Features
Marxism and nationalism: A never-ending debate (Part II)
By Uditha Devapriya
Immediately after independence, the Sri Lankan Left faced an ideological dilemma for which it had not really been prepared. The government, headed by a comprador bourgeoisie, perhaps the most conservative and right-wing in Asia at the time, stepped in to deprive the estate Tamils of their citizenship. This slowly deprived the Left of its base in the plantations across the Uva and the South, right into the country’s south-western quadrant, limiting it to the cities, the working class. Elsewhere, in peasant strongholds, it made some strides. But the government’s careful, calculated cultivation of nationalist sentiment pre-empted the Left from mobilising them for a radical, truly emancipatory political project.
The government’s actions impacted these groups profoundly, adversely. The conventional reading of what happened next is this: lacking popular support among estate Tamils and the Sinhala middle-classes, the Left eventually pegged itself to the latter, compromising on its earlier, laudably progressive stance on languages and paving the way for a rapprochement with the SLFP. The latter, in the conventional reading, is often dismissed as a chauvinist and majoritarian party, in effect the political base of the Sinhala nationalist right. Anyone who chose the path of cohabitation with them, so the interpretation goes, shared or at least were complicit in the ideology of the nationalist right. Ergo, the Old Left is faulted if not chastised for bedding with the beast, with the harbinger of Sinhala chauvinism.
There is some truth to these allegations, and not all of them can be denied. But the dilemma the Left faced at the time could not have been more acute or complex. On the one hand, it lost the one community on whose behalf it had organised strikes and campaigns against the British and the UNP government. Such actions proved more than anything than the Left’s project did not just transcend ethnic distinctions, but also centred firmly on class issues. On the other hand, the UNP government proved itself capable, for a while at least, of rousing traditionalist elements, Sinhala and to a lesser extent Tamil, against the Left, on the basis of the latter’s supposed hostility to the past and to history.
Here the comprador bourgeoisie found a ready ally in conservative sections of the clergy. By that I mean not just the Christian clergy, including the Catholic and the Protestant. Their opposition to the Left was evident enough: they requested people not to vote for Marxist candidates, given Marxism’s “hostility” to religious values. The Buddhist clergy also sided with this view, and opposed or criticised monks who took to political activism. The latter, at least until after 1956, almost invariably swayed to the Left.
The point I am trying to get to here is simple. By 1956, the Left’s prospects had declined so badly that individual parties, including the LSSP, were already conceding the difficulty of forming a Left government. The 1956 election proved to be epochal here for two reasons. Firstly, it showed that the UNP’s hold over traditionalist elements was not absolute: these elements, disgruntled by the UNP’s policies, could defect to other parties, particularly those promising an alternative to the status quo which was less radical than the Marxist Left. In response the Left had to think of and come up with creative strategies, with which it could defeat the government while distancing itself from the Opposition. Eventually it settled on a policy of oppositional unity: thus, in some electorates it contested against other Opposition candidates, while in others it withdrew in favour of those candidates.
Secondly, the election showed how otherwise progressive ideals, once marginalised, could be reconfigured in pursuit of less than progressive ends. That is not to deny the immense vitality and popularity of the calls for Sinhala Only. Such calls underlay genuine grievances against the political establishment. Yet, instead of incorporating these grievances into an all-encompassing emancipatory project, the Sinhala middle-classes contented themselves on gaining the upper hand for themselves and for their identity. The tragedy here, for which we are still paying the price, is that such campaigns undermined the spirit with which the Left had earlier called for instituting the vernacular at official levels. The latter call was, in every respect, progressive, and it deserved being pursued till the very end. But the hysteria which usually accompanies elections in Sri Lanka eventually drowned it.
What I am critiquing here, essentially, are the political ideals of Sinhala nationalism. This, however, is a contradiction in terms: to have political ideals you must be part of a political project, and contemporary Sinhala nationalism, despite its rhetoric, has never had a properly coordinated political project against imperialism and neoliberalism. In that sense, I suppose, Sinhala nationalism is not hegemonic in the same way Hindutva is hegemonic in India, even if it shares much with the ideology of the RSS. The main problem with or limitation in Sinhala nationalism is that in its pursuit of national liberation, it defines the nation as the preserve of one collective, and overlooks or ignores the heterogenous character of not only the nation, but also that collective.
The truth is that Sinhala is not monolithic, and nor is Tamil. All claims to the contrary, no matter how enticing they may be, are facile and false.
Throughout the colonial period, the Left proved itself capable of tapping into the immense anti-imperialist potential of nationalist groups, while distancing itself from the comprador right’s alliances with such groups. The dynamics changed after independence, and by 1956 the Left had no choice but to question its former positions and, if possible, revise them. It did this with the hope – plausible as it appeared to be at the time – that the SLFP, and the Bandaranaikes, could be relied on to provide a ballast for a socialist advance in the country. But the Bandaranaikes were, for all intents and purposes, Bonapartists, who could sway to the Left or the Right depending on the situation. S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike did not live long enough to tilt completely to the right: it remains to be seen what he would have done had he survived his assassination. Yet, as his support for Philip Gunawardena’s Paddy Lands Bill showed, he was willing to support the Left in whatever way he could.
But Sinhala nationalism is deeply and utterly chameleonic: it is capable of turning against its allies. In 1975, spurred on by fears that the Left would unionise workers in plantations, the Sirimavo Bandaranaike government moved to expel the LSSP and the Communist Party from its ranks. The Left’s efforts at land reform, important as they were, fell short of what they had originally aimed at, largely because the SLFP’s right-wing sabotaged them. The Left, in all this, had to both adjust to and fight against such forces, and in doing so it paid a heavy price: not just expulsion from international Left collectives, but also rejection by the very milieus it had staked so much for. The great lesson of 1977 in that sense was that Sinhala nationalism, regardless of anti-imperialist potential, will never be a substitute for anti-imperialist politics so long as its purveyors fail to look beyond its cultural dimensions. The nationalist allegation against the Left today – that it is soft on minority issues, that it is not nationalist enough – is but a continuation of these conjunctions and contradictions.
Given all this, how should the Left reorganise itself? I recommend two strategies. First, it should try to weed away what Dayan Jayatilleka, at the Philip Gunawardena Oration in 2015, described as the rootless cosmopolitanism of many of our Left ideologues. There is nothing objectionable in being cosmopolitan: many of the original stalwarts of the Sri Lankan Left, after all, had been part of the aptly named “Cosmopolitan Crew.” But there is a difference, a distinction, between the cosmopolitanism espoused by these figures and the rejection, not of nationalism but of nationhood itself, by Left ideologues today. To quote Jayatilleka’s essay in Gramsci Today, “The Great Gramsci: Imagining an Alt-Left Project”,
“Our left contemporaries learned from much of what [Gramsci] wrote on hegemony and culture but missed one of his most important themes, that of the nation, nation building and state building. He understood that the left had abandoned those tasks and argued that picking up where Machiavelli left off was a task of the left, by which he meant wrestling with the tasks of nation and state building. Indisputably an internationalist, he notably criticized ‘cosmopolitanism’ as a doctrine that hampered the task of nation building.”
Simply put, national liberation is as much about liberation as it is about nationhood. The one cannot be weaned, still less cut off, from the other. Any group that attempts this does so at the risk of marginalising itself and pushing itself down an abyss.
Second, the Left should embark on embracing the ideals of nationhood without affirming, or associating with, the tenets and principles of the nationalist right. What constitutes the nationalist right is obviously a matter for conjecture, if not debate. The finer details need not concern us here. What is important is that the Left build bridges with communities which have been targeted by the nationalist right, and then attempt to convert them. This is not as difficult as it may seem. The strategy is to get these communities to realise that any national liberation project must focus on the nation, and the fundamental cleavage in any nation is not between ethno-religious groups, but between the masses and the elite. To quote a Sri Lankan poet, “the only minority is the bourgeoisie.” That should be the refrain of the Left as well, especially in its engagements with the Sinhala middle-classes.
It remains to be seen whether the Left can or will achieve a rapprochement with these groups. The Left tried once, and for a while it succeeded. Yet for reasons outlined above, it failed to transform that into the basis for a socialist advance in Sri Lanka. To castigate it for such failures would be to cry over spilt milk. But they certainly represent failures of the sort the Left should avoid today. To put it simply here, then, if the Left is to build a front against the economic right, it should be wary of allying itself with the nationalist right, but it should also recognise the anti-imperialist potential of nationalist movements without viewing and dismissing all as right-wing and reactionary. The latter, for me, is as bad an error as the Left’s act of capitulating to such forces. It does no harm at all to account for the specificity of these movements, or to recognise their distinctiveness. That hardly constitutes a regressive act for the Left; it in fact constitutes the only sensible alternative the Left has.
NB: This essay has benefited extensively from conversations with Dr Dayan Jayatilleka, Vinod Moonesinghe, and Shiran Illanperuma, as well as Pasindu Nimsara Thennakoon, who remains fascinated by the possibilities of the Sri Lankan Left.
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 . )
US sports envoys to Lanka to champion youth development
Rahuman questions sudden cancellation of leave of CEB employees
