Deflecting Blame: "Good" Versus "Bad" Insurgents
Remembering violence has deep moral and practical implications for the self and one’s relationship with others in the present, and this was reflected in the ways in which people portrayed themselves as the type of insurgents they were during the Bheeshanaya.
Through their utilization of “youth,” former insurgents carefully constructed two distinct categories of insurgent youth, “good” insurgents and “bad” insurgents. Former insurgents remembered one cohort of youth as being the genuine revolutionaries, driven to participate in the insurrection by a selfless commitment to its honorable goals. People overwhelmingly drew on specific words to describe these moral insurgents, and in turn went on to project a particular representation of themselves. These youth were said to be daksa (talented), buddimat (learned or knowledgeable), ugat (educated), with avabodaya (knowledge, understanding, or awareness). When people like Kavindu used the term “educated,” they did not merely mean formal education alone. Instead, they were suggesting something broader - young people who were also “critical thinkers,” and who had cultivated a sense of social, political, and ethical awareness.Invariably, all the former insurgents who participated in this research remembered themselves as having belonged to this “moralistic” youth cadre. Through their use of these terms they carved out a particular niche for themselves in the violent past as “good” insurgents who were “educated,” possessed a social and ethical conscience, and with the capacity to analyze the world around them. It was in these terms that former insurgents remembered and perceived themselves. They drew on these terms to sharpen the distinction between themselves and the “undesirable” or “immoral” youth who had apparently joined the JVP in their droves without any real understanding of, or commitment to, the honorable cause of the revolution.
The word most commonly used by people to describe the latter youth cohort was ralla, which may be translated as “herd.” Its use here suggests young people lacking the capacity to think for themselves, and simply following what others in “the herd” do. It was the ralla that former insurgents held accountable for the violence that occurred.Nalanda is a former local insurgent leader who continues to be politically active within the JVP. Having asserted his own “honest” (avanka) motivations for joining the insurrection, which he stated were grounded in concerns about social injustice and political corruption, Nalanda went on to say that some young people signed up to the JVP under the influence of the negative traits of “youthfulness.” He blamed this for the ultimate failure of the JVP insurrection:
Being a youth without a doubt had an impact on people participating in the insurrection. Many youth tend to have a war-like mentality (yudda manasikatvaya). They like weapons. A lot of young people were attracted to the JVP because of the weapons. They are the ones who brought us all down. They made the JVP look bad and people got fed up of us. I’ll give you an example. A group of us on foot once went to collect identity cards from a house [forcibly seizing identity cards from civilians, often at gun-point, was a strategy commonly used by the JVP to sabotage military stop-and-search operations]. The young son of the family whose house we went to was somewhat drunk. He kept saying that he wanted to join us. We kept trying to put him off. But he insisted and followed us. We were on foot and on our way back we were ambushed by the army. The rest of us ran away and managed to escape. But he was caught. He was tortured and then killed. The pieces of his body were strewn around the area for people to see. His head was in one place and his limbs in another.
Nalanda’s story is centered on “youthfulness” to get across a number of salient points. He uses it to stress various negative characteristics that form part of tarunakama, such as the inability to assess the consequences of one’s actions, impulsiveness, naivety, and an attraction to weapons and power.
He distinguishes between different categories of insurgent youth through the use of this idiom. A clear differentiation is made between the youthful protagonist of his story on the one hand (i.e., insurgents driven by the negative qualities of tarunakama) and “authentic” insurgents like himself on the other hand, who he portrays in moral terms and represents as astute young insurgents selflessly committed to the “righteous” revolutionary cause. After all, they were able to avoid being captured and even attempted to dissuade the inebriated young man from joining the revolutionaries for all the wrong reasons.This image of the “undesirable insurgent” appears to affirm the generic stereotype of the JVP insurgent at a popular level. Nalanda blames the failure of the insurrection and the loss of popularity of the JVP on the “undesirable” youth element (symbolized by the protagonist of his story), rather than on the violent actions of the JVP itself. This appears to be an attempt on Nalanda’s part to protect both his own and the JVP’s political image. Furthermore, through the graphic illustration of the brutal violence inflicted on the young boy who joined the insurgents on a youthful whim, Nalanda offers a veiled critique of counterinsurgency violence perpetrated by the state, often against those who were innocent of any wrongdoing. This is largely in keeping with the master narrative of the JVP, which draws attention to violence perpetrated by the state, but remains silent, or denies outright, that perpetrated by its own cadres during the Terror.
Kanchana’s story below provides further insight into how people use the idiom of “youth” to reconstruct their own experiences of the Terror. Kanchana is a former insurgent who no longer supports the JVP. Having spent several years in hiding as a young insurgent, he successfully managed to evade capture by the security forces, and ultimately left the JVP due to disagreement with its policies. Kanchana, unlike many other former insurgents interviewed for this research, firmly invests his youthful years with agency and explains his decision to participate in the insurrection as being based on rational choice.
His narrative provides an interesting glimpse into the political context that prevailed at the time, around which the JVP mobilized youth for its attempted revolution:I was a youth then but no one from the JVP came to mobilize me. I went out and joined them... Ijoinedthe insurrection because of the anti-democratic political regime of the UNP. They broke the rule of law, abused human rights, and stifled the media. J.R. (President Jayawardene) was like a dictator. He singularly took decisions (tanimatayen) and carried them out. Workers who went on strike were simply sacked. They were anti-democracy. I wanted to change the system. I felt very strongly that we needed democracy. We needed to protect the rule of law, and human rights. I knew that we wouldn’t achieve this through Socialism as the JVP preached. But they were the best alternative available. They were the only ones who stood up against the Government. So Ijoined because of anti-UNP reasons.
Kanchana articulates clear and well-thought-out reasons for his decision to take up arms to topple the state. He accepts responsibility for this decision, which he roots in specific political grievances. Kanchana’s narrative diverges from the explanations of many other insurgents who instead blamed their youthful vulnerability and its exploitation by the JVP for their involvement in the insurgency. Kanchana intimates that his youth was not one characterized by naivety and idealistic faith in the JVP’s agenda. He states that he believed the JVP to be the only viable alternative available at the time. Kanchana does not represent his youthful years as having been blinded by the burden of tarunakama, which makes one particularly vulnerable to violence. At the same time, in representing the JVP as the best available alternative to the prevailing system of injustice and violence, and in basing his involvement in the insurgency on this rationale (rather than being driven by ideological passion), Kanchana attempts to distance himself from the violence.
Kanchana went on to state,People joined the insurrection with various agendas (vivida balavega). Intelligent leaders would have co-ordinated these different motivations and led them towards one goal. But the JVP leaders couldn’t. The JVP was about youth and youth is about strength and emotionality (avegashι li). You can’t solve problems through these two things... Youth are attracted to weapons. In addition, if they couldn’t work with weapons by joining the army, then this provided an alternative for them to carry out their desires. Many young people came with the ralla (herd). I realized that the JVPs actions did not develop democracy. That the problems of a corrupt and anti-democratic regime could not be solved through further acts that were antidemocratic. The JVP also killed a lot of people. Then the intelligent people (insurgents) started criticising it (the JVP) and moving away from the party.
It should be noted here that Kanchana’s admission that the JVP itself committed murder was significant, given that the majority of former insurgents either avoided, or denied outright, the perpetration of violence by the JVP. This was largely down to a fear of personal and political repercussions, and particularly in the case of those who continued to support the JVP, concern to avoid tarnishing its political image.
According to Kanchana, the incompetence of the JVP’s own youthful leadership and its inability to exercise control over the “herd” of “undesirable” youth that flocked to its ranks ultimately led to the failure of its attempted revolution. The ralla here is represented as lacking intelligence and joining the JVP in their droves for all the wrong reasons (i.e., for personal gain, such as access to weapons and power). On the other hand, “intelligent” and “righteous” insurgents like himself, Kanchana implies, were driven by selfless goals based on ethical conviction. In other words, “undesirable” youth joined the insurrection for immoral self-fulfilling purposes, ultimately engaging in unjustifiable acts of violence, while the moral insurgents (like himself) were willing to sacrifice their lives for the righteous goals of bringing about social and political justice.
This demonstrates the importance he attaches to the intentions that underpinned people’s involvement in insurrectionary violence. The former he blames for the escalation of violence and the ultimate downfall of the JVP. The latter (including himself) he remembers as having raised moral objections to the violent and unethical direction that the JVP veered off to, ultimately disassociating themselves from the JVP and its insurgency altogether. Through his use of the idiom of “youth,” Kanchana refashions himself as having been a “moral” and “righteous” insurgent, and creates a gulf between himself and the “immoral” ralla, who he blames for the violence of the insurrection. In remembering his own actions in moral terms, he finds a way of continuing to live with himself and his past, post terror.Tissa is a former insurgent leader who continues to be politically active in the JVP:
When the Bheeshanaya became harsh (darunu), party workers started being identified (by the counter-insurgency officers). So we had to get new people in to try and make sure the leaders’ identities dissolved into the background. This was our biggest weakness. That’s when the insurrection fell. In the early days the JVP had educated youth. If we had stayed with them the insurrection would have been a success. When support fell and people started getting caught, then the new people began to get more responsibility. These new youth came with the ralla. They were uneducated, some couldn’t even write properly, they just wanted to fight and to own a gun. Like you get some boys joining the army just to use a gun. The JVP then couldn’t control these people. This was our failure. But we had to get in new people to protect the main activists and leaders like Rohana Wijeweera. Many of the ones who came with the ralla also died.
The idea of “youthfulness” is used by Tissa to explain, or rather justify, violence on the part of the JVP, and to rationalize the overall failure of its insurrection. He deflects responsibility for both on to an “undesirable” and “uneducated” youth cohort, which was blighted by the negative traits of tarunakama. Tissa further distinguishes between key activists and leaders of the JVP (like himself) and the youthful “herd,” positioning the leadership as a “morally righteous” group of youth selflessly committed to the honorable revolutionary cause. In averting culpability for violence in this manner, he attempts to protect the image of the JVP (and himself), admitting instead to the lesser charge of being unable to control the problem of youthfulness within the ranks of the JVP. He attempts, however, to dilute even this, drawing parallels between the JVP and the security forces, stating that the army too suffered from problems of tarunakama, with young recruits being attracted by an access to weapons. Here he hints at both organizations being on a level footing when it comes to violence.
By remembering their own involvement in the insurrection as rooted in an ethical conviction, former insurgents attempt to find ways of continuing to live with themselves and others in the aftermath of terror. This was particularly significant in a post-terror environment that lacks reconciliation. If, as Taylor has argued, “selfhood and the good, or...selfhood and morality... (are) inextricably intertwined” (1989, p. 3), rooting one’s memory of the self in the good is an important coping mechanism in the face of a discomforting past in which the self is complicit in violence that is widely judged to be morally unjustifiable. It enables the continuation of life and sociality after violence, and helps people reform their sense of selfhood, which had been thrown into question by violence. Through a reworking of memory, these former insurgents then create a morally acceptable role for themselves in a reconstructed past, and thereby recreate their experiences of violence. In refashioning their self-identity and their relationship to the past in terms of the morally good, they are able to continue living with memories of violence.
6