Lanka Citizen

by Kumaran

‘Can a Leftist be a patriot? Not only he can, but he must.’ This seems to be what Ajith Perakum Jayasinghe is saying writing on ‘A New Sinhala Nationalism,’ (Lankaleft.com). He suggests that the Left in order to overcome its present alienation form the masses should grab the slogan of Sinhalaness or Sinhala nationalism from the hands of whom he calls ‘racists’ (even though he does not spell out what characteristics make one a racist) in order to wrest the ideological authority of the Sinhala society. A Gramscian ideological hegemony for political power, I suppose.

Jayasinghe argues that the Left cannot continue to hide anymore under the illusions of being International Citizens or having a Sri Lankan identity. The former is an illusion, obviously because one cannot be a citizen of nowhere, but can be a citizen of only a specific city or a country; the latter cannot be a reality as the Sri Lankan Constitution does not provide equal inclusion of Tamils or Muslims. The new Left Sinhala nationalism which Jayasinghe proposes has to be one that assures equality and democracy to Tamils and Muslims.

If my memory is correct, this reminds us of a somewhat similar suggestion by an academic sometime back in Ravaya newspaper that either Chandrika or Ranil should grab the slogan of Sinhala nationalism from the hands of Jathika Chinthanaya. Both Chandrika and Ranil with or without advice have been trying to woo Buddhists in order to achieve their political objectives. Ranil’s latest photo-ops appear not so much with live events but with ‘Wewai Dagobai’ sort of Sinhala Buddhist symbols.

So, while for some aligning with Buddhism or Sinhala nationalism may serve as a vote catching strategy, for the Left the mass appeal of nationalism has created an identity crisis leading to soul searching. Hence Jayasinghe’s questions. But then, it is quite some time since Bahu Sahodaraya had begun to talk about the value of the Buddhist concepts such as Metta even though any form of nationalism, of course except the LTTE variety, is anathema to him.

Chairman Mao, as he was called somewhat affectionately those days in the East comes to our mind here. Quotations from his little red book were frequently quoted by the leaders of the JVP, 71’ vintage, almost all of whom have now turned into neo-liberals. It was Mao who famously asked and answered: “Can a patriot be an internationalist? Not only he can, but he must.” (Mao’s revolutionary fame of course was relegated soon into the dustbin of history with the Stalinist purges by his party men during the infamous Cultural Revolution and against peasant resistance.)

Jayasinghe turns Mao around and asks: Can a Leftist be a patriot? Mao would have answered, I suppose, ‘Not only he can, but he must.’ This suggestion coming from the Left is a recognition that if the ordinary masses support Sinhala nationalism, there have to be an understanding of Sinhala nationalism which is not racist which the Leftists need to understand if they are to gain political ground in the present scenario. At the same time it moves the question of Sinhala nationalism away from the narrow economic explanations, to the realm of moral life thus making it a genuinely political question.

The question then is how do we understand what fuels the mass base of Sinhala nationalism. Would the Left agree that Sinhala nationalism in recent times has risen in response to neo-colonialism as Jathika Chinthanaya argues? If so, then what would be the left political response to this latest phase of globalization? What does globalization do to the lives of ordinary people that that they are compelled to fall back on their ethnic roots for sustenance and therefore align with nationalism?

In short, what is the phenomenology of Sinhala nationalism in the present context of globalization?

A. Sivanandan’s article ‘Why Muslims reject British values’ (see Lankacitizen for the full article) gives us some ideas to think about this question.

lankacitizen@gmail.com