Gunaratnam bluffs on the national question
Sunday 19 August 2012
A pologies for the acronyms in the title – FLSP is the Front Line Socialist Party which emerged as a breakaway from the JVP less than two years ago; NQ is short for national question. Gunaratnam is one of the leaders of FLSP. He is one of the two who were abducted by an agency of the Lankan state and tortured in a secret location, but rescued from assassination by intervention of the Australian High Commissioner. He was deported because he holds an Australian passport. This piece is a dissection of the erroneous views expressed by Gunaratnam in an interview with Peter Boyle and published in the website Links which describes itself as an international journal of socialist renewal based in Australia. The interview gives a summary of the abduction and leaves the reader in no doubt who is behind this and similar white van abominations now commonplace under this regime.
Many in the left movement, this writer included, had hoped that the emergence of a youthful faction would be the occasion for a renewal of Marxism and correcting the two fundamental errors that have dogged the JVP from its birth – adventurism and narrow nationalism. The Gunaratnam interview has dashed any hopes that the FLSP would abandon narrow minded Sinhala nationalism and grasp the basic concepts underlying Lenin’s exploration of the national question. At this time in world history Marx’s analysis of the periodic catastrophes of capitalist economics and Lenin’s grasp of the national question are two crucial contributions, much valued by political activists and scholar alike. It is disappointing that Gunaratnam is weak in his grasp of the former and scandalously backward on the national question.
This piece will not discuss the former – that is Gunaratnam’s errors on neo-liberalism, imperialism, socialism and class struggle, though it amazes me that a person with such rote-learned notions of “Marxism” is the leader of an important left group. I will confine myself to exposing his capitulation to trite Sinhala chauvinist concepts on the national question.
Sunday 19 August 2012
FLSP no different from JVP on NQ
A pologies for the acronyms in the title – FLSP is the Front Line Socialist Party which emerged as a breakaway from the JVP less than two years ago; NQ is short for national question. Gunaratnam is one of the leaders of FLSP. He is one of the two who were abducted by an agency of the Lankan state and tortured in a secret location, but rescued from assassination by intervention of the Australian High Commissioner. He was deported because he holds an Australian passport. This piece is a dissection of the erroneous views expressed by Gunaratnam in an interview with Peter Boyle and published in the website Links which describes itself as an international journal of socialist renewal based in Australia. The interview gives a summary of the abduction and leaves the reader in no doubt who is behind this and similar white van abominations now commonplace under this regime.Many in the left movement, this writer included, had hoped that the emergence of a youthful faction would be the occasion for a renewal of Marxism and correcting the two fundamental errors that have dogged the JVP from its birth – adventurism and narrow nationalism. The Gunaratnam interview has dashed any hopes that the FLSP would abandon narrow minded Sinhala nationalism and grasp the basic concepts underlying Lenin’s exploration of the national question. At this time in world history Marx’s analysis of the periodic catastrophes of capitalist economics and Lenin’s grasp of the national question are two crucial contributions, much valued by political activists and scholar alike. It is disappointing that Gunaratnam is weak in his grasp of the former and scandalously backward on the national question.
This piece will not discuss the former – that is Gunaratnam’s errors on neo-liberalism, imperialism, socialism and class struggle, though it amazes me that a person with such rote-learned notions of “Marxism” is the leader of an important left group. I will confine myself to exposing his capitulation to trite Sinhala chauvinist concepts on the national question.
Self-determination
and devolution
I need to quote at length; otherwise you will not believe the chap actually uttered all this.
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.
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.
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.” Unquote.
Now I never had any expectation that an off-shoot of JVP could develop a thoroughgoing Marxist understanding of the self-determination concept. It seems to be beyond the grasp of even TNA politicos, so what can you expect from a JVP rump – see Sumanthiran’s cock-up of inanities like “internal and external self-determination,” as though he was talking about bowel movements, in an extract I recently read in Groundviews.
But I will admit that you could have knocked me down with a feather to hear this featherhead come down hard against devolution. Devolution, the decentralization of power and administration to the people, reducing centralization in favour of the grassroots, that’s bad!! Perhaps Peter Boyle misunderstood Gunaratnam’s accent and wrote things back to front! This is just unbelievable. To repeat, while I did not expected the FLSP to ever arrive at a Marxist understanding of self-determination theory, that it actually opposes simple devolution makes we wonder about the groups sanity.
Ah! the real problem
I have never called the JVP chauvinists and I do not call the FSLP chauvinists either because their nationalism is of the passive type – unwillingness to stand up for the rights of minorities – not of the active type that does positive harm to minorities; that is the domain of DS, SWRD, JR and the Rajapaksa siblings. Now I will let you into a secret; I will tell you where the JVP/FSLP problem lies. If you ask them about devolution of power to workers, the rural people, the grassroots, the Frontline Socialists like the JVP will stand up and cheer. But you see the problem starts for both of them as soon as you want to devolve power to the Tamils, Muslims and Upcountry Tamils; that’s the secret. No devolution to minority communities, but on a class basis it’s ok. So deep inside, the FSLP is no different from the JVP, narrow Sinhala nationalists in red shirts and Che Guevara caps.
What do they offer the minorities? Wait till the golden dawn of socialism, they say, when all will be well and all your problems will be solved, be patient – wait for the great millennium. You don’t believe me? OK here’s a quote from the Gunaratnam interview.
Quote: “We should practice a socialist programme instead a social-democratic programme. In Sri Lanka there are number of unfinished democratic revolutionary objectives, including the national question, which has to be accomplished under socialism. FLSP believes that an effective and practical political programme should be implemented to unite the working class and the peasants among different national communities… 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.” Unquote.
Gunaratnam’s position is the polar opposite of Leninism. Lenin called for recognition of the right to self-determination of Russia’s minority nations to link together the struggle of the working class for liberation from capitalism with the struggle of minority nations for emancipation from Great Russian chauvinism. National liberation of minority nations was a part of, an essential and part of the revolutionary struggle, and not in his wildest dreams did he come up with idiotic notions of minorities accepting majoritarian chauvinism till the class struggle had triumphed and socialism had dawned. Hence I fear the good work the FLSP has been doing among the Tamils has been harmed by this foolish interview.
Can you go to Jaffna, say you are opposed to devolution, and not be ridiculed?
and devolution
I need to quote at length; otherwise you will not believe the chap actually uttered all this.
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.
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.
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.” Unquote.
Now I never had any expectation that an off-shoot of JVP could develop a thoroughgoing Marxist understanding of the self-determination concept. It seems to be beyond the grasp of even TNA politicos, so what can you expect from a JVP rump – see Sumanthiran’s cock-up of inanities like “internal and external self-determination,” as though he was talking about bowel movements, in an extract I recently read in Groundviews.
But I will admit that you could have knocked me down with a feather to hear this featherhead come down hard against devolution. Devolution, the decentralization of power and administration to the people, reducing centralization in favour of the grassroots, that’s bad!! Perhaps Peter Boyle misunderstood Gunaratnam’s accent and wrote things back to front! This is just unbelievable. To repeat, while I did not expected the FLSP to ever arrive at a Marxist understanding of self-determination theory, that it actually opposes simple devolution makes we wonder about the groups sanity.
Ah! the real problem
I have never called the JVP chauvinists and I do not call the FSLP chauvinists either because their nationalism is of the passive type – unwillingness to stand up for the rights of minorities – not of the active type that does positive harm to minorities; that is the domain of DS, SWRD, JR and the Rajapaksa siblings. Now I will let you into a secret; I will tell you where the JVP/FSLP problem lies. If you ask them about devolution of power to workers, the rural people, the grassroots, the Frontline Socialists like the JVP will stand up and cheer. But you see the problem starts for both of them as soon as you want to devolve power to the Tamils, Muslims and Upcountry Tamils; that’s the secret. No devolution to minority communities, but on a class basis it’s ok. So deep inside, the FSLP is no different from the JVP, narrow Sinhala nationalists in red shirts and Che Guevara caps.
What do they offer the minorities? Wait till the golden dawn of socialism, they say, when all will be well and all your problems will be solved, be patient – wait for the great millennium. You don’t believe me? OK here’s a quote from the Gunaratnam interview.
Quote: “We should practice a socialist programme instead a social-democratic programme. In Sri Lanka there are number of unfinished democratic revolutionary objectives, including the national question, which has to be accomplished under socialism. FLSP believes that an effective and practical political programme should be implemented to unite the working class and the peasants among different national communities… 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.” Unquote.
Gunaratnam’s position is the polar opposite of Leninism. Lenin called for recognition of the right to self-determination of Russia’s minority nations to link together the struggle of the working class for liberation from capitalism with the struggle of minority nations for emancipation from Great Russian chauvinism. National liberation of minority nations was a part of, an essential and part of the revolutionary struggle, and not in his wildest dreams did he come up with idiotic notions of minorities accepting majoritarian chauvinism till the class struggle had triumphed and socialism had dawned. Hence I fear the good work the FLSP has been doing among the Tamils has been harmed by this foolish interview.
Can you go to Jaffna, say you are opposed to devolution, and not be ridiculed?
