Introduction
The Tamil national question in Sri Lanka is being
fought on the basis of that nation's right to self-determination. For the
last thirty-five years the nation of Tamil Eelam has
been subjected to severe oppression. It took the
form of a violent oppression perpetrated against a
small nation by the national chauvinism of a big
nation, the Sinhala nation, the ruling elites of which
pursued a disastrous policy aimed at destroying the
ethnic identity of the Tamil speaking people and
threatened their very survival.
For nearly a quarter of a century Tamil
parliamentary political parties launched non-violent
campaigns of Satyagraha seeking the restoration of
basic human rights. Yet the civilized political demands
of the Tamils were met with a savage form of military
repression, the promises given to them never fulfilled,
and the agreements and pacts became dead letters. The
national friction between the two nations finally
emerged as a major contradiction leading to the demand
for secession by the oppressed.
To the world community, the Sri Lankan ruling class
portrays the country as a tranquil island, cherishing
the Buddhist ideals of peace and Dharma and adhering to
a harmless political doctrine of non-alignment.
Paradoxically behind this political facade lies the
factual reality, the reality of national oppression, of
the blatant violation of basic human rights, of racial
crimes, of police and military violence, of attempted
genocide.
Master-minding the worst form of capitalist
exploitative machinery under the slogans of democracy
and socialism, the Sinhala ruling class since
independence had always reinforced their political
power with an abominable ideology of national
chauvinism and religious fanaticism.
By utilising such ideological apparatus and by
actually practising a calculated policy of genocidal
oppression the ruling bourgeoisie has been able to
maintain its domination over the proletariat of the
oppressor nation and prevented the class unity
between the Sinhalese and Tamils. Yet on the other
hand, Sinhala chauvinism and its violent
manifestations have helped the polarisation of the
heterogenous masses of the oppressed Tamil nation,
with different class elements and castes towards a
determined revolutionary struggle for political
independence.
The struggle for national freedom having failed in
its democratic popular agitations, having exhausted its
power to mobilise the masses for peaceful campaigns,
gave rise to the emergence of armed resistance movement
in Tamil Eelam early seventies. Armed resistance as a
mode of popular struggle arose when our people were
presented with no alternative other than to resort to
revolutionary resistance to defend themselves against a
savage form of state terrorism.
The armed struggle, therefore is the historical
product of intolerable national oppression; it is an
extension, continuation and advancement of the
political struggle of our oppressed people. Our
liberation movement which spearheads the revolutionary
armed struggle in Tamil Eelam is the vanguard of the
national struggle.
|
"The freedom of secession
should not be confused with the reactionary
bourgeois category of 'separatism' which is
sometimes utilised to undermine the genuine
democratic struggle of the oppressed Tamil
nation. The freedom of secession articulated
within the concept of self-determination
exclusively implies an inalienable right of a
nation of people to agitate for political
independence from the oppressor nation.
This complete freedom to
agitate for secession is a right, which can be
exercised under conditions of intolerable
oppression. Therefore, the recognition of
this right to secession, Lenin repeatedly
argued, is vital to prevent national friction
arising out of a big nation's chauvinism, a
right that upholds the complete equality of
nations, a right, if violated will lead to
national hostility and the fragmentation of
nations.
It is here, Lenin
advances the dialectical principle that in
order to ensure unity there must be freedom to
separate. He even argued that freedom to
divorce will not cause the disintegration of
the family. Therefore, Lenin rigorously held he
was not advocating a doctrine of separatism but
advancing a higher principle of socialist
democracy in which absolute freedom should be
accorded to a nation of people to secede under
any conditions of oppression. "
|
Theoretical Guide
The principal determinant factor that propelled
the dynamics of national friction leading to this
inevitable choice of political independence was none
other than national oppression. Therefore, in the study
of the Tamil Eelam national question, oppression, that
is, the oppression of a big nation against a small
nation perpetrated within the power structure of a
unitary state becomes the crucial element for a
theoretical analyses as well as for a political
strategy.
Positing the problem within the theoretical
discourse of Marxism, we hold that Lenin's theoretical
elucidations and political strategies offer an adequate
basis for a precise formulation of this question.
Lenin's exposition of the concept of
self-determination, that deals primarily with a
nation's right to secession and statehood is adopted
here as a theoretical guide to provide a concrete
presentation of the Tamil national question.
Out reliance on Lenin's formulations is determined
by the fact that neither Marx or Engels nor any other
theoretician offers a systematic theory with a concrete
political strategy for proletarian praxis in relation
to the national question. Indisputably Lenin's works
will stand as a theoretical and political paradigm on
this domain engaging the problems in manifold
aspects.
Situating the question within the theoretical
framework of historical materialism, providing a
historico-economic analysis, Lenin advances a correct
proletarian perspective on the national question
inter-relating the national struggle with proletarian
class struggle. His analysis exposes the limitations
and bankruptcy of bourgeois democracy and the dangers
of extreme*bourgeois nationalism. Lenin firmly held
that the non recognition or rejection of the problems
of national minorities will deeply affect the
working-class movement and obstruct the proletarian
struggle for socialist revolution. White taking Lenin's
discourse as our guide, we are not blind to the fact
that every national struggle must be situated within
the context of its own concrete historical conditions.
The liberation struggle of the Tamil Eelam nation
demanding political independence, the historical
conjunctures of which we have already outlined, arose
primarily from the contradictions of national
oppression and therefore must be confined to the
theoretical specifications and political implications
of that nation's right to secession. Within this
context many questions are posed.
Whether the oppressed Tamil nation has the
right to secede;
whether the right of that nation to
self-determination contravenes, the socialist
principle of proletarian internationalism;
under what political and economic conditions
of oppression will a nation opt for
secession;
whether such a decision to secede and the struggle
for political independence will serve the interests
of the class struggle of both the oppressed and the
oppressor nations;
whether the struggle for political independence
has the revolutionary potentiality to promote
proletarian revolution and socialist transformation
of the oppressed Tamil social formation;
what kind of political strategy can best serve the
class interests of the proletariat of the oppressed
as well as the oppressor nations, a strategy which
has to be adopted by the Marxist revolutionaries of
the oppressor nation who are caught between a
progressive struggle of an oppressed nation and a
reactionary bourgeois nationalism of the oppressor
nation.
These problems are raised and hotly debated
within the context of the Tamil national question. The
debates and arguments enmeshed with vague
generalisations and loose conceptualisations, have
created so much confusion and controversy that a
clarity and a correct perspective on this issue has
become absolutely essential.
Self Determination and Secession
The Tamil nation is a historically constituted
social formation possessing all the basic elements that
are usually assembled to define a concrete
characterisation of a nation. Yet a definition as to
what constitutes a nation is theoretically unnecessary
since we can precisely formulate our issue within the
Leninist conceptual framework of the self determination
of nations.
The concept of self-determination
needs a precise and clear definition. Such a
clarification is vital to our national question,
since some of the so-called Leninists in Sri Lanka
are confused on this basic concept. The most
ridiculous misrepresentation and misconceptualisation
of this concept arises from a position in which the
right of the Tamil nation to self-determination is
given recognition while opposing secession.
Attempting to show a radical face as revolutionaries
these political opportunists are proclaiming that the
Tamil speaking people as an oppressed nation has the
right to self-determination but they do not have the
right to secession. It is precisely on this position
one finds a calculated distortion of a clearly defined
concept. Lenin's texts on the national question
constantly reiterate the definition that the
self-determination of nations is nothing but secession
and the formation of an independent state. To quote a
couple of examples:
"Consequently, if we want to grasp the meaning of
self-determination of nations, not by juggling with
legal. definitions, or 'inventing' abstract
definitions, but by examining the historico-economic
conditions of the national movements, we must
inevitably reach the conclusion that the
self-determination of nations means the political
separation of these nations from alien national
bodies and the formation of an independent national
state". (Lenin: 'The Right of Nations to
Self-Determination)
Again in the same theoretical essay Lenin writes:
"Self-determination of nations in the Maxist
programme cannot, from a historico-economic point of
view, have any other meaning than political
self-determination, state independence, and the
formation of a national state".
Thus, Lenin offers a precise definition. The
right of nations to self-determination in his
formulation means the right of an oppressed nation to
secede from the oppressor nation and form an
independent national state. Therefore, those who
pretend to recognise the right of the oppressed Tamil
nation to self-determination and argue such a right
does not embody the freedom to secede, are neither
Marxists nor Leninists but chauvinists parading under
socialist slogans. To characterise these
pseudo-socialists in Lenin's own words:
"A socialist in any of the oppressor nations who
does not recognise and does not struggle for the
right of the oppressed nations to self-determination
(i.e for the right to secession) is in reality a
chauvinist, not a socialist."
The freedom of an oppressed nation to secede in
Lenin's theoretical analysis, is advanced, on one
level, as a universal socialist principle of workers,
democracy, a corner stone of what Lenin calls
'consistent democracy'. On a different level the
struggle of an oppressed nation to secession is seen as
a revolutionary ground for mass action, a ground for a
proletarian onslaught on the bourgeoisie.
Therefore, the political genius of Lenin situates
this struggle of the oppressed nations within the
realms of socialist democracy and proletarian
revolution. It is precisely within these two spheres we
wish to situate the Tamil national question to
elucidate the progressive and revolutionary character
of this independence struggle.
Inalienable Right of A Nation
In championing the right of secession and
articulating the principle of self-determination in the
national, democratic programme, Lenin sparked off a
violent theoretical controversy among his
co-revolutionaries. Whether such a right will lead to
disintegration and fragmentation of smaller states,
whether the freedom to secede contradicts the Marxian
principle of proletarian internationalism, were
questions raised against his thesis on the national
question. These questions and Lenin's consistent
defence of this position are important to us because it
is precisely these questions that are hurled against
the Tamil demand for secession.
The freedom of secession should not be confused with
the reactionary bourgeois category of 'separatism'
which is sometimes utilised to undermine the genuine
democratic struggle of the oppressed Tamil nation. The
freedom of secession articulated within the concept of
self-determination exclusively implies an inalienable
right of a nation of people to agitate for political
independence from the oppressor nation.
This complete freedom to agitate for secession is a
right, which can be exercised under conditions of
intolerable oppression. Therefore, the recognition of
this right to secession, Lenin repeatedly argued, is
vital to prevent national friction arising out of a big
nation's chauvinism, a right that upholds the complete
equality of nations, a right, if violated will lead to
national hostility and the fragmentation of
nations.
It is here, Lenin advances the dialectical
principle that in order to ensure unity there must be
freedom to separate. He even argued that freedom to
divorce will not cause the disintegration of the
family. Therefore, Lenin rigorously held he was not
advocating a doctrine of separatism but advancing a
higher principle of socialist democracy in which
absolute freedom should be accorded to a nation of
people to secede under nay conditions of
oppression. To quote him in this context:
"Specifically, this demand for political democracy
implies complete freedom to agitate for secession..
This demand therefore is not the equivalent of a
demand for separation, fragmentation and the
formation of small states.. It implies only a
consistent expression of struggle against all
national oppression". (Lenin:The Socialist Revolution
and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination.)
Proletarian Internationalism
Marxist political praxis certainly advances
proletarian. internationalism, but at the same time
gives fullest recognition to the revolutionary
character and the historical legitimacy of national
movernents. The principle of nationality, or rather,
the phenomenon of nationalism itself, in Marxist
discourse is characterised as an historically
inevitable political phenomenon in bourgeois
society.
For Marx, nationalism is historically prior to
proletarian internationalism. Proletarian revolutions
in the advanced capitalist social formations, Marx
foresaw, will generate the progressive forces of
internationalism towards the gradual structuration and
consolidation of a world socialist society.
Lenin, who saw the historical unfolding of the great
socialist revolution became an ardent champion of
proletarian internationalism, since he rightly believed
that only the revolutionary power of a united
international proletariat can challenge the structure
of dominance of world capitalism. Therefore we find in
Lenin's texts a constant emphasis on the necessity of
the solidarity of the working classes of all nations to
mobilise to fight against the hegemony of international
capital.
Yet, on the other hand, we find Lenin as a fierce
champion of the oppressed fought vigorously against all
forms of oppressions. He correctly perceived that
national oppression is the enemy of the class struggle
and without the emancipation of the oppressed,
proletarian solidarity of the oppressed and the
oppressor nations is unattainable. That is why, Lenin
firmly held that proletarian internationalism demands
that the proletariat of the oppressor nation should
grant the right to self-determination (i.e. the right
to secession) to the oppressed nation.
"The proletariat must struggle against the
enforced retention of oppressed nations within the
bounds of the given state, which means that they must
fight for the right to self-determination. The
proletariat must demand freedom of political
separation for the colonies and nations oppressed by
'their own' nation. Otherwise, the internationalism
of the proletariat would be nothing but empty words,
neither confidence nor class solidarity would be
possible between the workers of the oppressed and the
oppressor nations... (Lenin: 'The Socialist
Revolution and the Right of Nations to
Self-Determination.)
The right of nations to self-determination does
not contravene the socialist principle of proletarian
internationalism. On the contrary, as Lenin has shown,
the recognition of this right is a fundamental
necessity to advance internationalism. It will amount
to chauvinism and political opportunism to preach the
noble ideals of internationalism to a nation of people
caught up in a liberation struggle against the
oppression of the bigger dominant nation.
Intolerable Oppression and Inevitable
Secession
We are now approaching the most crucial stage of
our discussion on the Tamil Eelam national question.
That is, under what political and economic conditions
of oppression a nation will opt for secession, and
whether such a decision to secede and the struggle for
national independence will serve the interests of the
class struggle of both the oppressed and oppressor
nations.
An elucidation of these issues is vital for a
theoretical comprehension and for a political strategy
for proletarian revolutionaries in Sri Lanka who are
confronted with a national struggle of an oppressed
nation which has chosen the path of secession.
The determinant factors behind the Tamil's decision
to secede and form a state of their own, as we have
pointed out earlier, are the historical conditions of
intolerable national oppression. The cumulative effects
of this multi-dimensional oppression made joint
existence unbearable. The contradictions that emanated
from national friction made a political rupture
inevitable. Thrown into the painful dilemma of
political isolation and economic deprivation and
threatened with an annihilation of their ethnic
identity, the Tamil speaking people of Eelam nation,
had no other alternative but to - opt for secession.
Under intensified conditions of national oppression, a
decision to secede and fight for political
independence, is not only a correct action but also a
revolutionary move which will serve the interests of
the class struggle. Lenin says:
"From their daily experience the masses know
perfectly well the value of geographical and economic
ties and the advantages of a big state. They will
therefore, resort to secession only when national
oppression and national friction make joint life
absolutely, intolerable and hinder any and all
economic intercourse. in that case, the interests of
capitalist development and of the freedom or the
class struggle will be best served by secession."
(Lenin: The Right of Nations to
Self-Determination)
Within the Leninist perspective we can safety hold
that the decision of the oppressed Tamil nation to
secede from the oppressor nation was necessary and
historically inevitable because of the extreme
conditions of oppression, the nature and form of which
we have outlined.... The question that can be posed now
is, whether the Tamil struggle for political
independence will serve the interests of the class
struggle of the oppressed arid oppressor nations.
The Role of the Progressives of the Oppressor
Nation
Marx who supported the Irish national movement,
called upon the English working classes to fight for
the liberation of Ireland, which he considered as an
oppressed colony under England. He firmly held that the
liberation of Ireland was a necessity and an essential
condition for the emancipation of the English working
classes. He asserted that no nation can be free while
it practises oppression against another country.
The writings of Marx and Lenin on the national
question announces a very important political truth,
that national oppression would inevitably hold back and
divide the working classes of the oppressor nation. It
is through oppression and through the hegemony of a
national chauvinistic ideology that the ruling
bourgeoisie exerts dominance and power over the working
masses of the oppressor nation. Marx wrote:
"It is (Britain's oppression of Ireland) the
secret of the impotence of the English working class,
despite their organisation, it is the secret of which
the capitalist class maintains its power". (Marx's
Letter to Meyer and Vogt, April 9th 1870)
Lenin took Marx as his guide on the national
question when he wrote "Our model will always be Marx,
who, after living in Britain for decades and becoming
half-English, demanded freedom and national
independence for Ireland in the interests of the
socialist movement of the British workers". (Lenin: 'On
the National Pride of the Great Russians')
We advocate that the progressives and
revolutionaries of the oppressor nation (in this case,
the Sinhala nation) who uphold the proletarian praxis
of Marxism and Leninism should follow the strategy
advanced by these great revolutionary teachers arid
give an unconditional, unrelenting support to the
freedom struggle of the oppressed Tamil nation. Such a
political strategy can only serve the interests of the
class struggle of both the oppressed and the oppressor
nation, since the ruling Sinhala bourgeoisie has been
reinforcing, a chauvinistic ideological hegemonv and
has been actually practising a vicious form of national
oppression with the motive of dividing and weakening
the working class movement of Sri Lanka.
To break this bourgeois ideological hegemony and to
unite the proletariat of the oppressor nation, the
revolutionary. Marxistsin the southl should advance an
ideological. battle supporting most resolutely the
right of the oppressed Tamil nation to secession. Such
strategy requires a profound political education of the
masses on the democratic rights of the oppressed
nation. As Lenin said, the masses must be
systematically educated to champion-most resolutely,
consistently, boldly and in a revolutionary manner, the
right of nations to self determination.
Such an ideological struggle on the part of the
Sinhala Progressives is essential to raise the level of
political consciousness of the Sinhala proletariat to
understand and accept the legitimacy of the Tamil
cause. It is precisely this lack of 'political
consciousness that draws Sinhala masses into anti
-Tamil racial violence and prevents the development of
a proletarian class consciousness.
Proletarian revolutionaries committed to the task of
socialist revolution should seek and understand the
revolutionary potential of mass movements. The national
liberation struggle of the oppressed Tamil nation has
such revolutionary potential, the failure on the part
of the Sinhalese Progressives to chart a political
programme) with the fullest comprehension of the
objective and subjective conditions of that struggle,
will be a great set back to the class struggle of the
Sinhala nation.
The most important political truth to be grasped
in this historical situation is that only the national
emancipation of the oppressed Tamil nation will enable
the working masses of the oppressor nation to free
themselves from the shackles of bourgeois chauvinism
and mobilise them against the State power. The
liberated socialist Tamil Eelam would be a
revolutionary ally of the oppressed Sinhala masses to
fight and destroy the bourgeois state
apparatus.
National Struggle and Class Struggle
The theoretical perspective of historical
materialism necessitates the investigation of any
national movement in relation to the historical
development of world capitalism. The nationalism of the
European nation states arose with the collapse of
feudalism and the transitions to capitalism, with the
unification of markets and the revolutionary
development of productive forces leading to the birth
of a new bourgoois class.
The ascendancy of the bourgeoisie and bourgeois
nationalism fed to the oppression and exploitation of
other nations. Advanced stage of capitalist development
gave rise to monopoly capitalism which took the global
form of imperialism. The imperialist penetration and
its form of oppression produced determinant effects on
the mode of production of the peripheral
formations.
Separating the direct producers from their means of
production, creating a mass of free labourers, these
effects generated the dynamics of the capitalist mode
in the penetrated societies The development of the
productive forces in the capitalist made led to the
organisation of the proletariat as a revolutionary
class force.
The imperialist penetration, not only generated the
mechanisms of the capitalist development but also
shifted the national struggles to the peripheral social
formations. In this context the nature of nationalism,
the national struggle and the class relations in the
national movements of the Third World countries must be
viewed in relation to the transformations in the
expanding capitalist economy, 'its global effects, its
structural relations with developing peripheral
capitalism. The world hegemony and the development of
the revolutionary proletarian classes within the space
of imperialist dominance, have changed the structure
and character of the contemporary national struggles of
the Third World.
The so called progressive national bourgeoisie
has lost its revolutionary character to advance the
national struggle as a democratic social force. The
historical conjuncture of global capitalism has
eliminated all progressive elements of the national
bourgeoisie, its historical role in the national
revolution has shifted to the revolutionary
proletariat.
Such structural transformation in the class
elements has necessitated a revolutionary socialist
strategy inter-relating the class struggle with
national liberation struggle under the leadership of
the revolutionary 'proletariat, a strategy to advance
the class struggle along with the national liberation
struggle both against the indigenous bourgeoisie and
international capitalism. This political objective of
our movement is to advance the national struggle along
with the class struggle, or rather, our fundamental
objective is national emancipation and socialist
transition of our social formation.
The Politico-Military Strategy
The politico-military strategy, of our liberation
movement is devised in accordance with the specific
concrete conditions of our oppressed nation. We are
committed, since the inception of our movement, to an
armed revolutionary struggle to achieve our ultimate
objective, i.e the establishment of an independent
sovereign socialist State of Tamil Eelam. Our strategy
aims at the organisation and politicisation of the
broad masses of Tamil Eelam towards a popular war of
national liberation and socialist revolution.
Our total strategy therefore integrates both the
national struggle and class struggle, inter-linking
both nationalism and socialism into a revolutionary
project aimed at liberating our people both. from
national oppression and from the exploitation of man by
man. This strategy aims to fuse the progressive
patriotic feelings of the broad masses with proletarian
class consciousness to accelerate the process of
national emancipation and socialist transition of our
social formation.
