Dr. Ruwan M Jayatunge M.D., PhD
Rohana Wijeweera was the founder and leader of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), or People’s Liberation Front, a Marxist-Leninist, extreme-left Sinhalese nationalist political party in Sri Lanka. Wijeweera significantly transformed the political landscape of Sri Lanka through a combination of strategic political maneuvering and the use of violence to further his objectives.
Wijeweera keenly tapped into the deep-rooted anger and dissatisfaction swirling among the rural, educated caste-oppressed youth who felt marginalized by the elite in the post-independence era. He empowered them with a political voice and outlined a direct, albeit violent, route to confront and rectify the socio-economic disparities they faced. His legacy is defined by two unsuccessful armed uprisings in 1971 and from 1987 to 1989, leading to the loss of tens of thousands of lives and the devastation of properties worth billions of rupees.
Rohana Wijeweera significantly influenced Sri Lankan society, warranting a comprehensive examination from political, psychological, and sociological perspectives. Despite the depth of his impact, there has yet to be a concerted effort by any Sri Lankan university to explore the psychosocial ramifications of Wijeweera’s actions and ideologies on the fabric of the nation. This gap in academic inquiry is notable, as understanding the complexities of his role could provide valuable insights into the collective consciousness and social dynamics of Sri Lanka. Analyzing Wijeweera’s legacy could illuminate the ways in which his revolutionary ideas and leadership shaped societal attitudes, political movements, and psychological responses among various demographics, thereby enriching the discourse surrounding contemporary Sri Lankan identity and history.
Negative Experiences in Early Childhood.
Rohana Wijeweera, originally named Patabendi Don Jinadasa Nandasiri Wijeweera, was born in 1943 in a remote area of the Matara district. His early years were filled with considerable financial challenges, and he and his family faced the grim realities of caste discrimination. Growing up in such an environment, his life was significantly shaped by the difficulties of poverty and social marginalization.
A pivotal and traumatic event occurred when Wijeweera was just four years old; his father, Don Andris Wijeweera, (one of the supporters of Dr. S.A. Wickremasinghe, the founder of the Communist Party of Sri Lanka) was brutally attacked by Tamil estate workers in a plantation in the Deniyaya region during the politically charged atmosphere of the 1947 elections, resulting in permanent disability. This incident plunged the family into deeper despair, as Wijeweera’s father remained paralyzed until his death in 1965. This tragic event profoundly impacted Wijeweera, leading to a negative transformation in his character and influencing his subsequent actions.
The emotional connection between Wijeweera and his father was profoundly deep, and the violence that disrupted their lives left a lasting impact on him, shaping both his personality and his perspective on the world. From a young age, Wijeweera understood that the world was a dangerous entity and recognized the inherent vulnerabilities. This traumatic incident instilled in him a deep-seated animosity towards the Tamil estate workers, whom he later labelled as an anti-revolutionary element. His resentment did not stop there; it extended to the tea industry as a whole, which he perceived as a significant threat to the ecological balance of Sri Lanka. During the uprisings of 1971 and 1987-88, Wijeweera fervently urged his followers to target tea factories.
Hatred Towards Mother.
Wijeweera harboured significant resentment towards his mother, Nasinona Wickrama Kaluthota, stemming from his belief that she had inadequately cared for his disabled father. This perception fueled a profound emotional turmoil within him, leading to feelings of anger and disappointment directed at her. Complex family dynamics fueled this condition. He frequently voiced his dissatisfaction, openly criticizing her behaviour and decisions regarding their domestic issues. Additionally, Wijeweera felt that his mother exerted excessive control over his life, which further strained their relationship.
His use of the term “HATHIRIYAK” (villainess) to refer to her, even in the presence of his followers, underscores the depth of his discontent. The unresolved psychological conflicts Wijeweera experienced in relation to his mother likely contributed to a more ruthless and unsympathetic demeanour. This internal struggle not only shaped his personality but also influenced his interactions with others, reflecting the lasting impact of his familial relationships on his character development.
Education at Lumumba University.
After completing his Ordinary Level (O/L) examinations, Wijeweera received a scholarship to pursue a medical degree at Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow, an opportunity facilitated by Dr. S.A. Wickremasinghe. Despite this significant support, Wijeweera harboured reservations about certain members of the Communist Party, often expressing his criticisms openly. His ideological leanings were notably aligned with the Chinese communist system, which he admired for its structure and principles.
In his second year at university, Wijeweera faced significant challenges when he failed his Biochemistry exam, which likely contributed to both physical and emotional fatigue. This overwhelming stress led to his admission to a sanatorium for treatment. During this difficult period, he received the devastating news of his father’s passing, prompting him to return to Sri Lanka for the funeral. After the funeral, Wijeweera sought to resume his studies in Moscow; however, his plans were thwarted by a member of the Sri Lanka Communist Party, K.P. Silva, who contacted the Russian embassy in Moscow, urging them to deny Wijeweera a visa, thereby interrupting his pursuit of higher education and altering the course of his academic journey. (Premapala Hewa Batage, who took part in the 1971 JVP uprising, revealed this information).
Involvement With Shanmugadasan.
After the revocation of his scholarship, Wijeweera aligned himself with N. Shanmugadasan’s faction of the Ceylon Communist Party, known as the Peking Wing. During his tenure with Shanmugadasan, Wijeweera became increasingly aware of the preferential treatment given to Shanmugadasan’s close Tamil associates, who were appointed to significant positions within the party. This favouritism, coupled with his growing discontent over financial misconduct within the organization, fueled Wijeweera’s dissatisfaction.
As he navigated the political landscape, he began to cultivate a close-knit group of supporters who shared his vision and ideals. As tensions within the party escalated, Wijeweera made the decisive choice to depart from Shanmugadasan’s faction, taking with him a loyal group of followers. This pivotal moment led to the establishment of a new political entity, which would come to be known as the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), marking a significant shift in the political dynamics of the time.
Pre-1971.
Wijeweera established a clandestine revolutionary organization with the intent of instigating an uprising to seize control of the government. During this pivotal period, young people across the globe were captivated by the revolutionary movements spearheaded by figures such as Fidel Castro and Che Guevara. The Vietnam War further fueled a wave of anti-imperialist sentiment, resonating deeply with those who felt marginalized and oppressed. In Sri Lanka, this atmosphere of discontent found a receptive audience among the unemployed and impoverished, many of whom lacked land and faced a bleak outlook for their futures. The combination of these global influences and local hardships created a fertile ground for revolutionary ideas, as the youth sought inspiration and hope in the struggles of others fighting against oppression and inequality.
Wijeweera envisioned a swift, one-day revolution, reminiscent of the actions taken by Abeid Amani Karume in Zanzibar, specifically targeting police stations to assert his movement’s power. Wijeweera claimed a personal connection to Karume, asserting that they were friends during their time at Lumumba University. However, investigations led by Mr. Zerni Wijesooriya and other CID officials who examined the events surrounding the 1971 uprising revealed no evidence of any correspondence or relationship between Wijeweera and Karume. Furthermore, it was established that Wijeweera did not receive any foreign financial support or weaponry during the uprising. He meticulously selected young individuals from rural areas and university students to join his cause, aiming to galvanize a diverse group of participants for his revolutionary efforts.
Using Caste Oppression as a Powerful Catalyst for the Movement.
Wijeweera adeptly utilized the caste system to galvanize support for his cause, much like Prabhakaran did. He reached out to unemployed and impoverished youth from rural backgrounds who had been marginalized by caste discrimination. By doing so, he transformed these individuals into a powerful contingent within his movement. In his organization, the term “comrade” was replaced with “Mahatthaya” (Sir) to provide greater recognition and dignity to the youth from oppressed castes. This choice of language reflects a commitment to elevating their status and fostering a sense of respect within the community.
Wijeweera not only acknowledged their struggles but also instilled a sense of dignity and respect in them, countering the low self-esteem and apprehension that often plagued their lives due to societal caste hierarchies. Through his leadership, he empowered these young people, encouraging them to rise against the state and challenge the societal elites who perpetuated their oppression. This strategic mobilization not only fostered a sense of unity among the disenfranchised but also positioned them as key players in the broader struggle for social justice and equality.
Rallying Supporters.
Rohana Wijeweera was an exceptional orator whose eloquence captivated a diverse audience, including individuals such as the Oxford-educated Susil Siriwardena, Jayadeva Uyangoda, Gamini Keerawella and Gamini Samaranayake etc. These individuals eventually became professors and established themselves as local intellectuals. However, as they matured, they distanced themselves from Wijeweera’s ideology.
University students such as Udeni Bandula, Sarath Wijesinha, Wasantha Dissanayake, and Bola Samare, etc. were drawn to his compelling oratory skills, leading them to abandon their academic studies and become full-timers in his movement. Even females left their homes and families to join Wijeweera, including young women like Kamani Deshapriya, Dhammika De Silva and Sampathi Abeysekara, illustrating his remarkable ability to attract and mobilize followers.
Wijeweera’s influence was particularly potent among the youth disillusioned by economic, social, and caste-related challenges, as he adeptly prepared them to embrace violence as a means of resistance. He skillfully built loyal followers who were willing to engage in illegal activities on his behalf, including thefts, bank robberies, and even politically motivated assassinations. Individuals such as Iluk Senaratne, Colvin Jayasinha, Rahula, Kagama Upasena, and Patrick Fernando epitomized those ready to put their lives on the line for his vision. This reality underscores Wijeweera’s considerable influence, demonstrating his ability to inspire unwavering commitment and radical action. His manipulative talent matched that of Prabhakaran, who also attracted a significant group of individuals prepared to sacrifice everything for him.
Limited Comprehension of Marxist Theory.
Professor Jayadeva Uyangoda and Dr. Wickrama Bahu Karunaratne have noted that Wijeweera’s grasp of Marxist theory was not particularly deep, suggesting that his engagement with the subject was somewhat superficial. This limited understanding may have influenced his interpretations and applications of Marxist principles in his political activities. Wijeweera’s approach to Marxism lacked the comprehensive analysis and critical engagement that is often necessary for a robust application of its tenets. This deficiency could have led to a misalignment between his ideological beliefs and the foundational concepts of Marxism.
Deep Seated Paranoia.
Wijeweera exhibited a blend of excessive optimism and deep-seated paranoia, convinced that a significant leftist repression akin to the one experienced in Indonesia would unfold in Sri Lanka by 1970. His apprehensions extended to the belief that the 7th US Navy might launch an invasion of the island nation. In this context, he predicted that the United States would orchestrate the elevation of J.R. Jayewardene to power during the upcoming 1970 election. Wijeweera perceived the Bentota Hotel as a covert American military installation and speculated that the expansion of the Ella-Wellawaya road was intended to facilitate the landing of American warplanes, a notion that instilled considerable fear among his followers.
In 1970, rural youth had limited access to information, relying solely on government media due to a lack of bilingual skills and the absence of the internet. Opportunities for travel abroad were scarce, leaving them with a narrow perspective shaped by the teachings of Wijeweera. He maintained strict control over his followers, discouraging any form of dissent or inquiry. Those who dared to question his ideas and explanations were quickly branded as spies or saboteurs.
Famous 5 CLASSES.
He employed the well-known “five classes,” a series of Marxist-inspired political lectures that laid the groundwork for the party’s ideology. These classes focused on five central themes: The Capitalist Economic Crisis, Sri Lanka’s Independence, Indian Expansionism, the Lankan Left Movement, and the Path of the Lankan Revolution. They served as a tool for educating and indoctrinating the youth, although not all content was original to Wijeweera; some ideas were derived from Dr. S.A. Wicramasinha. His erroneous interpretations of economic issues and xenophobic sentiments were evident in these lectures, yet they resonated strongly with the youth, who frantically adopted his socio-political views.
Wijeweera, despite having devoted followers, was deeply skeptical of their intentions and actions, a trait that defined his character. His suspicion often escalated into paranoia, causing him to doubt even those he was closest to. For instance, he viewed Susil Siriwardena, who had travelled to the United States, as a possible CIA agent, and he also accused D.D. Silva of being a CIA informant.
The Uprising.
Wijeweera meticulously orchestrated the uprising, engaging in discreet lectures and encouraging young individuals to join his cause. He urged them to gather weapons and even devised rudimentary homemade explosives, which, despite their limited effectiveness during confrontations, demonstrated his commitment to the movement. Through his efforts, he successfully mobilized a force of approximately 10,000 members for the uprising. However, the movement was plagued by internal divisions, as various factions emerged, with some leaders openly challenging Wijeweera’s authority. This fragmentation led to a lack of cohesion, causing the movement to veer in multiple directions, undermining the unified front that Wijeweera had initially sought to establish.
A few months before the 1971 uprising, Wijeweera was arrested by the Police in Ampara and subsequently transferred to Jaffna prison. During his incarceration, a faction of his supporters launched a series of coordinated assaults on multiple police stations. However, the government’s response was swift and severe; the security forces mobilized to suppress the insurrection with overwhelming force, resulting in a brutal crackdown that effectively dismantled the uprising and quelled the unrest.
Numerous participants expressed a profound sense of betrayal, believing that the leadership had deceived them and provided misleading information regarding their strategic intentions and actual capabilities. This perception of manipulation led some individuals to feel victimized, as they felt exploited by the leadership. Consequently, a significant number of these disillusioned members chose to cooperate with the authorities, directing their frustrations and accusations towards Wijeweera. As a result of this growing discontent, many individuals opted to distance themselves from the movement, with a considerable number formally exiting while still incarcerated.
Interrogation.
When Wijeweera was arrested by the police in Hambantota in 1970, he underwent interrogation by Mr. Zerni Wijesuriya, a Criminal Investigation Department officer. Mr. Wijesuriya described Wijeweera as a character marked by pride; however, he also noted that Wijeweera’s physical frailty rendered him timid and lacking in resilience when confronted with threats and torment. According to Mr. Wijesuriya, Wijeweera exhibited signs of agitation and fright. CID officers reported that Wijeweera was relatively easy to break, as he demonstrated a lack of endurance and an inability to withstand both physical pain and psychological pressure.
Subsequently, during interrogations led by CID officers Upali Seneviratne and Anton Jeganathan, Wijeweera provided an extensive written and recorded statement that disclosed the identities of his movement’s members. This revelation prompted many of his staunch supporters, including Kalu Lucky, Piyathilaka, Loku Athula, Piyasiri Kularatne, Lakshman Munasinghe, Chuki Premaratne, Income Tax Karu, Bola Samare, Premapala Hewa Batage, Palitha Shamdas, and Somapala Garusinghe, to distance themselves from him. Although Somawansa Amarasinghe initially left Wijeweera after the 1971 rebellion, he later returned with Wijeweera.
Wijeweera possessed an extraordinary talent for drawing people to him, captivating a diverse array of followers with his charisma and vision. However, despite this initial allure, he struggled to maintain candid relationships with those who rallied around him. As time passed, the lack of meaningful engagement led to disillusionment among his supporters, resulting in many distancing themselves from him. Some of these former allies transformed into vocal critics, expressing their disappointment and challenging his ideologies, which further complicated his ability to sustain loyal supporters.
The Denial.
The role of Wijeweera in the 1971 rebellion remains a subject of debate among historians and experts. While he is credited with laying the foundational ideas that inspired the uprising, it is important to note that he was incarcerated at the time the rebellion erupted. Consequently, he did not participate in the pivotal decision-making at Sangharama that led to the attack. The actual leaders who engaged directly with security forces during the conflict included figures such as Loku Athula, whose resolve diminished as the fighting progressed.
Other notable leaders included Sarath Wijesinghe, who tragically lost his life due to an accidental gunshot, and Milton, who was killed during an assault on the Kadawatha police station. Sanath Boralukatiya was arrested and subsequently killed by the Udugama police after the rebellion’s intensity waned, while Bertie Ranjith was apprehended during an attempt to liberate Wijeweera from Jaffna prison.
In a statement made during his trial, Wijeweera distanced himself from the 1971 rebellion, attributing it to a conspiracy orchestrated by Loku Athula, a narrative he consistently shared with his followers from prison. He vehemently denied any involvement in the 71 uprising. However, upon his release and the subsequent re-establishment of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), Wijeweera’s stance shifted; he initially maintained that the 1971 rebellion was not his creation. Over time, as the rebellion garnered respect and recognition, he altered his narrative, eventually claiming to be the rightful heir to its legacy.
Killings.
Rohana Wijeweera did not carry out the killing with his own hands. However, he issued orders that led to numerous murders. His motivations for such actions can be traced back to the political ideology he espoused, which, paradoxically, contrasts with his personal nature. The psychological factors that drove Wijeweera towards endorsing a violent political agenda remain unexplored, though it is plausible that the harsh realities of his childhood and subsequent experiences played a significant role in shaping his worldview.
Under the directives of Wijeweera, death lists were compiled, targeting individuals deemed counter-revolutionary or traitorous. However, during the tumultuous year of 1971, his followers refrained from engaging in widespread massacres, resulting in only a limited number of civilian casualties at the hands of the rebels. This restraint marked a significant contrast to the events that unfolded in 1988 and 1989, when the situation escalated dramatically. During this later period, violence spiralled out of control, transforming killings into a grim political ritual that became emblematic of the era.
Comrades and Traitors.
In the years 1971 and 1988/89, Rohana Wijeweera garnered a loyal following of dedicated members who placed their trust in his leadership and pledged their unwavering support to his cause. However, as time progressed, a rift began to form within the ranks, with some members expressing their discontent and openly criticizing Wijeweera’s decisions. This disillusionment became particularly pronounced following the failed uprising in 1971, as many supporters felt let down by Wijeweera’s refusal to accept accountability for the movement’s shortcomings. Calls for him to acknowledge his errors were met with resistance; Wijeweera chose to expel dissenting voices from his organization, branding them as traitors. During the second uprising, he incited his remaining supporters to take drastic measures against former comrades who had turned against him.
One notable figure was Nandana Marasinha, who had been a steadfast ally in 1971 but later grew disenchanted with the movement and chose to leave. In a tragic turn of events, Marasinha was labelled a traitor and, under Wijeweera’s orders, was executed during the second uprising, illustrating the brutal consequences of loyalty and betrayal within the tumultuous landscape of political struggle.
Child Soldiers.
The emergence of child soldiers in Sri Lanka can be traced back to the influence of Rohana Wijeweera, who played a pivotal role in their recruitment during the tumultuous period of the 1971 rebellion. Long before Velupillai Prabhakaran was the founder and leader of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, Wijeweera was involved in the recruitment of child soldiers in Sri Lanka. These child soldiers were referred to as “Rathu Gatau” – (Red Youngsters) and often thrust into violent situations, with some even committing acts of murder.
A notable incident involved a 16-year-old school boy named Jayatissa, a student from Tholangamuwa Central College, who infamously killed a police informer named Pabilis by striking him on the head with a mammoty in Kegalle district. Another schoolboy named Kadugannawe Jayathissa, who had been indoctrinated as a child soldier, attacked the Kadugannawa police, resulting in the shooting of a police officer. This tragic event exemplifies the brutal realities faced by child soldiers during this era. The situation escalated during the second JVP rebellion from 1988 to 1989, where child soldiers continued to engage in violent acts, including the arson of buses, destroying transformers and government buildings, further highlighting the devastating impact of armed conflict on the youth of Sri Lanka.
Prabhakaran Vs Wijeweera.
The primary commonality between Velupillai Prabhakaran and Rohana Wijeweera lies in their steadfast dedication to armed resistance, their intolerance for opposing views, and their brutal application of violence to fulfill their political ambitions. Both figures dismissed the democratic framework, opting instead to forge their movements outside the established political elite, thereby garnering support from marginalized and lower-caste segments within their communities. While both leaders exhibited similarities in their revolutionary fervor, they also displayed notable differences in their ideological frameworks and methods.
Prabhakaran ‘s approach was deeply rooted in Tamil nationalism, which informed his strategies and objectives. In contrast, Wijeweera, although he espoused Marxist principles, occasionally invoked Sinhala nationalism, caste dynamics, and regional sentiments to rally support. As a guerrilla fighter, Prabhakaran was characterized by his fierce and violent demeanor, demonstrating a high level of military training and proficiency in weaponry. Conversely, Wijeweera, while not lacking in courage, did not possess the same level of combat skills or the capacity for sustained endurance in armed conflict, which set the two leaders apart in their respective revolutionary pursuits.
Body Dysmorphic Disorder.
Rohana Wijeweera grappled with a negative body image that significantly undermined his self-esteem, particularly due to his noticeable overbite. His friends noted that he often avoided mirrors, reflecting his deep concern about his dental aesthetics and overall appearance, which hindered his ability to form intimate relationships with women during his early years. This lack of confidence led him to steer clear of interactions with girls, highlighting his social struggles.
When he founded his movement in the late 1960s, he imposed strict rules on his followers, prohibiting romantic relationships, which may indicate his own unresolved psychological issues. His pronounced buck teeth made him acutely self-conscious, prompting him to seek external validation regarding his looks. This negative self-image not only affected his mental well-being but also contributed to his shy and introverted personality, exacerbating his social challenges. Given these factors, there is considerable evidence to suggest that Wijeweera may have suffered from Body Dysmorphic Disorder.
Posttraumatic Embitterment Disorder.
Rohana Wijeweera displayed a variety of psychological reactions to the challenging experiences throughout his life, which may have contributed to his development of what is termed ‘posttraumatic embitterment disorder’ (PTED). This condition was first articulated by German psychiatrist Michael Linden in 2003, who recognized it as a unique mental health issue stemming from a singular, impactful negative life event. Wijeweera’s childhood experiences left him with profound feelings of bitterness, and subsequent psychosocial challenges led him to feel a significant sense of helplessness, as he perceived injustices to be the root cause of his adverse life circumstances.
His emotional state was often characterized by social withdrawal and symptoms of depression (According to Mr. Lionel Bopage Wijeweera went into deep melancholia while he was in prison and soon after the 1982 presidential elections), coupled with a yearning for revenge. These manifestations strongly suggest that Wijeweera was affected by PTED. Over the last ten years, PTED has garnered global acknowledgment as a specific subtype of adjustment disorder. Linden notes that individuals afflicted with PTED typically endure deep-seated feelings of embitterment and perceived injustice following the triggering incidents.
A Misogynist Turned Philogynist.
At the start of his political movement, Wijeweera showed a notable reluctance around women, as noted by his supporters, D.A. Gunasekara and Chandrakka, also known as Chandra Jayanthi Perera. They described that he often delivered lectures while avoiding eye contact, focusing on the ground rather than engaging with his female audience. This behaviour stemmed from his belief that his appearance made him unattractive to women, further compounded by a lack of interest in personal grooming and self-care.
Wijeweera’s interactions began to change when Yasoma, the sister of Sisilchandra, and Mali, the daughter of T.D. Silva showed interest in him. This romantic attention created controversy within the JVP politburo, drawing criticism and ridicule from his followers. They mockingly called him MKR, implying that he had become foolishly enamored, as they believed that he had placed undue value on women.
A significant transformation occurred in Wijeweera’s personal life during the late 1980s, particularly between 1988 and 1989, when he engaged in relationships with multiple women, including one named Maureen from Chilaw. This marked a stark departure from his earlier misogynistic tendencies, illustrating a profound evolution in his character from a man who shunned female interaction to one who embraced romantic relationships.
A Cult Leader.
Wijeweera transcended the role of a mere political leader, embodying the characteristics of a cult leader who commanded an unwavering devotion from his followers. Many of these individuals exhibited a fervent loyalty, willing to execute his every command without question, even to the extent of committing acts of violence, including murder, in his name.
Notably, in 1971, a Buddhist monk named Morawak Bhaddiya emerged among his followers, instigating violent actions against those perceived as adversaries within prison walls. Additionally, a group known as Poriyal Hamudava (an assault team) was notorious for its brutal assaults on Wijeweera’s opponents. The years 1988 and 1989 saw figures like Agiris Costa and Lionel Ranasinhe carry out killings under Wijeweera’s directives, demonstrating a chilling lack of remorse as they executed his orders.
Wijeweera’s authoritarian grip on his followers left no space for dissent or debate; he employed manipulative strategies to isolate them, instilling control through fear and the dissemination of misinformation. He even restricted access to certain literature, further solidifying his influence and reinforcing his status as a cult leader rather than a conventional political figure.
Wijeweera-an-Anti-Caste Activist.
Many individuals regard Wijeweera as a heroic figure who championed the rights of those affected by caste-related oppression. According to them, Wijeweera restored honour and dignity to those affected by caste oppression. They hold Wijeweera in high esteem, often venerating him and respecting him. This admiration is not limited to the general populace; it also permeates educated circles. Despite Wijeweera’s mistakes and illogical remarks, he continues to earn the respect of these intellectuals who overlook his flaws.
When Wijeweera is criticized, it often leads to annoyance and confrontational behaviour from supporters, who tend to react with heightened emotions. Kalyana Karunaratne, who was Wijeweera’s secretary, authored a book in which he notes that even supporters of the capitalist system, like Ronnie de Mel (who served as the Minister of Finance under President J. R. Jayewardene’s government from 1977 to 1988), acknowledged Wijeweera as a guardian of caste rights and held him in high regard. In this context, Wijeweera can be seen as a Sri Lankan counterpart to Ambedkar, championing the cause of those oppressed by caste.
Concluding Thoughts.
Rohana Wijeweera’s political journey was characterized by a series of significant errors and misjudgments that ultimately culminated in the failure of two major insurrections and a wave of violence across Sri Lanka. He aspired to establish a totalitarian regime reminiscent of North Korea, one that would impose severe restrictions on human rights. His economic strategies proved to be harmful and counterproductive, while his leadership was marked by the brutal elimination of political adversaries and a pervasive atmosphere of xenophobia.
In the contemporary political landscape, Wijeweera’s ideologies are largely rejected, as evidenced by the current JVP-NPP government in Sri Lanka, which actively distances itself from his principles. Nevertheless, the legacy of Rohana Wijeweera continues to evoke complex emotions; he is simultaneously remembered as a charismatic, anti-establishment figure who challenged systemic injustices and as a ruthless leader whose actions instigated widespread violence and terror. This duality in perception reflects the ongoing struggle to reconcile his vision with the realities of his impact on Sri Lankan society.
Dr. Ruwan M Jayatunge M.D., PhD
Author
About The Author
1 thought on “Rohana Wijeweera – A Multifaceted Politician..!”