russian Stalinists. Mao's role in it cannot be understood without a background of the rise of Stalinism in USSR. Such an analysis is beyond this article.

The third mistake of Ramiah is his misunderstanding of the theoretical base of the national question. He says 'Rohana said that once the revolution succeeds masses would rally, and assured that he was not a Communalist. Communalism would be used only as a tactical line.' This is totally unacceptable from a person who claims to be a Marxist. There cannot be any use of communalism in Marxist revolutionary politics tactically or otherwise.

Balasuriya

Among the literature on the JVP, the book titled 'The Politics and Class Nature of JVP' (Sinhala) by late Keerthi Balasuriya, who was the General Secretary of the Revolutionary Communist League deserves special mention because the articles in the book was published in 1970 in 'Kamkaru Mawatha', before the JVP uprising. In that book, Balasuriya examines the influence of the Cuban Revolution on the JVPers who were named 'Che Guevarists' at that time by the media.

Castro was successful in capturing power through an armed uprising in Cuba not because the correctness of his revolutionary analysis but because the Americans stopped supplies of military assistance to Batista whose repressive regime had become an embarrassment to the Americans themselves. The Americans gave implicit support to Castro who later embraced the Russian Stalinist leadership. Balasuriya thus explodes the myth of the Cuban Revolution, which was a definite influence on the JVP in 1970s.

Balasuriya was prophetic in his analysis because he predicted that the JVP would one day take the Fascist path, which was confirmed by their activities in 1987-89. He based his prediction on JVP's vehement hatred of Tamil estate-labour who was seen as insidious organs in Indian expansionism by the JVP. This book will definitely enlighten any estate trade unionist.

Debray

Writers like Regis Debray who supported Mao's principle of "politics directs the gun" propagated the myth of the Cuban Revolution. On the Cuban uprising Debray writes.

"The Latin American revolution and its vanguard, the Cuban revolution, have thus made a decisive contribution to international revolutionary experience and to Marxism-Leninism" (Revolution in the Revolution-Regis Debray. Penguin Books 1968 P. 104). Commenting about Marxist theory and revolutionary practice. Debray quotes Che Guevara. 'As tentative and tenuous as the reconciliation may appear, it is the guerilla movement-master of its own political leadership-that embodies it, this handful of men 'with no other alternative but death or victory, at moments when death was a concept a thousands times more real, and victory a myth that only a revolutionary can dream of...' (P 106 ibid)

This kind of martyrdom was very much evident among the cadres of the JVP. One person who was seriously injured in a bomb incident requested his fellow cadres to kill him and escape without detection. within a Marxist perspective, analysis of class relations is more valid in a revolutionary struggle, than such personal valour. Bombs are no substitute to dialectical materialism.

Writers like Regis Debray are mythmakers and unfortunately, the kind of politics they espouse is much practiced by guerrillas from Nepal to Peru. Instead of this Ramboism, they should advocate sale of Che Guevara t-shirts as a revolutionary alternative! Had they done so this country would have saved over 100,000 young lives!

Wijeweera

A historical assessment of Wijeweera should take into consideration the social forces that manifested itself in the postcolonial era of this country. Ramiah's article mentions the role of Bandaranaike in the postcolonial politics. The article quotes Wijeweera.

'Rohana said that SWRD misunderstood and misused Sinhala people's aspirations, and used communal slogans to capture power'.

Bandaranaike's role cannot be understood with such empirical observations. Bandaranaike was not alone in this game. The national bourgeoisie in colonial countries cannot transcend their narrow self-interest and unlike their counterparts in Europe were not a revolutionary class. Napoleon's guns flattened the feudal institutions in Europe.

On the contrary, the national bourgeoisie in the orient used politically backward mass consciousness to organise the people to obtain political independence of the countries in order to consolidate their political power.

Gandhi is an example. Traditionalism, feudal rituals, and the state support for religions were their mainstay in politics because masses congregate to such display. In Pakistan, tribal rule is very much a factor as per a recent news item, which described a gang rape of a woman who had resisted traditional values. Feudalists rule the country and the best posts in the army and civil service are reserved to the feudal clans.

The 1971 uprising was a challenge to the Sinhala-Buddhist consciousness of the country. It may have prevented the process of a fundamentalist military-bureaucratic regime like the Pakistani (Moslem) variety or the Burmese (Buddhist) variety being established in this country. Religious fundamentalism has nothing to do with religion but is a oppressive political instrument, to preserve a privileged class and property relations.

Certain reforms like the land reform was consequent to the uprising. Wijeweera may have brought a degree of secularisation to politics in Sri Lanka.

(Somachandre Wijesuriya is the author of the novel 'First Rising', which portrays the social background that generated the 1971 insurrection).

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries |

Produced by Lake House
Copyright 2001 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager