A news item this week had the unusually welcome piece of news of a call by a group within the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna party (JVP), who refer to themselves as the moderate wing of the party, requesting a self evaluation of the past of this party, particularly about its involvement in violence in the eighties. At that period in history this party openly advocated the assassination of state officers, opponents of their party as well as dissidents within the party itself. This took place within a framework of the severe repression unleashed by the authoritarian regime of J.R. Jayewardene. The JVPs advocacy and use of violence was utilised and manipulated shrewdly by this regime and over 30,000 young people in the south were forcibly disappeared during this time. These disappearances, carried out by state agencies, resulted in the collapse of respect for discipline within the law enforcement agencies. Since that time these agencies have degenerated further and lawlessness has become a part of Sri Lankan society.
The call of this group of JVPers for self evaluation of this unfortunate period, if realised, could usher in a period of internal review within political parties, as well as the state about each others responsibilities for the state of affairs now prevailing in Sri Lanka. Remorse about the misdeeds of ones own political group has so far remained an alien aspect within the political culture of Sri Lanka. Always, the problems have been the creation of others. How far each of the political parties has contributed to violence is never raised nor really pursued by any of the political groups.
All major political parties in Sri Lanka have murderous pasts and they have to answer for bloodletting on a large scale. They have all contributed in one way or another to the collapse of all institutions of law and order and democracy. Collectively, everybody admits this. That all political parties have failed the country is a phrase which is so commonly used that it has ceased to have any meaning. However, such talk has not been followed by internal attempts to honestly evaluate the past, to articulate what lessons are to be learned and to tell the people their regrets about historical mistakes that have contributed to the suffering of the people.
All great movements in history in recent times have begun with internal criticisms and such criticisms have helped to develop more enlightened perspectives for the future. The bitter period of Russia under the Stalinist regime gave rise to the famous speech by Nikita Kruchev in 1956 and the trend of self criticism that was started then has continued in the decades to follow. The Russian enlightenment achieved through this discourse continues to-date and leads to various political changes. The process of self criticism in Russia also demonstrates that once started, it gives rise to new energies and continues to inform the future of the thoughts and actions of a nation for a long time to come. Soviet self criticism also had an impact on its opponents who were determined to destroy soviet Russia through nuclear warfare. A process of thought and action prevented another world war, which would have been far more destructive than the earlier ones. The process of self criticism, generated initially by a few courageous persons, has become a part of the common political process in the country to which different political groups and individuals contribute now.
Another process of internal self criticism took place in South Africa followed by the victory of the blacks over those forces representing apartheid among the whites. The countrys political leadership wisely decided to end a chain of revenge and instead transform it into a process of self understanding of both groups about the factors that gave rise to the conflicts in the past. The bitterness that was generated by senseless violence on the part of the advocates of apartheid could have justified similar actions by those who had suffered such violence. However, such justification would have been self destructive to the nation. This nation that dealt with its own past in a mature way, through self evaluation unleashed the energies of the people to be forgiving and allowed them to build up new alliances with their former enemies. Citizens that for whatever reason take up arms against their fellows and engage in violence are not permanent enemies. The strength of the local peoples common sense and the political sense of their leaders is tested by the ability to disarm the enemy, and to usher in a social process of re-evaluation of each others conduct which is serious enough to convince others about the genuineness of the political will of their opponents so as to reestablish their fellowship as members of a single nation.
Many more examples can be given from around the world where common sense and popular wisdom has forced political leaders to admit mistakes, and even deliberate villainy, and then to usher in a period where there would be free speech about the past. Such free discussion saves a people from their pretended pasts. If all the political parties engage in trying to defend what is indefensible in their past any political discussion would be hypocritical. Unfortunately, in Sri Lanka, that is what the political discussions of all political groups, including the ruling regime, the opposition United National Party, various Tamil militant groups including the LTTE and the JVP itself are engaged in at the moment. Victims of violence are treated by each group as heroes and the suffering of the families of hundreds of thousands of people in the country, be they families of dead soldiers, large numbers of ordinary folk killed under the pretext of being JVPers or whether they belong to Tamil militant groups, means that the enormous human suffering in the country is due to senseless violence.
A vigorous debate on the political follies of the past is one of the primary needs in the country. If this group of JVPers is able to usher that in, they will be ushering in a movement of historical importance. Perhaps it is only a group from within the JVP who can do that because of the very origins of the JVP. The first members came from among the most oppressed sections of society, including those who had suffered from caste oppression, and they are more aware of the reality of the country than most of the people in other political parties. They also represent groups of educated people from among the oppressed sections of society and therefore they have the capacity to articulate these problems eloquently. The period of Sri Lankan history ushered in by the Donoughmore constitution has lost much of its meaning due to the pride and arrogance of political leaders who had never made any serious public attempts to look into their political follies. This new group of JVPers, if they stand by their commitment to press for internal self evaluation, will make a contribution not just for their party but also for the nation.
A genuine Peace Secretariat in Sri Lanka would have encouraged such policies of self evaluation in all political parties and thereby created the climate necessary for a period of political enlightenment in the country. Alas, we do not have the political insights of persons such as Nelson Mandela and Bishop Desmond Tutu. Sri Lankas Peace Secretariat is war-mongering and has not contributed one iota for the critical self evaluation of the contribution made by all elements of the Sri Lankan political establishment to the climate of violence that prevails in the country. Unfortunately Sri Lankas Peace Secretariat contributes to that violence.
