Introduction
This month we had the 107th anniversary of the 1917 October Revolution (November 6–7 on the Gregorian calendar). It was a beacon of light for humanity pointing the way towards an era of liberation that would end the exploitation of “man by man”. Social-Democrats at the time believed that the political order of the Tsarist Empire and the peasant-based agricultural economy could not provide the economic base necessary for the revolution to quickly transition to a socialist phase. Lenin disagreed with that view.
Given the current dominance of capitalism, did Lenin underestimate, the opportunities available for the imperialist capitalist order to expand quantitatively and horizontally?
Notwithstanding this, we know that the Bolshevik Party led the Revolution, supported by the international worker’s movement. Lenin uncompromisingly continued the struggle against the reformist approach advocated by the social democratic parties in the Second International[ii]. In particular, Kerensky’s social democratic government in Russia had been in power since the February Revolution. For Lenin and his supporters, the October Revolution brought that government’s opportunistic reformist approach to an end.
Relevance of Experiences
The October Revolution created hysteria globally among the privileged social layers, particularly in the Western world. It also generated immeasurable optimism and expectations about the dream, about the possibility of creating an equitable society all over the world. A global march towards a society free of human exploitation had begun. A new world was waiting to be born.
Though the October Revolution did not fulfill the political expectations of its founders, it led to the reshaping of history. In the 74 years of the existence of the October Revolution, it managed to convert a “backward” country from a society where feudalism prevailed into an advanced industrialised nation. It defeated an advanced capitalist country led by Hitler and his fellow Nazis. However, over the decades the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) became a huge bureaucratic apparatus with the people being replaced by the party. The Soviets became defunct.
The Soviet Union
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) came into being in 1922. It was a multi-ethnic state that pledged a socialist future and protection of the identity of each nation and nationality that comprised it. Lenin genuinely despised chauvinism and denounced Tsarist Russia for holding Russians and non-Russians in a “prison of nations”. He pledged to unite the exploited masses of the old Tsarist Empire in a land that was “national in form, but socialist in content.” The economic and political systems were to follow a socialist developmental path where the culture and traditions of individual Soviet republics would be allowed to flourish.
Sadly, over time the USSR did not live up to these ideals, and the Party forced millions into a federation initially made up of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and the Transcaucasian republics of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia. Some of the republics such as the Baltic States had been incorporated by force, as part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939, rather than based on the right to self-determination. Under Lenin, the USSR initially saw national cultures flourishing with their national languages being recognised and practised. However, later on, in the thirties, Stalin deviated from this policy, centralized authority, and increasingly concentrated power in the hands of the apparatchik of the party in Moscow.
Path to Progress and Decline
The Soviet Union emerged with a pledge to free the masses but ended up creating a powerful, bureaucratic, and authoritarian state. It devastated and ruined the hopes and aspirations, not only of the Russian workers and peasants but also of working people all over the world. In that context, we need to learn from the legacy of the Russian Revolution. That has nothing to do with celebrating its genesis or mourning its disintegration. As the Sri Lankan and many other recent experiences indicate, people are awaiting the birth of a new world. The perennial political question still remains: Do the possibilities for creating an egalitarian, socially just, decent, and ecologically friendly society lie within the ideas, practices, and policies of the October Revolution?
The Difference
If we are to learn from revolutionary moments of history, we need to soberly analyse and study the October Revolution as well as other subsequent revolutions to dispassionately assess their positive and negative experiences to renew the dreams of building a better world and thus a better future.
The February Revolution in the same year was born as an outcome of the spontaneous agitations and protests by hundreds of thousands of workers and soldiers. It was an impromptu protest movement and non-partisan. The October Revolution was different. It was guided by a well-coordinated strategy designed by the Russian Bolshevik Party (at the time a minority) under the leadership of Lenin. The objective was to bypass the bourgeois democratic stage towards the socialist stage of social development and to acquire power from the provisional government. In that sense, the October Revolution was neither a coup nor a popular uprising that received mass support like the February Revolution did.
The battle cry of the October Revolution was ‘peace, land, and bread’. This slogan expressed the primary demands of the Russian people at the time. It reflected the desire to end the war (peace), the burning need for land among peasants (land), and the necessity to satisfy the hungry population in cities (bread). It was not until the autumn of 1917 that this slogan started resonating deeply with the suffering masses and galvanized their support. Still, in the first free election held in November 1917, the majority of people did not accept Lenin’s ideas. The Bolsheviks received only a quarter of the vote, while the Social Revolutionaries received over sixty percent.
Bureaucracy
Lenin firmly believed that only the Bolsheviks represented the genuine interests of workers. He was fully committed to establishing socialism in Russia. Post-November, Lenin banned several opposition newspapers and unleashed a campaign of “Red Terror” against “all class enemies.” Thus, the Social Revolutionaries became their first target. Cheka, the first Soviet secret police force, spearheaded this terror campaign. Ultimately this gave room for an emerging full-fledged police state under Stalin. The original idea of establishing a new social order––based on workers’ control of means of production and the democratic will of the people––was buried under the concept of the “dictatorship of the proletariat.”
For example, a garrison of the Kronstadt sailors, who used to be the strongest supporters of the October Revolution, revolted against the Bolshevik regime and Lenin’s notion of “war communism.” The regime brutally used Red Army units in 1921 to violently repress the rebellion. The “vanguard party” and the “dictatorship of the proletariat” did not allow any form of dissent in the country. It happened under Lenin’s leadership. They wanted the ‘socialist political order’ to be based on one-party rule.
Not all Bolsheviks shared Lenin’s views on either “war communism” or the New Economic Policy. They saw it as a betrayal of the October Revolution. In October 1921, Lenin admitted that his policy of “war communism” was a total disaster. He accepted that they made a mistake by deciding to switch over directly from feudalist social order to communist production and distribution. In the 1920s under the guise of the New Economic Policy, Lenin had to let the economy partially return to the market system of production and distribution.
Stalin and the Degeneration
In 1928, Stalin imposed a “revolution from above” and implemented a policy of collectivization and dekulakization[iii]. In the process, he used state repression that led to mass arrests, deportations, and executions of peasants. The dream of a land of social justice, equality, and freedom faded. The governance system of the Soviet regime became a barbarous and murderous one, particularly, in the Stalinist era. Stalin was Lenin’s Commissar for Nationalities. Lenin clashed with Stalin’s push to integrate non-Russian republics as autonomous republics into the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. The leaders of republics were frightened of Russian interference.
Particularly, they were concerned about the people’s right to secede from the union, although it had been theoretically granted as a right through the basic law of the country. Yet, in reality, the right to secession had been removed. Lenin had sympathy with the concern of the leaders of the republics about Russian domination. Despite the alleged devolved nature of Soviet power, real power was in the hands of the Party.
Before the revolution, Bolsheviks under the leadership of Lenin and Stalin, pledged their commitment to the right to national self-determination. There have been very heavy and ongoing debates about the political line of the Bolshevik party on nationalism. In Marxism and the National Question of 1913 (https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03a.htm), Stalin argued that “A nation has the right freely to determine its own destiny. It has the right to arrange its life as it sees fit, without, of course, trampling on the rights of other nations. That is beyond dispute.” In Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism of 1916-17 (https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/pref02.htm), Lenin denounced the First World War and said, “The war [is] imperialist (that is, an annexationist, predatory war of plunder) on the part of both sides; it was a war for the division of the world, for the partition and repartition of colonies and spheres of influence [and] of finance capital.”
Initially, both Lenin and Stalin opposed the imposing and exerting control by external entities outside the national borders. However, after the formation of the Soviet Union via the Declaration of Union and Treaty of Union (https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1921-2/transcaucasia/transcaucasia-texts/formation-of-the-ussr/), there was no provision for implementing the Bolshevik position. In fact, the republics that joined Russia in forming the Soviet Union came under increasingly hegemonistic control of the Moscow-based party hierarchy and its bureaucracy. Even during the early 1920s, each nationality in each republic that used their language, practised their culture, and received their education prospered.
However, during the following decade, restrictions imposed on their national identities made their situation much worse. As time went by, Stalin centralised control over the republics, and made the Party’s interference in their domestic affairs central in exercising dictatorial control of the Soviet Union.
The turbulence of the previous five years continued into the more peaceful era after the Civil War, but the Bolshevik Party had been changed by this conflict. It was now more militarized, and force was often seen as a solution to many problems. The creation of the Soviet Union and the subsequent Stalinist centralization in the 1930s, ended the dreams of national self-determination for millions of people and ultimately helped to kill off the hopes and lives of many of the revolutionaries of 1917.
Relevance to Sri Lanka
We have contributed many articles in the past on how the demand for a separate state evolved from the demand for equality and inclusion in our country. All genuine policymakers will have to find answers to this question.
Immediately after the independence, the first move of the D S Senanayake regime was to disenfranchise the Malaiyaha (plantation) workers who supported the Left. All state institutions, parliament, judiciary, security apparatus, public education, and the bureaucracy were solely focused on empowering the Sinhala population. The regimes that followed disregarded the rights of the Tamil community leading to a series of repressive measures, riots, pogroms, and unethical constitutional amendments. This process excluded them from the decision-making processes and further away from power centers, ultimately leading to the emergence of the LTTE and the long civil war.
The standpoint of the JVP
Recently, the JVP made a statement to the effect that their stance on the Indo-Lanka Accord taken 35 years ago will not change. The position of the JVP seems to be that despite the many changes that have taken place globally over three and a half decades, they “will not allow ourselves as a nation to be pigeonholed to fit the needs or appease power struggles among other nations.” Though the JVP should rightfully safeguard Sri Lanka’s sovereignty and national security, it appears to be tied to their myopic belief that the sole reason behind the struggle for a separate Tamil state was the foreign meddling in the internal affairs of the country, particularly by the US and India.
One should rethink this belief as during the entire war and particularly at the crucial stages of the war in the late 2000s, “foreign aid/meddling” by Israel, the US-led Western camp, the Chinese and Russian governments, and their allies, extended military and financial assistance to the Sri Lankan state and its security machinery. The JVP ardently supported the government’s war using security forces and paramilitaries from the mid-eighties to its end in May 2009. The annihilation and destruction caused by the armed conflict are well-known and do not need a discussion.
The leader of the JVP during the war–– comrade Somawansa Amerasinghe, a strong nationalist–– stated in public that they were willing to send 50,000 JVPers to the war front and urged the state and its security forces to use “heavy armaments” to destroy Tamil militants.
Comrade Rohana and His Epic Treatise
Comrade Rohana in his book “What is the Solution to the Tamil Eelam Struggle?” published in 1986, theorized that the US was involved in breaking up India and Sri Lanka. According to him the separation of Pakistan from India, and Bangladesh from Pakistan, have been advantageous to the US. He alleged that the aim of the US involvement with Sikhs in the Punjab and the Gurkhas in Nagaland was to form American satellite states. He also alleged that the DMK in Tamil Nadu was involved in this US conspiracy. The close links between the Tamil militant groups and the DMK in Tamil Nadu were well known to the Indian Government. The US was alleged to be wanting the separation of the country so that they could control both parts of Sri Lanka.
The factual position, however, is that the Indian Central Government continued to support Tamil separatism in Sri Lanka not to establish a separate Tamil Elam, but to restrain the pro-US regime in Sri Lanka led by then President J R Jayewardene. Despite the JVP’s anti-Indian rhetoric, they also looked to India as a potential partner to combat separatism, while vehemently opposing any move by the government to grant a certain degree of self-rule to the Tamils in the North and East. The position the JVP took towards India was more ambivalent. In his treatise, comrade Rohana argued that the alliance between US imperialism and the UNP regime was essentially anti-Indian and inspired by its hostility to the socialist policies pursued by Indira Gandhi’s government.
It was only in 1987 with the arrival of the Indian Peace Keeping Forces (IPKF) the JVP upped the patriotic card of uniting the country, but not with the intent of treating minority communities as equals or inclusively. It was a platform to unite all the chauvinist and extreme, rabid nationalist groups into one single force, the effects of which still profoundly prevail the Sinhala society. Under the JVP policy, there was no space for progressives of all communities to come together under the political banner of an equitable, inclusive Sri Lanka.
Compromising or Wavering
In 1984, the JVP accused the government of being unable to ensure the country’s sovereignty and unity as a result of its pro-American foreign policy, which was factually correct. However, the leader of the JVP during the war–– comrade Somawansa Amerasinghe, a strong nationalist–– stated in public that they were willing to send 50,000 JVPers to the war front and urged the state and its security forces to use “heavy armaments” to destroy Tamil militants. Until 1983, most of the leaders including Somawansa accepted that there are problematic issues Tamils face just because they are Tamils. But since 1983, the JVP flatly rejected that the Tamil people had any issues they were undergoing just because of being Tamils.
When Somawansa returned to Sri Lanka in 1994 after fourteen of the well-known JVP leaders were killed, many by extra-judicial means, the government had changed. To his credit, he was able to rebuild the JVP. Pre-1994, the anti-Indian slant of the JVP was not only against the states of India and Tamil Nadu but also against the Indian people. Since 1994, he had toned down his anti-Indian rhetoric saying he was able to save his life with the help of the Indian state. However, regarding the issues the Tamil community encountered, there was no change in policy. The current leadership has stated that India is Sri Lanka’s closest neighbour and bilateral relations need to be strengthened, though it has yet to clarify the relationship they wish to establish.
The JVP opposed all ceasefires and the continuation of peace negotiations with the LTTE, and also rejected the possibility of forming a joint mechanism called Post-Tsunami Operational Management Structure (P-TOMS) for post-tsunami aid distribution.
If Not Devolution, Then What?
The JVP Policy Declaration developed in 1972 onwards was its policy framework until July 1983. Article 2 under the “Structure of State” stated: The JVP policy declaration very clearly states that it is opposed to both the division of the country, as well as autocratic centralisation. It was followed by Article 3 which stated that “The defence and maintenance of the territorial integrity of the country will be based on true egalitarianism and autonomous rule by the various minorities.” The JVP was against federalism and any sort of devolution of power, which was a position that is thought to have followed the practices of the Soviet Union. Since 1983, the JVP opposed any governmental measures to compromise with Tamil militancy. Its propaganda only focussed on an international conspiracy to divide the country.
In 2004, the JVP became a partner of the United Peoples Freedom Alliance (UPFA) led by the Sri Lanka Freedom Pary. They were against the merger of the Northern and Eastern provinces, as outlined by the Indo-Lanka accord. The JVP filed three separate petitions with the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka. The Courts gave an order in January 2007 to demerge the two provinces. The Muslim community demanded a separate provincial council for the East after the de-merger of the two provinces. The JVP opposed all ceasefires and the continuation of peace negotiations with the LTTE, and also rejected the possibility of forming a joint mechanism called Post-Tsunami Operational Management Structure (P-TOMS) for post-tsunami aid distribution.
In 2005, the JVP endorsed Mahinda Rajapaksa and categorically opposed the continuation of the peace process. In 2006 the JVP openly advocated a military solution that ultimately led to the Mullaivaikkal genocide in 2009. Right through they opposed granting devolution or autonomy to the Tamil dominant provinces. In 2015, for the first time after 1983, the JVP stated that the grievances of the Tamil people should be redressed, but repeated that their solution would not be based on federalism or devolution.
The NPP landslide
During the recent General Elections, the NPP has received overwhelming support from voters across ethnic and religious lines, from north to south and east to west. The NPP in an electoral landslide won more seats in all the five electoral districts in the provinces of the North and the East and the Malaiyaha districts compared to the traditional Tamil political parties from the regions. The NPP victory can be interpreted in many ways. It can be seen as expressing a willingness for national unity; showing an interest in joining the political mainstream; and an expression of trust in comrade Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s leadership. Yet, this may or may not signal Sinhala and Tamil communities moving away from their nationalist points of view. The NPP will be able to consolidate its position as a national party based on multicultural and pluralistic values through what they are prepared to do during its reign.
The NPP needs to propose the form of constitution they would like to present for the consideration of the country’s electorate. All other political entities also need to do the same. That will open up the space to consider all options that are available for developing a people’s constitution in Sri Lanka. Regarding the National Question, the JVP and the NPP have to clarify their stand. In doing so, they can take a look at their past in a self-critical manner. The majority of Tamil people appear to be not in favour of establishing a separate state, and even if they supported the nationalist slogan, the non-achievability of that slogan in practice has made them rethink the alternatives.
According to some NPP leaders, the election results represent the non-majority communities rejecting communal politics. And the nationalist forces in the south did not play a major role during these elections in mobilising the Sinhala Buddhists for their cause. It is true certain Sinhala hardline nationalists have been defeated, but does it represent a defeat of Sinhala Buddhist nationalism?
Many voters, irrespective of their background, considered the best alternative they had at the recent Presidential and Parliamentary Elections to be the NPP. In a way, it is also a reflection of the indirect outcomes following the “Aragalaya” protest movement in 2022. The Tamil people in the North and East who long for a meaningful change rejected the disunity and inaction of their representatives to a great extent and opted for the NPP with hope and expectations.
The President in his policy statement at the commencement of the new Parliament said that he would never allow politics of racism and religious extremism to resurface. However, the reappearance of racism and religious extremism will entirely be dependent on finding meaningful solutions to the problems that racism created in the country during the last seventy odd years. This situation can only be politically overcome by formulating and implementing appropriate policy frameworks.
Conclusion
The national and language policies of the USSR went through several different phases. The initial policy in the field of national, linguistic, and cultural construction was to ensure the formation of nationalities with rich cultures and developed languages. During the initial post-revolutionary decades, the policy was aimed at satisfying the needs of the identity of all peoples. A powerful impetus was given to the flourishing and development of the creative potential of the peoples of the country.
The NPP, especially the JVP, has been safeguarding the political positions they had taken in opposing all attempts to find a political solution to the national question. The latest evidence is the position the NPP has taken over the 13th Amendment to the Constitution and the devolution of power.
Imposing majority language
However, the transition in the 1930s appeared to have imposed teaching the Russian language on the understanding that it was necessary as a means of interethnic communication. But later on, the omnipresence of the Russian language in all states of the USSR seems to have produced a negative backlash that the stable development of regional languages has been prevented. In a way, this has similar characteristics to what happened in Sri Lanka during the fifties, when Sinhala was imposed as the only official language of the country disregarding all other non-majority communities.
The other issue is about the October Revolution itself. Was the creation of a huge state like the Soviet Union an inevitable outcome of the February and October Revolutions? In 1917, once people freed themselves from the Tsarist Empire and acquired their autonomy, they commenced establishing their own new states free of Russian control. For example, Ukraine confirmed its independence and formed its parliament. Kyiv even moved away from Russian control while the February Revolution was unfolding. Ukrainians promoted their cultural freedom with their language being encouraged. The Provisional Government in Petrograd was more than reluctant to grant Ukraine its autonomy. What would have been the situation if the Soviet Union had not been created, and the people of each republic were allowed to democratically decide their future based on their right to national self-determination?
The NPP, especially the JVP, has been safeguarding the political positions they had taken in opposing all attempts to find a political solution to the national question. The latest evidence is the position the NPP has taken over the 13th Amendment to the Constitution and the devolution of power. Sinhala people have voted for the NPP in the hope that they will address the problems of the country in a holistic manner. Similarly, Tamil and Muslim people have voted for the NPP, trusting that they would address the specific issues they face simply because they are non-majority communities.
In this regard, Sri Lanka has a lot to learn from the experiences of the October Revolution and its aftermath. It can learn from such international experiences and not miss a historic and rare opportunity to unite all peoples of the country in a journey to prosperity grounded in equity and inclusivity. Will the solution to the national question be something imposed by the NPP in the future, or will it be an inclusive and consultative process with the active participation of the intellectual and civil society groups of all peoples of this country?
[i] I am completing this article after a long delay due to my deteriorating health and commitments I had to undertake recently. Another factor was the potential negating influence this would have had on the Parliamentary Elections in Sri Lanka. Nevertheless, I believe learning from the Great October Revolution is relevant and significant.
[ii] The Second International (aka the Socialist International) was formed on 14 July 1889 with delegations from twenty countries participating. It continued the work of the dissolved First International by excluding anarcho-syndicalist elements. The Second International was dissolved in 1916. Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin and many others initiated the Third International (Comintern) in 1919 and advocated for world communism led by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU).
[iii] Liquidation of the kulaks as a class. Kulaks were wealthy or prosperous peasants, who owned relatively large farms, cattle and horses, and who could employ hired labour and lease land.