31 October, 2020

Blog

Front Line Socialists Or Sinhala Nationalists?

Gunaratnam Abandons Devolution: Front Line Socialists Or Sinhala Nationalists?

By Kumar David

Prof. Kumar David

Despite some grumbling from comrades I kept up hope that the JVP breakaway faction, now the Front Line Socialist Party (FLSP), would overcome the two birth defects of the JVP – infantile adventurism and narrow Sinhala nationalism. Both have been widely written about and that relieves me of responsibility of producing a summary here. I intend to write today from within the FLSP’s own avowed standpoint, a Marxist paradigm, but I will not assume the reader is familiar with this background. Many people outside the cognoscenti are not familiar with the Marxist position on these issues to judge from the asinine comments that proliferate about Marx, Lenin, the national question (NQ), ultra-leftism and Marx’s crisis or catastrophe theory. Nevertheless rising curiosity in this nexus of persons and issues is recognition of its central relevance to a collapsing world. It is the NQ that will be my focus today and neo-liberalism, socialism and the like, only to the extent that they intrude upon the discussion.

What motivates this piece is a Premakumar Gunaratnam interview by Peter Boyle of website Links, “an international journal of socialist renewal” based in Australia. Gunaratnam is one of two FLSP leaders abducted by the Lankan state and tortured in a secret location, but rescued from assassination by the Australian High Commissioner. He holds an Australian passport and was hurriedly deported. The interview includes an account of the abduction and leaves the reader in no doubt who is behind this and similar white van abominations now commonplace in Lanka.

Though hopeful of some progress I never had expectation that a JVP off-shoot could gain a thorough Marxist understanding of self-determination. It seems to be beyond the grasp of even leading Tamil politicians, so what can you expect from a JVP rump? The inanities that Sumanthiran serves up as “internal and external self-determination” in Groundviews are a reminder that being a TNA leader does not ensure you have a clue about fundamentals. Though not asking for expertise from Gunaratnam and the FLSP I certainly was not prepared for a big let down. He has dashed hope that the FLSP could escape from narrow minded Sinhala nationalism and grasp what underlay Lenin’s exploration of the national question. I know that the FLSP follows these discussions with interest and this one reason for writing this piece.

Not even devolution!

I will dissect the Gunaratnam interview piece by piece; here is the first quotation.

QUOTE: “Unlike the JVP, we in the FLSP believe that there is national oppression of the Tamil people and the Muslim people. But in the present circumstances in Sri Lanka we do not believe accepting self-determination or devolution of power for the Tamil majority areas will help to solve the national question. On the contrary, it will worsen the situation. At the same time we believe that there is a national oppression against the minority communities”. END QUOTE.

What unmitigated balderdash! The minorities are oppressed but the way in which this can be mitigated, that is devolving power to enable them to manage their own affairs, is ruled out. Forget Marx, Lenin, Rosa and the whole blithering pantheon, this defies simple logic and commonsense. The chauvinist bandwagon does not tie itself up in such silly knots. Chauvinists are straightforward; they say there is no oppression, there is no national problem, what are the bloody Tamils snivelling about; logically consistent, though politically dishonest. Neither do the Rajapakses put their feet in their mouths so blithely; in their view they liberated the Tamils. Oppression! What oppression?

You could have knocked me down with a feather to hear this featherbrain come down so hard against devolution; just plain simple devolution! Devolution mind you is simply the decentralisation of power and administration to lower levels, to the people. Devolution means reducing centralisation in favour of the grassroots. This from a frontline socialist is unbelievable! I did not expected the FLSP to accept self-determination, but that it opposes common or garden devolution raises concerns of whether there is any theoretical depth in the movement at all. The JVP was born in the gory glory days of Stalinism; it is an intellectual child of centralisation, state power and state control; maybe that’s part of the explanation.

However there is a more important spring from which the JVP/FSLP difficulty flows. Ask about strengthening the powers of workers, rural people, the grassroots, support for such devolution will be enthusiastic. However they cringe when the proposal is to devolve power to Tamils, Muslims and Upcountry Tamils. “No-No” when it is devolution to minority communities, but “Yes-Yes” when it is on a class basis. The cat is out of the bag; deep inside, the Frontline is no different from the JVP, narrow Sinhala nationalists in red shirts and Che Guevara caps.

Nevertheless, I have never called the JVP chauvinist and I do not call the FSLP chauvinist either. Their nationalism is of the passive type – unwillingness to stand up for the rights’ of minorities and an inability to understand the minority mind because of their own cultural insularity. The active type of chauvinism that does positive harm to minorities is the domain of DS, SWRD, JR and the Rajapakse siblings; but that is a well known story and needs no elaboration here.

Gunaratnam versus Lenin on socialism

Gunaratnam lays out his ideological perspective in the two quotations that follow:

QUOTE: “We believe a solution should be based on democracy and equality but it is not going to be a reality under the present neo-liberal capitalism. And also a solution should be able to unite the different national communities but not to divide them. Division of nationalities means division of oppressed classes. It doesn’t strengthen the class struggle but courses further weakening. We do not encourage the drawing of vertical national lines but work towards uniting proletarians of different national communities for the sake of advancing the class struggle”. END QUOTE.

QUOTE: “We should practice a socialist program instead (of) a social-democratic program. In Sri Lanka there are (a) number of unfinished democratic revolutionary objectives, including the national question, which has to be accomplished under socialism. The FLSP believes that an effective and practical political program should be implemented to unite the working class and the peasants among different national communities”. END QUOTE

At the outset I said my task was to deconstruct Gunaratnam’s from the standpoint that the FLSP has adopted as its own paradigm, what it would in its own words call Marxism-Leninism. How do these assertions of Gunaratnam measure up against what his accredited guru Lenin says? Precisely the opposite! Gunaratnam wants the minorities to wait till the dawn of the golden age of socialism at which time all their tears will be washed away and all their misery resolved. Lenin took precisely the opposite view; he called for recognition of the right to self-determination of minority nations as an immediate demand for unifying working class struggles for liberation from capitalism, with the struggle of nations seeking emancipation from Great Russian chauvinism.

A national liberation movement of a minority nation was for Lenin an essential and inseparable part of the socialist revolution. He went so far as to say minority nations would mobilise against Great Russian chauvinism under bourgeois leaders and this movement against Great Russian chauvinism, notwithstanding its bourgeois democratic character, was historically progressive and an ally of the revolution. Gunaratnam goes to the opposite side; even if a minority mobilises for national liberation within a “social democratic programme”, an alliance must be rejected. The only explanation for such ridiculous Sinhala nationalism on the part of a “frontline socialist” is that he must have learnt his socialism form a certain Mr Wijeweera.

Replace Great Russian chauvinism by Sinhala chauvinism, replace Tsarist autocracy by the autocratic Rajapakse state, and replace the bourgeois leaders of the minority nations in Russia by the traditional leaderships of the Tamil, Muslim Upcountry Tamil communities, and you have a near exact replica of Lenin’s model. This FLSP rote-learned Marxists can’t fathom. Lenin sought an alliance of minority nations and the working class to make revolution, Gunaratnam wants the minorities to wait till after the revolution to find relief from their oppression. Lenin insisted that the demand for self-determination of minority nations against Tsarist autocracy was progressive; Gunaratnam declares the demand even for regional autonomy by Lanka’s minorities against the Sinhala-Budhist state (currently the Rajapakse regime), to be an abhorrence. Gunaratnam and Lenin are polar opposites in their comprehension of the national question and their perspective of how to strengthen the revolutionary alliance between classes and nations.

Indian goni billas and neo-liberal monsters

QUOTE: “Devolution of power is a slogan imposed by India. We don’t want to divide the country into ethnic territories. We won’t oppose any form of democratic reform. The Tamil National Alliance (TNA) and the government are pushing power devolution but we are going to explain to the Tamil, Muslim and Sinhala people that this is not a solution for the national question”.  END QUOTE.

QUOTE: “Imperialist powers, including India, preach and encourage so-called devolution of power and self-determination according to their political agenda in the region. But at the same time we oppose the unitary state concept, as it further widens the differences between different national communities. Both unitary and federal state structures represent the same neo-liberal capitalism at present”. END QUOTE.

So it is the Indians not the Tamils of Jaffna, Vavuniya and Batticoloa who are asking for devolution and freedom to administer their own affairs? In what planet does Mr Gunaratnam live – it must be somewhere much further than Australia, it must be Mars. And suppose it could be shown (Mr Guaratnam should take a trip or organise a referendum) that Tamils in the north and east of Lanka desire devolution, what then, will he change his tune? As for the third quotation I can’t make head or tail of it; he is against the unitary state, the federal state, devolution and what else? I am convinced the chap does not know what he is talking about.

A few comments about neo-liberalism and imperialism and I will wind up. Neo-liberalism is finished, it has collapsed in the West; Gunaratnam is shadow boxing against an imaginary enemy. Neo-liberal ideology has been bankrupted by history and vanquished by events –Fukuyamais the biggest joke in town. Gunaratnam is tilting at windmills as sate-capitalism creeps over the banking and financial sectors in the West. The command and control centres of Eurozone finance capital are the consultations of European state leaders, the European Central Bank and the European Council. The American recovery is faltering and come Obama-again or Romney, it does not matter, the future of the US economy will depend less and less on the “free” market. The New Depression has killed neo-liberalism as a global ideology, so what is Gunaratnam talking about? Yes, I agree the Rajapakses have set out on a corrupt, nepotistic and pro-capitalist road that is doomed, but that’s another story.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 0
    1

    Being Tamil D Kumar David always avoid,the quesation Tamil Natioanlism and Chavanism by intentionaly.
    Your Double standared of Nationalism one for Tamils had been HIDE and other Sinhalese natioanism been STRESS, has go beyond So-called Trostkysim. I am not telling Dr David is nationalist of Tamil-orinted, but Blood is thiker than WATER.
    For your food for thought,there is NOT Sinhalase Imperilaism in history during 2600 of thier civilization.But this nation had been subject aggression invading and crualy superssed by Chola Pandit Kalin of South Inaidan state many centries and were under thier Colonial Rule so many years.Even Western colonical power befroe occupy this nationl terrority and land in year , 1215 Kalinga-Mage had been invaded and masscare hundred thousands of civilian of Island.
    This nation ( Sinhalaese )never being similar ,like Russain Imperlism,what Lenin mention in theses of RIGHT OF SELF DETERMANTION is relevant Russia Imperilism and power US base hegemonism.
    No Sinhalese Imperlism to supressed and annex Tamil Land in the island.
    Homeland of Tamils are Myth of SJV conceptuly work with Tamil Nadu grand Plan of State in First tip of Indian subcontinitial.
    In Sri lankan is concern divided TWO COUNTRY and INSTALLED ROUGE STATE IN WEAK NATION TEORRITORIAL;natoinal weakness of politics in Island of Sri lankan to be EASY WAY TO BE established So-called Eelam.
    This project support by Torstkyist like Dr Kumar David, Sritunga, Wije Dias,Wickramabhu and other ects..Trosktist cover real nature of divided people and nation of Island.
    Other Group of Dr Indrapalan OF CONCEPT OF HOMELAND BY HISTORY AND
    Dr N. Shanmugaratnam of Theses support by “BUILDING THE TAMIL EELAM STATE;EMERGING STATE INSTITIAION AND FORMS OF GOVERNANCE IN LTTE- CONTROAL ARES IN SRI LANKA”This essay wrote by Norwayian of Kristian Stokke,funded by Norway.Dr N. shanmuratnnatam certral figure behind of this Eelam project of Myth of Tamil state in Island.They were seems to be Left-orinted ex-Lenist.
    Dr David 21 century politicts of Trostkyism are increasing NOT transparency and NOT open to the public.Books of Politics and reading have so many agenda of so-called Marxist and Trostkiat are wheels with the wheels. No body knows where they Stand?
    Is there under pre-view of Natioanlism OR Marxsism.
    I humbaly appple to read book of Marxism and Natioanl Queation by J.V Stalin.

    • 0
      0

      “For your food for thought,there is NOT Sinhalase Imperilaism in history during 2600 of thier civilization.”

      Dear D.B. Adikari!

      You have based “during 2600 of thier civilization” on the Pali chronicles Diipavamsa, Mahaavamsa and false and imaginary conclusion on the archaeological finds of Lanka!

      Mr. Adikari! Could you tell me in what centuries these two Pali chronicles were composed?

      ‘Buddhist year’ commences on the year of death of Buddha. According to the Tamil and Sinhala traditions, it is said to be 543 years B.C.
      Dear Adikari! Could you explain me how the year 543 B.C. was arrived at?

      Here only you must know the history of the Jaffna Kingdom!
      Jaffna kingdom was captured by Sapu Mal in 1457 AD. If you assume this year as the 2000th Buddhist Year, then only the ‘Buddhist year’ would commence with 543 B.C.!!

      Important Buddhist events and reign of important kings of Lanka have been based on the year 1457 deducting 100s or 50s etc. As examples: In the year (1457 – 300) 1157 A.D., Parakramabahu the first came to power! In the year (1457 – 1000) 457 A.D., Datusena was placed as the King of Lanka!! In the year (1457-2000) 543 B.C., Buddha was assumed to be dead!!! Likewise, you could confirm different things.

      Therefore, Dear Adikari, the Pali chronicles Diipavamsa and Mahaavamsa could not have been composed before the year 1457 AD!!
      On the other hand, there are tens of ‘Brahmi’ inscriptions with different combinations of over 65 different symbols. But Prof. Paranavitane was unable to explain what those symbols severally and jointly symbolize! However, he had come to false and imaginary conclusions!

      In the hundreds of coins discovered in 19990s at Akurugoda also, we find tens of coins with ‘Braahmi’ writings and different combinations of different symbols.

      Though Prof. Bopeaaraachchi and Rajah Wikremesinghe had given the descriptions of these coins (Ruhunu: An Ancient Civilization Re-visited) they failed to explain what those symbols severally and jointly symbolize!

      However all these archaeologist accept that those inscriptions and coins belong to 3rd Century B.C. to 2nd Century AD!!
      There method of analysis is unscientific!! Thus, conclusions false and imaginary!!

      Our archaeologists and historians without understanding the fundamental differences between Theeravaada Buddhism and Mahaayaana Buddhism, and without studying scientifically the subjects symbolization and symbolization of Buddha and Buddhism had come to false and imaginary conclusions on the archaeological finds of Lanka.

      Thus, history of Buddhism in Lanka had become false and imaginary. Our archaeologists and historians failed to understand that the Tamils were Mahaayaana Buddhists in ancient timeand “Saivaism” is actually perfected Mahaayaana philosophy!

      Thus, Meetthaanantha Thera and others of the JHU come out with false and wrong claims that all the Buddhist archaeological sites discovered in the North and East belong to the Sinhala Theeravaada Buddhists!

      ‘Ignorance’ is the root cause of the problems in our country. This only caused the Sinhala nation to formulate and implement “Sinhala Theeravaada Buddhist nationalism based on the false and imaginary doctrine: “Aryan” – Sinhala – Sinhalese – Theeravaada Buddhism – Lanka with one to one correspondence!

      Dear Adikari! As long as the Sinhala nation adheres to its Sinhala Theeravaada Buddhist nationalism based on the said doctrine, Tamil nationalism will continue to exist and political solution and reconciliation will not be possible!

      The citizens of country are very unfortunate because the LLRC appointed by our HE President has failed to identify the Root Cause of the ethnic problem of Lanka.

      In its Report (Para. – 8.150) it states:
      “The Commission takes the view that the root cause of the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka lies in the failure of successive Governments to address the genuine grievances of the Tamil people. The country may not have been confronted with a violent separatist agenda, if the political consensus at the time of independence had been sustained and if policies had been implemented to build up and strengthen the confidence of the minorities around the system which had gained a reasonable measure of acceptance.”

      The method of analysis of the LLRC is wrong!

      It should have raised the question: What caused the successive Governments of Sri Lanka to cause genuine grievances to the Tamil People?

      Here only the Para-28 of the UN Panel Report bacomes very important. It states:

      “After independence, political elites tended to prioritize short-term political gains, appealing to communal and ethnic sentiments, over long-term policies, which could have built an inclusive state that adequately represented the multicultural nature of the citizenry. Because of these dynamics and divisions, the formation of a unifying national identity has been greatly hampered. Meanwhile, SINHALA-BUDDHIST NATIONALISM GAINED TRACTION, ASSERTING A PRIVILEGED PLACE FOR THE SINHALESE AS THE PROTECTORS OF SRI LANKA,AS THE SACRED HOME OF BUDDHISM. THESE FACTORS RESULTED IN DEVASTATING AND ENDURING CONSEQUENCES FOR THE NATURE OF THE STATE, GOVERNANCE AND INTER-ETHNIC RELATIONS IN SRI LANKA.”

      Thus, the recommendations of the LLRC will not be complete and correct!

      Unless we eradicate Sinhala – Theeravada Buddhist nationalism based on the false and imaginary doctrine: Aryan – Sinhala – Sinhalese – Theravada Buddhism – Lanka with one to one correspondence, reconciliation will not be possible.

      Therefore, I think that implementing the made by the LLRC will not produce reconciliation in our country!!

    • 0
      0

      D.B Adikari

      is in denial:

      “For your food for thought,there is NOT Sinhalase Imperilaism in history during 2600 of thier civilization.”

      The Sinhalese being stupid cannot afford to exercise an Imperial power in the island let alone rest of the world. What you have is Sinhala/Buddhist genocide of my people over the past 2,500 years.

      Please stop pretending to be innocent victims. My people have been systematically wiped out from the face of the earth except a few who are confined little pieces of land.

      We are told Buddha came to the island to cleanse the land of my ancestors, a clever spin to justify ethnic cleansing and genocide of my ancestors.

      You say:

      “But this nation had been subject aggression invading and crualy superssed by Chola Pandit Kalin of South Inaidan state many centries and were under thier Colonial Rule so many years”

      If the Pandyas and Cholas have treated you inhumanely that was too bad. Has it ever occurred to you that my people have been subjected to aggression by both the Tamils and Sinhalese for the past 2,500 years.

      In your case the Cholas and Pandyas had left the island long time ago. However in our case Tamils, Kalingas and the Sinhapurians are still sitting in my ancestral island and continue to aggravate my people. Like Pandyas and Cholas can you not go back to your country, mostly to Tamilnadu.

      For your information I am listing the names countries which practice federalism in varying degree:

      Argentina (23 provinces and one autonomous city)
      Australia (six states and three territories)
      Austria (nine states)
      Belgium (three regions and three linguistic communities)
      Bosnia and Herzegovina (Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republika Srpska and Brčko District)
      Brazil (26 states and the Brazilian Federal District)
      Canada (ten provinces and three territories)
      Comoros (Anjouan, Grande Comore, Mohéli)
      Ethiopia (nine regions and three chartered cities)
      Germany (16 states)
      India (28 states and seven union territories)
      Iraq (18 governorates and one one region (Iraqi Kurdistan)
      Malaysia (13 states and three federal territories)
      Mexico (31 states and one federal district (Mexico City)
      Federated States of Micronesia (Chuuk, Kosrae, Pohnpei and Yap)
      Nepal (14 zones)
      Nigeria (36 states and one federal territory (the Federal Capital Territory)
      Pakistan (4 provinces, 2 autonomous areas and 2 territories)
      Russia (46 oblasts, 21 republics, nine krais, four autonomous okrugs, two federal cities, one autonomous oblast)
      Saint Kitts and Nevis (two states)
      Sudan (25 states)
      Switzerland (26 cantons)
      United Arab Emirates (seven emirates)
      United States (50 states, one incorporated territory, and one federal district (District of Columbia))
      Venezuela (23 states, one capital district and one federal district

      Please do your own home work and find out further information such as geography, history, economy, population, ethnicity, languages, ….. of these countries.

      You can chose from the above list to argue your case rather than depending on capitalism, Marxism, imperialism Maoism and other schisms.

      You say:

      “Homeland of Tamils are Myth”

      I hate to agree with you. So is Sinhala/Buddhist nation.

      We lost the island to Sinhalese and Tamils. Now you have destroyed it completely. My people are the victims not you.

    • 0
      0

      D.B Adikari:
      About all I could decipher from the gobbledegook that you’ve put down is the fact that Sinhala civilization is 2600 years old. I am fascinated by yet another re-writing of history by the likes of you because 1956 was the 2500 anniversary of Buddhism/Sinhala nation/other chauvinistic constructs. From 1956 to 2012 is 56 years. 2500 + 56 is 2556 (at least it was when I learned arithmetic) Would you please explain your arithmetic or is a peculiarly “Sinhala-Buddhist” concept?

      Whoever moderates this site should have people like D.B Adikari provide material that is minimally comprehensible. Publishing this weird material is beyond a joke!

  • 0
    0

    Kumar David, do not you get the feeling, for these individuals to change and also form new alliances with the very parties with whom they held grudges with earlier, to work together subsequently, that there is outside influence. Now see how VP helped MR to become President after many thought VP benifited from RW, then MR to defeat LTTE under thirty months, to end a thirty year old war, then to dispense VP and for KP to move closer to MR and now this Premakumaran Gunaratnam to accept the position not to pressure MR for Devolution? I can understand the masses being naive, but to this extent is unimaginable unless they are really daff. The whole bloody thing looks a game of Chess and the players are not difficult to be identified.

    • 0
      0

      gamini:

      “I can understand the masses being naive, but to this extent is unimaginable unless they are really daff.”

      Thanks for agreeing with my belief which has been tried and tested in the past 100 or so years that Sinhalese and Tamils are irredeemably stupid.

  • 0
    0

    Seems to be the guy, KG is sliding back to the old LTTE position that only a separate state is tenable for the minorities without explictly saying so – when he dismisses devolution as a solution..?

  • 0
    0

    Dr Kumar David “new depression has killed neo-liberalism globle ideology…the future US economy will depend on less and less free market..”esasy says.
    Dispite the globle finicial crisis and relative decline in its overall econony and policial strength of USA is still the only superpower and a shifting thinking,design and action still has greate impact of Globle politics, Economy and its Hegemony goverance. The US startegic expansion on eastward shift Asia, in pirculutar in forcing the Asai-Pacific and then South Asia reagion to confront the most complex political and diplomatic maneuraving.
    Dr Divaid determenation of killed neo-liberilism is wrong interpration US hegemony in ongoing world context is concern; and try to misled whole set of Sri lankan progressive and democaric minded people by demoralized Troskayist ideology of politics.
    Needless to say US imperilism is the sources of exploation and plundering sources of wars in modern times of globe.
    Neo-liberism is part and parcel of US Imperilasm altanatively use a deceptive policy of peace and a policy of war.They often cover their crimes of economic and political expolitaon aggression and their perpration for a new war with lies of democary, human rights and war crimes as about peace.
    Dr David neo-liberalism of reactionary classes always rely on two tatics to maintain their rule and to carry out foreign policy and aggression.
    One is like the tactic of preist-like deception,the other that of butcher-like superssion.
    Your calculation of neo-liberalim of US imperial version is switch from Trostkist adventurism to capitualtionism and it will lose all democatic minded people’s political moral values. This is very negative trend appear in So-called LEFT-ORINTED POLITICS IN THE ISLAND.Neddless to it will badly undermine soverignty of people of all communities of Sri lanka.

  • 0
    0

    Kumar D starts writing “Despite some grumbling from comrades I kept up hope that the JVP breakaway faction … “
    You do not have to say that professor .. Because, many could read the hope in your mind ….
    Kept hope for what? To fight narrow sinhalese nationalism… ( read ‘deny the rightful place to the Sinhalese’)
    Professor ‘genuinely’ believe that all other nationalisms including Tamil one are ‘wide’ and only sinhalese nationalism is narrow. So, narrow nationalism should be defeated and in desperation, he kept hope on new JVP’s Premakumar, a Australian citizen after he lost hope on Ranil, Sarath F , Sambathan, Obama , Arabian springs …… His new hope on Premakumar Gunarathnam was very short lived.. Now what?
    Do not get discouraged professor ….. Something or some joker would turn up to rekindle your hope … Do not loose hope, Sir …. Hope is the best medicine for some ailments, my mother said once …

  • 0
    0

    Self Determination is a concept of Marxism or Leninism. It applies under
    a Socialist regime. Major southern parties as well as TNA are not socialists.

    We liberals are not socialists or nationalists. We need the free market economy as well as political devolution.

    For us Gunarathnam is also a Utopian. yes he has an ideological battle with JVP. That does not mean that he is perfect.

    Marxists are failures in Sri Lanka. Present left cannot even fill the vacume created by old left.

  • 0
    0

    kamal says:

    “Marxists are failures in Sri Lanka. Present left cannot even fill the vacume created by old left”.

    Tamil and Sinhalese nationalists are failure too.

    I never came across a liberal in the island, except my people.

    Where are they hiding? Whom are they hiding from?

    Could you name a liberal in this island dead or alive?

  • 0
    0

    Be it the FLSP or any other it will not succeed in bringing together all the peoples of Sri Lanka; Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims, to throw out the present system in the country until such a party shuns its policy of enticing the Sinhala voters on the basis of Sinhala Nationalism to win votes to come to power.

  • 0
    0

    The most original intelligent and thoughtful comments are those of Native Vedda. They are relevant, witty and entertaining.

    ” Thanks for agreeing with my belief which has been tried and tested in the past 100 or so years that Sinhalese and Tamils are irredeemably stupid “

    This is a classic and all encompassing comment – it took me decades to realise this truth. Continue with your wise words of wisdom.

    Dr. N. Satchi. UK

  • 0
    0

    In essence what Gunaratnam seems to be saying is that the present system is evil, but hand over power to the FSP and we will sort it out. Nothing more, nothing less and nothing different to what everyone in politics is saying.

    Press him on the detail like what structural changes he will make to grant the Tamils their rights and he is at a loss. He will only repeat his mantra that Tamils can never have their rights under the current system and will only gain their rights under an FSP system. Like a true JVPer He probably adds as an afterthought.. “If they are still not happy, we know how to deal with them”

    However, the vexed question is how we can have devolution while also ensuring equal landrights for the constituent populations of Sri Lanka. Most Tamil Nationalists claim (self servingly) that maintaining equal land rights is not that important.

  • 0
    0

    Kumar Gunarathnam is right in what he is saying. Under this Capitalist system Devolution of power is only benefiting the The Tamil elite.It was the same with the sinhalese in the south.What Kumar David have not realised is this simple fact. Develution of power any where in this country was not aimed at giving freedom to decide on their Own affairs for the working class but for the privileged class to hold on to power in both of these areas. What Kumar Gunarathnam wants is to create a Tamil who fights for the Sinhalese and Muslims, A sinhalese that will fight for the rights of a Tamil and a Muslim and a Muslim who stand up for the rights of the other two.So Prof Kumar stop dividing the working class into ethnic groups. We in the FLSP don’t see the working class as divided according to ethnicity but as Sri Lankans. Their struggle is our struggle. The priviledged class on both side will love to devide and rule the working class.

  • 0
    0

    Mr Ajith FLSP is buy products of JVP anrachist politics since 1965.
    JVP was very beggining was chavanisit,anti-Tamil anti-democratic party came into being,in fundamantally anti- working classes and anti-democratic of petty-bourgroise political out-fit.
    Evlouation and Revolutaion of JVP was terrorist-outfit of anarchism.
    All JVP insurrecation 1971 and 1988/89 has no accountabilty FOR THE PEOPLE OF SRI LANKA,NO SELF-CRITICISM OWN POLITICAL DIVIATIONS,AND NOT ADMITTED BY SMALL ERRRORS BY FLSP.How can such party lead Working classes in Sri Lankan?
    How can they represented masses of democratic revoluation and its leadership?

  • 0
    0

    In reply to kumar davids Quote ” Noe-liberalism is finished, it has collapsed in the West; Gunaratnam is shadow boxing against an imaginary enemy. Noe-liberal ideology has been bankrupted by history and vanquished by events “.
    It seems to me, that the seemingly collapse of neo liberalism is only an illusion. This illusion is brought on by the recent economic downfalls of most western nations, capitalist in nature in its chosen economic paths.
    The economic bankruptcy of a capitalist government does not mean that is had failed to achieve its ends in its neo liberal path. Neo liberalism has always been catering to a powerful minority and that minority is still profiting from this system. Wealth does not simply vanish. If a government or an individual goes bankrupt then at the other end of that process someone has profited by it. This is a very simple thing to comprehend.
    The effects of neo liberalism on ordinary individuals are becoming more and more visible by each passing day. This is not a sign of its downfall but rather an effect due to an inherent quality of neo liberalism. It has always made the rich, richer and the poor, poorer. With this widening gap, day by day more people are affected and therefore its evils are bound to be exposed more and more.
    But while such is the situation in the west, in the east China and India to give two such examples are embracing neo liberalism with open hands, maybe to repeat that same history. And this precedent is more dangerous since they still have a vast number of human and material resources to be exploited and those will be at the mercy of a selected few in their profit making endeavors.
    Neo liberalism is far from over. This system only exists because we keep sustaining it. And will only be over when the people (us) denounce it. And to denounce it there will have to be a change in our conscious.
    It is true that the hereto hidden evils of neo liberalism are being exposed with each passing day. But if we lay back and just mistakenly assume that this is its downfall we can’t be more wrong.
    So, it is very amusing to hear Kumar Davids proclamation. And it would also be interesting to hear what he calls this present of thing that exists around us today. If neo liberalism is finished then something else has to have replaced it or is going to replace it. Communists think it the collapse of capitalism would lead to socialism, one wonders what kumar david thinks.
    So unless he can answer that he would be doing us all justice if he does not keep making statements for the sake of making statements.

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 200 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically disabled after 7 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.