Political violence in Sri Lanka - Part One

"Political violence cannot be properly understood without recognizing the complex internecine establishment politics in Sri Lanka. When new social groups vied for access to state power, the establishment used repressive and violent force against them."
___________

By Lionel Bopage

1. Introduction

(August 04, Melbourne, Sri Lanka Guardian) The last six decades have witnessed many violent conflicts1 across the world; only a few of which have been successfully resolved2. The protracted conflict in Sri Lanka continues to cause death, destruction and devastation, particularly to those living in the north and the east.

Recent infantile and chauvinist statements of the country’s elite express their belief that the current phase of political violence is mainly due to the LTTE’s terrorist activities and that once the LTTE is defeated militarily so will the national question (National Post 2008). History tells a different story. Unless the root causes of the conflict are genuinely addressed, political violence will continue to grow.

The island’s post-1948 political leadership did not come into being as a result of a coherent anti-colonial struggle that unified its people. The neo-colonial establishment not only carried forward the policies and practices of the exclusively colonial, mono-cultural and unitary administration, which were not only incongruent with the culturally and linguistically diverse nature of its inhabitants, but also their socio-economic, political and cultural expectations.

The post-colonial Sri Lankan state never considered it significant to protect the dignity and security of marginalised and disadvantaged social groups. Domestic issues were viewed and dealt with in a mindset of a conflict paradigm3. Peaceful demands for social equity, justice, security and dignity were continuously disregarded and/or violently suppressed. The indignity
and insecurity caused by such attacks on the physical and psychological integrity of individuals and communities thus motivated them to take up arms.

This paper looks at aspects of political violence in Sri Lanka such as its complexity, the radicalisation of youth, responses of the state and the left, current developments, and the need to view and deal with it on an interactionist paradigm, if an end to this destructive conflict is genuinely sought.

2. Complexity of the conflict

The roots of political violence in Sri Lanka can be traced back to its colonial days and reflect many national and global dimensions. The island is strategically located in the South Asian region in a geo-political, mercantile, and militaristic sense. Trans-national capital is competitively seeking investments, cheap labour, and natural resources to maximise their profits in this region. Therefore, political violence occurring in Sri Lanka (Alexander 2007) cannot be viewed in isolation. However, this paper is not an in depth study of the global aspects of the conflict. Yet, this needs to be kept in mind when reading this paper.

2.1. Simplification and manipulation of the conflict

Conventional simplifications of political violence in Sri Lanka to class, economic, cultural, ethnic, casteist, or military aspects seem inaccurate, since class boundaries are mixed up with other social caveats. Such simplifications prevent recognition and understanding of the internecine power struggles and manipulations that keep certain groups in control. Some intervene to block any form of power sharing, while others reject any devolution in the hope of achieving separation.

The underlying causes for political violence in Sri Lanka has simply been interpreted and presented as class / ethnicity based, or a terrorist problem, and even extending such analyses along casteist, religious, nationalist, and cultural lines. The youth insurrection in 1971 is labelled as Sinhala, Buddhist, low caste, low class, anti-Tamil, anti-Indian, or terrorist, while the ongoing Tamil youth insurrection is labelled Tamil, Hindu (or Christian), low caste, low- class, anti-Sinhala, anti-Indian, or terrorist.

Political violence cannot be properly understood without recognizing the complex internecine establishment politics in Sri Lanka. When new social groups vied for access to state power, the establishment used repressive and violent force against them. Pro-establishment forces closed ranks against the ‘common enemy’ by unifying and coordinating their efforts, at times, across the whole political spectrum. Behind the political violence of the state one could witness strategies for the further plundering of the island’s resources. Behind the political clichés of terrorism and counter-terrorism was the continuous march towards
authoritarianism, in which people’s hopes, aspirations, human rights and civil liberties were increasingly dashed. Existing social divisions such as nationality, language, religion, caste are manipulated to establish and maintain the political power of the ruling elite.

2.2. Interpretation of history

Current tensions between the Sinhala, Tamil and Muslim communities can be traced back to the fact that Sinhala, Tamil and Muslim communities have their own positivist interpretations of their historical roots. A sizable majority of Sinhalese believe their race is of Aryan stock dating back to the fifth century BC. The Tamils including Malaiyaha Tamils4, are of
Dravidian origin. Some of the Tamils5 claim that they were part of the island’s original inhabitants, a claim strongly disputed by the Sinhalese. Tamil incursions from South India trace back to the first century A.D., and a Tamil kingdom existed in the North commencing from the thirteenth century6. The identity of Malaiyaha Tamils is shaped by their social, economic, political and cultural lives centred primarily on plantations.

Some try to interpret the current violence as inevitably deriving from the ancient primordial ethnic hatreds of the ‘Mahawamsa’ nature. The reality, however, was that the wars between Sinhalese and Tamil kings were launched mainly for expanding their feudal territories. Another interpretation points to the privileged positions provided to Tamils under colonial and neo-colonial administrations - that political violence was the eventual outcome of the Tamils losing those privileged positions. Nevertheless, these are often excuses used to blunt
further analysis of majoritarian power politics. Besides, such approaches unashamedly justify and unconditionally support a policy of subjugation of opposing groups as adopted by the current ruling elite.

2.3. Basis of analysis

Political violence is not unique to Sri Lanka. The causes of political violence have been broadly categorised as caused by national fragmentation, inequitable development, cultural clashes and liberation movements (Steinbach 1980). These causes do not exist in isolation, but interact simultaneously leading to political violence. It is significant to note that in the post-1948 Sri Lanka, any major organised political violence was absent until 1956. Ethnic political violence that commenced in 1956 was mainly due to the machinations of modern
‘democratic’ electoral politics, deliberately conceived and orchestrated as a means of capturing and keeping power in the hands of the bourgeoisie.

Post-colonial socio-economic and political developments brought about new social forces, but their expectations remained unfulfilled. Consequently, these forces turned to revolutionary practices against the elite's stronghold on the levers of political patronage and economics. In the south these revolutionary practices materialised in the form of class mobilisations. The attempts in the north and east, however, took the form of nationalist aspirations. These origins reflect the dual character of the youth movements that later came into being.

The post-1948 political establishment concentrated mainly on short term tactical electoral gains by engaging in nepotism, family bandyism and class collaboration. Political leaderships of all ethnicities in Sri Lanka have opportunistically used ethnicity as a bandwagon to establish, preserve and enhance their political, economic and social power, or to distract the people from the domestic policy and program failures of the establishment. Nevertheless, many analysts portray ethnicity as the central theme of the current conflict7. Though ethnicity is used as a label in the current conflict; politics based on economic manipulations is the root

cause. Ethnic diversit y has always existed in the Sri Lankan society and will continue to do so. Good governance, therefore, means having a society free from violence and based on equity, participative democracy and pluralism.
_______________
1 The form of these conflicts vary from secession to re-unification, from autonomy to integration, from socialism to neo-liberalism, from economic to religious ones
2 Marshall (2008) indicates that 24 conflicts are currently ongoing; four may end soon; ten are at high risk of returning to political violence.

3 What is seen in a conflict and how it is understood depend on the reference model or framework (paradigm) being used. Viewing conflicts in social behaviour through a positivist paradigmatic model (conflict paradigm) will be different to viewing it using a constructivist paradigmatic model (interactionist paradigm). One model will assist in understanding what policies and activities have assisted to bring conflicts to a close, while other policies and activities have made some conflicts protracted.

4 The so-called Indian or Estate Tamils, workers of Indian origin speaking Tamil who were brought by the British to work in their plantations in 1840s.

5 The so-called Jaffna or Ceylon Tamils

6 According to Professor K M de Silva, beginning in the thirteenth century and until the advent of the Portuguese, a Jaffna kingdom with shifting boundaries existed in the Northern Province.

-Sri Lanka Guardian