Prabhakaranism and Caste
Ruben Nagesparan Chandrakumar, BS
One of the most important aspects of the LTTE is the way in which it changed the conceptualization of caste. There are several reasons why this occurred.
The first would be the LTTE’s clear and outspoken goal of eliminating caste within the country. With the goal of revolutionary socialism, Prabhakaran and the key figures within the militant movement had rejected not only the hierarchy of caste but also the idea of hierarchy itself. What this did was replace the hierarchy with the dogmatic belief of socialism and the structure that followed as it was enacted by Prabhakaran and the leadership.
In a manner similar to the ways in which Stalinism, Maoism, and Leninism are all derivations of Marxist thought, Prabhakaranism is the Eelam Tamil variant. Despite their attempts to eliminate classes within societies, what Stalin, Mao, Lenin, and Prabhakaran had in common was their blatant hypocrisy in forming a stringent hierarchy rooted in military power that awarded them the highest position of power. The structure of class was simply uprooted and transformed into a new phenomenon where the highest class was the political leaders. Yet, despite this, the political leaders of these revolutions nearly always saw themselves at the forefront of a new era. It was partially through the geopolitical promises and partially through the economic ones that these leaders commanded a great deal of influence among the people. Prabhakaran utilized the geopolitical ambitions of independence and his vision for a socialist country to retain power across decades.
The second would be the opportunities that arose for members of the lower castes to gain immediate power, status, and reputation through joining and rising within the LTTE structure. By dominating the Tamil population with both military might and shared sentiments, the Tigers allowed individuals from any caste to gain power and respect. This led to a dramatic shift in the underlying dynamics and social structure of Tamil society. In part, this was potent to a caste-dominated society; however, it supplanted the flawed structure of merit in academic and professional activities with an arguably more corrupted military-based hierarchy. The abolition of caste, while seemingly well-intentioned, did not produce a radically egalitarian society without classes. The wiser vision, which the leadership should have pursued, is one that recognizes inequality as an innate aspect of life but allows for maximum social mobility that is primarily dependent upon merit and competence.