Trotskyites permanent revolution ended in temporary capture of Lake House

Lake House retaliated with all the resources at its command. It mobilized the sangha and all those who feared the consequences of a take over of the media in private hands.
________________

By H. L. D. Mahindapala

(October 18,Melbourne, Sri Lanka Guardian) The verbal tennis match between Batty Weerakoon and Dayan Jayatilleke began with references to the anti-UNP Hartal of 1953 and ended (perhaps, provisionally) with the fall of the SLFP-Trotskyite-Communist Coalition government in 1964. Like all Trotskyites who are wont to romanticize their failed past, Weerakoon, one of the last remaining fossils of that species, glorifies the late sixties, when the Trotskyites were clinging to the sari pota, as another progressive phase of "the permanent revolution" that was always coming round the corner though it never took off from the permanently fixed four legs of hansi putuwas of the Bolshevik theoreticians.

Their capacity to self-destruct by fragmenting into microscopic parts was as great as their capacity to concoct delusional theoretical excuses to cover-up the self-serving power struggles within the Left leadership. In the early thirties Marxism was the ideal that brought the returnees from the Western universities together. Soon they turned on each other hiding behind theoretical fictions which generated a hatred for each other far exceeding their opposition to those on their right. Besides, they failed to relate Marxism to the Sri Lankan context. One-size-fit-all theory, fixated on Euro-centric history, disoriented them and blinded them to the point of missing the mood, the tempo and the dynamics of the subterranean grass root forces that trounced them.

Weerakoon’s latest denial of the salient events of the time (as seen in his sniping at Dayan) indicate that he has not got over the congenital disability of the Trotskyites to read the realities that ruined them. It is not my intention to go into the disastrous politics of the Trotskyites as it would need volumes. Let me, therefore, confine myself the pros and cons of the issue of the "take over of Lake House". No journalist of the time could have missed the high drama swirling round it. It was a memorable part of my journalistic career. I was in the thick of it (though in a very minor capacity as the lobby correspondent of The Observer) campaigning against the take over.

It was the first battle waged to free the media from state control. Of course, it had heavy political overtones with Lake House, headed by Esmond Wickremesinghe, the father of the present Leader of the Opposition, Ranil, manipulating politics behind the scene with consummate skills. He was a former Trotskyite who switched sides after he married the daughter of the founder of Lake House, D. R. Wijewardene, the redoubtable rock of the age. Regi Siriwardene, another Trotskyite, was his leader writer, who translated Wickremesinghe’s right wing politics and rendered it in readable English in the editorials of the Lake House flagship, the Daily News.

Lake House and Hulftsdorp stood out as the last two bastions of the right-wing forces. Of the two Lake House was the most hated symbol of the Left. Every single demonstration of the Left that went past Lake House never failed to shout: "Beira gedera, bangawewa!" (Down with Lake House!). There isn’t a single left leader that did not denounce Lake House from their political platforms. The reason was simple: in an era without TV or other powerful electronic media (state-owned Radio Ceylon was politically inert) Lake House publications in all three languages blanketed the country from the north to the south. The competition from the Times or the Davasa group did not have the same impact. Lake House virtually had the monopoly of media.

Lake House was indeed a powerful political instrument in the hands of the right-wing UNP. And the "socialism" of the time was to take over any commanding height of the economy that was favourable to the UNP. The socialist of the day never practiced socialism on scientific principles of Marxism. They were basically votaries of vindictive socialism. Their priority was to take over bus, Shell, and insurance companies because these were seen as financial and political bases of the UNP. The take over of Lake House was on the cards since there was no love lost between the two. The Left was waiting for an opportune moment to strike.

This, in brief, was the background to the take over of Lake House. But Weerakoon comes up with the conclusion, plucked presumably from his Alzheimer’s memory, that the goody-goody government of the Centre-Left had no intention of taking over Lake House. Quoting text from the Hansard of June 1964, Weerakoon argues that there was "no policy decision (announced) to "take over of Lake House." (His emphasis.) What was there to "announce" when the whole intention of the Press Bill was to take over Lake House, along with the ailing Times? If, as stated by Weerakoon, the policy decision was not to take over Lake House was the policy decision to take over Pravda or the Attha paper of the Communist Party?

He then adds: "My position was and is that there was no take-over decision as reported and that the government fell because it failed on the Throne Speech vote in Parliament." Of course, the political intent was not expressed in that amount of words to target Lake House and the financially ailing Times Group. But to all intents and purposes every child (even Dayan who was 7 years old then) would have known that the Centre-Left coalition was out to get Lake House in the main.

Aided, abetted and even activated by the Trotskyites and the Communists the relevant political maneuver to take over Lake House and the Times group was couched in the following terms: "Necessary legislation will be introduced early to end the monopolistic ownership of daily newspapers and to establish a broad based ownership. Through such legislation steps will be taken to set-up a press on a democratic basis thus eliminating malpractices inimical to national and social interests."

To any perceptive reader familiar with the politics of the time it is abundantly clear that the phrase "to end the monopolistic ownership of daily newspapers" meant only one main thing: take over Lake House. It was the leading media power house of the time and the Times was of secondary importance. Besides, the phrase "to establish a broad based ownership" was a euphemism for state ownership. As seen in the events after the take over the Left never lifted a finger to distribute the ownership either among the Lake House workers or the public as promised.

Lake House retaliated with all the resources at its command. It mobilized the sangha and all those who feared the consequences of a take over of the media in private hands. Esmond Wickremesinghe, with his key ally in the UNP, J. R. Jayewardene, plotted politically to stall or ward off the move to take over Lake House. The government was cockily dependent on its parliamentary majority to ride the storm. But the "Golden Brains" were outwitted every inch of the way by crafty "JR". The Government fell on December 3, 1964.

To argue, as Weerakoon does, that there was no policy decision to take over Lake House is disproved by the Associated Newspapers of Ceylon (Special Provisions) Law No 28 of 1973 which took control of Lake House. This translated the generality stated in the policy decision of the then government into a clear political objective which was hatched behind the scenes from the beginning. Policy decisions are usually stated in generalities. Specifics are spelt out in the implementation. And though it was not stated explicitly, even the blind man’s dog would have known that the Marxists were out for the blood of Lake House.

The highest conquest of the Permanent Revolution of the Fourth International was the capture of Lake House. They handed over this fortress to Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike who used the media firepower to kill and bury them for good. Jean Paul Sartre in his celebrated polemic against Albert Camus asks: "Where, today, are those Trotskyites at heart who preached the permanent revolution? Without doubt assassinated or exiled." Of course, Sartre refers to Leon Trotsky who was exiled by Stalin and was assassinated in Mexico. The same fate befell the Trotskyites of Sri Lanka but on a slightly different plane: they were killed by Mrs. Bandaranaike and leftovers were exiled by the people forever.

-Sri Lanka Guardian