Sri Lanka saw a mass uprising in 2022, with the authoritarian Rajapaksa brothers, Mahinda and Gotabaya, forced to resign as president and prime minister. The social crisis, price explosion, unemployment and general decay ignited this revolt. The country defaulted on its debt payments and was forced to accept humiliating conditions by its creditors, both Western and Chinese imperialism.
The mass uprising shook the country, but the new government that was formed has basically continued with the same capitalist policies directed against workers, the poor and Tamils. No strong workers’ or left force has yet developed. As in other mass revolts and struggles internationally recently, the objective strength of the masses have not been matched with a clear programme, organisation and understanding of what the struggle needs in order to win. State apparatuses, capitalists and imperialist interests have been able to bide time and reassert their power.
Part of the reason for this is to be found in Sri Lanka’s history and particularly the national question, which holds many lessons for Marxists globally today.
Sri Lanka has a unique history, including a period of a well-organised labour movement and Trotskyist mass workers’ party. When the working class had strong organisation and leadership, this also put its mark on society. The subsequent degeneration of the workers’ party, the LSSP (Lanka Sama Samaja Party, literally “Lanka Equal Society Party”), however, opened the door for increased capitalist exploitation and national oppression.
Colonialism: History of Sri Lanka
After periods of Portuguese (1505) and Dutch (1696) rule, the British empire established itself as the ruler of Ceylon (Sri Lanka) in 1796. As in India, the empire was run with severe repression alongside the policy of divide and rule, exploiting the conditions of poverty and setting different ethnic, religious and language groups against each other.
Basically, anti-colonial struggle developed alongside capitalist production methods and the growth of a working class. In the early 1900s, Sri Lanka saw several big strike movements, in 1906 and in 1912. The strains of WWI caused food riots in 1915 and with the end of the war, a strong radicalisation followed, as in most of the rest of the world, not least inspired by the Russian Revolution. Mass struggles also took place in India in 1919–20.
The Wall Street crash of 1929 and the global depression was very important for the Sri Lankan workers’ movement. It meant the return from exile of students who had been in touch with communist and Marxist ideas and movements. They immediately criticised the reformism of the Ceylon Labour Union, led by A.E. Goonesinha, that had been formed in 1923 and organised some big strikes in 1927–29.
The new youth leagues in a short time sank roots among the masses. They organised a campaign in support of a strike at Wellawatte, the biggest mill in Ceylon, and became de facto strike leaders while the Ceylon Labour Union leadership colluded in the strike-breaking efforts of the bosses. They also organised a mass campaign against malaria. There were 5 million malaria cases in 1935, causing the death of up to 100,000 people. The youth league’s slogan was “The reason is poverty”.
At that time, life expectancy was half of England’s. 70 percent of the population lived close to starvation and half of the children did not go to school. This was real life in a “model colony”.
The LSSP — Lanka Sama Samaja Party
In 1935, the Lanka Sama Samaja Party was founded, with independence and socialism as its fundamental objectives. Its leadership was composed of the 25–30-year old ex-students from the youth leagues. This was one of the first political parties to be formed on the island, and the first to stand for independence.
Neither the extremely weak local bourgeoisie nor the colonial power had launched a major bourgeois party. Despite the empire’s proposal of a ”degree of self-government” and a state council, there was no national government.
The LSSP had no sponsors and was entirely self-financed. The party grew quickly to 800 members and its leaders, Philip Gunawardene and N.M. Perera, became members of the new state council in 1936.
World War II became a decisive period for the new party. On the basis of its revolutionary and anti-colonial socialist positions, Gunawardene and N.M. Perera refused to support the request for war supplies to the British empire. This also caused confrontation with the Stalinists, who, following their master in Moscow, wanted an alliance with England. In early 1940, the Stalinists were expelled from the LSSP.
Because of its position against the war, the LSSP was declared illegal. Furthermore, strikes were banned and repression increased. The LSSP leaders were imprisoned, but were able to escape by recruiting a prison guard. Most fled to India, where they took an active part in the independence struggle and played a leading role in the organising of Indian Trotskyists until 1948.
In Sri Lanka, the Trotskyists started an underground newspaper and activities. However, they also split into two organisations, BLPI/BSP (the Bolshevik Leninist Party of India/Bolshevik Samasamaja Party, with stronger Indian connections) and LSSP (led by members who were not in exile). Both parties increased their influence. There were big strikes and student and peasant agitation after the war, in 1946–47 during which the Trotskyists particularly won support among Tamil workers.
In 1946, the national bourgeoisie formed their first nationwide party, the United National Party (UNP). Their anxiety over the growing workers’ movement was confirmed in the first elections, in 1947. Out of 101 MPs, the LSSP won 10 and BSP 5 — in total 17 percent.
Ceylon’s independence was declared on 4 February 1948, as a by-product of the mass freedom struggles that had shaken British colonial rule in the region, especially in India. It was a limited self-rule, with Britain keeping responsibility over foreign affairs and defence. The British Monarch continued to be head of state until 1972. 35,000 attended a BSP mass meeting on the meaning of independence. One of the key demands was citizen’s rights for Tamil plantation workers. In 1950, the BSP and the LSSP merged. Philip Gunawardene, however, stayed outside, forming a new organisation, the VSP.
The role of the Sri Lankan bourgeoisie
The weak national bourgeoisie in Sri Lanka never asked for, and of course never fought for, independence. As in India, much of the national consciousness grew parallel with increased workers’ struggle, but with even weaker national demands in Sri Lanka. The “democratic bourgeoisie” supported Britain wholeheartedly in World War II and expected to continue as a colony afterwards.
The national bourgeoisie in Europe showed, already during the revolutions in 1848, that they feared the working masses more than the feudal forces and monarchies. Marx and Engels drew the conclusion that working class independence was needed. Trotsky, in his theory of the permanent revolution, showed how working class leadership over the poor peasants was necessary to solve the national question, to free oppressed nations from domination by colonial and imperial powers, as well as for other democratic reforms such as land reform, democratic rights and to develop the economy. Such a movement would also, in contrast to the national bourgeoisie, be part of an international movement and revolution.
During debates in 1905, Lenin stressed that every attempt to differentiate between or make deals with different parts of the bourgeoisie is doomed. This was confirmed in the Russian Revolutions, both in 1905 and 1917, where the bourgeoisie preferred to support reaction and feared the working class. That included the bourgeoisie in the oppressed nations. Trotsky summarised: “In that gigantic field of experience represented by Russia in the course of her three revolutions, you can find every variant of national and class struggle except one: that in which the bourgeoisie of any oppressed nation played a liberating rôle in relation to its own people.” In 1917, in order to achieve the tasks of the democratic revolution such as a land reform and the national question, the working class had to take power, also advancing to socialist measures.
In Sri Lanka, the conclusions drawn by the Trotskyist leadership was to mobilise the masses in the independence struggle, separately organised with their own socialist programme for further struggle. They understood a new capitalist state meant continued colonisation.
Hartal 1953
In 1951, a wing of the national ruling class formed a new party, Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), led by S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike, with a more nationalist populist profile than the UNP. In the elections of 1952, however, both the LSSP and the SLFP lost votes. A right-wing of the LSSP started to raise the idea of an alliance with the SLFP.
In July 1953, the UNP government raised the price of rice by 200%. This was met with a Hartal — a combination of a general strike and a mass uprising from 12 August. The LSSP was the leading political party in the Hartal, with the working class in the trade unions as the dominant social force. Meetings were organised in factories and villages. Workers and the poor took to the streets, smashed buses, uprooted railway lines, and fought the police. It was a semi-insurrection. Nine people were killed in confrontations with the police and the military. The government met on a ship belonging to the Royal Navy, prepared to leave the country. They retreated on the rice subsidy, but kept the army on standby and attempted to introduce martial law. As was the case 69 years later, in 2022, the masses showed enormous strength and willingness to fight, with the difference that in 1953 the movement had an organised political leadership.
The Hartal was only planned for one day, and while it in parts continued for longer, the LSSP called it off. The ruling class and its system had been challenged, but the leadership of the movement, the LSSP, did not present a plan on how to go forward. At the peak of a pre-revolutionary situation, the working class was given no direction by the leadership it trusted. While it was a success, the working class should have been prepared that the struggle had only begun. The capitalists and imperialism always plan how to take back what workers have won, as long as the capitalist system remains.
The Hartal had big political consequences. The UNP government lost support and the SLFP won the elections in 1956. The SLFP had opposed the price rise in words but not in deeds; they did not play any part in the Hartal. In those elections, a minority of the LSSP had split and joined the SLFP. There is a constant pressure from capitalist society against being organised in a revolutionary party. Also, the temptation to join a “bigger force” is a factor as well as individuals believing that they stand for socialist policies despite joining establishment forces.
On the basis of its role in the Hartal, LSSP gained massively in the elections and with 14 MPs, it became the biggest opposition party. LSSP also won the municipal elections in the capital, Colombo, and some other towns in 1954.
SLFP: Sinhala only
The SLFP government, portraying itself as a fighting force of the masses, in fact began a political counter-revolution. Its main slogan was “Sinhala Only”, turning the majority Sinhala population against the minority Tamils.
It was portrayed as a language reform, to make Sinhala the state language instead of English, which only 7% spoke. The SLFP government got support from the small left party VSP, while both the LSSP and the Stalinist CP were against. However, the CP eventually changed its position on this; the LSSP became thus the only party with a base in the Sinhala population that stood firmly in defense of both languages.
Sinhala Only became law in June 1956. The biggest Tamil party, the Federal party, organised a peaceful protest, a satyagraha, that was violently attacked by Sinhala chauvinists. As a socialist commentator later noted, “violence against Tamil people for being Tamil started that day”. More than 150 Tamils were killed, with shops and houses owned by Tamils being destroyed.
The LSSP fought for both Sinhala and Tamil to become official state languages. Colvin de Silva in the LSSP leadership summarised it with “one language, two countries — two languages, one country”. The “language reform” of the SLFP was an appeal to violent communalism and discrimination.
The LSSP lost Colombo in the local elections in 1956. The party was then still a strong force with 2,000 members and a mass base of 20,000 in its youth league and 500,000 in the trade union movement.
The LSSP leadership, however, began to make political mistakes over how to characterise the SLFP. The government profiled nationalism by closing two British military bases and introduced social reforms such as free education, pensions and a limited land reform. It also established diplomatic links with the Stalinist USSR. These measures made LSSP leader N.M. Perera refer to the SLFP as “progressive”. This was ignoring the police shootings of striking workers, the encouragement of Sinhalese communalism, and the limits and obstacles to thoroughgoing reforms because of the capitalist character of the government.
Following a general strike led by the LSSP in 1957, the government agreed to concessions to 80,000 state workers. At the same time, attacks and violence against Tamils continued. More than 1,000 were killed in 1958, including in a pogrom in May. The SLFP government responded by introducing a state of emergency and making some superficial changes in the language law.
1959 saw a new wave of mass struggle, with strikes and demonstrations, including a strike in Colombo port for 26 days. The nationalism whipped up led to the creation of extreme racist Sinhala groups that thought the SLFP made too many concessions. In 1959, a Sinhala Buddhist monk shot and killed prime minister S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike.
1960–63: Coalition debates
The LSSP leadership lost orientation and political independence gradually under the SLFP governments. In a world with mass revolutionary movements across the whole colonial world and Stalinist regimes still in a strong position, and a strong labour movement in its own country, bourgeois nationalist parties such as the SLFP had to keep a populist, pseudo anti-imperialist rhetoric and introduce certain reforms.
In 1960, a majority at the LSSP conference, 269–128, voted in favour of an electoral pact with the SFLP, proposed by N.M. Perera. However, the SLFP, now led by S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike’s widow, Sirimavo Bandaranaike, won a majority on its own and did not need the LSSP at that stage.
The LSSP leadership continued to transition away from Trotskyism and genuine Marxism in a reformist direction, starting to view language and citizenship issues as problem issues, brakes, and diversions in a society moving in a progressive direction. This was also linked to an increasingly electoral approach: fear of losing votes by raising anti-racism.
N.M. Perera labelled the SLFP as a reformist petty-bourgeois party, not capitalist and not anti-capitalist. He said the main task was to “smash UNP” and “remove LSSP isolation”. In the elections in July 1960, the LSSP entered in a “no-contest” pact with the SLFP, hence contesting only 21 seats and paving the way for a SLFP government, to which it gave “general support”. It got 12 MPs and 214,693 votes — over 100,000 less than in the elections held four months earlier.
Through history, revolutionary and socialist organisations joining popular fronts, that is alliances with bourgeois capitalist forces, often described as liberal and democratic, has led to catastrophic defeats for the working class. In the Spanish revolution in the 1930s, in Chile 1970–73, but also more recently in Egypt and South Korea, revolutionary parties subordinated themselves to bourgeois forces while the masses fought in what was revolution. These are important lessons for workers and socialists today.
In Sri Lanka in 1960, the new SLFP government was quickly shaken by protest and unrest. LSSP was again involved in union protests and strikes, and the view of SLFP as progressive was fading among the masses.
When a Language of the Courts Act (instructing the use of Sinhala in all courts, including in Tamil areas) was implemented in early 1961, the Tamil Federal Party organised satyagraha in two provinces. The protests blocked local government administration and received support from Tamil plantation workers.
The government responded by declaring the Federal Party illegal for 12 months and imprisoned the party leaders and 12 MPs. A state of emergency was declared. This was also directed against striking bank and transport workers.
On 5 January 1962, the three left-wing parties LSSP, the CP, and Philip Gunawardene’s party, now called MEP, organised through their unions a successful general strike that forced the military to withdraw from the port in Colombo where workers were on strike. A few weeks later, plans for a military coup were exposed. The three left parties gave support to the government against the coup.
In Germany in 1920 against the Kapp coup and in Russia in 1917 against general Kornilov, the mobilisation of the working class defeated the attempted coups and strengthened the working class. In Russia, it was a key process in massively increasing the Bolsheviks’ support and securing the working class taking power in October. In Russia, fighting against the coup did not mean supporting Kerensky’s government.
In Sri Lanka, the strength of the working class was shown a few weeks earlier. New steps that should have been taken to mobilise against the coup plans were not taken. The CP and the MEP went further in the opposite direction and called off the port strike without even consulting the LSSP. The LSSP leadership explained there were coup plans not only against the government, but that the government itself also planned to arrest left-wing and working class leaders.
The LSSP then declared its opposition to the entire SLFP policies. A conference agreed the slogan “Forward to a genuine socialist government”. But in parallel, coalitionism within the LSSP continued and on 8 August 1963 the United Left Front was formed, with LSSP, MEP and the CP. Its programme contained big retreats from LSSP’s own programme. The language question did not differ from that of the SLFP, and the demand for nationalisation only covered foreign-owned companies and property. The demand for citizenship for Tamil plantation workers was not in the programme of the ULF.
This time, top party leaders, Colvin de Silva and Lesley Goonewardene, that had criticised N.M. Perera on the proposal to ally with the SLFP, were arguing strongly for the ULF.
1964 — decisive moments
In 1964, the LSSP’s decisive break with Marxist policies came. The year started with new big strikes and the reply from the government was an offer for co-operation with the ULF. On 28 March, a rally to “fight reaction” was organised with speakers from the SLFP and ULF. The CP was already fully loyal to the government and within days, the ULF declared its willingness to cooperate with the SLFP. All trade union strikes and actions were called off. On May Day, N.M. Perera spoke in favour of the ULF joining the government. A month later, 6–7 June, this was confirmed by a special conference of the LSSP. 64% of delegates voted for joining the government, described as “progressive”, while 25% voted against joining. Within four days, three LSSP ministers were installed, including N.M. Perera as finance minister. The other two ULF parties, the CP and the MEP, were not included in this new coalition. This government lasted until December, when it was voted down.
The left-wing split from the LSSP and formed the LSSP (Revolutionary Section). This new party had two MPs and strong union positions. It was never consolidated and split into several different groups in 1967–69.
The Trotskyist International, the USFI (United Secretariat of the Fourth International), only in 1964 admitted there was a deep crisis in its only party with mass roots. Despite admitting that this crisis had been brewing up for a long time, the USFI leadership had not intervened or involved the international in the gradual degeneration of the LSSP leadership. Now, the new ministers were expelled from the international and the LSSP (Revolutionary Section) became the new section of the USFI.
How was this right-wing development of the LSSP possible — going from a mass workers party feared by the ruling class and imperialism, expressed by the Hartal in 1953, but also in the general strike in 1962, to taking minister portfolios in a bourgeois government?
A key explanation was not having international developments and experiences as the starting point. Lessons from previous nationalist populist governments, the colonial revolution especially in the context of Stalinism, with its stages theory, versus genuine Marxism on the permanent revolution and the national question were thrown to one side. Instead, the LSSP leadership got caught in a debate over how to characterise the SFLP, ending up with describing it as “progressive” and “non-capitalist”. The LSSP avoided taking a position or analysing key international developments of the time, for example, the conflicts between the rival stalinist bureaucratic dictatorships in Russia and China.
One additional explanation was that the social position of the main party leaders, who were not working full-time for the party or workers themselves. For example, N.M. Perera led his own business and Colvin de Silva was one of the country’s most prominent lawyers.
The national question
National states have not always existed. 200 years ago, neither Italy, Germany nor Belgium existed as national states. In Western Europe, national states were established through bourgeois revolutions in the century following the French revolution of 1789–1815. In Eastern Europe, capitalist national states came about following World War I.
During the period of capitalist ascendancy, these bourgeois democratic revolutions were necessary to develop capitalism. The new national state created a national market and forced through land reform, breaking up the foundations of feudalism. Soon, however, capitalism outgrew the national market. Surplus of capital was exported and vicious competition for foreign markets and raw materials began. The number of colonies doubled in the years 1880–99 when imperialism developed. The national liberation struggle, the establishment of new independent national states, became clearly linked to a struggle against the imperialist and capitalist system.
The programme of Lenin and the Bolsheviks on the national question was decisive in the Russian revolution of 1917. Russia under the Tsar was a “prison house of nations”. Only with the working class taking power in Ukraine, Georgia, Poland, Finland and so on could real national independence and their own state be achieved. With this policy, the working class and the oppressed masses could unite in common struggle.
Briefly summarised, Lenin’s position means the working class should fight for the liberation of oppressed nations without subordinating the struggle to bourgeois nationalism. All nations have the right to self-rule, up to and including their own state. In national heterogeneous states, Marxists stand for autonomy and equal rights regarding language, culture and education.
In Sri Lanka, the failure of the LSSP leadership to put forward and defend a Marxist programme on the national question opened the door for reaction. While the LSSP had opposed the Sinhala-only policy, even exposing itself to violent attacks for doing so, its turn towards the SLFP and entry into the latter’s government effectively translated into an adaptation to the nationalist project of the bourgeois Sinhalese chauvinists. A firm stand for equal rights for the languages symbolised the need for common struggle of the working class and the poor against capitalism and imperialism. The strong labour movement and socialist parties were defeated and disintegrated due to their political mistakes. The LSSP leadership attempted to find an “easy” road, via support for the SLFP, to get closer to the masses, instead of saying what is necessary: working class political independence from capitalist formations, a revolutionary party and the education of cadres.
“United Front” 1965–75
In 1968 a “United Front” was formed by the LSSP, the CP and SLFP, as united opposition to the UNP government that ruled from 1965 until 1970. This, of course, had nothing in common with the classic united front, advocated by the Communist International in the early 1920s and by Trotsky against the rise of fascism in Germany. The United Front meant cooperation in struggle between mass parties and organisations of the working class.
The Sri Lankan UF was a popular front, with socialist and workers’ organisations subordinated to capitalist forces, thereby in this case giving the SLFP a radical cover. The SLFP had a veto over UF policies and stood for the opposite class interests of the working class.
A clear example was the LSSP’s turn on the language question. In 1966, the UNP government advocated a “reasonable use of Tamil”. While this was clearly falling short of granting equal language rights to the Tamil community, the UF responded by organising demonstrations against the proposal on Sinhala-chauvinist grounds. As a result, the LSSP lost its previous strong base among Tamil plantation workers.
The UF won the elections in 1970, with the LSSP being especially successful with 433,244 votes — its largest vote ever. The most prominent party leaders became ministers in the new coalition government — NM Perera, finance minister; Colvin da Silva, plantation minister and Leslie Goonewardene, transport minister. The country was renamed Sri Lanka and its constitution said it was a “democratic socialist” country.
This was a hollow victory and the beginning of the end for the LSSP. The leadership’s excuse, nationalisations in the government’s programme, was used to hide the desertion from workers’ struggles, internationalism and the need to fight for a socialist society. All progressive reforms are under threat as long as capitalism exists.
The pressure from below, inspired by the global radicalisation and struggles of 1968–70, combined with the bourgeois institutionalisation of the LSSP, led to a massive violent and armed revolt amongst Sinhalese youth in Sri Lanka in April 1971. It was led by the JVP, a Maoist split from the Communist Party, made up of mainly students and youth, who denounced the SLFP-led government as corrupt accomplices of capitalism and imperialism. It was a one day uprising that attacked police stations and public buildings. The bloody armed state response lasted for months, ending with 15,000 arrested and several thousands killed. The JVP survived as a Sinhala reactionary party, covered in “socialist” and class rhetoric. Maoism’s nationalism, popular frontism and adventurous view of guerrillaism fitted perfectly for JVP.
The LSSP, the once Marxist party that should have linked the struggle of workers and the youth, remained in government until 1975 when its ministers were thrown out by Prime Minister Bandaranaike. Its degeneration gave space to the JVP to increase its support. In this context of the Sinhalese-chauvinist turn of the existing left, new militant Tamil nationalist parties were also founded.
J.R. Jayawardene
The failure of the UF government was clearly expressed in the elections in 1977, when the traditional UNP won and formed the government. The LSSP stood as part of a new alliance with the CP and a split from the SLFP, the SLMP, and for the first time, did not get any parliamentary seats.
The new UNP government began a new period, with its aim to dismantle reforms that had been won and attack workers’, trade union and democratic rights. It was a reactionary government closely linked to Western imperialism and multinational companies, that also introduced the system of executive presidency concentrating enormous political power in the hands of the ruling President.
In the LSSP, the left wing “boiled over” in its sharp criticism and formed a new party, the NSSP (Nava Sama Samaja Party, or “New Equal Society Party”). The NSSP joined the Committee for a Workers’ International (CWI, renamed ISA in 2020).
The 1980s began a period of defeats. A hastily organised and poorly led general strike in 1980, in defence against UNP attacks on public sector jobs, conditions and reforms, ended in a historical defeat. . Tens of thousands of workers were sacked in the aftermath.
In July 1983, the worst pogroms against Tamils so far were organised by Sinhala extremists in Colombo (“Black July”). It ended with 2,000 dead, 150,000 homeless and enormous destruction of homes and small businesses. 50,000 Tamils fled to the north.
A civil war was developing. The LTTE — Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, usually called the Tamil Tigers — was formed as a guerrilla force in the north and the east. Eelam stood for a separate Tamil state in the north of Sri Lanka.
Socialist debates
In the Marxist international organisation, the CWI (today ISA), developments towards civil war in Sri Lanka became the biggest test of and sharpest debate within the organisation so far. Up to then, analysis centred around the post-war boom in the economy and colonial revolutions, as in Cuba, leading to new deformed workers’ states with the USSR and China as models.
This debate went back to the classical analysis of the national bourgeois classes in the colonial revolution alongside the national question. The leader of NSSP, Vikramabahu Karunaratne, called Bahu, supported Indian forces — 200,000 troops — intervening in Sri Lanka in 1987 as “peace keeping forces”. His argument was that the Indian bourgeoisie was relatively progressive compared to J.R. Jayawardene’s government in Sri Lanka. He claimed that India was not imperialist because US imperialism had unified imperialism into one force.
The CWI leadership replied by opposing the idea that there was only one imperialism, the US, and explained that India’s role was that of a regional imperialism in its own “backyard”. This was a very important political conclusion which is even clearer 30 years later. The Indian capitalist class was not able to solve the many crises in India, and not in Sri Lanka either. The Indian capitalist class intervened to protect its own interests. The Indian ruling class wanted to be seen as “defenders of the Tamils” to shore up its support base but in reality did not want the Sri Lankan state to be broken up, something that could backfire by encouraging national independence movements in India. The CWI predicted correctly that the invasion would sooner or later lead to resistance against the invading forces. Quite soon, the Indian forces were fighting the forces of the LTTE, developing into a full scale war. When the Indian troops eventually left, the invasion had caused the death of five thousand Sri Lankans, mainly Tamils and over one thousand Indian soldiers.
The CWI leadership explained that any Marxist organisation supporting India’s invasion would destroy itself, losing its credibility among the working class including among the Tamils, many of whom initially looked upon Indian troops as “saviours”. Any remains would become support forces to different bourgeois political parties. The task of a Marxist party was to organise and argue for mass struggle led by the working class of both ethnic groups against capitalism and state terror in both Sri Lanka and India. Going against the stream of temporary moods and illusions among the masses will become an advantage when the position of Marxism is proven correct. The major retreat from Marxism by Bahu and the NSSP was underlined when he replied that talk of socialism was madness because of the weakness of the productive forces in Sri Lanka. He then buried the memory of the 1953 Hartal and mass strikes that had shaken the ruling class and imperialism. Arguing that socialist parties, because of the low development of the productive forces, should limit the programme and struggles of the working class is a classic reformist position. This stages theory, however, does not explain at what stage the productive forces are mature enough, and therefore always acts as a brake on the struggle.
Events proved the CWI correct. Unable to see their mistakes, the NSSP split from the international, and later affiliated back to the USFI. It started a trajectory of further alliances with capitalist parties. This culminated in Bahu himself standing as a candidate for the pro-Western capitalist UNP in the 2020 elections, after which the USFI broke all links with the NSSP.
Reaction
In 1987–88, the JVP launched a second uprising, with terror actions and guerrilla-style attacks. Described by the media as “Marxist-Leninists”, the JVP accused the right-wing government of failing to militarily defeat the LTTE forces. This was summarised in the reactionary and racist slogan “Indian monkey army out”. The JVP exploited mass discontent, the collapse of the previously strong labour movement and the anti-Tamil actions of governments since the 1950s.
The uprising was defeated by the army, ending in over 10,000 killed. The ruling class and imperialism could at that stage not accept a full-scale war and feared that an unpredictable JVP could take power.
In 1994, the SLFP People’s Alliance led by Chandrika Kamaratunga won the elections promising to stop the war. A peace process started but collapsed on 17 April 1995. Two days later war started again, with Chandrika announcing a “war for peace”.
The civil war slaughter
The war lasted two decades, with more than 80,000 killed. For most of the war, the LTTE and its leader, Prabhakaran, were regarded as the most efficient guerrilla force in the world. It developed a strong army and took control over most of the north and the east of the island. It conducted the high-profile assassinations of the Prime Minister of India, Rajiv Gandhi, as well as of the Sri Lankan President, Ranasinghe Premadasa in 1991 and 1993 respectively. In one of its most spectacular actions, a suicide squad of 14 LTTE fighters destroyed military and civilian aircraft at Colombo airport. The repair costs were over 300 million dollars and the effect on the country’s GDP was -1.4 %.
Fierce fighting in the north included battles with up to 2,000 killed in one day. Thousands of civilians were killed. Sri Lanka was militarised, with armed checkpoints, restricted travel and Tamils increasingly labelled as terrorists.
A number of peace talks were initiated in the early 2000s, leading to a ceasefire in 2002. This was generally seen as a positive step by working people on both sides, even though the talks broke down and military actions breaking the ceasefire continued.
In 2004, the SLFP formed an alliance with the JVP called the UPFA (United People’s Freedom Alliance) and won the elections. Mahinda Rajapakse became prime minister and later, president. In January 2008, his government declared the ceasefire over and prepared for all-out war. 50,000 soldiers were mobilised in the assault on LTTE, which was forced back from controlled areas into no-fire zones with civilian refugees. Led by Rajapakse’s racist anti-Tamil position, the army conducted massacres of both LTTE fighters and civilians.
In May 2009, the government declared victory and LTTE laid down its arms. Prabhakaran was killed on 18 May.
The UN estimated that 100,000 were killed in the war, 40,000 of them civilians, almost all Tamils. The Rajapakse government, later with Gotabaya Rajapakse as president, declared “victory over terrorism”. Hundreds of thousands of Tamil refugees were brutally treated alongside most of the Tamil population, living in misery. This condition can only be upheld by the power of the state forces and is therefore not a stable solution for capitalism.
Sri Lanka today is in deep crisis and behind this is the weakness of capitalism in the country, exploited by imperialism and capitalist globalisation. Oppression of the Tamils including the brutal war deepened the decay of the country. The failure of a strong labour movement led by a revolutionary Marxist party to show a way forward in the struggle to abolish capitalism and link the struggle to workers internationally was fatal.
A new generation is now entering the struggle. Previous defeats have not closed the door to coming victories. What is needed now is a Marxist force armed with the lessons of the LSSP and the NSSP, engaging in today’s struggle with an internationalist and clearly socialist programme.
