Tamil Eelam Liberation Struggle
by A.S. Balasingham 1979
Source: antonbalasingham.com;
Transcribed: for marxists.org by Laxshen.
1. — Dedication
2. — Foreword
3. — Chapter One: The Right to Self Determination and the Demand for a Seperate State
4. — Chapter Two: The Armed Rebellion of Sinhala Youth
A new generation of youth, driven by a passion for revolution and a love of innovation, is blossoming in our land. Pushed to the edge of despair by oppression, they now roam with an unquenchable thirst for liberation. The destiny of the Tamil-speaking people rests in their hands. They possess the power to shape history.
These young people are steadfast; they carry a spirit unafraid of death; they have the strength to break the chains of repression. They are revolutionaries, seekers of the revolutionary path. The unwavering ideal of creating Tamil Eelam burns within them. They are the future guardians of Tamil Eelam.
While explaining this to our people, we also wish to briefly explain in this publication the historical origin of our revolutionary movement, our form of struggle, war tactics, struggle goals, and ideals.
We dedicate this small book as a tribute to the liberation uprising led by these revolutionary youth.
This historic event occurred in the last general election. This is a historically significant event in the political history of Sri Lanka. It was a major turning point in the Tamil political struggle that had been raging for a quarter of a century. That was the demand for a separate state for socialist Tamil Eelam. A revolutionary decision taken by the people of Tamil Eelam.
In 1977, at the height of the repression against the Tamil nation, a general election was held in Sri Lanka. The Tamil-speaking people were asked to vote on the demand for secession and the establishment of a separate nation based on the right of to self-determination. For the Tamil-speaking people, this election was a referendum that determined the fate of a nation. In this election, the people voted in favor of the national independence of Tamil Eelam, that is, a separate state with a sovereign socialist system. In this election, the Tamil-speaking people conveyed to the Sinhala rulers and the world that the united aspiration of the Tamil nation was to exercise their right to self-determination in accordance with democratic political principles and to establish a separate state.
We have emphasized in this book that this decision taken by the people of Tamil Eelam is correct in accordance with the Marxist-Leninist policy plan, that is, according to the revolutionary socialist political canon. This book clearly indicates that the position of Marxists who oppose the demand for a separate Tamil state are completely wrong in Marxist ideological terms. We have given a clear definition of the political principle of the right to self-determination with quotes from Lenin's policy, and we have emphasized the need for a revolutionary plan and a revolutionary liberation movement to implement it, looking at the Tamil national question in social, economic and political forms, to lead the liberation struggle of the people of Tamil Eelam to the path of victory.
Today, the Tamil nation lives in fear amidst the terrorism of the Sinhala armed forces. The goal of the racist Sinhala ruling clique is to unleash brutal terrorism, intimidate the people and crush the Tamil nation's desire for freedom. It is a political truth that everyone has realized today that this armed violence cannot be overcome by a peaceful struggle called non-violence. Armed violence has been imposed on us and we have been subjected to a life of slavery. The path to our liberation must now be an armed revolutionary struggle and nothing else. To revolt against injustice and atrocities, to wage war against violence, is not unrighteousness. It is a sacred act. Revolution is what gives birth to innovation. Revolution is what gives new life. Nothing new is born without revolution. Revolution is the force of history. He who makes revolution is the creator of history. Revolution is necessary for the liberation of our people, who have been forced into a life of slavery under oppression. That is why armed revolutionary struggle is necessary.
There is no use in standing unarmed in front of the racist Sinhala military machine that is obsessed with racism and chauvinism. It is not enough for us to only have spiritual strength. Armed strength is also necessary. Armed strength is what rules the world today. It is weapons that enslave people. It is weapons that subject people to oppression. It is not the Sinhala people who are enslaving us; it is the weapons of the Sinhala ruling class. As a nation seeking liberation under armed oppression, we must first prepare ourselves to fight against weapons. All the national liberation movements of the world have jumped into the armed struggle for liberation. These liberation movements are not unaware of the reality that armed oppression can only be overcome with armed resistance. Weapons are what oppresses people; at the same time, they also help to liberate people. Therefore, we are unwaveringly determined that if our people are to break the oppression of the Sinhala armed forces and achieve freedom, it will be only possible through an armed struggle. It is with this determination that we have embarked on an armed struggle.
We realized that an armed national liberation struggle is not such an easy task. Only a revolutionary liberation movement built under a revolutionary policy plan can achieve this great military feat. We do not have the utopian tendency to rush into an armed revolution without carefully planning and preparing ourselves properly. In this book, we examine in detail how the armed rebellion of the Sinhala youth led by Rohana Wijeweera in April 1971 was brutally crushed. Without ideological clarity, without a policy plan, without unity, without public support, without armed force, without foreign sympathy, and ignoring the political situation, tens of thousands of youth became victims of this rebellion. This armed rebellion that broke out in our neighboring country, and the Sinhala military brutality that brutally crushed it, taught us many political lessons. These are explored in this book.
A revolutionary policy framework is essential as the first step toward a revolution aimed at achieving Tamil national liberation and establishing a socialist economy. To implement that revolutionary policy plan, a revolutionary liberation movement is necessary. The experience of political thinkers like Lenin demonstrates that a revolution cannot occur without ideological clarity, a concrete action plan, and a unified revolutionary movement. In this context, we, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, have emerged as a revolutionary liberation movement. Guided by ideological clarity, we are formulating and implementing a comprehensive revolutionary action plan.
Our movement, which arose for the liberation of the people, is blossoming into a people's movement and is shaping up to be a great revolutionary force reflecting the people's desire for liberation. In this situation, we are committed to spreading our ideas and principles among the people and working hard towards the goal of further mobilizing the people's strength. Our political publications, policy explanatory articles and action plans will be distributed among the people. Our movement comrades will carry out intensive propaganda in the public arena. We firmly state that our publications will reach the public by breaking the censorship and oppression of the Sinhala ruler.
Today, the Tamil nation is demanding a separate state for Tamil Eelam, asserting its right to self-determination. No one can deny that this demand was born as an echo of the real, critical political, social and economic turmoil of a national. That is, a nation that was being oppressed, could not bear the cruelty of that oppression and emerged as a united movement to form a separate state and seek liberation. This is a historical event that arose from the conflict that erupted between the two nations. The Sinhala capitalist ruling class and its allies relentlessly dismiss the demand for a separate state, born out of oppression and the quest for liberation, as mere nationalist radicalism and a divisive conspiracy aimed at fracturing the country. We need not be concerned by the tactics of this reactionary faction. They are total idiots who do not understand history.
History is shaped when the contradictions between the oppressed and the oppressors reach a breaking point, erupting into struggle and culminating in revolution. The desire for liberation arises solely within the oppressed race or class. Thus, the essence of history is the force of liberation itself. Liberation breathes life into history. History embodies the power of human freedo, a volcano of emancipation that can erupt into revolution or war. The people who champion liberation are the true creators of history. Wherever the people are oppressed, wherever contradictions arise, wherever the desire for liberation is born, history is created there. Only an oppressed nation or an oppressed class possesses the revolutionary power to turn the wheel of history. Through its system of racial discrimination and class oppression, the Sinhala ruling bourgeoisie is driving the Tamil national proletariat toward a revolutionary epoch destined to reshape history. The oppressors fail to recognize that their exploitation sows the seeds of their own downfall.
Karl Marx, the father of communism, clearly realized that class struggle will be affected by the contradiction that arises when a large nation tries to crush a small nation; it will be an obstacle to socialist democracy and the development of an egalitarian society. He was a social scientist; he understood the course of history well. Marx has often emphasized that if the national question is not resolved, not only the oppressed people but also the oppressing nation will not find freedom. "A nation which enslaves another forges its own chains," he states at one point.
Marx has repeatedly pointed out that when one nation seeks to oppress another, the working class of that oppressed nation will not unite but will become divided and weak. Supporting the demand for a separate state for the Irish people, he wrote, "The oppression which Britain is carrying out against the Irish people is the secret of the weakness of the English working class. It is also the secret of the continued power of the English bourgeoisie."
The liberation of oppressed nationalities is a fundamental prerequisite for the advance of the proletarian revolution. Historically, Marx recognized that national liberation struggles constitute an essential stage in the dialectical process leading toward the international solidarity and unity of the working class.
There is a very heated debate going on in the Sri Lankan political arena today about the principle of self-determination and the demand for a separate state for the Tamil-speaking people. Many people are giving various interpretations of what self-determination means. This has given rise to confusing controversies. Unfortunately, in this ideological conflict, it is the Marxists who have unclear and confusing views. The Socialist Political Plan articulates a clear and unequivocal analysis of the principle of self-determination and the national question within the framework of revolutionary praxis.
First: We support the right to self-determination. But we oppose the right to secession. That is, the Sri Lankan Tamil people, as a nation of people, have the right to self-determination. But they do not have the right to demand a separate state. Therefore, we will oppose the demand for a separate state.
- Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna
Second: We support the right to self-determination. But we oppose secession. Because Lenin did not support secession. He wanted proletarian internationalism, the unity of nationalities, and a world socialist society.
- Pro-Beijing Communist Party
Third: We insist on the right of the Tamil people to self-determination. The right to self-determination is the right to secede. As communists, we insist on this right. But as Tamils, we say that there is no need for separation.
- Red Tamil Movement
Fourth: The right to self-determination is the right to secession. It is legitimate for the oppressed Tamil people to demand a separate state. But this demand will never be fulfilled. What is the point of fighting for a demand that is not possible? Therefore, we do not support separation.
- Revolutionary Marxist Party
If we look at these four interpretations, one thing becomes clear. That is, everyone accepts the right to self-determination. At the same time, everyone opposes secession. In the first two stages, we can see that there is confusion about what the principle of self-determination is. In the third and fourth stages, considering the obstacles in achieving the demand for a separate state, the principle that secession is not necessary is adopted.
Let us analyze these four arguments individually, alongside the exposition of the policy from Lenin. Only through this dialectical examination will the contradictions inherent within them be revealed.
In the first argument, the right of the Sri Lankan Tamil people to self-determination is recognized. However, the right to secession is opposed. It is clear that Marxists who adhere to this position have not properly understood the policy program or ideological explanation from Lenin. Lenin has explicitly stated on many occasions that the right to self-determination means the right to secede and form an independent state. For example, in his ideological explanation article on the right of nationalities to self-determination, Lenin writes:
"If we are to grasp the meaning of the right of national self-determination, we must examine the historical and economic conditions of national liberation movements, without distorting legal terms or inventing arbitrary definitions. If we look at it that way, we will inevitably come to the conclusion that the meaning of the right of national self-determination is the political separation of non-national races from foreign national dominant systems and the establishment of an independent national state."
The following explanation is given elsewhere in the same article:
"In the Marxist political program, the right of national self-determination does not mean anything other than the right to political self-determination and the establishment of an independent state, according to the historical-economic perspective."
Lenin's position is clear to us. Lenin's clear explanation is that the right to self-determination is nothing more than the right to secede and form an independent state. It is worth noting that Lenin never deviated from this position before the October Revolution, after the revolution, and until his death. In an article written by Lenin on the national question a few months before the revolution (May 1917):
He states, "All nationalities constituting Russia must be recognized as having the right to secede freely and to form independent sovereign states. Denial of this right or failure to provide guarantees to make it possible is tantamount to a policy of forcible annexation or occupation."
In December 1922, Lenin wrote a diary entry while he was seriously ill in bed, revealing that the issue of national rights was on his mind.
"I have already pointed out in my writings on the national question that it is useless to give general, narrow interpretations of nationalism. We must necessarily distinguish between the nationalism of an oppressing nation and the nationalism of an oppressed nation, between the nationalism of a large nation and the nationalism of a small nation. Under the guise of internationalism, a large nation can oppress a small nation and commit countless injustices," Lenin says, citing the historical atrocities of Russia. "If we adopt an imperialist line, even in trivial matters, towards oppressed nations, it will not only undermine our honest and idealistic policy, but also contaminate our idealistic struggle against Western imperialism."
We should take two important points from the statements of Lenin. One is the difference in nationalism between large and small nationalities, and the other is the ideology of unity that the oppressor uses to cover up its oppression. As Lenin points out, the nationalism of a large oppressing nationality is different from the nationalism of a small oppressed nationality. The nationalism of the oppressors is nothing but extreme racism. At the same time, the nationalism of an oppressed nationality is progressive because it is a national liberation struggle against oppression. It is more appropriate to call it a national liberation uprising rather than nationalism.
Once upon a time, before Sri Lanka gained independence, a unified nationalism without racial discrimination was born against British imperialist oppression. This nationalism, which was born as a liberation movement of the classes under the leadership of the Sinhala-Tamil national bourgeoisie, split along ethnic lines after national independence and took on a global form as extreme Sinhala nationalism. It can be said that the national liberation struggle of the people of Tamil Eelam was born as a historical manifestation of this extreme nationalist oppression. Today, the Tamil-speaking people are a small nation that is being oppressed. The Sinhala people are a large nation. That is, a large nation that is crushing the small nation, the Tamils. In this sense, the nationalism of the Sinhala nation is an extreme racism with imperialist pride. The national consciousness of the Tamil people who want to free themselves from oppression is not racism. It is a noble, progressive national liberation movement.
Next, we must scrutinize the ideology of the oppressor. The Sinhala bourgeois reactionary class cynically mocks dharma, morality, and unity. We see through this fox-like cunning clearly and unambiguously. What we want to examine here is the reactionary distortionism of the 'progressives' belonging to the oppressing large nationalities. As Lenin pointed out, the socialists belonging to the oppressing large nationalities can also be trapped in ethno-nationalism and adopt a wrong policy on the national question of the small nationalities. Lenin thought that without approaching the national question objectively and honestly, and contrary to the Marxist political program, they could continue their ethnic oppression under the slogan of socialism and under the guise of proletarian unity. Lenin was not wrong in thinking this way.
Following the death of Lenin, Stalin, who rose to power, began suppressing nationalities under the pretext of socialist construction and the dictatorship of the proletariat. Marxists recognize that entire nationalities, such as the Crimean Tatars, Volga Germans, and others, were forcibly uprooted from their historic homelands along the European borders and exiled to the harsh regions of Siberia and Central Asia for resettlement. Therefore, a small nationality that is oppressed by the nationalist policies and ideological explanations of socialists belonging to a large nationality must be very vigilant. Based on this, we will take the first of the four interpretations of the right to self-determination already mentioned.
This is a vague ideological confusion of a left-wing movement belonging to the majority ethnic group. That is, they support the right of self-determination of the Tamil nation, but they oppose the right to secession, that is, the right to secession and establish an independent state. We have seen from the clear explanation of Lenin that the right to self-determination is nothing other than the right to secession and establish an independent state. Therefore, even though they claim to support the right of self-determination of the Tamil nation, by opposing the right to secession and establish an independent state, it means that they are denying the right of self-determination of the Tamils. Their position is completely contrary to the revolutionary path of Lenin; it is contrary to the Marxist-Leninist political program. They are not really Marxists, nor are they socialists. Lenin calls such an opportunist group ultra-nationalists.
"A socialist of any of thr opresser nations...who does not recognize and does not struggle for the right of the opressed nations to self determination, i.e for the right of secession, is in reality a chauvinist not a socialist," says Lenin.
Why do these people, who claim Lenin as their political guru, deviate from Lenin's socialist ideals? Why do they turn a blind eye to the rights of the oppressed people, despite witnessing the actual oppression of a small nation by a large nation? We do not need to find the reason for this. Lenin himself has exposed their reactionary tendencies. Since they are dependent on the oppressing large nation, they are opportunists trapped in the extreme nationalism of that large nation. They are unworthy of calling themselves Marxist-Leninists.
Why do these people, who claim Lenin as their political guru, deviate from Lenin's socialist ideals? Why do they turn a blind eye to the rights of the oppressed people, despite witnessing the actual oppression of a small nation by a large nation? We do not need to find the reason for this. Lenin himself has exposed their reactionary tendencies. Since they are dependent on the oppressing large nation, they are opportunists trapped in the extreme nationalism of that large nation. They are unworthy of calling themselves Marxist-Leninists.
Now, let's take the second position of the Marxists. What do they say?
"We support the right of the Tamil people to self-determination. But we oppose separation. Because Lenin did not support separation. He wanted proletarian internationalism, the unity of nationalities, and a world socialist society," is their argument.
In the Marxist political philosophy regarding the national question, this situation is depicted as very complicated and confusing. Some Marxists are confusing people by distorting the quotes from Lenin and are emphasizing the ideology of unity instead of the right to self-determination. If we clearly understand what position Lenin really had regarding the right to self-determination of a nation and the unity of the proletariat, we can avoid this confusion. That is, we can see the opportunism under the guise of socialism that creates this confusion.
It is wrong to consider the right of a nation to self-determination, i.e. the right to secede, and proletarian internationalism, i.e. the unity of nations, as contradictory positions. Lenin's policy program is that true proletarian internationalism, i.e. the true unity of nations, cannot be formed unless the right of nationalities to self-determination is recognized and the equality of nations is established.
As long as there is a national question, that is, as long as a nation is under oppression, there is no point in talking about proletarian internationalism. National and racial equality is the indispensable foundation for genuine internationalism. The struggle for equality among nations and races paves the way for proletarian international solidarity.
The house of proletarian unity cannot be built without a foundation of national and ethnic equality. This is Lenin's decisive explanation.
Lenin says that if the right of nationalities to secede is recognized, if genuine and genuine equality is established among the nations, and if nationalist and communal oppression is completely abolished, that is, if it is practiced not only in principle but also in practice, then it will be possible for the fears and doubts of small nationalities to disappear and they will be able to live together and harmoniously under an egalitarian state, independently, considering their own socio-economic interests. Therefore, the recognition of the right to secede is necessary for the unity of nationalities. Lenin repeatedly emphasizes the logical truth that only if freedom to secede is granted, it will lead to unity.
Some Russian Marxist ideologists argued against Lenin that if the right of nationalities to secede were recognized, it would divide and disintegrate the country. In contrast to their confused state, Lenin insisted on a definite and clear idea. That is, only if nationalities were given the right to secede could the country avoid the danger of division and disintegration. To confirm this fact, Lenin cites the divorce law as an example. Since the law requesting divorce, that is, claiming separation, is in force, the marital relationship does not disintegrate. On the contrary, Lenin argued that it would lead to the further strengthening of family relations on a democratic basis.
Lenin points out that "To accuse those who support freedom of self-determination, i. e., freedom to secede, of encouraging separatism, is as foolish and hypocritical as accusing those who advocate freedom of divorce of encouraging the destruction of family ties."
Lenin argued that trying to solve the national question without granting the right to secede, that is, in other words, trying to unite nationalities while ignoring the fundamental democratic right of nationalities and emphasizing proletarian unity, can lead to a forced and aggressive bond. Such a forced and violent union is detrimental to proletarian unity. It will lead to a division of the proletariat. For example, if a small nationality is forcibly united with a large nationality, the proletariat of a small nationality that is subjected to such oppression may become a supporter of the capitalist class and may even consider the proletariat of the oppressing large nationality as its enemy. Lenin was well aware of this. That is why he emphasized that for the unity of the working class, the equality of nationalities must first be established.
"If we need a large number of people who will overthrow the bourgeoisie and carry out a socialist revolution, the working class must be closely united. If we are to develop this unity, we must fight for the right to self-determination and against forced annexation," says Lenin. Therefore, we must consider that forced annexation, that is, without the consent of the people, is not only a violation of the right of nationalities to self-determination, but also a very serious form of racial oppression.
Karl Marx emphasized the unity of the world proletariat; he wanted a world socialist society; he shouted that the international proletariat should unite. Lenin was also an internationalist. "Capitalism is an international force. To defeat it, an international workers alliance is necessary. International workers brotherhood is necessary." Therefore, a communist who embraces the Marxist-Leninist political program must strive for proletarian unity. But no communist should forget that the foundation of this unity is the unity of nationalities. When a nationality is oppressed, talking about internationalism or emphasizing proletarian unity without fighting for the liberation of the non-nationality is not a true Marxist policy program. It will not lead to socialist revolution. Perfect trust and mutual brotherhood among nationalities must first be established. This is not an easy task. It is a difficult task to gain the goodwill of a nation that has been crushed under nationalist and communal oppression for a long time.
"What we want is the spontaneous unity of nationalities; a unity in which one nationality does not force another; a unity built on perfect trust, on mutual fraternal recognition, on perfect spontaneous harmony. This unity cannot be created suddenly, all at once. We must work towards this ideal with great patience, taking into account all circumstances," says Lenin.
In another article, Lenin says, "The internationalism of the oppressing nation or of the great nation must not stop at maintaining the equality of nations, but must be capable of giving up its own equality as atonement for the injustices it has committed." "He who does not understand this does not know the true proletarian point of view on the national question. Therefore, his point of view is in fact a petty-bourgeois point of view."
On this occasion, let us take the second position of some Marxists regarding the right to self-determination that we mentioned earlier. These people, who support the right to self-determination of the Tamil nation, are opposed to secession. This is because Lenin emphasized proletarian internationalism. This distortion is now clear to us. It is true that Lenin emphasized proletarian unity. But Lenin's definite principle is that it is opportunism to talk about the ideology of unity without solving the national-ethnic problem, without abolishing oppression, and without establishing the equality of national races. But these Marxists do not know the true meaning of the Marxist principles of internationalism and world socialism, and do not examine the means to make them possible in practice, and instead talk about the ideology of unity.
The oppressed Tamil nation, unable to bear the brunt of that oppression, sought to gain independence as a separate nation by asserting its right to self-determination. Since any liberation struggle against oppression is progressive in its ideals, communists are obliged to support it. Here, we should consider not unity, but oppression. Because unity is never possible under oppression. It is utter nonsense to tell a woman who is seeking divorce because she cannot bear the cruel oppression of her husband, that there is no need for separation, that marital harmony is better.
It is because there will be no unity without the end of oppression that political luminaries like Lenin emphasized the right of national self-determination. A national race has the right to secede. If oppression becomes unbearable, the national race may jump into a secessionist struggle. Therefore, if unity is to be established by avoiding this division, oppression must be abolished; national and racial equality must be established; this is Lenin's firm principle that this is the noble path leading to proletarian internationalism and world socialist society.
Therefore, the Tamil nation must be vigilant against the opportunism of the so-called 'socialists' who distort Lenin's clear political program and talk about internationalism.
Let us now examine the third position taken by some communists. What do they say?
"We insist on the right of the Tamil people to self-determination. The right to self-determination is the right to secede and form an independent state. As communists, we insist on this right; but as Tamils, we do not need separation," is their argument. They also cite Lenin as an example and argue that the national problem of the Tamil people should be resolved according to the socialist political program. According to Marxist ideology, is their position correct? Will the path they show provide salvation for the national liberation struggle of the Tamil-speaking people? Is the interpretation they give from Lenin's program correct?
Before answering these questions, we need to consider why the people of Tamil Eelam are demanding a separate state, what is the reason for this demand, what is the policy that a communist (whether Tamil or Sinhalese) should adopt when a nation is struggling against oppression, and what is the path we should follow towards socialist revolution by examining the relationship between the national liberation struggle and the class struggle. First, let us look at why the Tamil people's demand for a separate state arose.
The national liberation movement, which brought together the classes under the joint leadership of the Sinhala-Tamil national bourgeoisie, achieved political independence from British imperialism in 1948. After gaining national independence, conflicts and disputes began to arise between the Sinhala-Tamil bourgeois ruling clique over the issue of sharing political power. The Sinhala ruling class, motivated by extreme nationalism mixed with racism and sectarianism, not only rejected the political aspirations of the Tamil bourgeoisie but also began to suppress the Tamil-speaking people by taking away their rights. First, the Tamil working class in the upcountry was deprived of its citizenship. Then the Tamil-speaking people were deprived of their language rights; and the traditional lands they had lived on for generations began to be taken away. The Tamil people endured systematic economic, social, and cultural oppression imposed by the dominant ruling class. The leadership of the Tamil Federal Party, rising in response to systemic oppression, mobilized the masses and organized peaceful protests demanding regional autonomy. Behind the scenes, they engaged in negotiations and sought agreements with the Sinhala ruling class. However, entrenched Sinhala chauvinism and reactionary nationalism relentlessly obstructed any possibility of compromise.
Since 1970, the oppression of the Tamil nation began to intensify. The ruling class, which was a coalition of the Freedom Party, the embodiment of extreme Sinhala racism, and the old leftists, who were enemies of socialism, gave legal recognition to this unjust oppression through the political system. The seven-year rule of this racist group marked the peak of national oppression. The national oppression endured by Tamil Eelam for over thirty years intensified markedly during this seven-year period, delivering a harsh and relentless blow to the Tamil people. The Tamil youth, driven to the brink of despair by the unyielding weight of this oppression, sought a revolutionary path toward national and ethnic liberation. The oppressed classes united in resistance. As the demand for a separate nation namely, secession and the establishment of an independent state, became both inevitable and a collective expression of the oppressed masses, the immense responsibility to lead this national liberation struggle was placed upon the shoulders of the united leadership.
The demand for a separate nation is not the invention of any political party. It is a historical event; the liberation struggle of a nation that had been oppressed; an inevitable political uprising that arose from critical economic, social, and contradictions.
This demand for a separate state marked the beginning of a revolutionary epoch in the political history of Sri Lanka, particularly within Tamil politics. The Tamil national question, which for a quarter-century had been reduced to a mere language dispute and minority ethnic grievance, was transformed into a fundamental national and ethnic issue. It evolved into a question of self-determination and crystallized as the organized national liberation struggle of an oppressed people.
The capitalist parliament, as the instrument of bourgeois domination, and its reactionary democratic ideology have no principled stance on the national question or the oppressed nations right to self-determination of. National oppression is an inherent product of capitalist exploitation and imperialist domination; therefore, the capitalist ruling class lacks both the will and the ability to recognize or resolve the social, economic, and political contradictions faced by the oppressed Tamil nation. The national question cannot be solved within the confines of bourgeois parliamentary democracy, which only serves to uphold imperialist oppression and capitalist hegemony.
The national question, emerging as a revolutionary national liberation struggle, is central to Marxist-Leninist theory because it embodies the fight of the oppressed people against imperialism and bourgeois reaction. It is an indispensable pillar of the socialist democratic program and the global proletarian revolution. The only path to genuine liberation from colonial and national oppression lies in the proletariat leading a revolutionary struggle grounded in scientific socialism, as articulated by Marxism-Leninism. Any movement seeking freedom from ethnic oppression must resolutely base its ideology and struggle on this revolutionary program.
The leadership of the Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF), which played a significant role in shaping the Tamil National Liberation Movement into a mass-based political force, originates from the conservative, national petty-bourgeoisie and middle class. Its politics mirror the aspirations, limitations, and contradictions of that class. Despite invoking the rhetoric of liberation, it remains ideologically committed to the bourgeois parliamentary system, the very institutional framework that safeguards British imperialist interests and perpetuates class oppression. It places its faith not in the revolutionary transformation of society, but in reformist accommodation within the structures of capitalist rule.
Marxist ideology firmly emphasizes only one thing: that if a liberation movement emerges to fight against oppression, it is the duty of progressives to support it, even if that movement is led by the bourgeoisie or the middle class.
"If the bourgeoisie of an oppressed people fights against the oppressors, we will always and in any case support it more strongly than others, because we are the most determined enemies of oppression," says Lenin.
As a national liberation movement supported by the public and speaking out against oppression, the leadership, although conservative and middle-class, has a progressive and democratic content in its party structure. Therefore, if the Tamil Liberation Alliance continues to fight against oppression, the communists are obliged to support it.
But this support was conditional; limited. "Only in certain respects can the communists support a liberation movement led by the bourgeoisie or the middle class. To give unconditional and complete support would subordinate the proletariat to the bourgeois program and would be a stumbling block to the class struggle," Lenin argued.
A national liberation movement has progressive features, but the bourgeois or petty-bourgeois leadership does not have a revolutionary policy plan that can lead this great mass force of the oppressed classes to the path of socialist revolution and lead to national liberation and class struggle.
The bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie, while raising slogans of the liberation struggle, may seek to fulfill their class interests and personal ambitions, and may make agreements with the capitalist ruling class of the oppressive great nation, thereby pushing the liberation movement onto a reactionary path.
"The bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation, with the aim of deceiving the working class, only repeats the slogan of national liberation," says Lenin. "The reason they raise this slogan is to conclude reactionary agreements with the bourgeoisie of the oppressing nation."
The bourgeoisie, of course, seeks to fulfill its class aspirations by raising progressive slogans. Lenin argued that this bourgeois policy would push national liberation and the proletarian revolution into the abyss, since its aim was not to seek the liberation of its oppressed race, but to negotiate with the oppressive ruling class and obtain favorable concessions for itself.
The Tamil proletariat remains in a deplorable state of oppression, trapped between the dual contradictions of Sinhala chauvinist domination and its own Tamil bourgeois class oppression. It is being crushed under the weight of intensifying economic and social exploitation. For over thirty years, Tamil bourgeois political movements have framed national oppression as the primary issue, while taking no real steps toward the economic and social upliftment of the Tamil-speaking working class.
Our national liberation struggle must be a revolutionary political program that integrates the class struggle. We must fight not only for the political liberation of our oppressed nation, but also for the prosperity of the oppressed classes and our people who are exploited in the name of caste. That is, our national liberation struggle must be built on a policy program aimed at socialist revolution. Our people must be liberated not only politically, but also from economic and social oppression. Therefore, unconditional and complete support to the conservative middle class parties participating in the national liberation movements of Tamil Eelam will not lead to the rise of the Tamil proletariat and the socialist revolution.
"The bourgeoisie is most concerned with the extent to which a particular demand is possible," says Lenin, "because they have an unalterable policy of reaching agreements with the bourgeoisie of other nationalities to the detriment of the proletariat. What is important for the proletariat is to strengthen its class against the bourgeoisie and to present to the people a solid democracy and socialism."
The national liberation of the oppressed Tamil nation; and the socialist revolution leading to the social and economic prosperity of the Tamil peasant proletariat; these two are interconnected goals. A revolutionary political program must be a program of action that combines these two aspects.
Our people will not achieve liberation by simply raising the slogan of a separate nation and the slogan of liberation. The unjust capitalist system that exploits man by man must be abolished. Our people will truly achieve liberation only when a noble egalitarian society is established in which the means of production are owned by the working class. Therefore, only a program based on socialist revolution can lead to the liberation of our nation, that is, to true political, social and economic liberation. The Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF), on the other hand, only raises the slogan of a separate nation, but has not put before the people any decisive policy plan regarding the socialist revolution that will lead to the prosperity of the proletariat.
Since the Tamil Eelam liberation uprising is progressive, a rebellion against oppression, we, as communists, are obliged to provide it with limited support, even though the leadership of the Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF) is conservative and middle-class. While providing limited support, our program as communists is to ensure the unity of the Tamil-speaking proletariat, strengthen it against the bourgeoisie, and bring the national liberation struggle to the revolutionary leadership of the proletariat.
We are not interested in parliamentary political movements. To lead the national liberation struggle of the Tamil-speaking people to the path of victory, the communists should come forward to join us as a strong, extra-parliamentary, revolutionary national liberation movement.
Let us now examine the policy of the Tamil communists, who occupy the third position in the Tamil national question that we have already distinguished. From the ideas we have outlined above, readers can infer that these red Tamils have slipped away from the Marxist-Leninist policy program and have slipped into political opportunism.
What is their position? Their policy plan on the national issue can be summarized in five ideas.
1.The Eelam Tamil people have the right to govern themselves as a nation.
2.The right to self-determination is the right to secede and form an independent state. As Red Tamils, we insist on the right to self-determination. But as Tamils, we say that there is no need for separation.
3.We want unity on the basis of equality. When equality is not possible, separation is inevitable. If such an opportunity arises, we will support separation.
4.Attempting to secede without the right to self-determination is a struggle. It leads to ethnic annihilation.
5.Progressive forces and the government must fight to recognize the Tamil people's right to self-determination.
First:
It is an undeniable historical fact that the Tamil-speaking people of Sri Lanka constitute a distinct national community, defined by their language, culture, geography, and historical development. They are not unaware of their right to self-determination. Yet the reality is stark: a people who once ruled themselves now live in chains. To speak of rights while living in subjugation is a mockery of politics. What matters is not merely that we are a nation, but that we are a nation under systematic oppression.
The Tamils of South India are also a national community, but their condition is not one of national subjugation. We, however, are shackled by the violent machinery of national oppression. We are not merely demanding recognition, we are struggling to free ourselves from a dominant nation that seeks to imprison and annihilate us.
Therefore, the question is not whether we possess rights in theory, be they legal, historical, or moral, but whether we can exercise them. To those comrades clinging to abstract ideals, we say this: it is time to abandon rhetoric about rights and begin building a concrete revolutionary program to seize them through struggle.
Second:
They claim to uphold the right to self-determination, specifically the right to secession, with the justification that they are communists, yet simultaneously argue that separation is unnecessary because they are Tamils. What does this contradiction reveal? It is double-speak: one line with being a communist, another with being Tamil. But a true communist, whether Tamil, Sinhalese, or of any nationality, must unwaveringly support the liberation of an oppressed nation. If that nation declares secession as the only path to liberation, then the communist must support it. That is the Marxist position.
Marxism is not bound by sentiment or identity, it is bound with the masses. Marxism is the ideology of the oppressed. It demands loyalty to the people's will, because the people are the force of revolution. The people are the true makers of history.
Those who oppose secession offer two excuses. First, that a significant portion of Tamils, the so-called Malayaga Tamils, live in the South. Second, that the economy of Tamil Eelam would suffer. These arguments, rooted in bourgeois pragmatism and fear, betray the essence of revolutionary politics and deny the historical urgency of liberation.
When we speak of Tamil nationalism, we refer not only to the Tamil-speaking people whose traditional and ancestral homeland is in the Northern and Eastern provinces, but also to all Tamil-speaking communities living in the South of Sri Lanka, particularly the hill-country Tamils (Thottab Patali). The Tamil nationalist movement encompasses hill-country Tamils, as well as Tamil-speaking Muslims, Christians, Saivites, and those without religious affiliation. When we say "Tamil Eelam," we mean the collective national and ethnic formation of all Tamil people for whom Tamil is their mother tongue.
Our position is clear: the Tamil proletariat of the hill-country is an inseparable force within the Tamil national liberation struggle and the socialist revolution in Tamil Eelam. These workers have endured the harshest forms of national oppression, stripped of citizenship, denied linguistic, educational, and economic rights, and brutally targeted during anti-Tamil pogroms, driven into refugeehood.
As the backbone of the economic engine of Sri Lanka, the hill-country Tamil proletariat gives strategic political weight to the Tamil national question. Their revolutionary potential is central to both national liberation and socialist transformation. Only a revolutionary program rooted in mobilizing this working class, the vanguard of the socialist struggle, can dismantle the Sinhala capitalist state.
To reject secession under the guise of protecting Tamil interests is political cowardice. It reflects a sterile, reformist ideology incapable of advancing the struggle of an oppressed, revolutionary nation toward socialism.
The claim that secession would damage our economy is false. It was precisely economic devastation and state-sponsored neglect that gave rise to the demand for a separate state. The Tamil people demand national liberation because their region was deliberately underdeveloped, their labor devalued, and their livelihoods strangled by Sinhala capitalist domination. To argue that secession would harm the economy is to ignore that it was economic oppression that made secession necessary in the first place. No Marxist who understands the power of planned socialist production would doubt our capacity to develop the productive forces and build a self-reliant, thriving economy. To reduce the right of self-determination to a question of whether the Sinhalese will buy cigarettes from us is just absurd.
Third:
They claim their primary goal is to achieve national unity based on equality. Even J.R., the architect of reactionary politics, parrots this so-called philosophy of equality. But we are fully aware of how hollow this "equality" is when it comes to the Tamil-speaking people, where inequality is systemic and brutal. Their argument is: "Separation is inevitable when equality is impossible. If the chance arises, we will support separation."
No one can deny that the Tamil national demands secession and the formation of a separate state precisely because equality was denied and separation became unavoidable. After decades of relentless oppression, marked by extreme nationalism, racism, religious fanaticism, and ethnic cleansing by the dominant national class, the Tamil people recognized that coexistence as equals had become impossible. They demanded political separation in the last election as a just and necessary step. From a Marxist perspective, this decision of the Tamil people is correct and justified.
Lenin says the following about the circumstances under which a nation might seek to secede and establish a separate state: "The masses know from their daily experience the advantages of a large country, a large market, and the benefits of global and economic relations. But when national oppression and national animosities make communal life completely intolerable and economic relations become a hindrance to anything but all, the people will seek to secede and establish a separate state.
"In such a situation, the best way for a nation to achieve economic development and class emancipation is to secede," says Lenin.
This situation also arose for the Tamil people of Sri Lanka. Communalism grew rampant and communal life reached an unbearable stage. Tamil Eelam was economically ruined. The nationalist communalist monster, which began with linguistic exclusion and then transformed into educational exclusion, cultural exclusion, industrial exclusion, and economic exclusion, not only devoured the traditional lands of the Tamil people but also sought to eradicate them on an ethnic basis.
The demand for a separate state arose only when an opportunity arose for equality, self-respect and tolerance to be lost. If the historical, social and economic situation of the Tamil nation is well understood, no Marxist will deny that the Tamil people's demand for a separate state is correct according to the Marxist-Leninist program. But the Red Tamils, who are completely untested in the Red ideology, say, 'We will support secession only if an opportunity arises where equality does not arise.' For them, it seems that opportunity has not arisen yet.
In this blind political perspective, the cruelty of oppression, the liberation of a nation against that oppression, and its revolutionary nature are not approached in reality. Those who accept that oppression exists, seem to be saying that the pressure of oppression is not enough, and that we will wait and be crushed further. What is the point of supporting secession after the Tamil nation has been ethnically destroyed? Then there will be nothing to secede from. This is petty sectarianism. Marxism is a revolutionary ideology committed to the liberation of oppressed peoples. Any so-called communist who espouses a slaveholding or oppressive ideology is not a true Marxist. Such a person is nothing more than a reactionary opportunist betraying the revolutionary cause.
Fourth:
Attempting to secede without the firm right to self-determination is a struggle fraught with peril. It risks ethnic annihilation if abandoned prematurely. Yet, this is precisely the misleading message the Red Tamil Movement spreads by flaunting their wealth, urging the Tamil people to forsake the struggle for separation. Everyone aware of history knows that a small oppressed nations fight to break free from a dominant oppressor is inherently a struggle. No race or class has ever achieved freedom without revolution and relentless struggle. It is an undeniable historical truth that contradictions between oppressed and oppressors inevitably erupt into revolutionary upheaval, driving social transformation and awakening.
If an oppressed nation refuses to resist, it is condemned to ethnic annihilation. History is littered with nationalities wiped out by silence and submission. But it also shines with examples of peoples who rose with unyielding determination against colonialism, imperialism, tyranny, and national oppression, forging heroic legacies of liberation. The Vietnamese revolution, which shook even the greatest power in the world, stands as living proof: no force can suppress a conscious, resolute people fighting for their freedom.
We are a nation that is being crushed. We have spent more than a quarter of a century in a life of disenfranchised slavery. Why should we continue to live with our heads bowed, imprisoned by Sinhala nationalism and amidst the terror of the security forces? The land where we were born, the land where our ancestors were born. Why should we watch the land that we have lived on for generations since ancient times, the land that belongs to us, being taken away from us? We have an ancient and proud language. We have a developed culture and a noble tradition.
We are a people who are well-educated; skilled in the arts; who find joy in hard work. As such a noble nation, with a rich history, why should we live as slaves to another nation ? If a struggle is necessary to secure our fundamental rights and our right to rule, we should not stand back. We should not be afraid of a struggle against armed forces. If it is necessary to fight with weapons, we should prepare ourselves for it. Under the leadership of pseudo-revolutionaries who are afraid of war, non-violent activists who are afraid of armed struggle, and opportunists who talk about equality, the Tamil nation will never be successful in the national liberation struggle.
Fifth:
The government and progressive forces should fight to recognize the right of the Tamil people to self-determination'. This is the solution that the Red Tamil Movement proposes to the national question. The Sinhala ruling class is steeped in extreme nationalism and racism. The reactionary bourgeois political movements, the United National Party (UNP) and the Freedom Party (SLFP), which are alternately sitting on the throne, are not going to recognize the right of the Tamil nation to self-determination, that is, the right to secede and form an independent state. The reactionary bourgeoisie will never accept the progressive socialist theory. To expect such a thing would be to try to peel the fiber from the stone.
Some progressive movements do support the right to self-determination of the Tamil nation, but we have already pointed out the distorted interpretations they give to the right to self-determination.
As far as the Sinhala leftist movements are concerned, the only movement that has a clear position on the principle of national self-determination is the Revolutionary Communist League. The other Sinhala leftists, standing in an ambiguous position and supporting the right to self-determination, will not lead to liberation for the Tamil nation. When the Tamil progressive movements themselves are confused, how can we expect an honest position from the socialists of the larger nationalities?
The right to national self-determination is not granted merely for symbolic recognition by others; it exists to be wielded when the necessity arises. Just as the right to divorce exists, so does the right to secede, but it is precisely because this right is reserved for urgent, unavoidable circumstances that it must be exercised when the time demands. The Red Tamil Movement peddles this foolish politics, masquerading as progressivism. The people must remain vigilant against those who mouth Marxist rhetoric yet have abandoned the revolutionary path and fallen into the snare of reactionary opportunism.
In April 1971, a massive armed uprising erupted in Sri Lanka. Thousands of Sinhalese youth took up arms against the ruling class, seizing control over large parts of southern Sri Lanka. The anxious and desperate Bandaranaike government pleaded for international intervention. Western capitalist powers and socialist states flooded the regime with weapons, while the Indian army was dispatched to aid the oppressors. The Sinhalese capitalist military apparatus was swiftly mobilized and unleashed to crush the rebellion. Within weeks, the revolt was brutally suppressed: nearly ten thousand youth were mercilessly slaughtered, and up to fifteen thousand were thrown behind bars.
What is the political, social, and economic background of this armed rebellion? By whom and how was it created? What is its purpose? What are the reasons for the abject failure of this youth rebellion? The purpose of this article is to explore detailed and clear answers to these questions.
Confronted with a national liberation struggle aimed at establishing a separate Tamil state, it is inevitable that we must embrace armed revolution. Therefore, it is essential to thoroughly study the characteristics of the armed rebellion that erupted in a foreign land. Only by understanding the causes of its failure can we chart a clear path to victory.
Rohana Wijeweera, the mastermind behind the 1971 youth uprising, has given a detailed account of himself, his political ambitions, and how and why he planned and executed an armed uprising.
On 2 November 1973, Wijeweera made a lengthy statement before the Criminal Justice Commission. The main points of the statement are given below.
"Although I was mentioned by this commission as the thirteenth suspect, the Chief Justice has pointed me out as the main suspect. Therefore, it is necessary to explain who I am at the outset. I am a Marxist-Leninist. I am a proletarian revolutionary. Marxism-Leninism is a clear political ideology. A Marxist-Leninist is not a conspirator. I am a revolutionary. I am not a terrorist. I will say one thing firmly. That is, as a proletarian revolutionary, my goal is to overthrow the present capitalist state and establish an egalitarian society.
It cannot be said that abandoning the reactionary, backward capitalist system, or replacing this old system and creating a noble modern socialist social system that has emerged in the history of the progress of human society, or acting on this ideal, is a conspiracy. Therefore, if we look at it from the perspective of the law of historical progress, I am not a conspirator.
Honorable judges! I make a request to you. I have been terribly abused; humiliated; slandered; humiliated; dishonored by the ruling class for many years. Even to this extent, I have not received the protection of the law. The only request I have from you is that you grant me the right to freely and openly express my sincerity without any hindrance. The bourgeois ruling class will keep my mouth shut for a long time. Therefore, on this occasion, I wish to say everything I have to say before you. Therefore, do not restrict my freedom of speech.
This institution of the court capitalist has been used against me in a serious manner. I am not surprised by this. I know that the ruling class will set up its institutions to meet the needs of capitalism. But my purpose here is to explain the historical background to the most gruesome, most brutal massacres in recent Sri Lankan history.
Honorable members of the Commission! A Russian scholar gives the following explanation of the meaning of human life. "If a man has a high, noble, and magnificent treasure, it is his life. A man can live that life only once. Therefore, only if one lives that life fully and ideally, will he not have to experience any anxiety, confusion, disappointment, or longing at the moment of death. A person who has dedicated his life to the dawn, liberation, and development of the human race will experience only happiness at the moment of death." I also want to embrace such an ideal life. Therefore, even if this capitalist ruling clique cuts off my life in my youth, I have no reason to worry. I am not worried at all about how my fate will be determined. Regardless of the judgment against me, I would like to present to you, without concealment, all the historical reasons for the April events.
I was born in July 1943 in Tangalle; I grew up in Kottegoda, a hamlet in the Matara district; I studied at the Goda Uda Government School. Communist ideology fascinated me in my youth. Inspired by the great campaign that Dr. S.A. Wickremesinghe was waging in South Sri Lanka against imperialism and capitalism, I became a Communist Party sympathizer. I became a member of the Communist Youth League and began my first political involvement in my life. In July 1959, I passed my G.C.E. (Ordinary) in Science.
One day, I was intrigued by a news article published in the magazine "Soviet Land". It said that an international university was to be opened in Moscow for poor students from Asian, African and Latin American countries. My family was poor. They could not afford higher education. So I applied to the Moscow International Peoples' Friendship University.
After receiving a scholarship to study medicine, I left for Moscow on September 25, 1960. I was first admitted to the Faculty of Linguistics to study Russian. I studied Russian until June 1961. I also studied world history and Marxist ideology. It was then that I had the opportunity to meet the famous Russian historian Professor Metropolsky. If I had not been his student, I would not be standing before you today. It was this man's revolutionary ideas that made me realize that I could render a greater service to human society in this age by becoming a revolutionary rather than a doctor."
"When I started my second year of medical school, my interest and passion turned to politics. During this time, I discussed the Sino-Russian ideological conflict with my close friends. As a result of these discussions, it seemed to me that the position of the Chinese Communist Party was the right one. This should not be taken to mean that I am anti-Russian.
For us, we thought this split was a friendly ideological argument between the Chinese and Russian parties in approaching a correct policy plan. I did not expect at the time that it would turn into a tumultuous conflict between the adversaries.
At this juncture, I would like to clarify an important point related to this case. That is, what is the position of Marxists on Sattvicism and rape? I want to clarify this because rape has been raised as a major issue in the evidence against me. Even taking into account the Sino-Russian ideological divide, the fundamental conflict has arisen over the theory of rape.
There has long been a heated debate in the world communist movement about whether it is possible to build an egalitarian society out of capitalism by adopting a peaceful path. As Marxists, we would much prefer a peaceful transfer of power from the exploitative capitalist ruling class to the proletariat.
We want the property rights held by a few to be handed over to the masses peacefully. If this unjust system of government, where man exploits man, can be easily and quickly abolished by peaceful means, we have no objection to that. If class contradictions are resolved in an amicable manner without crisis. Economic production, where contradictory class differences are broadened and the injustice of exploiting man by man is abolished, will create an egalitarian society for the masses. We Marxists want our political ideal to be achieved by peaceful means. But what is important to emphasize here is that it is not the revolutionaries who decide whether a proletarian socialist revolution should be carried out by peaceful means or by force.
Karl Marx has clearly explained that there has never been an incident in history where the exploiting property-owning ruling class has voluntarily given up its power and special privileges. There has never been a history in the entire world where the property-owning classes have given up their privileges in obedience to the needs and demands of the majority of the people. In our society, the classes that have seized power are using this power to protect the private property system. This capitalist ruling class does not hesitate to commit the most cruel and heinous crimes against the oppressed people in order to protect its property rights.
"We Marxists are proletarian revolutionaries. We believe in the revolutionary transformation of the present social system, and we will act with this ideal in mind. We will not sit idly by, waiting for the day when others will carry this capitalist system on their shoulders and bury it."
This capitalist regime has subjected the three million proletariat of this country to deep misery and oppression; it is starving and starving the poor peasantry; it is creating an army of unemployed youth and malnourished children. This regime is the root cause of all the social problems of this country.
Counter-revolutionary reactionaries will not fail to use force. Therefore, in order to safely deliver a new socialist society and to defeat the violence wielded by the bourgeoisie, it is necessary for proletarian revolutionaries to resort to revolutionary violence.
The fundamental issue here is the power of the state. The main task of a social revolution is to overthrow the bourgeois state and establish a proletarian state, that is, the dictatorship of the proletariat. As a first step towards the emergence of an egalitarian society, it is essential to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat. If the proletariat fails to seize and consolidate state power, socialist society will never emerge.
We Marxists are not advocates of violence. We can only predict with certainty that when a revolution breaks out, violence will inevitably occur. As society advances along the path of progress through the socialist revolution, the wavering ruling class will resort to counter-revolutionary violence as a stumbling block. At this time, the proletariat will have to confront this with violent revolutionary action.
"I came to Sri Lanka on 24th March 1964 for a holiday. Upon my arrival in Sri Lanka, I did some activities on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party and as its sympathizer. Many student associations and public institutions invited me to speak on socialism and the Soviet Union. During these meetings, questions were asked about the Sino-Russian ideological divide. I responded in support of China's position. This angered the pro-Moscow Communist Party leaders. When I applied for a visa to return to Russia in August 1964, the Soviet Embassy rejected my visa application without giving any reason. After this, my attention turned to Sri Lankan politics.
In mid-1967, some of my friends and I held a meeting at my house to discuss our future political activities. The discussions we held were of historical significance, as it led to the birth of a new political movement called the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (People's Liberation Front).
This being so, a new perspective was born in revolutionary politics internationally, and it also had its impact in our country. The assassination of Che Guevara in Bolivia became world-famous and had serious consequences.
The Cuban Embassy in Sri Lanka had translated the speeches and political books of Che Guevara and Castro into Sinhala and distributed them throughout the country. Some of our party supporters, inspired by these ideas, argued that Sri Lanka should also follow the Cuban revolutionary path. They believed that a revolution could be waged without building a revolutionary party. They believed that a revolutionary party could not arise because the old leftist movement had surrendered to the oppression of capitalism and betrayed the people, and that revolutionaries should launch an armed struggle and mobilize the oppressed people to their side. These comrades, who wanted to follow the Cuban revolutionary path, did not fully understand the nature of this revolution. They seemed to think that a group of eleven revolutionaries started a revolution with the help of guns, fought and won. "They did not realize how the public was mobilized against the tyrannical dictatorship of the tyrant Batista."
"When we were on the side of the Chinese Communist Party, we realized that our idea of how a social revolution should take place in Sri Lanka was wrong. When we were on the side of China, we had decided to fight for a peoples democratic revolution. In terms of the situation in Sri Lanka, what we need is a socialist revolution, not a peoples democratic revolution. Looking at the current social development of Sri Lanka and the nature of international capitalism, if foreign imperialism is to be completely defeated, it can only be achieved through a socialist revolution. If the unfinished goals such as national independence, agrarian revolution and democracy are to be achieved, it can only be achieved through a socialist revolution. This revolutionary achievement can only be achieved by the proletariat.
Therefore, we decided to build a proletarian revolutionary party. However, it is not possible to build a Marxist party without Marxists. What has been the achievement of the old left movement for the past thirty years? These old left leaders, imprisoned in capitalist ideology, have failed to give even a basic explanation of the Marxist vision to the proletariat. The old left leaders have not created any party cadres who can spread Marxist ideas in the Sinhala language. They have conducted one or two political classes in an irregular manner. However, they have failed to impart political education to the working class in a proper and systematic manner. They have failed to create political awareness even among their own party members. Therefore, when these left leaders aligned with the right, there were no strong Marxists there to fight against them. All the party members blindly followed the leaders.
"Having learned from the mistakes made by the old Left movement, we wanted to introduce Marxist ideology to the common people in a clear manner. We decided to conduct political classes in a simple, uncomplicated manner so that the people could easily grasp it. I will give here the essence of this political education consisting of five classes.
The first class was on the subject of economic crisis. Since the economic system of a society depends on the other institutional systems, we realized the need to analyze the economy in depth. We analyzed and investigated our current economic situation, its crisis, its root causes, its development, its future, and its inevitable consequences. We explained that the economic crisis of societies enslaved by colonial and neo-colonial domination is in a state of developing into a political crisis, which will cause a great national upheaval, and that to avoid this upheaval, we must strengthen the class struggle on the path of progress, establish the dictatorship of the proletariat, and accelerate socialist industrialization and cooperative agriculture.
The second class was titled, Freedom is a Modern Colonial Strategy. In this class, we explained that the freedom we got on 4th March 1948 with the change of national flags was not complete national freedom or economic freedom. We explained that British imperialism is exploiting the economy of our country in a modern colonial strategy to protect its investments and assets from the rise of anti-imperialist liberation movements. We pointed out that political freedom without economic freedom is a sham.
The third class is about Indian expansion. This class is about how the Indian capitalist ruling class is expanding its political and economic dominance over the small neighboring countries in its vicinity. In this class, we discussed how our country is being affected by this Indian expansion. We discussed how the very powerful Indian bourgeoisie is exploiting our country and the communal politics being pursued by the Indian bourgeoisie with the aim of separating the plantation workers of Indian origin from the rest of the proletariat of the country. Pointing out that this bourgeoisie is leading the plantation workers of Indian origin on the wrong path, we decided to free these workers from the net of capitalist ideology. But we did not have the party workers to complete this task. None of our efforts to build party cadres from among the comrades belonging to the national minority ethnic groups were fruitful.
The fourth class is about the Left Movement in Sri Lanka. This class is about what lessons we can learn from the mistakes and failures of the old Left Movement. In this class, we condemned the policies and political activities that the old Left Movement had been carrying out since the 1930s.
The fifth class is very important. This class is about the path that the Sri Lankan revolution should take. After the publication of Che Guevara's book 'Guerrilla War', some of our supporters wanted to follow Che Guevara's path to solve our economic crisis. Meanwhile, Lin Biao's book 'Long Live the Victory of the People's War' and Mao's 'Military Writings' were published in Sinhala. Some thought that the tactics mentioned in these writings could be used. The pro-Chinese argued that the appropriate path for the Sri Lankan revolution was to carry out a prolonged guerrilla war of the Chinese revolution, surrounding and capturing villages from the outskirts of the country. Others thought that we should follow the path of the Russian revolution. This fifth class was held with the aim of clarifying this confusion of opinions.
Having pointed out that a revolution carried out in one country, at one time, and in accordance with the circumstances will be different from that carried out in another country, at another time, and in another circumstance, we explained that socialist revolutions do not follow a single exclusive path, but that each revolution has taken its own, unique path according to time, place, and circumstances. In this sense, we have shown that the Chinese revolution is different from the Russian revolution, and that the Cuban revolution is different when compared with these two revolutions.
We do not expect anyone to become Marxists with these five basic classes. These classes were perhaps the main means of saving people from the dominance of capitalist ideology and attracting them to Marxist revolutionism.
"Since 1968, we have been conducting these classes all over the country. Most of the government workers, farmers, and youth participated in these classes. Many of the youth who participated in our classes got admission in universities. As a result, many people who were pro-Russian and pro-Chinese became supporters of our movement. After this, we started our classes in universities and schools."
Therefore, in order to safely deliver a new socialist society and to defeat the violence wielded by the bourgeoisie, it is necessary for proletarian revolutionaries to resort to revolutionary violence.
The fundamental issue here is the power of the state. The main task of a social revolution is to overthrow the bourgeois state and establish a proletarian state, that is, the dictatorship of the proletariat. As a first step towards the emergence of an egalitarian society, it is essential to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat. If the proletariat fails to seize and consolidate state power, socialist society will never emerge.
"As a Marxist, I believe that people have the right to revolt against an unjust regime. This is not just the opinion of Marxists, but throughout history, people of various ideologies and religions have believed in the right to revolt against an oppressive regime. We have been accused of revolting against the Maharani's government, of attempting to revolt.
Your Excellency, the Chief Justice! In 1649, did not the English people, under the leadership of Oliver Cromwell, revolt against King Charles I, the ancestor of the present Queen? Did they not remove him from the throne and triumph? The English people of that time believed that it was just and moral to revolt against a tyranny. You know that in 1778, the American people, under the leadership of George Washington, revolted against the British Empire and triumphed. What this shows is that the people believed in the right to revolt even before the emergence of Marxism. If we look at the historical records of our country, known as the Mahavamsa and the Chulavamsa, we can see that the people revolted against tyranny many times. This shows that the people of our country also accepted the right to revolt. "So, my opinion is that people have the right to revolt against an oppressive regime."
"I would like to bring to your attention some important events that took place in 1971. In the early days of our movement, we did not have much support among the urban working class. In 1971, our movement expanded from the rural areas to the cities. The impact of our political propaganda movement spread to the cities and among some sections of the urban proletariat. The youth in the factories and industries began to listen to us. It was at this time that the old Leftists began to realize the danger we posed; they made plans to confront us and defeat us.
As a first attempt, they falsely accused us of being agents of the American intelligence agency, the CIA. This attempt did not work. Next, they tried to incite their local movement supporters and attack our members. When that also failed, they convened a cabinet meeting to examine ways to prevent the Sanatha Vimukthi Peramuna from becoming a strong political movement.
You know that our country is facing a very serious economic crisis today. This economic crisis did not suddenly appear out of the blue. It was there on April 5, 1971. It was there before that. The government was reluctant to impose the economic and social burdens that are imposed on the people today. This was because there was a revolutionary political movement at that time. The government feared that this revolutionary movement might incite the people to revolt against the government's actions. Therefore, before taking serious measures against the people, they planned to eliminate our movement.
The situation reached its peak after January 1971. The former Inspector General of Police, Mr. L.A. Dissanayake, was appointed Deputy Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Defence and Foreign Affairs. Even before this, the secret police had been using their full powers to investigate the activities of our movement. A special police unit was appointed to monitor the affairs of our movement. Comrades belonging to our movement were arrested from many parts of the country. Intelligence forces were infiltrated into all the structures of our movement.
On March 6th, there was an attack on the American Embassy. This incident was used as an excuse to suppress our revolutionary movement. I was arrested on March 13th. Emergency law was declared on March 16th. 4098 people were arrested before April 5th, 1971.
In April 1971, there was no revolutionary situation for an armed revolution, or for the proletariat to seize power. This is my opinion. It is difficult for an armed uprising to arise without a critical economic and social situation and a revolutionary psychological situation.
My opinion is that the situation for seizing government power through armed revolution was not ripe at that time. However, this situation was developing rapidly. But the people were not pushed to a point where there was no other option but armed revolution. There was no powerful revolutionary party that could gain broad support from the people and lead them on the path of armed revolution. The Sanatha Vimukthi Peramuna was growing on this path, but it did not gain strength and maturity. We failed to establish our movement as a political force in the northern and eastern provinces and among the upland plantation workers.
I completely deny that the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna decided to seize power on April 5, 1971. I will never accept it. But I did not deny one thing. It came to my knowledge only later. That is, some of our movement comrades, who faced unbearable oppression, jumped into the struggle against that oppression. The ruling class of this country felt a need to crush revolutionary political movements, especially the Sanatha Vimukthi Peramuna, in this country. Accordingly, they took action. The April incidents are the result of that.
In conclusion, I would like to say this only. I accept that the bourgeoisie has achieved a temporary victory. I do not consider this a defeat for the proletariat. It is a great setback for the proletariat. But a setback is not a defeat. It marks a stage. The proletariat, which is reviving during this period, will certainly march towards a solid victory. Setbacks are a natural thing in the progress of revolutionary movements. This is the situation that confronts us today. It is in this position that I have come to testify before you. I have not said anything for my own personal benefit or against my ideal. What I am speaking here in support of is my own Marxist principles.
I do not know what benefit the bourgeoisie expected from these April events. A revolutionary poet beautifully expresses in a poem what the final outcome could be. The meaning of the poem is this:
'The flowers of the revolution bloomed. But they withered and died. But their fragrance never dies. New buds will bloom, multiply, and spread that fragrance far and wide.'
"Capitalism has no reason to rejoice in its temporary victory, because in the class struggle, it is the proletariat that ultimately triumphs."
You have seen the statement made by Rohana Wijeweera about himself, his ideals, his movement and the April Revolution. From these statements, one should not assume that he is a proletarian revolutionary who has seriously embraced the Marxist-Leninist program. Many lies are hidden in his statement itself. Let us now examine these lies and the main reasons for the failure of the revolution.
The first thing we would like to point out is that Rohana Wijeweera did not adopt the Marxist-Leninist political program as his political ideal. He did not have the clarity of thought to understand it.
The empirical insight of Lenin is clear: no revolutionary movement can arise without a revolutionary political program. Such a program must be grounded in a rigorous analysis of the historical, economic, and political conditions of society and must accurately reflect the real situation of the oppressed. A movement built upon this solid foundation will expand organically into a mass uprising, as it embodies revolutionary solutions that resonate with the aspirations of the oppressed masses. No true Marxist revolutionary can deny that a concrete revolutionary program is indispensable for the success of a socialist revolution or an armed struggle.
Neither Rohana Wijeweera nor the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna possessed a coherent revolutionary policy plan. The JVP was born out of chaotic ambition, reckless impatience, and raw militancy, grounded in a distorted form of socialism entangled with racism, reactionary tendencies, and chauvinism. This represents a profound political blunder, a catastrophic misstep on the revolutionary path, rooted in a failure to properly grasp the historical lessons taught by world revolutionaries like Che Guevara, Mao Zedong, and Ho Chi Minh.
Due to the lack of a clear policy plan, ideological conflicts arose within the leadership of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna from the very beginning. Due to ideological conflicts, the leadership was divided into three groups. One group insisted on the Russian Revolution, another group wanted to use Mao's revolutionary techniques, and another group believed that Che Guevara's guerrilla tactics were the best path. Three factions emerged and argued within the leadership.
The group that wanted to follow the path of Che Guevara emerged as the strongest in the movement. These factions were led by people like Lokku Atula and Piyathilaka. It was because of their propaganda that the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna was nicknamed the Che Guevara Movement. Rohana Wijeweera's attempt to unite these three groups ideologically ended in failure. Rohana did not have the ability, experience, or political wisdom to unite these forces that were confused in policy, nor did he have the ability, experience, or political wisdom to formulate a proper policy plan. As a result, the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna did not form a tight, structured movement. Each group in the leadership structure established its dominance in different parts of the country. Apart from the fact that the movement structure was disorganized, ideological differences were scattered among the members. There was no clarity in the movement's purpose, policy, or revolutionary path. The members of the leadership conspired against each other. Murders were also planned. For example, one of the movement leaders, Sarath Wijesekhara, was shot dead by a member of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna. The mystery of who planned this murder has not yet been solved. It was revealed during the trial that Lokku Atula had planned to kill Rohana Wijeweera. Thus, a stab in the head.
What we should note from these is that one of the main reasons for the failure of the April Uprising was the unclear and confusing ideological explanation of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna. This led to a split in the leadership and a breakdown in the party control structure, leading to great destruction in the country. This teaches us as Tamil Eelam revolutionaries an important lesson. That is, in order to form a revolutionary national liberation movement with the aim of armed revolution and to implement it successfully, a revolutionary policy plan formulated in a clear political ideology is necessary. This is essential for the development of the movement, control, unity and, above all, for mobilizing public support. Therefore, it is very dangerous to attempt to embark on an armed revolution without a political ideological explanation and a revolutionary plan. This is the main lesson we need to understand from the distorted revolutionary plan of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna.
Rohana says that the JVP was forced to engage in armed rebellion due to the conspiracy of the ruler and the brutality of the repression by the armed forces. This claim is not true. The plan to hold an uprising in April was planned several months in advance. The secret police infiltrated the headquarters and learned in detail about the plans for the April uprising. The fact that the police easily found hidden bombs and guns and that up to four thousand people were arrested before April itself is evidence of this. It was only because the April plan was exposed that the government launched a very terrible repression against the JVP. Although the government knew that preparations were being made for the revolution in April, the government did not receive specific information about the date and type of revolution that would break out in April. Not only that, but the government had also misjudged the strength of the JVP in the countryside. The rulers thought that by arresting the leaders and key members, they could crush the movement and suppress the revolution. But in South Sri Lanka, especially in the Southern Province, Western Province, Central and North Central Provinces, the J.V.P. had taken root and grown widely among the unemployed youth and the poor landless farmers. On April 5, when several police stations were suddenly attacked, the rulers panicked; they were at a loss as to what to do. This shows the miscalculation of the government.
If the JVP had planned an armed uprising in April 1971, we must see whether this was the right time for a popular revolution. In that light, it must be said that this was a hasty plan, completely disregarding the historical period, the mood of the people, and the political situation.
In the general election held on 27 May 1970, the United Front, which included the Sri Lanka Freedom Party, the Lanka Sama Samaja Party, and the Communist Party, came to power with overwhelming public support, winning 114 out of 151 seats. This period was marked by the peoples unwavering faith that a socialist, peoples government had taken charge and that prosperity was on the horizon for the oppressed classes. Despite the social and economic turmoil of the country, there was widespread excitement and hope that this left-wing government would bring about a breakthrough.
Given this political climate, where public trust and support were firmly placed in the new government, it was politically reckless to plan an armed uprising. Revolutionary history teaches us that no uprising can succeed without the backing of the masses. Ignoring the importance of public support and the existing political context was a fundamental reason for the failure of the rebellion.
We have seen from the report of Rohana that the third class taught by the JVP was on "Indian expansion." However, contrary to his statement, this was a deeply hateful and racist propaganda. Beyond the claim that South Indian Tamil traders were exploiting Sri Lanka, the propaganda asserted that the economy of the country depended on the Tamil plantation proletariat and that this situation needed to be overturned. Notably, a JVP leader publicly declared that just as the Burmese government had expelled Indians from their country, the Tamils should also be driven out of Sri Lanka.
In effect, the term "Indian expansion" was deliberately distorted into "Tamil expansion" and weaponized as racist propaganda against the Tamil-speaking people. This communal hatred enabled the JVP to gain influence among Sinhala racist youth. It was precisely because of this racist politics that the JVP excluded the Tamil-speaking community from its revolutionary program.
The fact that the JVP completely excluded the Tamil-speaking people of Tamil Eelam, without seeking the support of the plantation workers, who are the backbone of the proletarian revolution, and formulated a political revolutionary plan, is an example of the arrogance of the JVP. The Sinhala revolutionaries must learn from the failure of the JVP that no political force can carry out a national revolution by excluding the Tamil-speaking people. Today's JVP has learned this lesson and is currently seeking the support of the Tamils in the North, East and the Upcountry. Our revolutionary youth should not get caught up in this politics. Although they claim to support the right of self-determination of the Tamil-speaking people, we have already pointed out that they oppose the demand for a separate state and that this is contrary to Marxist-Leninist ideology. Our youth should not be swayed by their political opportunism and tribal nationalism.
Even if we join any Sinhala political movement that speaks of revolution, we will not be able to achieve freedom. Our aim should be to build a revolutionary liberation movement and gain the support of Sinhala revolutionary movements for that movement and its revolutionary policy program. We must fight and achieve our national liberation ourselves. It is political folly to expect others to achieve it. The view of many Sinhala Marxist political movements is that our problem is still a language problem. It seems that they have not yet realized that our problem is a national ethnic problem with social, economic and political forms.
If we look at the April uprising activities of the JVP, it must be said that it was a foolish attack without any training in military tactics. The movement's aim was to attack police stations with homemade grenades and a few stolen guns and to keep the countryside under its control using the weapons it could capture there as a base. No plan was drawn up to deal with the counterattack of the armed forces, nor for a long-term guerrilla war in the countryside. No plans were made to attack the capital, the bases and headquarters of the armed forces.
Between April 5 and 10, a total of 93 police stations fell to the rebel youth. Within a week of the outbreak of the rebellion, ten administrative districts including Kegalle, Matara, Kurunegala, Anuradhapura, Matale, Polonnaruwa, Galle, Hambantota, Ambalangoda, and Katunayake were targeted by the rebel youth. A significant rural area in southern Sri Lanka was brought under their control.
Although initially tense, the government had ample time to strengthen the armed forces, launch counterattacks and completely crush the rebellion as the capital, military bases and headquarters were not attacked. The rulers prepared themselves properly by implementing curfews in turns, granting excessive powers to the armed forces under the Emergency Law, and receiving foreign military aid. When the Sinhala military machine, which had been strengthened by receiving various types of military aid, launched a counterattack in earnest, the rebels scattered and retreated. The youth did not have the fighting skills and weapons to cope with the attacks carried out by tanks, artillery and machine guns. Hundreds of people died when helicopters attacked those who tried to block the main roads and bridges and cut off traffic. The army mercilessly shot the youth who surrendered. The Sinhalese army committed the most brutal massacres in Sri Lankan history. Those who could not face a modern army, those who fled, those who surrendered, and those who were arrested on suspicion, fell victim to the terror of the army. Those who were shot were taken to the forest areas and burned; buried. The burned bodies were thrown into the rivers. Hundreds of bodies floated in the Kelani Ganga, the holy river of the Buddhists, and piled up in the estuary near the city of Colombo.
Within a few weeks, the JVP rebellion was completely crushed. Tens of thousands of young people became victims of the ruthless brutality and terror inflicted by the Sinhala armed forces. From this tragic historical event, we must learn one crucial lesson: the inhuman cruelty of the Sinhala army. This merciless force, lacking any military ethics or conscience, slaughtered the youth of its own race without hesitation. If this is how such an army acts against its own people, we can only imagine the extent of its savagery in an armed conflict against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam.
When the JVP rebellion was crushed in a most horrific manner, no foreign government expressed support or sympathy for the JVP. Although they claimed to be a movement operating on the Marxist-Leninist program, no socialist country that embraced Marxism came forward to help. Instead, socialist and capitalist countries joined forces and provided armed assistance to the coalition government, causing the destruction of the JVP.
This was the result of the policy confusion of Rohana Wijeweera and the leaders of the movement. Initially siding with Russia, then turning to China, then worshipping Cuba, and finally remaining confused without any solid position, the socialist governments looked at the SLFP with suspicion. The SLFP did not seek the support of socialist countries, either militarily or ideologically. Even if it had approached in that way, it is doubtful that it would have received either armed assistance or moral support. Because that was the foreign policy of the government in power. Even though it claimed to adhere to the policy of non-alignment and neutrality, it was not unknown to the world that the leadership of the Freedom Party had bourgeois aspirations. As a result, the Western capitalist governments supported the coalition government. Since the pro-Russian Communist Party was aligned with the government, the support of Russia and Western European countries was in favor of this government. As for China, the close friendship between former Prime Minister Zhou Enlai and Mrs. Banda is indicated by the personal letter of sympathy written by the Chinese Prime Minister after the uprising. Since the government condemned the Israeli occupation, the Arab countries were also on her side. Therefore, it is not surprising that when the J.V.P. youth revolted, when Mrs. Banda called for foreign aid, help poured in from all directions.
First, British imperialism offered to help. It provided a large amount of weapons from its base in Singapore, as well as military helicopters. The United States then provided weapons. India and Pakistan offered not only weapons but also armed forces. India immediately sent a battalion and four Indian warships to patrol the port of Colombo.
The Soviet Union, competing with capitalist countries, also extended its support; using weapons stockpiled in Egypt, it airlifted nine tons of modern arms via Soviet aircraft. This was followed by the delivery of six MiG fighter jets and twenty artillery vehicles. Yugoslavia contributed a substantial number of mountain guns. Communist China fulfilled its role as well, providing an interest-free emergency loan of fifteen hundred million rupees in exchange for weapons.
It is noteworthy that the press reported that Communist China had indirectly supported the armed uprising of the J.V.P. and that weapons were smuggled through the North Korean embassy in Colombo. As everyone knew, the North Korean embassy was closed and the leaders of the Chinese Communist Party in the countryside were arrested on suspicion. However, it later became clear that neither Communist China nor North Korea had any role in this youth uprising. What actually happened was that many young people who were members of the Chinese Communist Party in the countryside joined the J.V.P. and insisted that the movement adopt Mao's tactics. The secret police, not understanding this, thought that Communist China also supported this uprising. Before the uprising, the J.V.P. Suspicion of the North Korean embassy arose due to the frequent visits of some leaders to the embassy. However, North Korea did not incite the rebellion or provide indirect weapons support.
The Communist Chinese government had long maintained close ties with Mrs. Bandaranaike. When leaders of the local Peking Communist Party were arrested amid suspicion and allegations against China, this created an awkward situation for the Chinese government. Seeking to dispel these doubts and reinforce its friendly relations, China extended an interest-free loan of fifteen hundred million rupees. Furthermore, the Chinese Prime Minister, Mr. Zhou Enlai, sent a personal letter to Mrs. Bandaranaike, commending her government for suppressing the rebellion. In his message, the Chinese Prime Minister condemned the JVP as reactionaries and an extreme leftist group. Below is the exact letter written by Zhou Enlai to Mrs. Bandaranaike on April 26, 1971, in English.
"I am grateful to Your Excellency and the Ceylon Government for your trust in the Chinese Government and your friendly sentiments towards the Chinese people. The friendship between China and Ceylon is in the fundamental interests of the two peoples and can stand tests. The Chinese Government and people highly treasure the friendship between our two countries and no one with ulterior motives will ever succeed in trying to sow discord and sabotage our friendly relations.
Following the teachings of Chairman Mao Zedong, the Chinese people all along opposed ultra "left" and "right" opportunism in their protracted revolutionary struggles. We are glad to see that thanks to the efforts of your Excellency and the Ceylon Government, the chaotic situation created by a handful of persons who style themselves "Guevarists" and into whose ranks foreign spies have sneaked has been brought under control. We believe that as a result of your leadership and the co-operation and support of the Ceylonese people these acts of rebellion plotted by reactionaries at home and abroad for the purpose of undermining the interests of the Ceylonese people are bound to fail.
We fully agree to the correct position of defending state sovereignty and guarding against foreign interference as referred to by Your Excellency. The Chinese government and people admire this and firmly support Ceylon in her just struggle towards this end. As Your Excellency is deeply aware the Chinese government has consistently abided by the Five Principles of Co-existence, has never interfered in the internal affairs of other countries, and is also firmly opposed to any country interfering in other countries internal affairs, and particularly to foreign reactionaries taking advantage of the opportunity to carry out armed intervention. I would like once again to reaffirm this unshakable stand of the Chinese Government.
In the interests of the friendship between China and Ceylon and in consideration of the needs of the Ceylon Government, the Chinese Government agrees to provide it with a long-term interest free loan of 150 million rupees in convertible foreign exchange. We would like to hear any views which Your Excellency might have on this matter. We are prepared to deliver a portion of the loan in May and sign a document on it. As for other material assistance, please let us know if it is needed."
If we are planning a national liberation struggle based on armed rebellion, we must first consider who our enemies and who our friends are when it comes to mobilizing foreign support.
Our struggle is against the most reactionary, right-wing capitalist government. This government is a friend of world capitalism; a slave of international imperialism; caught in the web of imperialist espionage forces. When this regime is in danger, the imperialist destructive forces are bound to come to its aid. Therefore, we must not forget that our main enemies are not only Sinhala imperialism, but also the world capitalist powers and their minions.
After the revolutions in Iran and Afghanistan, the interest of world imperialism has turned to the Indian Ocean region, especially the South Asian region. In this region, Sri Lanka is an important place in terms of maritime dominance. Therefore, the world imperialist countries have been interested in stabilizing the political status of Sri Lanka, that is, in strengthening the capitalist system that favors them.
In such a situation, world imperialism will not like our struggle for national liberation with the goal of building a socialist society. They will consider this struggle as dangerous for the South Asian position of capitalism. Therefore, these capitalist destructive forces may try to suppress our struggle by supporting the Sinhala ruler. We should not forget that the American intelligence agency, the CIA, played a major role in suppressing the J.V.P. rebellion.
For this reason, we insist that we need the support of socialist countries. When the Tamil Eelam liberation fighters defeat the Sinhala bourgeois armed forces and declare the independence of socialist Tamil Eelam, the socialist countries must recognize our national independence. This is necessary to prevent the counterattack of the Sinhala armed forces and the intervention of foreign imperialism.
In conclusion, we must learn many political lessons from the rebellion of the Sinhala youth and its fall. If we learn the reasons for the failures, the path to victory will become clear.