Features
Marxism and nationalism: A never-ending debate
By Uditha Devapriya
On December 1, 1975, the New Left Review published an essay by the Scottish historian and political theorist Tom Nairn which began with these extraordinary words: “The theory of nationalism represents Marxism’s great historical failure.” The essay came five years or so before the beginning of the global retreat of socialism, the great neoliberal revolution that would eventually deal a blow to the Left the world over. It was a broad critique of Marxism and Marxists. But rather than critiquing the Left for not being strong enough against their opponents on the economic right, it castigated them for overlooking a more formidable foe: the nationalist right. For Nairn, this was an unforgivable omission.
It has been almost half a century since Nairn’s essay was first published, and much water has flowed since then: the end of socialism, symbolised by the collapse of the Soviet Union; the all too brief rise of a unipolar order, led by the United States; the growth of resurgent, militant nationalisms, aimed against that order and country; the incredible ascent of rival powers, particularly China, and an array of “middle-powers”, including India and Brazil; and growing solidarity in the Global South. While not all these developments have borne out Nairn’s prognostications, the Marxist Left has actively tried to adapt itself to them, and has tried to tackle the issues that Nairn highlighted in his essay.
And yet, even after 50 years, we can still say that Marxism, and Marxist movements, including mainstream political parties, remain somewhat amiss when it comes to the issue of nationalism. The orthodox Marxist position – that nationalism was a remnant of some bygone, archaic past, and that the Left’s task was to undermine such remnants and pave the way for a socialist advance – has simply not stood the test of time. To this critique, orthodox Marxists give an even more predictable response: that the Left itself was hijacked by deviant elements – by which they invariably mean the petty bourgeoisie – and that these elements distorted Marxist tenets to their benefit, thereby preventing the Left from achieving its task. Such arguments are to me disingenuous, evasive, and anything but productive.
To say that is not to ignore the complex relationship between nationalism and Marxism. In fact, at times, this relationship has been more problematic, more complicated, than that between Marxism and liberalism. With its valorisation of “universal” constitutional rights, and despite its refusal to embrace material economic rights, liberalism has won sections of the Left to its cause. With its repudiation of universalism, its emphasis on the particular, by contrast, nationalism, particularly its more extremist, fringe variants, has made a foe out of Marxism. This is all the more boggling when you consider that around 75 years ago the two forces seemed aligned and united on several issues, including the key question of opposing imperialism. Anti-imperialist politics do bring them together today, but such unity seems to me facile, marginal, a pale replica of the situation before 1977.
Particularly in colonial societies like Sri Lanka, the Left had no alternative but to pursue common ground with anti-imperialist nationalism. In Sri Lanka this encouraged the Left, broadly composed of urban and suburban middle-class intellectuals who had studied in Europe and the US, at the LSE and at Cambridge, to make inroads into the country’s south-western quadrant, from Colombo, Kalutara, and Ratnapura, through the Uva and into the South. Once established there, the Left had to speak in the language of these communities. This does not mean they appropriated or embraced their rhetoric, or that they succumbed to the temptations of narrow communalism, as later Left movements did. But for a while at least, they were able to win these communities over, and to set camp in peasant heartlands, even as they mobilised working class movements in the cities.
Was it a failure on the part of the Left that it did not fully appreciate the contradictions between the secular-humanist goals they had set for the country and the communalist-exclusivist goals their nationalist allies had set for it? Perhaps. Yet to be fair by the Left, there were factors which exacerbated these tensions, among them the UNP government’s decision to deprive plantation Tamils of their citizenship – a move aimed at crippling the Left of its base in the estates – and the SLFP government’s mobilisation of Sinhala and Buddhist middle-classes, a development that not only deprived the Old Left of a progressive rural-urban nationalist base, but also converted that milieu from the ideals of a secular-humanist Marxism to an ideology based on the pursuit of exclusivism.
Perhaps it was their wholesale embracing of those ideals – of secularism and humanism, ideals which to me seem superior to those touted by nationalists – which blinded them to the appeal of their opponents, from both Sinhala and Tamil nationalist streams. This would be Tom Nairn’s argument, and it is the argument that Michael Walzer invokes in his book The Paradox of Liberation as well. Certainly, the chasm between the Left and the nationalist middle-classes in Sri Lanka indicate that the Marxists’ adherence to such ideals has made it difficult for them to forge or enter any alliance with this milieu, unless they seek an alliance with political outfits which appeal to such communities.
This is the strategy that the Old Left, in particular the Communist Party, has chosen, as witness the CPSL’s involvement in the Uttara Lanka Sabhagaya. Yet the Old Left now has a formidable opponent in the JVP-NPP, an outfit that has demonstrated again and again that, despite its liberal cosmopolitan veneer, it is not above using the same inflammatory rhetoric which upended the CPSL and the Lanka Sama Samaja Party decades ago.
In an interview years ago, Nalin de Silva, the ideological citadel of Sinhala nationalism, spoke rather frankly about his former involvement in Marxist politics. He pointed out that just as Siddhartha Gautama attempted to seek Enlightenment through Āḷāra Kālāma and Uddaka Rāmaputta, he had tried to learn about the world through Marxism. Yet like the soon-to-be Gautama Buddha’s encounter with Kālāma and Rāmaputta, his immersion in Marxist politics eventually disillusioned him and turned him away. Marxism had repudiated imperialism and launched a commendable assault on neoliberalism, but to Nalin, it had not fully critiqued or attacked Western hegemony, particularly hegemony over knowledge. In that respect, Nalin noted, his shift from Marxist politics to an ideological repudiation of the West had been, not a descent as Left ideologues would counter, but a progression.
There is much to disagree with this argument. But it underlies the irresistible and almost mystical appeal of nationalism. Nationalism represents itself as an alternative not so much to economic subjugation as to all forms of subjugation by the West. Not long ago, I myself flirted with it, and in its own way it has moulded me, despite my objections to it. Yet I know that for all the limitations of narrow-minded nationalism, it is much easier to mobilise the Sinhala Buddhist middle-class – which, despite what you may think of its ideals, constitutes the single biggest electorate in this country – with the rhetoric of religion and race than the cause of socialist advance. This is a gap Marxists must endeavour to fill.
And fill it they must, for in the never-ending debate between Marxists and nationalists, the latter have usually come off well, not least because of the ideological and material support they have gained, and continue to gain, from the economic right. In itself, this is a paradox: how can forces supposedly hostile to Western economic subjugation allow themselves to be captured by powerful economic forces one would normally not associate with them? But then that has always been the case. Indeed, the nationalist right’s charge that the Old Left, at the height of their power in the 1970s, connived in destroying the Sinhala businessman, that in nationalising the transport and estate sectors they crippled the Sinhala bourgeoisie, is a favourite refrain of the petty bourgeoisie coveted by the right, and it sits in well with the interests and the aims of elite sections of the Sinhala middle-classes.
In his book, Michael Walzer suggests that the Left should seriously engage with these forces and communities, rather than succumbing to or dismissing them. There is much to think about this argument. It represents a sequel of sorts to Nairn’s critique of Marxism. In the context of an ever-widening gap between Left forces and the nationalist right in Sri Lanka, I believe we should take stock of such arguments and build bridges, not with the nationalist right, but with the communities which the nationalist right targets. To do so, it is imperative that our Marxist theorists and commentators reflect on how they are seen by conservative-traditionalist elements in our society, and confront some of the more persistent stereotypes associated with the Left, such as its hostility to the past.
NB: This essay has benefitted substantially from conversations with Pasindu Nimsara Thennakoon, who provoked me to think of the ways in which the Sinhala middle-classes, particularly in rural areas, view Marxism and Marxists.
The writer is an international relations analyst, researcher, and columnist who can be reached at udakdev1@gmail.com.
by Dr Gotabhya Ranasinghe
Senior Consultant Cardiologist
National Hospital Sri Lanka
When we sought a meeting with Hon Dr. Ramesh Pathirana, Minister of Health, he graciously cleared his busy schedule to accommodate us. Renowned for his attentive listening and deep understanding, Minister Pathirana is dedicated to advancing the health sector. His openness and transparency exemplify the qualities of an exemplary politician and minister.
Dr. Palitha Mahipala, the current Health Secretary, demonstrates both commendable enthusiasm and unwavering support. This combination of attributes makes him a highly compatible colleague for the esteemed Minister of Health.
Our discussion centered on a project that has been in the works for the past 30 years, one that no other minister had managed to advance.
Minister Pathirana, however, recognized the project’s significance and its potential to revolutionize care for heart patients.
The project involves the construction of a state-of-the-art facility at the premises of the National Hospital Colombo. The project’s location within the premises of the National Hospital underscores its importance and relevance to the healthcare infrastructure of the nation.
This facility will include a cardiology building and a tertiary care center, equipped with the latest technology to handle and treat all types of heart-related conditions and surgeries.
Securing funding was a major milestone for this initiative. Minister Pathirana successfully obtained approval for a $40 billion loan from the Asian Development Bank. With the funding in place, the foundation stone is scheduled to be laid in September this year, and construction will begin in January 2025.
This project guarantees a consistent and uninterrupted supply of stents and related medications for heart patients. As a result, patients will have timely access to essential medical supplies during their treatment and recovery. By securing these critical resources, the project aims to enhance patient outcomes, minimize treatment delays, and maintain the highest standards of cardiac care.
Upon its fruition, this monumental building will serve as a beacon of hope and healing, symbolizing the unwavering dedication to improving patient outcomes and fostering a healthier society.We anticipate a future marked by significant progress and positive outcomes in Sri Lanka’s cardiovascular treatment landscape within the foreseeable timeframe.
by Fr. Emmanuel Fernando, OMI
Jesuit Fr. Aloysius Pieris (affectionately called Fr. Aloy) celebrated his 90th birthday on April 9, 2024 and I, as the editor of our Oblate Journal, THE MISSIONARY OBLATE had gone to press by that time. Immediately I decided to publish an article, appreciating the untiring selfless services he continues to offer for inter-Faith dialogue, the renewal of the Catholic Church, his concern for the poor and the suffering Sri Lankan masses and to me, the present writer.
It was in 1988, when I was appointed Director of the Oblate Scholastics at Ampitiya by the then Oblate Provincial Fr. Anselm Silva, that I came to know Fr. Aloy more closely. Knowing well his expertise in matters spiritual, theological, Indological and pastoral, and with the collaborative spirit of my companion-formators, our Oblate Scholastics were sent to Tulana, the Research and Encounter Centre, Kelaniya, of which he is the Founder-Director, for ‘exposure-programmes’ on matters spiritual, biblical, theological and pastoral. Some of these dimensions according to my view and that of my companion-formators, were not available at the National Seminary, Ampitiya.
Ever since that time, our Oblate formators/ accompaniers at the Oblate Scholasticate, Ampitiya , have continued to send our Oblate Scholastics to Tulana Centre for deepening their insights and convictions regarding matters needed to serve the people in today’s context. Fr. Aloy also had tried very enthusiastically with the Oblate team headed by Frs. Oswald Firth and Clement Waidyasekara to begin a Theologate, directed by the Religious Congregations in Sri Lanka, for the contextual formation/ accompaniment of their members. It should very well be a desired goal of the Leaders / Provincials of the Religious Congregations.
Besides being a formator/accompanier at the Oblate Scholasticate, I was entrusted also with the task of editing and publishing our Oblate journal, ‘The Missionary Oblate’. To maintain the quality of the journal I continue to depend on Fr. Aloy for his thought-provoking and stimulating articles on Biblical Spirituality, Biblical Theology and Ecclesiology. I am very grateful to him for his generous assistance. Of late, his writings on renewal of the Church, initiated by Pope St. John XX111 and continued by Pope Francis through the Synodal path, published in our Oblate journal, enable our readers to focus their attention also on the needed renewal in the Catholic Church in Sri Lanka. Fr. Aloy appreciated very much the Synodal path adopted by the Jesuit Pope Francis for the renewal of the Church, rooted very much on prayerful discernment. In my Religious and presbyteral life, Fr.Aloy continues to be my spiritual animator / guide and ongoing formator / acccompanier.
Fr. Aloysius Pieris, BA Hons (Lond), LPh (SHC, India), STL (PFT, Naples), PhD (SLU/VC), ThD (Tilburg), D.Ltt (KU), has been one of the eminent Asian theologians well recognized internationally and one who has lectured and held visiting chairs in many universities both in the West and in the East. Many members of Religious Congregations from Asian countries have benefited from his lectures and guidance in the East Asian Pastoral Institute (EAPI) in Manila, Philippines. He had been a Theologian consulted by the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences for many years. During his professorship at the Gregorian University in Rome, he was called to be a member of a special group of advisers on other religions consulted by Pope Paul VI.
Fr. Aloy is the author of more than 30 books and well over 500 Research Papers. Some of his books and articles have been translated and published in several countries. Among those books, one can find the following: 1) The Genesis of an Asian Theology of Liberation (An Autobiographical Excursus on the Art of Theologising in Asia, 2) An Asian Theology of Liberation, 3) Providential Timeliness of Vatican 11 (a long-overdue halt to a scandalous millennium, 4) Give Vatican 11 a chance, 5) Leadership in the Church, 6) Relishing our faith in working for justice (Themes for study and discussion), 7) A Message meant mainly, not exclusively for Jesuits (Background information necessary for helping Francis renew the Church), 8) Lent in Lanka (Reflections and Resolutions, 9) Love meets wisdom (A Christian Experience of Buddhism, 10) Fire and Water 11) God’s Reign for God’s poor, 12) Our Unhiddden Agenda (How we Jesuits work, pray and form our men). He is also the Editor of two journals, Vagdevi, Journal of Religious Reflection and Dialogue, New Series.
Fr. Aloy has a BA in Pali and Sanskrit from the University of London and a Ph.D in Buddhist Philosophy from the University of Sri Lankan, Vidyodaya Campus. On Nov. 23, 2019, he was awarded the prestigious honorary Doctorate of Literature (D.Litt) by the Chancellor of the University of Kelaniya, the Most Venerable Welamitiyawe Dharmakirthi Sri Kusala Dhamma Thera.
Fr. Aloy continues to be a promoter of Gospel values and virtues. Justice as a constitutive dimension of love and social concern for the downtrodden masses are very much noted in his life and work. He had very much appreciated the commitment of the late Fr. Joseph (Joe) Fernando, the National Director of the Social and Economic Centre (SEDEC) for the poor.
In Sri Lanka, a few religious Congregations – the Good Shepherd Sisters, the Christian Brothers, the Marist Brothers and the Oblates – have invited him to animate their members especially during their Provincial Congresses, Chapters and International Conferences. The mainline Christian Churches also have sought his advice and followed his seminars. I, for one, regret very much, that the Sri Lankan authorities of the Catholic Church –today’s Hierarchy—- have not sought Fr.
Aloy’s expertise for the renewal of the Catholic Church in Sri Lanka and thus have not benefited from the immense store of wisdom and insight that he can offer to our local Church while the Sri Lankan bishops who governed the Catholic church in the immediate aftermath of the Second Vatican Council (Edmund Fernando OMI, Anthony de Saram, Leo Nanayakkara OSB, Frank Marcus Fernando, Paul Perera,) visited him and consulted him on many matters. Among the Tamil Bishops, Bishop Rayappu Joseph was keeping close contact with him and Bishop J. Deogupillai hosted him and his team visiting him after the horrible Black July massacre of Tamils.
Sri Lanka-Singapore Free Trade Agreement
By Gomi Senadhira
senadhiragomi@gmail.com
“You might tell fairy tales, but the progress of a country cannot be achieved through such narratives. A country cannot be developed by making false promises. The country moved backward because of the electoral promises made by political parties throughout time. We have witnessed that the ultimate result of this is the country becoming bankrupt. Unfortunately, many segments of the population have not come to realize this yet.” – President Ranil Wickremesinghe, 2024 Budget speech
Any Sri Lankan would agree with the above words of President Wickremesinghe on the false promises our politicians and officials make and the fairy tales they narrate which bankrupted this country. So, to understand this, let’s look at one such fairy tale with lots of false promises; Ranil Wickremesinghe’s greatest achievement in the area of international trade and investment promotion during the Yahapalana period, Sri Lanka-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (SLSFTA).
It is appropriate and timely to do it now as Finance Minister Wickremesinghe has just presented to parliament a bill on the National Policy on Economic Transformation which includes the establishment of an Office for International Trade and the Sri Lanka Institute of Economics and International Trade.
Was SLSFTA a “Cleverly negotiated Free Trade Agreement” as stated by the (former) Minister of Development Strategies and International Trade Malik Samarawickrama during the Parliamentary Debate on the SLSFTA in July 2018, or a colossal blunder covered up with lies, false promises, and fairy tales? After SLSFTA was signed there were a number of fairy tales published on this agreement by the Ministry of Development Strategies and International, Institute of Policy Studies, and others.
However, for this article, I would like to limit my comments to the speech by Minister Samarawickrama during the Parliamentary Debate, and the two most important areas in the agreement which were covered up with lies, fairy tales, and false promises, namely: revenue loss for Sri Lanka and Investment from Singapore. On the other important area, “Waste products dumping” I do not want to comment here as I have written extensively on the issue.
1. The revenue loss
During the Parliamentary Debate in July 2018, Minister Samarawickrama stated “…. let me reiterate that this FTA with Singapore has been very cleverly negotiated by us…. The liberalisation programme under this FTA has been carefully designed to have the least impact on domestic industry and revenue collection. We have included all revenue sensitive items in the negative list of items which will not be subject to removal of tariff. Therefore, 97.8% revenue from Customs duty is protected. Our tariff liberalisation will take place over a period of 12-15 years! In fact, the revenue earned through tariffs on goods imported from Singapore last year was Rs. 35 billion.
The revenue loss for over the next 15 years due to the FTA is only Rs. 733 million– which when annualised, on average, is just Rs. 51 million. That is just 0.14% per year! So anyone who claims the Singapore FTA causes revenue loss to the Government cannot do basic arithmetic! Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I call on my fellow members of this House – don’t mislead the public with baseless criticism that is not grounded in facts. Don’t look at petty politics and use these issues for your own political survival.”
I was surprised to read the minister’s speech because an article published in January 2018 in “The Straits Times“, based on information released by the Singaporean Negotiators stated, “…. With the FTA, tariff savings for Singapore exports are estimated to hit $10 million annually“.
As the annual tariff savings (that is the revenue loss for Sri Lanka) calculated by the Singaporean Negotiators, Singaporean $ 10 million (Sri Lankan rupees 1,200 million in 2018) was way above the rupees’ 733 million revenue loss for 15 years estimated by the Sri Lankan negotiators, it was clear to any observer that one of the parties to the agreement had not done the basic arithmetic!
Six years later, according to a report published by “The Morning” newspaper, speaking at the Committee on Public Finance (COPF) on 7th May 2024, Mr Samarawickrama’s chief trade negotiator K.J. Weerasinghehad had admitted “…. that forecasted revenue loss for the Government of Sri Lanka through the Singapore FTA is Rs. 450 million in 2023 and Rs. 1.3 billion in 2024.”
If these numbers are correct, as tariff liberalisation under the SLSFTA has just started, we will pass Rs 2 billion very soon. Then, the question is how Sri Lanka’s trade negotiators made such a colossal blunder. Didn’t they do their basic arithmetic? If they didn’t know how to do basic arithmetic they should have at least done their basic readings. For example, the headline of the article published in The Straits Times in January 2018 was “Singapore, Sri Lanka sign FTA, annual savings of $10m expected”.
Anyway, as Sri Lanka’s chief negotiator reiterated at the COPF meeting that “…. since 99% of the tariffs in Singapore have zero rates of duty, Sri Lanka has agreed on 80% tariff liberalisation over a period of 15 years while expecting Singapore investments to address the imbalance in trade,” let’s turn towards investment.
Investment from Singapore
In July 2018, speaking during the Parliamentary Debate on the FTA this is what Minister Malik Samarawickrama stated on investment from Singapore, “Already, thanks to this FTA, in just the past two-and-a-half months since the agreement came into effect we have received a proposal from Singapore for investment amounting to $ 14.8 billion in an oil refinery for export of petroleum products. In addition, we have proposals for a steel manufacturing plant for exports ($ 1 billion investment), flour milling plant ($ 50 million), sugar refinery ($ 200 million). This adds up to more than $ 16.05 billion in the pipeline on these projects alone.
And all of these projects will create thousands of more jobs for our people. In principle approval has already been granted by the BOI and the investors are awaiting the release of land the environmental approvals to commence the project.
I request the Opposition and those with vested interests to change their narrow-minded thinking and join us to develop our country. We must always look at what is best for the whole community, not just the few who may oppose. We owe it to our people to courageously take decisions that will change their lives for the better.”
According to the media report I quoted earlier, speaking at the Committee on Public Finance (COPF) Chief Negotiator Weerasinghe has admitted that Sri Lanka was not happy with overall Singapore investments that have come in the past few years in return for the trade liberalisation under the Singapore-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement. He has added that between 2021 and 2023 the total investment from Singapore had been around $162 million!
What happened to those projects worth $16 billion negotiated, thanks to the SLSFTA, in just the two-and-a-half months after the agreement came into effect and approved by the BOI? I do not know about the steel manufacturing plant for exports ($ 1 billion investment), flour milling plant ($ 50 million) and sugar refinery ($ 200 million).
However, story of the multibillion-dollar investment in the Petroleum Refinery unfolded in a manner that would qualify it as the best fairy tale with false promises presented by our politicians and the officials, prior to 2019 elections.
Though many Sri Lankans got to know, through the media which repeatedly highlighted a plethora of issues surrounding the project and the questionable credentials of the Singaporean investor, the construction work on the Mirrijiwela Oil Refinery along with the cement factory began on the24th of March 2019 with a bang and Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and his ministers along with the foreign and local dignitaries laid the foundation stones.
That was few months before the 2019 Presidential elections. Inaugurating the construction work Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe said the projects will create thousands of job opportunities in the area and surrounding districts.
The oil refinery, which was to be built over 200 acres of land, with the capacity to refine 200,000 barrels of crude oil per day, was to generate US$7 billion of exports and create 1,500 direct and 3,000 indirect jobs. The construction of the refinery was to be completed in 44 months. Four years later, in August 2023 the Cabinet of Ministers approved the proposal presented by President Ranil Wickremesinghe to cancel the agreement with the investors of the refinery as the project has not been implemented! Can they explain to the country how much money was wasted to produce that fairy tale?
It is obvious that the President, ministers, and officials had made huge blunders and had deliberately misled the public and the parliament on the revenue loss and potential investment from SLSFTA with fairy tales and false promises.
As the president himself said, a country cannot be developed by making false promises or with fairy tales and these false promises and fairy tales had bankrupted the country. “Unfortunately, many segments of the population have not come to realize this yet”.
(The writer, a specialist and an activist on trade and development issues . )
