lines co-editor Ahilan Kadirgamar interviewed Sarath Fernando, Co-Secretary of the Movement for National Land and Agricultural Reform (MONLAR), in January 2004. Sarath Fernando and MONLAR have played a critical role since 1990 in creating awareness and mobilizing peoples' movements against economic injustice, particularly in the face of an onslaught of neo-liberal reforms. Their work over the past decades has led them to resist not only the neo-liberal policies of the Sri Lankan government but also of multilateral organizations such as the World Bank (WB) and IMF. They were instrumental in forming the Alliance for Protection of National Resources and Human Rights (ANRHR), a broad coalition to resist the escalating neo-liberal economic policies that are part of 'Regaining Sri Lanka,' the economic development program introduced two years ago. The interview is not only about Sarath Fernando's analysis of the political economy of Sri Lanka, but also delves into the history of the various political formations in the south such as the 'Old Left,' UNP, SLFP and JVP, and their impact on class politics and economic policy.

Part I of this interview was published in the February issue of lines.

Part II

AK: Can you speak about the current peace process and its links to the neo-liberal program. And what are your thoughts about how the peace process should be handled?

Sarath: Well, the agenda is very real. I don't want to go into this dispute between Chandrika and Ranil. I don't think there is any dispute; I think it's all a pretense. Anyway, the proper peace process took place with Ranil coming into power. That was at the beginning of 2002. There was a very clear agenda, when the UNP came to power with business backing. The international community, the WB and business all supported it, with a lot of campaigning. Anyway when the UNP came to power there was a very clear agenda, one was about peace and the other the economy. From that time they have been pushing the economic agenda much more than the peace agenda. On petty issues, they are now willing to wait in terms of peace. They came to disagreements with the LTTE even earlier. In my view they are not very serious. They are serious about peace only because their businesses require peace, and this peace was pushed through. I am all in favor of peace. But this agenda was pushed through not because war was bad, that it was killing people, but because the businesses wanted this.

The World Bank was very strong on this issue. The business community was very strong, so it was their agenda. Therefore they linked up the peace process with the economic reforms agenda. Why? There was no reason. For the international businesses, settlement of the war was necessary so their businesses could flourish. So, the whole thrust was to have access to the northern regions. Therefore, if you look at the timetable, they came to power in January, and by June they had these WB/IMF reforms. And it was very clear that Ranil had to expedite these reforms. And whatever support the international community lends to the peace process - and by the 'international community,' I mean the US, Japan and the European Union - they are pushing very hard to get the economic agenda done. Now, even if it's done for the wrong purpose, we will support peace; we don't want to see people killed and therefore we support peace. But we very clearly disagree with the economic agenda. Because the economic agenda, if you look at it from the perspective of peace, is not going to achieve peace in the country.

'Regaining Sri Lanka' is going to deny people all their rights. They are going to reduce the people to greater poverty. The new taxes, the VAT, it is all going to put an added burden on the people. It is going to increase the cost of electricity, water, postal services, everything. Therefore, if you look at the history of privatization, it has been opposed and criticized by the people. So, you are not making the people happy by pushing this agenda. It is done with some expectation that 'some day' there will be growth and it will 'trickle down' and reduce poverty. Where are the peace dividends to the people? What is going to happen to the north? If this economic agenda is linked to the peace settlement, are the people of the north going to benefit? Maybe there are expat Tamil businesses who will come and make money here, so some of them may benefit. But if you look at the overall policies, people are going to lose access to their land, lose access to their fisheries, and resources. The Tamil people were fighting for their right to decide on their land, their water, their natural resources, their economic plans. But now some big foreign businesses are going to decide that for them. This can be done only by depriving the people of their livelihoods.

We link our struggles to human rights because all this is going to cut down tremendously on human rights. It is going to cut down labor rights, the right to a livelihood, right to food security, right to their natural environment. All this is going to be done - in the complete absence of democratic decision-making. All this is undemocratic and violates rights. And this can be only done in Sri Lanka with massive repression. If you look at the construction of superhighways - four superhighways have been proposed - and in all cases there are huge movements of people fighting against this, as they say we don't need this. Our land is going to be destroyed, and houses too, and in addition we are going to be paying back a huge loan that is being taken, not for us but for huge businesses. The big businesses may come and use the money and take away the profits, or they may not come at all. Even if they come, they can go at any time. Do we need this? Is this our priority? People are being told that highways are being built to reduce traffic jams and increase transportation facilities - this is all nonsense, because these highways are not being built for ordinary people and ordinary commuters.

Our position on peace is, now there is a standstill, how do we make a breakthrough? We believe, what is needed is for the people in the south to unite with the people in the north. There is a reason to unite now, even stronger than earlier, because we are going to be deprived of everything. In fact, the Alliance (ANRHR) and MONLAR, we have had many discussions with civil society organizations in the North and East, and explained the economic proposals. And many of them have said, we disagree with the proposals, as we are going to be sold out. Maybe there is a rich category of people who will bring money from outside, and if land is going to be privatized, there would be a certain category of people who will benefit. But many of the small owners of land are going to lose their land. Same thing applies to water. Therefore, we believe if there is to be peace, there has to be common understanding, it has to be brought about with solidarity and collaboration built between the southern and northern people. And we have added reasons to unite. And this is where we disagree with some other peace organizations, because they don't talk about these issues.

AK: What are your thoughts on devolution and federalism? And what are the thoughts of others who are with MONLAR and the ANRHR?

Sarath: From the very beginning MONLAR has been a strong supporter of devolution. Why? Because we, in our own experience, know that it is the right of people to decide on their livelihood, on their resources, on their land, on their water. These are people's rights. Now if we say, the people in the south, the farmers in south should have the right, then the people in the north should have the same rights. For that, devolution is a necessity. It is they who have the right, it is they who should decide. We don't agree at all with this idea that the whole of Sri Lanka belongs to the Sinhalese. It's all utter nonsense. It has never been so. We don't believe that by allowing the northern and eastern people to decide on their future it obstructs the people of the south in anyway. Ordinary people in the south are not going to lose anything. It will be the big businesses that will have some problems. What are we going to gain by saying 'Jaffna belongs to me'? This is nonsense!

In fact, this is not only in the north, it is also in the plantations. People in the plantations should have started a war long ago! We are very conscious about this. In fact in the ANRHR there are a number of organizations from the plantations. And we will fully support their struggles. The Indian plantation workers were brought to Sri Lanka as slaves. Why? Because the plantation economy required this kind of slave labor. We say in1948 Sri Lanka got independence - but not the plantation workers. Even after independence the plantation workers were kept as slaves. And therefore they were not citizens. Even if now we say they are citizens, they are not citizens really. As proper citizens they must have the opportunities enjoyed by others. They must have proper employment, health facilities, their own land, education, and so on. But nothing is given. Therefore it is urgent that they be made proper citizens. I would say they should be recognized as dignified citizens, for their contribution towards the rest of the country. They should have special privileges. However, with the privatization of plantations, there is increasing unemployment. This issue has to be remedied. And it can be remedied. How? We say, these people have a right to their land. Many of the plantations are becoming less and less productive. It is time we convert a major portion of the area of the plantation lands into other uses of sustainable agricultures in a conservationist manner - also, because conservation is necessary for the survival of the rest of the country. The 150 years of erosion has not only destroyed the plantations but also the rest of the country.

Coming back to the land issue, one of the big problems in relation to land use in Sri Lanka is that, the way we use land we have completed destroyed the regenerative capacity of natural resources. We first cleared the forests and created the erosion which has made land less and less fertile. Then we started the chemical farming, which has destroyed the regenerative potential of the soil. Those policies have to be reversed. And in moving towards reviving the regenerative capacity, plantations can play a major role, if we utilize the land in the right way. Therefore, its now time for the plantations people to take control. They should be given control, because they should control their resources, and they are capable of doing that.

AK: Could you speak about how we should look at the responsibility for this repressive economic agenda? What is the role of international capital, and what is the role of local elites and local capitalists?

Sarath: Why do the local elites and the government carry out these policies? If you look at the changes from 1977 to now, the policy has been one of depending on the private sector to lead the economy. They say the private sector is the engine of development. So, in fact, the private sector has now asked even the ministries to ask the private sector first before making all decisions. If you look at the last many years, while the country has not become richer, indebtedness has increased, poverty has increased, social unrest has increased, yet the rich themselves have tremendously benefited. If you look at the situation now, the kind of rich people that we have now are far, far richer than what they were and even what they could have imagined to be. And there is also an upper-middle class that has also benefited. So, how do we confront this? That is why we need a broad movement. How are we going to achieve this? The strategy that MONLAR and the ANRHR would like to adopt is as follows. Firstly, we make critical analyses of these policies, and then campaign, educate, and resist. Now, resistance is important, to prevent the destruction. Secondly, we need to develop our alternatives and make sure these alternatives are viable. If sufficient people can develop these alternatives and push for these alternatives as policies, there is the possibility of doing something much better. So, for that we need enough strength locally and internationally.

AK: Which and what sort of organizations are in the ANRHR?

Sarath: The Alliance comprises major trade unions. Almost all the major trade unions, in the banks, insurance, private sector, health, railways, postal sector, etc. - because they had to come together - it was not our creation. They had to fight for their cause, therefore there is a need to come together. Farmers are not yet fully organized in Sri Lanka, but there are farmer organizations like MONLAR. There are a large number of NGOs working with farmers. Among the fish workers, there are networks of fish workers, and about 200 organizations have come together. We work concretely with an organization called National Fisheries Solidarity that has their groups from Puttalam to Matara. We have recently made links with plantation workers organizations. There are 50-odd plantation workers organizations who have come together, and call themselves, the Plantation Workers Social Forum. They are in agreement with the ANRHR policies; they supported our campaign against water privatization. But we also want them to work on their own issues. They will come out soon with a campaign on plantations policy. There is a also network of women's organizations. About 200 women's organizations have come together. There are environment organizations, some clergy, and some human rights organizations as well. We have a problem with organizations like the Movement for the Defense of Democratic Rights (MDDR). Many of them have been concentrating on the peace issue, and some of them have begun to think that in order to achieve peace and a settlement to the war, you have to collaborate with the powers. That is where we don't agree. We have a strong dialogue with them, and we say human rights and democratic rights have to include all these rights. It is not only your harassment by the police and such rights, but also your rights to food, water, access to employment: social, economic and cultural rights. Anyhow, ours is a broad network.

AK: In terms of resistance, do you see a role for political parties? At a recent meeting of Left groups on water privatization, they mentioned that the ANRHR does not accept political parties. Is this true, and why?

Sarath: Not officially. In building alliances, certain organizations would not like to be linked to political parties. Also, there is skepticism about the processes or approaches adopted by political parties, which I can address briefly. In the experience of people's struggles over the last 30 or 40 years in Sri Lanka, and particularly after 1977, the possibility of influencing government policies by supporting a friendly government have become minimal. Whatever struggles people launch, are increasingly used by political parties to come to power. Many of these parties support such struggles, but once in power they completely forget about such struggles. From 1977 we have had a government that was very repressive and it remained in power for 17 years, despite the fact that people were opposed to their policies, including the suppression from 1987 to 1990 when 60,000 young people were killed. Therefore, the long struggles of many people's organizations and trade unions and farmer movements, and all those who campaigned for the protection of people, led to the opposition gaining strength. Not that these people were supporting any political party. But the political system is such that the prominently seen opposition gains strength, whenever people are in struggle.

Such mobilization was used by Chandrika Kumaratunga when she came to power. In fact, that was accepted by her, that it wasn't their own work but the people's struggles that helped them come to power. When they were contesting elections, they were completely opposed to privatization. They were totally opposed to World Bank policies. She was critical of the agricultural policy then, saying it was a killer agricultural policy. So, most of the issues that were brought up by the people were used by them to come to power. But once they gained power, these immediately changed. Immediately!

I can go into details how it happened. Prior to the elections, farmers were committing suicide on a large scale. That was a result of the agricultural policies. There was a time when, because of World Bank pressures and also because the government agreed with them, they removed all the measures that had existed earlier to sustain small farmers. For example, there were some interventions by the state in marketing, for agriculture and paddy farming. At that time they bought the entire stock of paddy at a guaranteed price. We have had these guaranteed price schemes from the 1970s. When they dissolved or dismantled these schemes, largely because of World Bank pressure, then came a situation where the farmer had to sell his paddy at 6 rupees per kilo, while the cost of production was 11 rupees. The farmers were very heavily indebted. Earlier there was a policy of agricultural credit, since we had a very large population of small farmers. We had a very liberal system of agricultural credit. The Central Bank's system, where only 25% of the loans granted to farmers had to be recovered, while 75% was refinanced with earnings from other sources. That scheme was withdrawn and suddenly there was a time when banks requested the farmers to pay back their loans, even though many farmers had borrowed money with the understanding that the government would take care of 75% of their debt. But suddenly in 1992 or 1993, the banks started to call in their loans, sometimes going back to the 1950s. There is no way the farmers could pay it back, when their income was negative. So, some people went to prison.

Then came this particular season in 1994, which coincided with the Sinhala/Tamil New Year, when farmers had severe problems in paying back their loans. Because of pressure from the banks, farmers started committing suicide. Even in Polonaruwa - the largest agricultural district well irrigated by the Mahaweli, usually getting good yields - still in this particular district, 24 farmers committed suicide within a matter of 3 months, because they couldn't pay back their loans. We initiated a big campaign against farmer suicides. So, we started a petition campaign, calling it "The People's Memorandum." We analyzed the impact of economic policies and collected 150,000 signatures islandwide.

Chandrika Kumaratunga's party was active in this campaign; she came to power as the campaign was completed, and we submitted the petition to her. She invited the movement for a detailed discussion about agricultural policies. We made our presentation, consisting of the 29 positions for alternative agricultural policies. We had a good discussion, and she formulated an advisory council to formulate a new policy framework for agriculture. She said she agreed with 95% of our proposals - that was in February 1995. But then around August 1995, the World Bank made its alternative policy recommendations called the Non-Plantation Sector Policy Alternatives. It was totally against the policy recommendations that we made. It said paddy farming was a low-value crop and had no future. As long as water is free it will continue; therefore people have to be discouraged from farming, and one of the recommendations was to stop giving people free irrigation. That was the first time the World Bank very clearly stated that water should be privatized and marketed. And then they also encouraged land policies that would lead to land alienation.

With this experience, the ANRHR is very conscious that whatever we do now, would be utilized by one political party or the other, particularly the opposition, but when they come to power they will do the opposite of what they promised. Therefore, we do not want to build confidence based on the political parties. What the ANRHR wants is to build people's confidence in their own strength of organized pressure. That is why we are hesitant about inviting political parties directly. But this does not mean that we keep out the political forces. We will encourage political parties to take positions in support of people's struggles. But, we don't want the ANRHR to be dependent on political parties.

AK: What has been the role of the mainstream Colombo NGOs? They have been involved in the peace process, what is your impression about their work?

Sarath: There is a fairly clear line of demarcation, if you speak of the prominent NGOs. Let's take the case of the CPA, now they call themselves the Center for Policy Alternatives. They are actively involved in the peace process; we are happy about that. They are also involved in looking at democratic processes such as election monitoring, which is also good. But when it comes to economic policies, the CPA clearly takes a position in favor of the present economic policies. I have not had direct discussions very recently. So, by looking at their trends, I can speak. I have been in debates with Mr. Pakiasothy Saravanamuttu in the mainstream media and we have disagreed completely on some of these issues. We are not happy with the role of the CPA, because they try to represent 'Civil Society.' They would like to play a big role in representing Civil Society. But as far as these economic policies are concerned, they have either been very quiet or they have been indirectly supportive of the government. So, if they talk honestly, they are in favor of market policies, but they may not state it publicly, because it's very hard for them to defend such a stance.

Now take another big NGO, like Sarvodya - if they are sincere about their own philosophy they would be one of the strongest critics of the current economic policies, because they are talking about a completely different approach to life, to society, and to justice. But for political reasons or advantages, they are completely quiet about this. What they said, when we approached them about the World Bank policies of June 2002, was: 'now is a time for peace, we don't want to disrupt the process that is going on.' This is the same position taken by a particular group of NGOs, and I would put CPA in that category.

AK: On international solidarity. What do you expect out of the anti-globalization initiatives from Seattle to Cancun? What role does such solidarity play in MONLAR's work? There is also a younger generation of expatriate Sri Lankans, what role can they play?

Sarath: From the time we started as MONLAR in the early 1990s, we started looking at economic policies. We started looking at that to understand the problems of the farmers and rural people. But we cannot understand such economic questions without looking at the overall global context. Therefore, in trying to understand and analyze our situation, we always brought in the overall analysis of the economy. For that we needed an analysis of the global context. What is the World Bank's global program? What is happening with Structural Adjustment Policies? Looking at all that was absolutely necessary. Perhaps because of our global perspective, we made an effort to link up with international organizations that were thinking along these lines. Fortunately, being an NGO linked with organizations outside, we have access to knowledge about what was going on globally. Of course, with our own analysis and ideology, we were able to identify international organizations, or trends or movements, with whom we should identify. And from the early stages we started establishing such links. Because of the type of work we do and our analysis, many international organizations have invited us to their conferences and meetings.

Before MONLAR started, I was working with the farmer's movement and the Social Economic Development Center of the Catholic Church - that was in the late 1970s. When the first free trade zones were started in Sri Lanka, the Asian Partnership for Human Development, an international grouping of Catholic NGOs, initiated a research project on Structural Adjustment policies, on the impact of export-oriented industrialization and free trade zones. This study included Sri Lanka as one of five case studies. That was one way in which I became aware of the global trends towards exported-oriented industrialization and the liberalization of markets, etc. Even at that time, our international links helped us to make our analysis much better. It was from that time that we took on a critical perspective towards economic policies. At the moment, we have some strong links with global organizations such as Focus on Global South - an organization started by Walden Bellow. They consider us to be a close partner. There is also a farmer's movement in Latin America called Via Campesino, it's a worldwide farmer's movement. They invited us for their first meeting in Latin America, but we couldn't go. We went for their second meeting in Geneva. Prior to Seattle, they formed The Peoples' Global Action Against Free Trade, WTO and GATT. We have been a partner with them.

Then came the Jubilee campaign for debt relief, for which we collected 300,000 signatures in Sri Lanka. Of course, we don't agree fully with the Jubilee 2000 position. It was originally started by Desmond Tutu and others, wanting a complete abolition of the debt. And they said, Third World countries are not in debt; in fact, if you do a proper calculation of the transfers, the debt should be the other way around. The net transfer has been from the South to the North. They said the debts of the Third World countries have been repaid eight-fold. So, therefore our position is we are not indebted. There is no reason to ask for a debt pardon. Jubilee 2000 is based mainly in the European countries, while Jubilee South is more in the Third World countries. We take a position more in line with the Jubilee South. But of course we participate in their work. These international links provide us with information, knowledge and analysis about the global situation. One of our roles in Sri Lanka is to convert that understanding to our local context. Therefore MONLAR is known in Sri Lanka for our analysis and campaigns about the policies of the World Bank and IMF. I would say in relation to Structural Adjustment Policies (SAPs), the case of Sri Lanka is an important case, because of the severity of the impact. Sri Lanka is a powerful case of the devastating impact of SAPs.

The formation of expatriate Sri Lankan groups, we see this as a very important step. I believe that Sri Lankan expatriates can play a large role and strengthen our struggle here through their support. In Toronto, for example, I know there are Sri Lankan groups that are engaged in these global issues, and I think that is positive.

AK: Thank you for your time and your insights. It's been a real pleasure talking to you.

Home