A country unable to curtail ethnic hatred: Sri Lanka

July 30th, 2007

By Kapila Vidayabhushana

In July 1983, Sri Lanka was darkened by the clouds of ethnic hatred. Thousands of minority Tamils were killed and their property looted by the majority Sinhalese following an attack on the armed forces by the newly emerging Tamil Tigers. This resulted in one of the longest civil wars in modern history. After 24 years Sri Lankan academic Kapila Vidyabhushana looks at the socio-economic background for the killings and questions whether the conditions in Sri Lanka has changed to enable a negotiated settlement. He is representative of UK Solidarity for Peace campaign in Sri Lanka.

Horrific memories of the violence that was unleashed upon Tamil minority of Sri Lanka in 1983 are still haunting in the minds of those who suffered. Since then thousands of articles must have been written, defining this scenario. This can have many interpretations that may vary from one end to another. Is it merely a genocidal act as some people interpret? Or, is it an act of Sinhalese hooligans who were guided by racist politicians? This article does not intend to analyze the history but the politico economic background of the ethnic hatred that paved the way to create this catastrophe and its parallels with the present day politico economic crisis.

As far as the post independence economic system is concerned the whole of Sri Lankan economy had shown characteristics of a mixed economy. Most of all, regardless of the existing government, it was committed to safeguard at least the minimum welfare of the people. The major welfare programs such as free health care, free education from primary to university level continued since they were introduced and no government dared to reduce the expenditure on these welfare programs. According to Renowned Sri Lankan Economist S Abeyrathne the total recurrent and capital expenditure on welfare services accounted for over one-fourth of total government expenditure in the 1950s and the 1970s. Nobel laureate Amirthya Sen highlighted Sri Lanka’s achievement to show that, even in a relatively poor country, it was possible to meet ‘basic needs’ of the population through targeted state intervention.

Even though governments managed the welfare system more sensibly, post independent economic policy of Sri Lanka has had many shortcomings that stagnated the development of forces of production. Almost every government has given less emphasis on industrialization and investments on infrastructural facilities. Pre and post independent governments mainly focused on agricultural development of the country without taking in to consideration inherent limitations of plantation sector as a main source of revenue. To overcome this economic stagnation, in the late seventies, strongly supported by the IMF and the World Bank, Sri Lanka has pioneered economic liberalization in South Asia implementing a comprehensive market-oriented economic reform program. In order to come out of economic stagnation, almost every proponent of laissez-faire economy regarded re - orientation of the economic structure as the only way to boost economic and industrial growth.

As a devoted follower of International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, the United National Party (UNP) government led by J R Jayewardena, brought to power in 1977 was all out to obey the terms and conditions that these financial regulators have set in order to grant development aid. Most of aid and donations were conditional and among the conditions trade and exchange rate liberalization was significant. Following these conditions the government removed most of the domestic price controls. This was a severe blow to small and medium scale entrepreneurs leading to the closure of many local industries unable to compete with imported goods.

Conditions were set to curtail expenditure on welfare programs as such as free education and transport system subsidized by the government. It also curbed many social welfare programs such as consumer subsidies, including the one on the ordinary man’s staple cereal, rice.

Government also implemented enormous Public Sector Investment Programs (PSIP), These were partly financed by domestic resources. These PSIP were not implemented merely on economical objectives. They had political motives. Despite foreign aid, these investments generated large budget deficits that resulted in high inflation. As Dunham,D & Jayasuriya(1996) point out, while benefits of the New Economic Strategy of UNP Government inevitably had a long gestation period, many of the costs (employment losses in previously protected industries or the inability to provide ‘public goods and services’ as had been the case in the past) were felt very immediately.

With implementing the neo liberal market oriented economy that disrupted the livelihood of majority of people, the UNP government had to face many repercussions. These circumstances had created conditions for a socio political upheaval and it is possible to assume that J R Jayawardena who mastered the skill of political maneuvering must have foreseen this. The political opposition could have come from many spheres; it could have come in the guise of youth unrest due to unemployment and frustration created by marginalised. It might also heighten the national liberation struggle of Tamils

In order to overcome the possible opposition he acquired many weapons. Firstly, manipulation of the constitution to stay in power; secondly, the repression of political opposition. As the government already had 5/6 majority in the parliament it was not hard to manipulate the constitution. The Neo Degaullian constitution introduced in 1978 empowered president Jayewardena with all the constitutional weapons similar to the Weimer constitution that empowered Adolph Hitler. As a result of coalition politics no left-wing party was represented in the parliament. But there was only one possibility of opposition to the government which was from the working class movement. Therefore, the whole burden of standing against the destructive economic policies of the UNP government had to be borne by the Working class movement.

This epitomized In July 1980, by public sector employees endeavoring to resist the cuts in their living standards through strike action. Political opposition to these measures was brutally repressed. The UNP lead government was triumphant. The defeat of the working class movement has created another watershed in the political life of the country. Apart from fighting for the rights of working masses, the working class movement fought for the rights of the Tamil Speaking people.

By that time there could be seen signs of upheavals from north as well as from south. Due to the fact that the Political Left has been forced to retreat, the real politico economic basis of the struggle had come to the forefront in the guise of nationalism. The revival of Sinhala nationalist Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) in the 1982 presidential elections was an eyesore to the regime because JRJ knew it was not simply a representation of JVP voters themselves but a manifestation of growing hostility in the South towards the Market oriented economic system as well. Frustration towards the worsening socioeconomic conditions has boosted the Tamil Liberation struggle and this environment had created an ideal condition for a semi fascist dictatorship. Instead of dealing with the real social, economic problems created by the Market Oriented economy, JRJ resorted to Nazi Tactics in order to deal with the growing threat to the regime. He cleverly manipulated the cultural politic of Sinhalese Chauvinism and took advantage of the rising Tamil Liberation struggle to deviate the growing enmity from the south towards the regime. In july1983 the politico economic volcano created by the neo liberal market oriented economic policy of JRJ & Company erupted as genocide against the Tamils.

The intrinsic nature of the neo liberal economic policy is its failure to resolve the problems of developing countries. History has demonstrated that politicians without appropriate methodology to overcome this chaos will necessarily resort to the worst methods possible. This reality has been proven again in Sri Lanka in1983. It is clear that the 1983 incident is not simply a genocidal act but a political drama directed by a semi fascist dictator. Politicians are not the only people who are responsible for the 1983 incident. There are several other factors behind it.

Free elections in 1932 under Germany’s Weimar Republic made the Nazi party the largest parliamentary faction. One can argue that the German people were partially responsible for the disaster created by Hitler. Likewise those who venerated the myth of the supremacy of Sinhalese nation creating a fertile ground to sow seeds of chauvinism are too partially responsible for the 1983 atrocities.

As a result of Coalition Politics of the Sri Lankan left, it was swept away from the parliament as well as the social movements paving the way to a semi fascist dictatorship.

The retreat of the working class movement after the collapse of the 1980 general strike has weakened it as a defender of minorities. In other words, the non existence of a stable social movement with a strong ideology was the main reason for the eruption of the 1983 Tamil pogrom in Sri Lanka.

In the present context it is obvious that the economic chaos in Sri Lanka has gone from bad to worse. Once again, instead of finding a solution to overcome the economic chaos almost all political parties are resorting to Sinhalese Buddhist chauvinism in the name of crushing the Tamil Liberation Struggle and putting the whole country to sheer economic chaos. Given the absence of a strong social movement with a politico economic vision that can bring a resolution for the economic chaos created by the neo Liberal economic policies, the repetition of atrocities whipped up by ethnic hatred is unavoidable. (ENDS)

Kapila Vidayabhushana-Solidarity for Peace

e-mail : S4PSL@aol.com

Entry Filed under: transCurrents