lines co-editor Ahilan Kadirgamar
interviewed Mr. V. Ananthasangari, President of TULF in January
2004. This interview was an attempt to explore the history and
prospects of parliamentary democracy in the North and East. Mr.
Ananathasangari is at the center of debates around the LTTE’s
claim to sole representation.
AK: Its great to have the opportunity
to interview you. Could you speak about your early politicization?
Ananthasangari: My politicization
began early during my school days. You see, the caste system was
very rigid, but my parents were more progressive. So, I used to
interact with all people from different castes and I used to bring
them even home, and my parents didn’t mind. So, I would say from
my childhood I was a socialist. At that time, people like us were
rare as either your parents or uncles will be strict on these
caste matters. I think it’s the caste issue that made me a liberal
minded man. My father was a teacher and he didn’t show any partiality
to anybody on a caste basis. There was a time, when he became
a principal of a school, and the school was not open for minority
castes. He opened it up for the other castes but unfortunately,
hardly anybody showed up. But as time went on the schools and
temples opened up. The Christian schools did not show such partiality
at that time. Now you take Jaffna College, it accepted all castes,
but some schools and often vernacular schools if the headman was
strict or if the man was a descendant of the founder of the school
they wouldn’t open the school. That is how I became a socialist.
Poverty was also an issue and I sympathized with the poor. And
the lower caste friends whom I used to accommodate in my home,
they were also economically backward. And I tried to do little,
little help wherever possible. I remember once my mother gave
her bangles to send a friend of mine for studies in India. Like
that we were not a rich family but we tried to help.
AK: How did you join the LSSP
and get into party politics?
Ananthasangari: When I joined
the LSSP I was only eighteen years old. Even in my school days
my schoolmates used to call me communist, those days they didn’t
use the word socialist, so I got branded that way. When I came
to Colombo, the first opportunity, I got in touch with my young
friends who used to live in Kotahena. First it was Vivienne Goonewardena
and then her husband and one by one I met the rest. I became active
and was elected as the president of the youth league in Kotahena.
At that stage, I had no preference whether I joined the LSSP or
CP, but my association was with the LSSP youth so I joined them.
Then the Hartal came and then we used to go for by-election campaigns
and I became more and more active.
I was as I said friendly with the youth
in Kotahena. And when the elections in 1959 came, I was asked
to contest. I would have been a sure candidate for the Kotahena
seat. But a friend of mine who was there for many years wanted
to contest, so I readily agreed and I had to contest for Kotahena
South. That was soon after the riots you know and Tamil people
wouldn’t dare to contest in Colombo. That was an achievement.
I had to contest Suhadasa, and people thought he was bad and he
may harm me. But he wasn’t really that bad. Anyhow, I contested
and a good number of Tamils who should have voted for me, voted
for Suhadasa. Then soon after the 1959 Municipal elections, parliamentary
elections were called. A team of LSSP members came from Jaffna
and they met N.M. and Colvin and told him that I should be sent
to contest Killinochi. So, N.M. called me and told me that I should
contest Killinochi for parliament. At that time I was only twenty
six year old. So, I said “Comrade, I don’t know where Killinochi
is, I have just passed through it and stopped at Muruhandi for
a cup of tea, but I hardly know anyone there.” You will be surprised
to hear what N.M. told me. He said, “you go man, in ten years
you will win the seat.”
At that time there were eleven candidates
for the newly carved out Killinochi seat. The candidate who won
polled 2,500 votes. I was new to the place, and the people who
signed my nomination, I met on the street. But I polled 1,000
odd votes and lost my deposit by one vote. So, that was in the
headlines, that ‘LSSP candidate lost deposit by one vote.’ Then
I continued my campaign on my pushbike at first for the March
elections. A friend gave me a motorbike for the 1960 July elections,
where I did better. In the local government elections in 1963
for the Village Council, I became chairman of the local government
with the help of the Tamil Congress. In the span of three years
I had built up my campaign. That particular local government had
half the electorate and it was a rich council, which could take
up electrification without a loan from the central government.
Then I entered parliament in 1970 as part of Tamil Congress.
AK: Having moved out of LSSP
politics into the Tamil Nationalist politics, can you explain
why you moved out? And were you able to resolve Tamil Nationalist
politics with caste and class politics?
Ananthasangari: Although, I won
from the Tamil Congress ticket, because I was from the LSSP and
my socialist outlook helped me win the elections. I had the LSSP
base. At that time, there was another LSSP candidate, but the
LSSP base backed me. By the early seventies the Federal Party
was also moving towards socialism in terms of addressing caste,
such as temple entry, because Chelvanayagam played a role. He
was the one who pushed for temple entry although he was a Christian.
There was one politician who was also a minister, and contested
Chelvanayagam in K.K.S on the Mavattapuram temple entry issue.
Chelvanayagam a Christian and his opponent a Hindu, and his opponent
raised the Hindu cry and said how can Chelvanayagam call for temple
entry. But Chelvanayagam won in that election, I think in 1960.
That is how the communist movement failed in Jaffna. While the
CP and LSSP were active and could win the local governments, but
at the parliament level they could not win because the Federal
Party was promoting socialist principles. You found two in one,
Socialism plus Tamil Nationalism in the Federal Party. So, the
Left couldn’t win.
AK: Did your new role in the
Federal party inhibit you in anyway in pushing caste issues for
example?
Ananthasangari: Caste was not an issue.
At the local government level even the high castes wanted Leftists,
because they knew they were honest and not corrupt. Because the
Leftists managed the administrations very honestly.
When the new constitution was brought
out in 1972, and Chelvanayagam put out a call for Tamil unity,
I voted against that constitution and joined the TULF. The TULF
was adapted after the new constitution.
AK: How has your role as a politician
and political work changed with the rise of Tamil militancy, the
ethnic conflict and militarization in general?
Ananthasangari: You know until
the TULF was formed, which was the height of Tamil nationalism,
there was no radicalism in the party. I can give you an example,
when the JVP cadres surrendered, and the JVP cadres were brought
to the North for rehabilitation, many in the Federal party objected
to it, saying don’t bring these trouble makers to our area. But
I defended them, and said, they were being brought back into society,
we should support them. They were there for two, three years.
After the TULF was formed first there was Thuraiappah’s murder
and then one by one it started. I should say this, when Thuraiappah
was killed, I was the one who insisted that we should attend the
funeral. Some others, thought otherwise, even though they had
no hand in the killing and perhaps unhappy about it. Periyavar
(Chelvanayagam) was very unhappy about it and he said, “my god,
I don’t know where this is going to end.” This was his first comment.
We never encouraged this kind of killing. If all of us had gone
and attended the funeral of Thuraiappah it might have been different.
That was the beginning.
We were meant to be a non-violent organization
based on Gandhian principles, that is what S.J.V Chelvanayagam
wanted. Eating and mixing with the minority Tamils, this is what
non-violent politics means. I used to go to Pooneherry which was
a highly caste conscious place and eat with the minority Tamils,
and then other followed. When a leader takes that first step,
others will follow. The minority Tamils had to stand outside the
temple and worship. In the teashops, there were rusted cups made
of tin, this Mooku perni, in which outcaste people used to drink.
I still remember that. Next stage was giving tea in bottles and
then it was glasses. Stage by stage it chagend, violence was not
used, but it was successful.
The Leftists could not win in Jaffna
because the Federal Party and TULF took up socialist policies.
And combined with Tamil nationalism, it was very strong, but it
also made people’s thinking narrow. Now I am well liked by the
Sinhalese, Muslims and my people because of my socialist base.
I am not feudal in my interactions with ordinary people.
AK: How did politics change with
the war and militancy?
Ananthasangari: As I always say
the biggest mistake we made in the last thirty years was to stay
out of parliament in the eighties. We virtually abdicated power
and allowed the militants to take it over. It was like a coup,
but we gave it up voluntarily. And the worst crime any statesman
could have done to any state was J.R. Jeyawardena. It was his
sixth amendment that kept us out of parliament. First of all,
he called for a referendum instead of having parliamentary elections
and then the sixth amendment stated, we all had to take an oath
saying we would not support separatism and so on. So for six years
we were out of parliament and that was the worst six years of
the Tamil people. Militancy grew, not one group, not two groups,
but four or five groups, they just mushroomed. And we are facing
a situation like this today. If that had not happened, if we had
been in parliament for those six years, it wouldn’t have come
to this extent.
AK: Most people will say that
the TULF encouraged Tamil militancy in its early stages. Would
you disagree with that?
Ananthasangari: Even before this
question was asked I gave you an answer. I told you what Mr. Chelvanayagam
said when Duraiappah was killed. You are asking me a question
like this even though I told you that I attended the funeral of
Duraiappah. He was one of our colleagues and he was killed… May
be some of our colleagues might have encouraged militancy but
not the whole party, but they are no more. Of the old guards myself,
Sampanthan, K. P. Ratnam who is out of politics, and Susaithasan.
All the rest are dead.
AK: What prompted you to take
a stand against sole representatives?
Ananthasangari: As far as I am
concerned, it is not a stand that I have taken. It is a fact.
You know people everywhere think, the LTTE wanted these four parties
to get together and form an alliance. As far as I am concerned,
at the request of some High Commissions, Ambassadors and local
people, they said, why don’t you get together as then you can
pressure the government on some important issues. So, we gave
thought to that and formed the TNA. One of the members wanted
to give the position of sole representation to the LTTE and most
of us refused. We signed the MOU on five issues. One, removal
of the embargo. Two, travel restrictions to be removed. Three,
call for ceasefire immediately, the LTTE had a unilateral ceasefire
for four months, but the government did not respond. Four, starting
negotiations with the LTTE. Fifth, Starting talks with third party
mediation. Only five issues. So, where does it say about sole
representatives? We handed the nomination list and then we prepared
the manifesto. Same five issues were listed there. People who
are against me for not agreeing on the sole representatives issue.
Let me put it this way. Tomorrow if the war were to start, who
will talk for the LTTE? All these people will have to go to the
Vanni and live there. The sole representative issue was a creation
by some of my colleagues to please the LTTE. They don’t realize
that it might be pleasing to the LTTE today, but it will be a
dreadful let down on the part of the TNA, they will realize it
some day.
AK: Given your experience of
working in multiple parties, would you say there is a need for
multiple parties in Tamil politics?
Ananthasangari: In Tamil politics
there were two main parties that were moving towards socialist
principles. The difference was more the leadership, not class.
The two leaders, Chelvanayagam and G.G. Ponnambalam could be both
classified as capitalists. The rank and file, however, were not
from aristocratic families, they were not rich. We must always
have two parties. There is a proverb in Tamil (Keerai Kaddaikkum
Ethirkaddai) that even for a spinach shop, there should be an
opposing shop.
AK: What are the prospects for
Tamil Democracy? How do you envision democracy in the North and
East in the future?
Ananthasangari: This is a difficult
question. There is no democracy in the North and East today, when
there is a democratic government in the center. There is no democracy
in Jaffna today. So, we must prepare for it. To bring the entire
country under a democratic set up or find a remedy for this. You
can’t talk freely and you can’t openly criticize anybody in the
North and East.
AK: Thank you, Mr. Ananthasangari
for your time and sharing your thoughts openly.
HOME
