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.