Sri Lanka

HC Deb 25 July 1983 vol 46 cc977-92

6.2 am

Mr. Dave Nellist (Coventry, South-East)

Since submitting this subject for the ballot on 20 July, just a few days ago, the position in Sri Lanka has worsened dramatically for the workers and peasants there. In the early edition of The Times today appears a report from Reuter's correspondent in Colombo which begins: The Sri Lankan Government imposed a 15-hour curfew on Colombo and several other parts of the country yesterday … Witnesses said shops and houses belonging to minority Tamils were the targets of attacks. A pall of black smoke hung over Colombo as several shops went up in flames. According to the UPI correspondent — who, with Reuter's correspondent, seems to be the only source of news, and that heavily censored, coming out of Colombo —black clouds of smoke could be seen miles from the centre of the city.

Over the weekend we heard of the killing of 13 soldiers outside Jaffna. Owing to censorhsip, it is not clear what happened, but reports reaching London speak of between 15 and 50 people being killed by troops who got out of control. Given the security forces' previous record, vandalism, and the recent army mutiny, the reports must be considered carefully.

Unconfirmed reports that I have received today gave details of events in Jaffna in recent days. On 21 and 22 July, army personnel kidnapped three Tamil girls, whose whereabouts are not known. An unconfirmed report alleges rape and says that one of the girls has committed suicide. On 23 July bombs were thrown into an army truck and 13 soldiers were killed. On 23 and 24 July the army went on a rampage in Jaffna and shot people at random. Seventeen are said to have been shot, including six schoolchildren and a man aged 83. In all, there are reports of at least 30 deaths. On 24 July that army section was returned to barracks.

Furthermore, it is reported that the Government have advised the Sinhalese to leave the Tamil areas. If that is true, it is a measure designed not to lower tension, but an invitation to the Sinhalese racists to begin attacks on the 50 per cent. of Tamils who live in the southern part of Sri Lanka in the Sinhalese areas.

The curfew that has been imposed in the capital of Colombo from 2 pm to 5 am is a belated gesture by the Government after their supporters had began racist attacks on the Tamils.

Even with that as a background, I wish to make it clear from the outset that, as a Marxist, I can give no support to individual acts of terrorism. That is not the way to prevent repression and restore the democratic rights of working people. Despite the terrible oppression and attacks within Sri Lankan society, only the unity of the mass of the population and the struggle for Socialist policies offer a way forward.

Over the weekend and during the latter part of last week, a series of reports indicated a sharp decline in democracy in Sri Lanka. On 21 July The Guardian reported; Colombo (censored). The Government, using emergency powers, yesterday imposed press censorship on news of guerrilla activities. News of matters prejudical to national security, preservation of public order, the maintenance of essential supplies, incitement to civil commotion, and operations of the police and armed services will also be censored. On the 22 July, the Sri Lanka high commissioner in New Delhi was called to the Indian Foreign Ministry. The report continues: He was told that India was unhappy about Colombo's recent emergency regulation which permitted the disposal of bodies without inquests following action by security forces. The report of 23 July tells us: The Sri Lankan President, Junius Jayewardene, invoking emergency powers, yesterday removed the heads and senior administrative officers of the country's universities in an attempt to crack down on student unrest. In at least one university the entire Tamil student population has now been expelled. All this has happened since the original reason for a request for this debate. The request was prompted by reports in the Daily Telegraph about official links between Sri Lanka and the British police. On 12 July, Ian Ward in Colombo reported: The President indicated he was looking to Britain for expertise on, among other things, establishing an effective intellingence network against local terrorists. He saw the British problems in Belfast as somewhat parallel to the ones he was facing. Pointing out that his Government had been in touch with Whitehall for some time on this subject, the Sri Lankan leader added 'They are our old friends. We trust them'. That was confirmed by The Economist on Saturday when an article appeared that stated: President Junius Jayewardene of Sri Lanka told your correspondent on July 17th that he has asked Britain for `expertise and assistance' to deal with the growing violence by Tamils … The request to the former colonial power, even though Britain is a place with which western minded Mr. Jayawardene is on the friendliest terms … This week, whilst awaiting a message from Britain, he called a conference of the parliamentary parties (which was boycotted by the opposition) to discuss security, and banned Sri Lankan newspapers from publishing anything more about Tamil violence. When asked about this matter in a written question on 18 July, the Minister responded only by talking about Government training courses. The reply is as printed in Hansard. This morning, he has an opportunity to expand and come clean about the contact between Sri Lanka and the British Government.

There has been a rapid worsening of the situation in Sri Lanka in the past few weeks. Moreover, there has been an increase in state repression and a worsening of communal violence between the Sinhalese and Tamil peoples. At the moment, the predominantly Tamil north of the island is virtually cut off and the Government have declared that no fuel will be sent there until their authority has been fully restored.

Some people might ask what concern this is of the British House of Commons. I shall demonstrate that British Governments past and present have a responsibility for the events in that unhappy island. Despite the fact that, in the past year, two British journalists have been harassed in Sri Lanka, events in the island — a member of the Commonwealth — have not been widely reported in Britain until recently. The Government are prepared to devote much comment to the repression of the Polish Stalinist totalitarian regime in an attempt to discredit the ideas of Marxism while ignoring or playing down the movement towards dictatorship in one of British imperialism's allies.

I have raised this subject for three reasons: first, British imperialism's historic responsibility for racism in Sri Lanka; secondly, both British and American imperialism are supporting the United National party Government to secure Sri Lanka as a strategic base in the Indian ocean; and thirdly, the labour movement in Britain has a responsibility to support the struggles of workers in all countries against capitalism in the West and Stalinism in the East.

Historically, one of British imperia ism's main tactics to maintain control over the colonies was to divide the rule. Tory and Liberal Governments alike sponsored divisions in the colonies to avert the development of anti-imperialist movements. That often tool: the form of using a minority racial or religious group to staff the security forces and the colonial administration and to act as small traders. That tactic was used in Ireland, Cyprus, east Africa and throughout the Indian empire including Sri Lanka.

British imperialism consolidated its control in Sri Lanka in 1825 by the defeat of the kingdom of Kandy. The people of Sri Lanka did not ask to join the empire. They had no choice. Military force decided the issue. Having established its rule by force of arms, British imperialism set about exploiting the island. Plantations were soon established and, from the 1840s, Tamils from south India were imported as cheap labour. The imperial rulers relied on Tamils, who had previously settled in the islands, for administration. That developed communal tensions between the Buddhist Sinhalese and the Hindu Tamils, which representatives of the developing Sinhalese bourgeoisie later deepened and exploited.

I should like to deal with the conditions of the Tamil plantation workers today. The bulk of the Tamil minority in Sri Lanka have been deprived of their citizenship and voting rights by one means or other since independence.

Mr. Michael Morris (Northampton, South)

Will the hon.. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Nellist

No. The debate lasts for one and a half hours, so there is plenty of time for everyone to speak.

Tamil workers were brought in by the British to work on the tea estates. Of those 1,200,000 Indian Tamils, 975,000 were officially declared stateless in 1964. Since then, agreement with India has meant that 600,000 were to be repatriated to India over 15 years while the rest were to remain in Sri Lanka as full citizens. The result has been anomalies, such as those in one district where there are 275,000 Tamils of whom only 22,000 are entitled to vote.

There are well over 1 million of the exploited, imported cheap labour Tamils who worked on the plantations and who New Society says might be described as water buffalo or wild elephants. They are Hindus whose ancestors were taken to Sri Lanka from south India as indentured labour for the British plantations from 1839, 80 per cent. of whom are harijans—"untouchables"— as distinct from the 2 million indigenous and in general caste—Hindu Ceylon Tamils. They were not only outcasts, but in one drastic blow they were also made aliens when, in 1948, the country became independent under Sinhalese-Buddhist majority rule. The citizenship Acts of 1948 and 1949 left the plantation Tamils stateless. The 1949 Act took away their franchise. In 1964 and 1974 pacts with India, not registered with the United Nations and without international judicial status, provided for the repatriation or deportation of 600,000 of them. The rest were to become citizens of Sri Lanka.

The life of a plantation worker in today's Sri Lanka is described in the article through one family. It can only "get through" until the twenty-second of each month with a meagre diet of rotis, coconut scrapings, rice and dal. The worker may have eggs once a week, and meat perhaps once a month. After the twenty-second, if he is lucky, he and his wife, who earned a little over £5 for 26 days' labour, and the two children just manage to survive.

At the end of the month the situation is bad. As rations dwindle to zero, with only cups of tea for an empty stomach and nothing of value for the pawn shop, many of the workers, especially the women, starve. It is the women's life of work on the plantations that is the cruellest. They work from the time that they wake until the time that they go to sleep. They go thirsty and make the sacrifices. They are often bullied and beaten into the bargain. Their deficiency diseases and physical sufferings are therefore the most serious. More than half of them are said to be clinically malnourished. There are high stillbirth and infant mortality rates—perhaps more than 150 per 1,000 births — but in the last few years no official statistics have been published. The women earn about 60 per cent. of the men's wages, for exactly the same work and output.

The present president of Sri Lanka, JR Jayewardene, began his activities as a self-appointed defender of the Sinhalese Buddhists. As early as May 1944, JR moved on the State Council, which existed as a form of limited self-rule, that the Sinhala language be made the medium of instruction in all schools and a compulsory subject in all public examinations. It was after independence in the mid-1950s that the inter-communal violence began to develop seriously. JR himself did nothing to lower the tension. On the contrary, the Sri Lankan Tribune of 30 August 1957 reported JR as saying: the time has come for the whole Sinhalese race … to fight without quarter to save their birthright. I will lead the disobedience campaign". In 1970 a Popular Front Government were elected in Sri Lanka. Despite the popular support that they had at first, they were unable to solve the problems facing Sri Lanka because of its heterogeneous class composition and inadequate programme. The disillusionment caused by the Popular Front Government—in particular, the failure of the old workers' parties, the Lanka Sama Samaja Party and the Communist party of Sri Lanka — resulted in a sweeping victory for JR and his United National party in 1977.

JR's victory was immediately followed by communal rioting. More than 200 died, and 10,000 Tamils were forced to move away from the predominantly Sinhala areas. Likewise, 2,000 were forced to move away from Tamil areas. Ostensibly appealing for calm, JR spoke to the nation on 28 July 1977 saying: it is our duty to safeguard the Buddha Sasana. We will not spare any effort to protect, and further the cause of Sasana… The UNP Government intends … establishing a just society based on the teachings of Buddha. Despite the sugary words of that appeal, it was a direct encouragement to the Buddhist Sinhala racists to attack the Hindu Tamils, as well as being an affront to the Hindu, Christian and Moslem minorities. Despite changing the island's name to the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, UNP Government strategy has been to make the country attractive to foreign capitalist investors. Jayewardene's own slogan—as quoted in the Financial Times of 27 August 1980 — is, "Let robber barons come." That necessitated severely weakening the Sri Lankan trade unions.

The new Government began quickly to introduce anti-trade union measures. The Financial Times estimated that 10,000 workers had lost their jobs and that there had been punitive transfers of 15,000 teachers after the UNP election victory. That came from a report on 31 May 1978. On top of that, the Financial Times reported on 31 May 1980 that the UNP had let loose its youth movement to beat up Marxist opponents in the universities and to disrupt trade union agitation. Understandably, those measures met mounting resistance from the trade unions, and in 1980 a serious confrontation occurred. During a protest on 5 June 1980 a gang of UNP supporters, led by two UNP Members of Parliament, attacked a picket line, killing D. D. Somapala, a leader of the Government Workers Trade Union Federation. That resulted in a big strike movement four days later when Somapala was buried.

During the following weeks the Government began to sack workers who had been involved in both protests—a tactic which provoked the development of a general strike in early July. The general strike rapidly gathered support. Tragically, a section of the trade union leaders, while publicly supporting the strike, did not in practice mobilise their membership. That resulted in the defeat of the general strike and the sacking of more than 60,000 workers —mainly from the public sector.

The UNP Government's victory allowed them to continue the policies that they had begun in 1977. They were based on savage cuts in benefits, especially food and transport subsidies. In a country where the Paris newspaper Le Monde reports that wages are lower than in India, and which has suffered from continual inflation of up to 40 per cent. a year since 1977, those cuts had a terrible effect.

The "Europa Year Book" for 1983 gives a sign of the inflation rate during the past six years. The average market rate for rupees as against the United States dollar increased from 9.15 in 1977 to 19.246 in 1981. For many years Sri Lanka has enjoyed social benefits—unheard of in most of capitalist Asia — that have been won by the Sri Lankan labour movement over many years. Those benefits cushioned the effect of lower wages, but the cutting of many benefits has resulted in the infant mortality rate increasing in official statistics from 46 per thousand births in 1977 to 49 per thousand births last year.

Much has been made of the results of the UNP's new open door policy, but the reality is different. Since 1977 there has been some economic growth in Sri Lanka, but its effects are temporary. Last year the World Bank revealed that capitalism had failed to develop the so-called Third world. The World Bank reported that in 1980 Sri Lanka had a volume per capita of GDP almost 70 per cent. higher than in 1960, a fourfold increase in real capital investment, and an extraordinarily high capital inflow, yet reduced consumption. That report, from one of the main capitalist bodies, completely confirms the analysis of Marxism—that capitalism cannot in the present epoch develop the underdeveloped world.

Sri Lanka enjoyed a spurt of growth after 1977, but it did not last. From July 1980 the IMF was demanding austerity measures. That was partly caused by the enormous jump in Western aid to Sri Lanka from $134 million to $800 million. The "Asian Survey" of February this year revealed that in May 1982 an eight-year loan of $100 million was negotiated in London. What was the role of the Conservative Government in backing, securing, underwriting or advising the bankers in making that loan? Sri Lanka is now the highest per capita receiver of United States and World Bank aid in Asia—a fact not entirely unlinked to the United States navy's desire to use Trincomalee port.

While that aid pushed up the growth rate for a while, so Sri Lanka must face the problem of having to repay the loans. Already between 1981 and 1982 interest payments rose from 25 to 33 per cent. of Government spending. At present the Sri Lankan Government spend twice what they earn and the country imports twice as much as it exports. That cannot last forever. The only capitalist solution that the UNP can produce is yet more austerity programmes. Knowing that this will provoke popular opposition, the Sri Lankan Government are continuing to introduce more repressive measures and seeking British help to train their security services. Like many Governments, the Sri Lankan Government have sought to justify their actions by pointing to the increase in terrorism, particularly in the Tamil areas.

I wish to make it clear that, as a Marxist, I do not support the policy or tactics of individual terrorism. Neither individuals nor even a mass of guerrillas can replace the working class in the struggle against oppression. Only a mass movement, of which we have seen many heroic examples in Sri Lanka, can establish a workers' democracy and begin to create a Socialist society which uses all the country's resources to create a just and equal society. Terrorism usually serves to disorientate the masses and provide Governments with the excuse to introduce repressive laws.

If we examine the record of the Sri Lankan authorities in recent years, we see that it is not easy to decide who the real terrorists are. Furthermore, the record raises the question of what control this Parliament has over the international activities of the British security services. If we look at the predominantly Tamil district of Sri Lanka, we can see that the real turning point took place in the period between May and June 1981. The Financial Times, which is not an anti-UNP journal, after the events, reported: the police and army personnel—mainly comprising Sinhalese officers—have for the first time abandoned their neutrality. In some cases, they lead attacks on Tamil communities. It is officially admitted that they went 'on the rampage' in the Tamil capital of Jaffna in June. In Jaffna, in May and June 1981, eight Tamils were murdered, including the private clerk of one of the Tamil Opposition Members of Parliament, and 11 Tamil Members, including the Leader of the Opposition, were arrested on the day of the district development council elections. The security forces attacked the homes of two Tamil Opposition Members and burnt down the Jaffna library—which was one of Asia's leading libraries with a collection of 97,000 books, many of which were rare —and many buildings and homes. Since then, there has been mounting opposition in the Tamil areas to the UNP Government and growing demands for self-rule. Tragically, due to the defeats that the opponents to the UNP rule have suffered, many Tamil youths have turned to guerrilla activities as a solution to the increasing racist attacks on them by the security forces.

Last year, JR held an early presidential election to secure re-election before the economic bubble burst. He secured re-election because some sections of the population were still enjoying the fruits of economic growth, the main Opposition party's lack of credibility and the abstention of many Tamil voters. Having won the election, the President held a referendum on whether general elections should be postponed until 1989, and he was left with a two thirds majority in Parliament. Amid many accusations of intimidation, a low turnout and impersonation, including even that of J R's main opponent in the presidential election, the UNP won the referendum. With that majority the UNP is moving against all opposition in all parts of the island. Early in June, after the Supreme Court had given an Opposition leader compensation for illegal arrest, detention and degrading treatment, thugs attacked the homes of the three Supreme Court judges concerned. No arrests were made, but the thugs arrived and departed in state-owned buses.

That has not been the only example of the semi-official condonement and harassment of the courts. Earlier this year, after a senior Buddhist monk had had a police officer convicted of violating his — the monk's — fundamental rights during the referendum campaign, a Cabinet Minister announced that the Government would pay the fine and the policeman was promoted to superintendent. The police officers involved in the later Supreme Court case were also promoted, on the day after the court judgment.

At the same time the UNP Government gave new powers to the police to deal with the circumstances. By 4 June the new regulation No. 15a was signed. It gave senior police officers the power to take all such measures as may be necessary for tie taking possession and burial or cremation of any dead body, and to determine, in his discretion the persons who may be permitted to be present at … any such burial or cremation. Given the many cases of torture and murder which have been reported by Amnesty International, it is clear that that regulation has only increased fear of the police and army in Tamil areas. After the disturbances of the past few days, how many more people will be buried as a result of that regulation? Will the Government condemn those antidemocratic powers?

How do the Government respond to this statement in The Guardian on 7 July: An emergency regulation, recently promulgated under the Public Security Act, now permits police to bury or cremate bodies without inquiry or post mortem. President Jayewardene has announced that it 'provides the forces with more muscle'; it ensures that security personnel will in no way be harassed by the law in the event of being compelled to use their fire power. Civil rights lawyers describe it as a 'licence to kill' Tamil suspects"? How will the Government comment on the new Prevention of Terrorism Act with its unconstitutional retroactive provisions, permits prolonged detention incommunicado — up to 18 months — without explanation, for arrest, charge or trial and is thus an invitation to physical attack and torture"? Another report in The Guardian on 6 July states: Sri Lanka has been under almost continuous emergency rule since the early 1970s. But since the referendum of December 22, 1982, which extended the life of the Sri Lankan 'long parliament' to August 4, 1989—an unprecedented 12-year session—the concentration of powers in the hands of President Jayewardene has created a situation in which the army's authority is clearly growing and democratic safeguards in Parliament, the courts, and the press are becoming more fragile. Confessions are admissible in evidence, despite being obtained by suspending a person from a beam with both hands tied, with a bagful of burnt chilli tubers tied over the head, chilli powders smeared all over the person, including the genitals, an iron bar in the rectum, a thin metal rod down the penis and lying on a bench being beaten on the back and the soles of the feet and with chillies stuck up the nose. Contrast that with an election address of 17 September 1982 from Jayewardene when he promised: An important contribution we have made was the enactment of a democratic Constitution that guarantees that the people of this country can live without fear and harassment, to conduct their affairs in accordance with the laws of the country and their fundamental rights. What is the future for working people and peasants in a country where such promises are made during an election campaign but where the reality is torture, murder, beatings, disappearances, rampage, burnings, lootings and a tremendous decline in any decent democratic rights?

Sri Lanka, which is promoted in the press and on television as the jewel of the tourist resorts, has many resources in its raw materials and the cultural level of its people. For example Sri Lanka's literacy rate is 87 per cent. However, as the World Bank explained, Far from going forward, society in Sri Lanka is going backwards. Sri Lanka does not face such problems alone; they face the entire underdeveloped world.

In the past year, we have seen communal clashes in many countries, such as those in Assam in India and the expulsion from Nigeria of the so-called foreigners, to give just two examples. In many of the underdeveloped countries, the ex-colonial countries, we are witnessing the crisis of capitalism pushing these countries back towards barbarism. What can we do? The only alternative to that barbarism is Socialism. Only through the working class and its allies democratically planning the use of society's resources, can the economy be developed to meet the needs of the people, not the profiteers or the international bankers.

On the basis of a planned, democratically-controlled economy, freed from the disruption of the capitalist business cycle, it would be possible to begin raising the living standards, the cultural level and all aspects of life for ordinary working people. Capitalism has partially unified the world through the exploitation of ex-colonial countries for raw materials, interlinked with the forced importation of finished and semi-finished goods.

The trade between Britain and Sri Lanka illustrates this.

A report in The Times of 21 October 1981 states: In 1980 Britain exported nearly £77m worth of goods, mainly machinery and transport equipment, and was the third largest supplier, after Japan and Saudi Arabia. With imports worth nearly £54m, mainly tea, coffee, spices, fruit, vegetables, rubber and coconut, it was Sri Lanka's second largest customer, after the United States. The terms of trade between Britain and Sri Lanka are a microcosm of capitalism and imperialism that has plundered the Third world. The terms of trade for colonial and ex-colonial countries have changed so that more and more raw materials must be exported to import manufactured or semi-manufactured goods, or to pay for the rocketing interest charges on loans.

To complete the task that capitalism has partially developed of interlinking the world's economies requires international solidarity of working people to free countries, such as Sri Lanka, from the domination of the banks. A joint approach by workers is needed in the industrialised West and the ex-colonial countries to develop industry to provide for workers' needs, not multinationals' profits. Such a policy is a million light years away from what is falsely portrayed as Socialism in the Soviet Union, China and Cuba, where democratic rights—the freedoms of speech, of assembly and of the right to belong to a trade union—are all denied. Those countries are not Socialist. They are run by a bureaucratic elite who compare more with the free masons than with a genuine Socialist party.

I place before the Minister some questions for him to answer. Will he give a guarantee that the Government will publish a list of British firms which have subsidiaries in Sri Lanka, and what wage rates they pay? Can we see whether the Brooke Bonds or the Unilevers, or any other firm exploits the plantation workers? How many pence a day in wages are British profits being based on?

Will the Minister confirm the reports in the The Economist and in the Daily Telegraph of the spoken words of the President of Sri Lanka, saying to British correspondents that he is asking the Minister and his Department for close collaboration between the security forces and the police in this country and their counterparts in Sri Lanka?

Will the Minister give a guarantee that, given the state of the decline of democratic rights in Sri Lanka—the torture, the murder, the lootings, the beatings, the rampages of the army and of the police—collaboration between British security services and the police and Jayewardene's police will cease? When he replies, will he give a precise answer as to what response he has made to requests from the Sri Lankan Government in the last 10 or 12 days for explicit help from the security and police services of this country?

In the light of all the evidence that I have produced, will the Minister guarantee that the official state visit of President J. R. Jayewardene, scheduled for October this year will be cancelled? For Britain to offer the hand of friendship in the form of a state visit to the president of a country where torture and censorship are prevalent, or to offer conditional or unconditional support to Sri Lanka's policies, is not just a slap in the face but a disgraceful insult to the families of the workers and peasants of that country who have lost friends and relatives in the past few days.

I reiterate my own implacable opposition to the terrorist tactics, to the oppression and to the disgraceful human rights record in Sri Lanka. The way forward is to support the glorious traditions of the Sri Lankan working class in its fight for independence and decent living standards. The working people in that country must be united.

I stand four square behind the rights of minorities to self-determination. They must have that right. I believe that the future lies in co-operation and in bringing together people of all castes, creeds, colours and religions. Only then can the working class and its allies go forward in the development of Socialism.

My message to British workers is that we owe a debt and responsibility to working people internationally. We must extend the hand of solidarity in their time of need and link our organisations with those of the working class in Sri Lanka. We must break the bonds of capitalism and imperialism that jointly tie us down and work together for a society throughout the Asian subcontinent, Europe and the world in which the division by caste, poverty and class disappears. From those elements can be created a society, based on the fair and equal distribution of wealth, that can lift its head a foot higher. It must not be based, as at present, on greed and the squandering of wealth by multinational companies and international banks.

When the Minister replies, will he deal with my three points? Will he arrange for the publication of lists showing the wages that British firms pay to Sri Lankan workers? Will he end the collaboration between British and Sri Lankan security forces? Will he cancel the state visit by J. R. Jayewardene in October?

6.43 am

Mr. Michael Morris (Northampton, South)

The best that can be said of the speech of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) is that the hon. Gentleman has a first-class clippings service. It was clear that he had not a clue about the geography of Sri Lanka and knew very little about its history. He did not even know that the Sri Lankan Government had nationalised the tea estates so that there were no British tea estates there. He is learning a few facts, however, and I hope that he will learn some more in the early hours of this morning.

The hon. Gentleman fed us a diet of Marxism. Certainly, that philosophy has not been sold to the House so enthusiastically in all the 10 years that I have been a Member. The hon. Gentleman does not really like democracy. He would prefer a pure marxist system. For all I know, he may get that in Coventry, but he will certainly not get it in Sri Lanka or in the United Kingdom. If the hon. Gentleman's speech today has any effect at all, it may be to succour the terrorism that he claims not to support. He has introduced a mischevious debate and on his shoulders and on his words today the lives of many Sri Lankans may rest. I deplore that.

I wish to put the record straight on a few facts about Sri Lanka. I worked there with one of our multinational companies in the early 1960s. I have visited Sri Lanka both officially and privately, and I have toured the whole country. I know Sri Lanka on the ground and I know many Sri Lankans. I know members of the United party and also the Leader of the Opposition there, and during my visits I have had talks with both.

I wish to put on record, first, the fact that Sri Lanka is multiracial and multireligious. In summary, the statistics are as follows. There are 11 million Sinhalese, 1.8 million Sri Lankan Tamils, 1 million Sri Lankan Moors and 800,000 Indian Tamils. There is harmony of religion, with Buddhism, Hinduism and all kinds of variations of other eastern religions. There is also a fair degree of communal harmony. There is certainly better communal harmony in Sri Lanka than there was in Calcutta when I worked there or in other parts of south-east Asia and the Indian subcontinent.

The hon. Gentleman did not mention the Eelam, but he should be clear about what he has been put up to. It was clear from his contribution that he knew nothing about the country, so someone put him up to it, which was despicable in itself. He has been put up to supporting the movement for an independent Tamil state.

Mr. Nellist

That is rubbish.

Mr. Morris

The hon. Gentleman may wish to change his position, but I came here to listen to him and that is my interpretation of his speech.

I make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that the island of Sri Lanka is and will remain a unitary state run on a multiracial and multireligious basis. Certain fundamental rights were adopted by the Sri Lankan Parliament in September 1978 and written into the constitution, covering the requirements that no person shall be subject to torture, that all are equal before the law, and that no person shall be arrested except through procedures established by the law. Moreover, Sri Lanka has signed a number of international agreements emphasising those fundamental rights.

The key dimension for me is the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the President of Sri Lanka is a dictator. The hon. Gentleman might help international relations if he would do the President the honour of calling him by his correct name, but of course he does not know how to pronounce a Sri Lankan name because he had no previous interest in the country and his speech today was a put-up job from start to finish.

The key point that the incoming President made and the one change that the people of Sri Lanka wanted concerned the Tamil language. Until Jayewardene took over in the 1978 elections, the Tamil language was nowhere. It was he who made it a national language. He and his party ensured that Members of the Sri Lankan Parliament may speak in either of the national languages, that a person has the right to be educated in either language, that the administration of the northern and eastern provinces should be in Tamil, that publications must be in both national languages, that examinations may be taken in either language, and so on.

Mrs. Bandaranaike and her Marxists did not produce that kind of policy. Sri Lanka had nearly 10 years of the hon. Gentleman's ideal Marxist policy. The workers had it, but it did not work. The people of Sri Lanka wanted democracy. There were free elections in 1977 when the new Government were elected. At least the hon. Gentleman did not suggest that they were not free. Perhaps he did not have a cutting to help him pretend that they were not. That key decision on language was taken by the President, and that is a monument to his desire to have full integration in the island. That was never done before.

Secondly, after consultation with Amirthalingam, the Secretary-General of the TULF and Leader of the Opposition—in whose house I have had the pleasure of discussing the policy on the Tamil area—and by a joint party decision a district development council programme was established. That was done to try to establish decision-making at the lowest level in the community so that the problems associated with bureaucracy from the centre—from which any country suffers, be it west, east, developed or underdeveloped—could be dealt with at local level. That was welcomed by the Tamil community.

Progress was made. The problem is that there is a small band of Tamils who do not want Sri Lanka to succeed, who do not believe in democracy and who want an independent state. There are terrorist elements, despite the fact that the Government were democratically elected with a sweeping majority and supported by the Leader of the Opposition. Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that the terrorist element should be left to do what it wishes?

The people about whom we should really be concerned are those who have been murdered by the terrorists—by the Tamil tigers, as I believe they are called. The people who died in the early stages were the Tamils who were trying to work with the generality of life in Sri Lanka. The leading Tamils were picked off in the early days. That is where the problem started.

Since then there have been a series of tragedies, in which police, armed forces and other leading Tamils have been killed. Yesterday, we heard that another 13 people had died, bringing the total to 87. As a result of that, the Government introduced a prevention of terrorism Act, in the same way as we have introduced it for Northern Ireland and in the same way as Canada and other countries have on occasions had to introduce such an Act as a temporary measure. That is the proper reaction of a responsible Government to a difficult situation.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the Amnesty International report, which I view with great concern. I have read it all. I think that the hon. Gentleman has read it all. I hope that he has done so, but I wonder whether he has done so. I note that the allegations are not as concrete as the hon. Gentleman suggested. The reports contains words such as "may", "perhaps", "we think", as well as allegations which have been categorically refuted by the Sri Lankan Government.

The hon. Gentleman may smile, but they have been. Even more convincing is the fact that some of the timings have been categorically challenged. I note that the extent of the visit was nine days and that it has taken 18 months to produce the report.

Mr. Nellist

If the hon. Gentleman reads the introduction, he will learn why.

Mr. Morris

On the whole I value greatly the work of Amnesty International, but I note that some of the persons involved are known to be anti-Government and that their families have been involved in the Communist party. I do not challenge them for that, but they are involved in Amnesty International and are anti the Jayewardene Government. Some of the report reflects that. I am more prepared to accept the word of the Sri Lankan Government than that of the hon. Gentleman.

His Excellency Jayewardene was elected Prime Minister in 1977 by a democratic vote. There was a better turnout than that in Coventry, South-East at the election, and he obtained a five sixths majority. In the first Presidential election he gained 52.9 per cent. of the vote and won 21 out of the 22 electoral districts. The only one he did not win was Jaffna., but he won the eastern area which is Tamil almost as much as Jaffna. He won substantial majorities in other areas with Tamil populations. He received messages of support not only from Britain and America, as the hon. Gentleman would expect, but from the Soviet Union, China, India, Pakistan, Canada and Poland. If the hon. Gentleman cares to mention a country that I have not listed, he will no doubt find that it also sent a message of congratulation.

The hon. Gentleman must take on board the fact that the Sri Lankan people are a proud and lively people. They love their politics. They are full of energy and they make democracy work in a Third world context, and we should admire that. The hon. Gentleman may not have travelled a great deal, but some of us have travelled the Third world. If there was as much democracy in the remainder of the Third world as there is in Sri Lanka, the world would be getting somewhere. Sri Lanka takes its financial obligations seriously and is committed to the full protection of human rights. It believes, like Britain, that terrorism should be rooted out.

When just over a year ago this country faced great difficulties with the Falklands campaign, Jayewardene was one of the leaders of other countries who showed us understanding and support in our time of need. We are right to repay our thanks to him by inviting him to come to this country. He will get a warm welcome from the vast majority of hon. Members.

7.8 am

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Ray Whitney)

The House must be grateful to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) for at least giving us the opportunity to debate Sri Lanka and our relations with that country at this serious and crucial time in the history of that republic. But the House must be especially grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) for introducing a note of very much needed balance into what was a Marxist tract, read to us at 6 o'clock in the morning. That would be difficult enough to take at any time, but at this stage in the morning and when dealing with such a serious subject, it proved hard to take. I hope that in the next few minutes I can set right the balance which the hon. Gentleman tried so grieviously to upset.

I wish, first, to put into context our relationship with Sri Lanka, with which we have had long-standing ties. They are not the hoary, boring old ties of the hon. Gentleman's Marxist-Imperialist-Capitalist claptrap but the real ties of productive, honourable, constitutional and democratic relationships. I understand that some of those values are less attractive to the hon. Member than they are to the majority of hon. Members and people throughout the country.

When Her Majesty the Queen paid her second visit to Sri Lanka in 1981, one of the purposes was to commemorate 50 years of adult franchise in Ceylon and Sri Lanka, during which Governments repeatedly changed. Governments of widely varying complexions ruled, many of them paying lip service to the same false god that the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East worships—the god of Marxism. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South pointed that out.

British Governments have contributed over the years to Sri Lanka's democratic life. They have given manifestation to the tremendous dedication to democracy which is to be much admired and which is a jewel in the crown of the countries with which we have been associated for so long and with which we are now happily associated within the Commonwealth.

When the situation is so bad, we should recognise that certain serious developments are deep seated. The Tamil community's problems have been developing for many years. Much effort has been devoted to solving them.

My hon. Friend mentioned many of the measures taken to bring the two communities to greater harmony. The sadness is that Sri Lanka has been subjected to the minority violence of terrorism which has become a feature of the modern world. My hon. Friend referred to similarities with Northern Ireland. There is a Marxist element in the violence in Northern Ireland, I presume that the hon. Member for Coventry South-East would approve of that.

Mr. Nellist

No.

Mr. Whitney

The hon. Gentleman says, "No." I am happy to give way to him.

Mr. Nellist

I made it clear on three occasions that I stand implacably opposed to the methods of terrorism because they are no real substitute for achieving social change for the mass of population. They provide an excuse for Governments to introduce repressive measures. That, for me, is a principle. Individual terrorism, whether it involves the most genuine elements such as the Robin Hoods robbing the rich to give to the poor or more extreme forms, is counter productive. It does not take society forward. It only introduces more repression and more deaths. If I have to say that even more times to get it through the skulls of Government Members, with your leave, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall do so. I have made my position clear on four occasions.

Mr. Whitney

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East did not accept my invitation to condemn IRA violence in Northern Ireland. I shall give way again if the hon. Gentleman wishes. When he has been in the House longer he will understand that, although he did not give way at all, those who are not Marxist are very happy to give way because they do not fear democratic debate. If the hon. Gentleman cares to condemn IRA violence the House will welcome it.

Mr. Nellist

From the earliest days of my political life in the early 1970s and coming from the midlands where, particularly in the mid-1970s young workers died, I have always opposed, whether in Northern Ireland, Sri Lanka or elsewhere, the use by the IRA, by the Tigers about which the hon. Member for Northampton, South thinks I know nothing, by the Tupamaros or any of the organisations of Latin America, the use of individual terrorism. I have stated clearly that mass organisations of working people — the trade unions and working-class political parties—are the only instruments that working people can use to affect social change. The bomb and the bullet used by individual bands of people in Ireland, no matter how well intentioned, will not bring about what they see as Irish unification. That will come not through the tactics of the Provisional IRA but only through the unity of Catholic and Protestant workers, through the building of a Labour party that crosses the religious divide and through working class expression against the exploitation that takes place in Northern Ireland. Is that criticism and statement clear enough for the Minister?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean)

Order. We must get back to Sri Lanka.

Mr. Whitney

I understand your concern, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it is important because the House has been treated to a Marxist diatribe. With respect, we are making progress. The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East, speaking from the Opposition Benches with a Marxist voice, now recognises and is prepared to condemn what he refers to as individual violence. I hope that it will extend a little beyond that. I hope that eventually he will come to understand that parliamentary democracy is the way and not some mass community action, be it in Ireland or in Sri Lanka, which, as you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is the subject of the hon. Gentleman's debate.

The Government of Sri Lanka have over the years tried to pursue a policy of reconciliation. We have welcomed their determination to work towards a peaceful settlement.

Mr. Michael Morris

The hon. Gentleman has gone now.

Mr. Whitney

We welcome the discussions with the leaders of the Tamil community and the progress towards a settlement of the intercommunal difficulties, but that must be made within the constitutional framework that is available to them.

That, rather than a resort to violence, is the right course. It must be accepted by all that: the problems that have been generated over many years certainly cannot be put right overnight. Patience, understanding and tolerance will be called for, and we sincerely hope that the efforts towards a peaceful solution to these complex problems will be successful.

We deeply regret the latest incidents over the weekend and the reports of the deaths of 13 soldiers. The House will wish to join me at this difficult time for the people of the island in giving every support to the Government of Sri Lanka in their efforts to prevent further violence which can do nothing to solve the problems of the country. I am glad that even the hon. Gentleman appears prepared to recognise that.

We must set the allegations in the Amnesty report, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South referred and dealt with so effectively, against this difficult background. We have noted the allegations made in the report—they were not clear charges—and we have noted also that the Government of Sri Lanka themselves have said that they are committed to the full protection of human rights of all the people of the country and that they take their international obligations seriously. We welcome those assurances and we certainly do not doubt their sincerity.

Sri Lanka, like Britain, is a party to the international covenant on civil and political rights and to the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. We are convinced that the Government of Sri Lanka are well aware of their international obligations. The Government of Sri Lanka can be in no doubt that the British Government deplore violations of human rights wherever they occur. We have made our position clear on many occasions and we continue to play a leading role, for example at the United Nations, and consistently stress our concern for the principle of human rights. We shall continue to do so.

However, that was not the burden of the message of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East. His theme seemed to be to take his Marxism and apply it, in this case to Sri Lanka, though that country seemed somewhat incidental to the idyllic, idealistic view that the hon. Gentleman and the small band of people who think like him wish to impose on the world.

I wanted to intervene, but the hon. Gentleman, in his traditional style, would not accept an intervention, when he said that there was no Marxism in the Soviet Union, Poland, China or anywhere else. I wanted to invite the hon. Gentleman to tell the House where his Marxist dream had been realised in perfection.

Mr. Nellist

Show me a country where capitalism is working.

Mr. Whitney

To save the hon. Gentleman making such interventions from a sedentary position, I will, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, give him another opportunity. If he would ever like to tell the House where his ideal can bring a Utopia for workers of all types—with the freedom and prosperity of which he speaks—he will be listened to with great attention.

The hon. Gentleman suggested that what is happening in Sri Lanka confirms the analysis of Marxism that exploitation cannot develop the underdeveloped world. He is standing truth on its head. His attack on capitalism bore no relationship to the challenges that we face from the great progress that has been achieved in many parts of the world that were underdeveloped until recently.

I make no comment on political systems, but in terms of the working of the free market economy, the interplay of international capital and the free movement of goods, we are being challenged by the progress made by many Asian countries that are effectively using the basic principles of free trade and the free market economy. The places where the economy is depressed and human rights are virtually extinguished are those that are moving nearer to the ideal Marxist state propounded by the hon. Member.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the dictatorship in Sri Lanka. There is no dictatorship there. There is a thriving democracy, which has a serious problem with its minority. Therefore, it needs understanding, co-operation and help from us, and that is what it will receive, on the basis of our long-standing relationship with the people and successive Governments of Sri Lanka.

I am happy to reply to the specific questions that the hon. Gentleman put to me. He spoke about the wages of some companies in Sri Lanka and I suggest that he should invite his friends there, if he has any, to ask the democratically, constitutionally elected Government of Sri Lanka to take whatever action may seem appropriate for their own people.

I confirm to the hon. Gentleman that we collaborate with the police force of Sri Lanka, as we do with the police forces of many other Commonwealth countries. We are proud of that. In reply to another question, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there have been no specific requests over the past 10 days.

The hon. Gentleman then asked if we would cancel the state visit of President Jayewardene. I am pleased to tell him that we shall certainly not cancel the visit. President Jayewardene will be an honoured and most welcome guest. His visit will give us an opportunity to discuss with him the problems of his country, and if there are ways we can help, we shall certainly do so. Those are the ways of democracy. They are not the ways of Marxism. They are the ways we offer, the ways to a peaceful, prosperous and free Sri Lanka.