Sama Samajism is very familiar to the Tamil speaking people. Everybody knows that we stand for working class politics which is necessarily revolutionary. Our party is neither a Sinhala party nor a Tamil party but a working class party. Still, there are a number of aspects of our history that should be explained in some detail with particular emphasis on the development of our attitude towards the national question. During 1964/75 our old leadership (N. M., Karalasingham, Vishvanathan, Colvin, and Leslie) dragged us through a Coalition with the Sri Lanka Freedom Party. There was a clear opposition within the party to this policy since ’64. In 1964 some of the opposition led by comrades Bala, Samarakkody etc. openly broke from the party and tried to develop as an independent group. This was a fatal mistake on their part and they rapidly disintegrated into a number of splinter groups and to this day remain as sects unable to make any impact on national politics. Actual opposition to the coalition politics was within the party and continued to develop throughout the period 1964/65. True, it was not very strong and evident at the beginning, but it has developed today into a real alternate leadership. This is all part of history; yet it is invaluable today in understanding the present politics of Sama Samajists. Now the Sama Samaja movement has a new leadership; revolutionary internationalist leadership that has developed through both theoretical and practical struggles of the recent past. What were these struggles? What did we stand for? Names such as Linus, Thiru and Vickramabahu may be familiar to you, but what politics are associated with them. These are the questions we are trying to answer in this pamphlet.
There was an opposition within the Lanka Sama Samaja party even in the early stages of its development; in the 1930’s and 1940’s. This was directed against the tendency towards populism and reformism associated at first with Philip and later with N. M. This developed into an open conflict when the oppositionists, named ’Bolsheviks’ at that time captured the party machinery and expelled both Philip and N. M. This revolutionary tendency was led by Colvin and Leslie. Though at that stage the Sama Samajists as a whole stood for the rights of the Tamil speaking people, only the Bolshevik wing stood firmly by its principles, particularly in respect of the citizenship rights of the estate workers. Thus they stood their ground when Communist Party leaders were conciliatory towards the U. N. P. Unfortunately this “Bolshevik” opposition abandoned its uncompromising stand on this and many other issues, after uniting with and accepting the leadership of Dr. N. M. Perera in 1950. Since then, until the break in ’64’, it existed as a formless opposition within the party, hardly recognized by any body outside of it. When the reformist wing blatantly raised its head in the early 1960’s, against this, the opposition could not carry out a firm and consistent struggle. Thus, the ’64 coalition decision was a victory for reformism without a real battle. Some of those who were in the opposition such as Edmund and Bala broke awry from the party and liquidated themselves in sectarian politics. Internal struggle for revolutionary principles fell on the shoulders of new elements. These new elements developed their Marxist orientation from the struggle for Marxism that took place in the International arena. After forming a nucleolus within the party they launched a struggle for Marxist politics against the opportunism of the leadership.
This is not the place to go into the details of the entire struggle of the Marxist tendency within the Lanka Sama Samaja Party. What is relevant here is their position concerning the struggle of the Tamil speaking people of Sri Lanka; how they stood for the rights of the Tamil speaking people and what concrete steps they took?
In this early period as an internal tendency we were mostly concentrated in the Kandy area. Naturally our first concrete intervention was in a struggle that developed in that location. In the year 1966 there was a strike at Galaha Estate where the owners and the managenant mobilized a section of the Sinhala villagers from the surrounding villages to pounce on the strikers. The leaders of the strike had to run away and hide in the jungle. For weeks workers did not get their rations. We were instrumental in mobilizing support of students and villagers for the strike and neutralizing the spread of communalism. Braving the threats of the communal thugs a leaflet in Sinhala and Tamil was distributed in the estate and the surrounding villages. Later, the CID, inquired as to the source of the leaflet which was printed on behalf of the Peradeniya LSSP youth league. At that time we were busy working in the estate area making use of the Lanka Estate Workers Union. This was the time when the LSSP and the CP leaderships had completely compromised themselves on the issue of the Minorities and had largely neglected the estate worker. The L. E. W. U. remained a force in the area due mainly to our efforts. However we have to admit that as a tendency our influence within the party at these early stages was not wide spread. We were not mature enough to put forward a complete alternate program to that offered by the leadership. Naturally on each issue we raised our objections. Towards 1970 the opposition was taking an organizational form. The Magazine ’Markswadaya’ (Marxism), started in 1970 by the Kandy District LSSP youth league committee, was a part of this development.
Our struggles within the LSSP lead to an open clash with the bureaucracy at the centre. After the formation of the Coalition Government the power of the party bureaucracy increased. The Kandy party branch was considered to be a trouble spot by the party centre. Most of our resolutions and protests were ignored and it was becoming increasingly clear that a democratic discussion within the party was being made impossible. If we were to remain within the party it was necessary to work as a clandestine tendency. This was the only possible way to take a Marxist program to the organized trade union movement. During the period 70/71 while keeping our roots firmly in the working class movement (and facing the threats of the opportunists) we fought against the false ideas of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramnna led by Rohana Wijeweera. Even at that time, the Peradeniya Campus was an arena for a battle of political ideas. The LSSP and CP leaders, instead of facing the challenge of the JYP in the domain of political theory and ideology, joined the state oppression. This was inevitable in the context of their opportunist political line. We completely opposed this and, on our own, had open discussions and debates with the JVP. We showed them that their political position about the estate workers and on minorities in general, was completely wrong. In particular, we firmly and resolutely opposed their idea of Indian expansionism. Our struggle opened the eyes of many who were under JVP influence.
Our complete analysis of the political line of the LSSP old leadership and the way forward as seen by us was circulated among the membership in 1972. It is the document named “Whither Ourselves.” This is what we said in this document about the national question.
“National and Economic Unification: The basis for development will be laid by organizing production and distribution properly. For this it is necessary to eradicate the traditional social boundaries, artificially brought to the surface. The main features of this problem are Caste, Race antagonisms etc. and the divergence between the cities and the villages. It is through the break down of these barriers that the resources in the country can be transformed into utilizable forms. Populism (i.e. the SLFP) has a dirty and foul history in the domain of breakdown of communal, caste and religious barriers. It is hardy necessary to speak about it...In order to carryout these tasks (i.e. national unification) populism is a hindrance and not a he1p. There can be no doubt today that these tasks can be carried out only by defeating populism and winning over the petty bourgeois under our leadership” (Page 18— “An important question within the party”.)
At the 1972 November party conference, we collaborated with the oppositional second resolution while putting forward our views in the form of a discussion document. In that we took the following position:
“Problem of national Tamil minority: A solution has not been achieved to the problem of national unification, which would have brought political unity to the country. Due to this, the Tamil petty bourgeoisie, Estate Workers, students and youth are steadily thrown under the bourgeois nationalist leadership. How, the neglected bourgeois-democratic tasks are brought to the surface is seen through the problems of the national minority. In the face of the present economic crisis, the emergence of fascist type ideologies is the compensation to be paid for our negligence”. “(viii) National minority problem should be solved such that no- nationality or language is victimized and all nations and languages are given equal treatment.” (Pages, 26/28—ibid).
It was a decisive conference. The second resolution was defeated when some of the signatories led by Dr. Osmond Jayarathne unceremoniously abandoned their position and succumbed to the pressures of the Old Leadership. Oswin Fernando, Edwin Kotalawala and Vasudeva are the only signatories who held their ground facing all the threats of the bureaucracy. This conference consolidated our struggle to build an alternate leadership. These Comrades of the Central Committee who had been taking an increasingly critical view of the party leadership throughout 70 /— 72 were a great asset to the opposition. It is to be noted that during the 71 rebellion Vasudeva was taken into custody and kept in Jail without any charges for one year and two months. Immediately after the ’72 conference; Vickramabahu, Sumanasiri, Siritunge (three of the leading elements of our tendency) were thrown out of the party undemocratically, for circulating the document “Whither ourselves”. From our side this expulsion had advantages too. For the first time we were able to come out with our ideas openly in public. Still, we were working mainly within the Lanka Sama Samaja Party as the opposition. We started publishing a monthly paper in Sinhala with an English Supplement. Though arrangements were made several times a Tamil paper could not be published simultaneously due to lack of resources, particularly inadequacy of comrades competent in Tamil. The English supplement was published mainly to approach the Radical Tamil intellectuals and advanced Tamil workers. Naturally the national question was a main item in it. The following excerpts would show the position we took and the campaigns we made.
"Workers must pose independent solutions!
There has been too much emphasis on notions of development, re-organization and hopes about what can be implemented of the anti-imperialist democratic program through and under populist leadership and parliament. The working class, the rural poor, and the minority groups were asked to carry heavy burdens for the reforms carried out under the joint program. For example, for the sake of land reform severe damage was done to estate labour "
Page 3 Vama Sama Samajaya English) Vol. 2—1
"Release All Political Prisoners!
Sudden arrest, search without normal legal proceedings and restrictions of democratic rights of political prisoners are becoming a part of day to day lift. So far most of those who were affected belong to the petty bourgeois elements and Tamil minority agitators....J.C.T.U.O. should immediately take up the slogan of ’Release all political prisoners’. It should not only protest on behalf of its own following but, those petty bourgeois and minority radicals who have expressed their disregard for bourgeois establishment".
Page—4—Vama Sama Samajaya (English) Vol. 2—4
Nemesis at K. K. S.!
"It is necessary to be quite clear about the real issues that provoked the swing at K. V. S. as important political lessons flow from it. They are, in order of importance,
(i) The Education Ministry’s fake scheme of University admissions.
(ii) The extreme discrimination against the employment of educated Tamil youth, in particular those with qualifications in the higher professions like Medicine, Accountancy and Engineering in the State and Corporation Sector,
(iii) The use of repressive organs of State; in particular the detention without trial for long periods, of Tamil youth leaders".
Page— 1 —Vama Sama Samajaya (English) Vol. 2—4
At this stage we mobilized all our resources to take the 28 demands movement of the trade unions (led by LSSP-CP) forward. It was our contention that the struggle of the Tamil speaking people should be linked with the workers struggle for the 28 Demands. Such a coordinated national struggle would have thrown the Coalition Government into a crisis and a national movement under the hegemony of the working class would have emerged, defeating chauvinistic elements decisively. Our campaign among the Tamil speaking people was based on this political thinking. In September 1973 we circulated an internal bulletin through the Kurunegala District committee which elaborated this line of thinking. In this document we showed very clearly the danger of party degeneration and particularly the communalist streak that was developing. Further, we showed that the problem of Tamil speaking people is definitely taking the form of a national question. Leadership reacted to this document by suspending the membership of the district secretary Karunaratne Jayasuriya and few others.
There were several seminars in Jaffna attended by us during the years 74/75. One of these is the seminar organized by the Social Study Circle of Jaffna. In this seminar Professor A. Thurairajah and Dr Krishnanathasivan spoke on Technological problems related to the agriculture in the Jaffna area. Dr. Vickramabahu, one of the leading elements of our tendency, spoke on the national question. Perhaps for the first time in the history of Sri Lanka the right of self-determination was explained in respect of the Tamils of this country. It was explained that Tamils as a nation has the inalienable right to self determination, that is in effect the right to secede. This fundamental right will be defended unconditionally. But separatism as a solution we do not agree with and do not advocate and we consider such a program detrimental to the interests of the workers both in the South and the North under the present circumstances. Unity can be worked out by a truly democratic constitution based on equality of both nations. However, even with their program of separatism, the Tamils should unite their struggle with the struggle of the workers. (i.e. 28-Demands movement). They must join the common struggle against the bourgeois oppression backed by imperialism. We will fight side by side with them against any violence or force used to suppress their right to secede or agitate for secession. The T. U. L. F. leadership did not agree with such a course of action as they are representatives of the exploiters, caste oppressors etc. In addition to all this the nature of the ’72 Republican constitution was explained in relation to the growth of the class struggle.
We continuously tried to point out to the radical Tamil youth of the Tamil national movement that they must struggle side by side with the workers. Though the workers movement was dragged (unsuccessfully) into communal politics, in general it stood against communalism. Even with the separatist slogan the Tamil national-democratic movement is faced with oily two alternatives. Either it should join the struggle of the workers, I. e. the movement of 28-Demands at that time, or it should be a pawn in the hands of imperialist conspirators. We had discussions with leaders such as V. Dharma lingam and through joint seminars put across our views to the radical elements of the Tamil democratic movement.
In the years ’73-75 the Left movement in the Tamil areas was in complete disarray. After the LSSP and the CP (Moscow) joined the SLFP in a coalition most of the Tamil militants joined the radical end of the Tamil democratic movement (later known as the TULF): A few of them found their way into the Maoist school which by that time had become a complete dead end. Apart from violently opposing the TULF they had no independent position on the national question. They of course maintained that a solution would come through socialism (Maoist Style!). It was ridiculous for them to maintain that the S. L. F. P. is a “progressive” national bourgeois movement while at the same time classifying T. U. L. F. as an entirely reactionary movement. To say the least, it was in a state of total confusion. Following all other sects they were incapable of recognizing a national democratic movement of an oppressed nation. We had several debates and discussions with members of these groups which were fruitful in convincing some of their rank and file members.
We were the first Left group who invited the T. U. L. F. leaders to come to South to explain their position. We completely rejected their bourgeois politics and did not advocate their program of separatism. Yet we were prepared to defend their right of expression, particularly in the Southern areas. This is one aspect of the defense of the right for self determination in concrete terms. We organized a seminar at Peradeniya on the national question where they were invited to participate. Mr. Kadiravelupillai and a few others participated from their side while our position was put forward mainly by comrades Phillupupillai, Vickramabahu and Vasudeva. This was perhaps the first instance where T. U.L. F. leaders addressed a public meeting in South, and went a long way for many there in understanding the right of self determination.
What is the right to self determination? How do Marxists defend this right even when they are agitating against secession? These were the key questions raised at that time and our answer was very clear. The following excerpts from Vama Sama Samajaya show our position in relation to these questions. It is necessary to wake it clear that we explained our position in our Sinhala paper consistently. Naturally, it is the Sinhala masses that should be made to understand the evils of oppression of the national minorities.
"Problems of the Tamils
Firstly the Sinhala and Tamil people can live together as one nation state only by mutual and voluntary agreement of the mass of the two people. The forcible retention of a minority within a state is a form of oppression that the revolutionary working class movement rejects. Without a sympathetic and understanding and approach towards a national minority their confidence can never be gained. Without recognizing their fundamental right to self-determination all talk of unity and brotherhood are empty words - what sense is there in attempting to persuade a minority to remain united if in the first instance we do not recognize their right to make the final decision one way or the other, Secondly, we do not advocate or advise Tamil masses to separate. (The fact 1. that the majority of the Tamil masses are probably against secession at the moment is beside the point, because this situation can change depending on the stupidity of the government). So while we recognize the right and freedom of the mass of the Tamil people to make the eventual decision we will also explain patiently and campaign indefatigably among the Tamil people to show that for social, economic and political reasons secession will be a- serious step backward on the historical road for both races "
Dr. Kumar David - Vama Sama Samajaya (Vol. 2-Il Page 4 this article is given in the appendix).
"The National Minority Question and the Working Class.
The Marxist position on this question has been most clearly enunciated by Lenin especially in the celebrated polemic against Rosa Luxemburg ’The right of nation; to self-determination". As Lenin pointed out, not to accept the right of self determination, amounts to giving support to the oppression of national minorities by the bourgeoisie of the majority nationality. Marxists are of course opposed to breaking up of national- entities. But they are even more opposed to the forcible suppression of the democratic rights of national minorities and their forced union with the majority nationality. The Leninist position was that of voluntary union which can became a reality in a federal socialist republic of different nationalities (communities).
This principled position was put into practice during and after the Bolshevik revolution. Indeed Lenin’s nationalities policy was instrumental in securing the support of the national minorities to the socialist revolution. After the revolution Finland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia under bourgeois Governments and under the influence of imperialism decided to separate and were allowed to do so by the soviet power. But in the Ukraine and in Georgia the workers overthrew the bourgeois power and with the support of the peasantry set up their own soviet power which decided t federate with the Russian Soviet power. Thus the basis was laid for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on foundation of mutual trust and cooperation. Of course with the betrayal of the revolution and Leninist principles under Stalin national, oppression - Great Russian Chauvinism, was reintroduced in the. Soviet Union — and that is precisely one of the many counter revolutionary features of Stalinism that the Trotskyite movement exposed
– but that is a different story"
Gurusinghe - Left Sama Samajaya Vol. 1-4 page 33
(English translations of both these articles are given in the appendix)
We always maintained, though we do not advocate separatism that we are prepared to fight together with the TUF (later TULF) against state oppression. We were prepared to fight concretely to defend their right to agitate for separatism. We were prepared for joint agitation, demonstrations and any other mass action against oppression. But the T. U. F. leaders were not agreeable, under the pretext of Gandism and non violence! Naturally they were more afraid of the masses behind them than of the oppressive state machinery.
It is necessary to point out at this stage that when we came out with the first issue of the English paper we were taken into custody by C. I. D. officers from the famous 4th floor. They were let loose by the Sirima-Felix leadership. Two A. S. P’s from the fourth floor led the whole operation. Vickramabahu, Sumanasiri, Kumar David, Siritunge and others were taken into custody. This was when N. M, Colvin and Leslie were still important members of the Cabinet. They reacted to this by immediately expelling from the party those who were taken into custody and who were still party members. It was very clear they would sacrifice anything to preserve the ’Unity of the Cabinet’. That means complete subjugation of one’s independence to Felix and the like.
During the period 1973/74 Estate Workers had to undergo severe hardships. In many places estate staff and estate workers and up country Tamils were thrown out in the process of take over of estates. Many workers were sleeping in the sheds at bus halts under most miserable conditions. Nawalapitiya and Gampola were the worst hit. This was a very difficult time for the Left movement in general. While defending the nationalization policy we took a firm stand in opposing these criminal acts of certain Sinhala petty bourgeois elements.
Some of the Tamil estate staff were desperate. We were the only political group which came out with the necessary political direction for the estate staff and workers. A resolution adopted by the Estate Staff Union, with our influence, condemned the criminal violence while defending
the nationalization. It said,
"Unfortunately lack of any foresighted policy in relation to land reform has often led to the very negation of the above mentioned aims. Firstly, anti—imperialism been converted by dull witted opportunists to communal slogan shouting. Liberation from imperialism is fundamentally a process of unifying our nation. Communalism stands in direct opposition to this and hence it is the very negation of anti—imperialism. It will drive wide sections of the minorities into the arm of reaction and make them the very tools of imperialism. So it will not solve anything. On the one hand, we have estate workers thrown out on the streets with their families and not so favoured frustrated village youth, and on the other hand, an inflationary estate sector heading towards bankruptcy
1. We demand that immediate arrangements be made to allocate a definite and adequate quota of flour to all estates (proportionate to the number of resident workers) and to distribute same among resident workers through a tentative estate co-operative system. (This kind of arrangement can be extended to all large work sites and workers’ residential areas). We insist the failure to do so will inevitably result in large scale under-nourishment, drop in production and aggravation of the crisis resulting in mass scale human destruction.
2. We declare our solidarity with the 28 Demands of the J. C. T. U. 0. Inclusive of the minimum wage demand and demand the implementation of same.
3. We demand the reinstatement of all Plantation workers who have been displaced as a result of acquisition of estates. We demand that adequate health and educational facilities be provided to plantation workers.
4. We demand the immediate finalization of the collective agreement with the Ceylon Estate Employers’ Federation with necessary revisions to meet present day conditions.
5. We demand that all estate workers irrespective of their nationality be given the right to vote and be elected to all local level committees (such as conciliation Boards, Cultivation Committees etc.) including the election of Local Bodies.
6. We demand that all repatriations under the Sirima/Shastri pact be on a voluntary basis only and the execution of the pact be completed within 5 years. We also demand that nationality of the so called third category of 175000 stateless persons be resolved immediately thus giving legal status to those so called stateless persons".
We tried to take similar resolutions to the other unions in the estate sector, especially to the Lanka Estate Workers’ Union controlled by the Lanka Sama Samaja Party. Also these positions were put forward in every seminar and discussion that we participated in during that time. Our influence in the estate sector today owes very much to the struggle we engaged in during those difficult days.
As mentioned above, the plight of some of the plantation labourers was much worse. In fact it was a time for a new Suriya mal campaign. At this stage we were instrumental in organizing “the Committee for the Defense of Human Rights of Estate Workers” This organization which included many independent socialists like Dr. Sinnathambi was in the campaign against criminal ejections, break up of unions and general terrorism. We were members of the coordinating secretariat set up in relation to the problem. This was initiated by Rev. Paul Caspursz and Rev. Tissa Balasuriya.
Another issue that came up during this time was the problem of standardization at university entrance. As a concession to the rural Sinhala middle classes, government took steps for district basis selection and went further for the media- wise standardization due the pressure of the Sinhala Upper Classes. It was presented as a short term solution. Actually, it was a means of covering up the complete inability of the ruling classes to solve the acute crisis in the field of higher education. What was necessary was large scale investment in all rural areas for secondary education and in the Universities, particularly for all science sections. Government was not prepared for that. Instead it was bent on overall reduction of expenditure in the field of education. We exposed this very clearly.
"The prospect of higher education and employment in the south were two of the most basic material premises that bound Jaffna society into the national economy. Rights and wrongs apart, this is a plain fact, and if these prospects are cut off th5 Tamil middle classes will cease to have a material incentive or motivation to think nationally. The logic of separation will now find the objective conditions that it needs to [be credence. Cash crop production for national market is still a long way off from serving as an adequate antidote; even if it is marginally developed purely economically with the present chaotic market forms, it has still not penetrated and been absorbed by the ideological superstructure of Jaffna Society.
The main villains are of course the now dying tribe of Sinhala Chauvinists whose unrepentant pressure seems to be felt at high offices in various ministries such as education and in State corporations."
Dr. Kumar David—Vama Sama Samajaya Vol. 2.—4 page 4
We contested the Colombo South by -election against JR on behalf of the Sama Samaja movement in July 1975. The old leadership, tied up with coalition politics did no dare to face the challenge of JR. In the election programe that we put forward these questions were given their due place:
"Minorities.
The justified suspicions that occupy the minds of the national minorities must be overcome in order to complete the task of national integration. The right of the Tamil people to function without hindrance in their own language must be guaranteed. In recent years the Tamils have suffered special discrimination in the field of education. We renounce communal or religious motivated reforms to national education.
The workers of recent Indian origin who contribute much to the national product are degraded to the level of third class citizens. Plantation workers who are prepared to embrace this country as their motherland should be granted citizenship"
By election program of Siritunge Jayasuriya—
In both these issues the old leadership completely submitted themselves to the pressure of Sinhala national petty-bourgeoisie. Our campaign on these issues brought the Vama tendency increasingly into collision course with the leadership and their epigones. It was particularly painful to them, when some of the members of the tendency (who were within the party) made use of the official organs of the party to highlight these two problems. Especially, ’The Nation’ a weekly paper published by the old leadership for the English educated was made use of effectively. This campaign was conducted by Dr. Kumar David who was at that time (72—74) one of the editors of ’The Nation’. One can understand the readiness with which he was expelled from the party when he was questioned by the C. I. D. (fourth floor) in connection with the paper “Vama Sama Samajaya”.
Throughout 1970/75, while putting forward the programs mentioned above we were campaigning for the old leadership to move against the bourgeois leadership of Sirima - Felix. We pressed them to take the 28-Demand movement forward and to approach the Tamil masses undermining the chauvinist leadership of the S. L. F. P. This campaign aggravated the conflict that was developing within the Cabinet. On the other hand it exposed the LSSP-CP old leadership, who maintained that they will be able to defeat the chauvinist right wing leadership of the SLFP within the coalition and move towards socialism.
By the end of 1975, crisis in the coalition reached a peak. Trade union movement mobilized under the 28-Demands was moving into open confrontation with the government in spite of the opportunism of its leadership. This was too much for Sirima and she decided to disorganize the growing pressure of the Trade Union movement. This was very clear from the way the LSSP leaders were thrown out of the government. These leaders did not prove anything new. Like many others before them they participated in a capitalist government and helped the bourgeois to contain the struggle of - workers, students, peasants and national minorities. After sacrificing every principle, they did not achieve anything except those so called radical measures. These measures, such as the Constitution of 1972, Land Reform etc., are nothing but surgeries required by an ailing bourgeois system. In practice all of them evolved as measures of counter revolution.
Once they were thrown out, the LSSP old leadership wanted to forge a new alliance with the so called left of the SLFP. They were particularly keen on forming a Front under Kobbekaduwa’s leadership. After leaving Marxist oriented politics for good, they had no alternative but to engage in this sort of ridiculous dreams. We were completely opposed to this and suggested that they should take steps to forge a united left front based on class struggle, as an alternative to
both the UNP and the SLFP. Such a Front would have been able to approach the Tamil militants as opposed to the bourgeois leaders of the T. U. L. F. First step towards the formation of such a Front was to force the CP to break away from the government. We proposed that they put forward a draft program for discussion. They of course refused. In our paper we put forward a draft program and the sections on national question and the constitution are as follows.
For part II: Sama Samajism and the Tamil Speaking People – Part II