Global Peace Support Group

[By Dr. S. Narapalasingam]

The comments on my previous article ‘Create the conditions that will banish the idea of separatism’ show the misconceptions and mistrusts that exist in the minds of some Sri Lankans. It is not only the different versions of the island’s history but also the supremacy given to the ethnic majority, contrary to democratic and Buddhist principles by some parochial persons that have prejudiced the minds of the people.

The perception that a powerful ethnic Tamil minority is a threat to the future of the ethnic Sinhalese whose language is unique to Sri Lanka is also due to the undue importance given to matters irrelevant to the future of the island nation. On the contrary these have obstructed the building of a unified multi-ethnic nation. This will be the case as long as the emotional attachment to majoritarianism prevails.

Past, present and future

The battles for capturing adjoining land by avaricious kings and feudal chieftains have vanished centuries ago. The developed and the markedly developing countries, where peace and unity are omnipresent have shunned their past history a long time ago and their development process is based on present regional demographic realities and a futuristic outlook. These are considered to be vital for the future of their nations. But in Sri Lanka the same approach irritates the supremacists, whose notion of nation is outdated and divisive now.

As long as the majority cling on to the version of the history of Sri Lanka they have read or heard that suits their perception, which is completely different from the reliably known past and importantly the present demographic and regional features, there is little chance of building one robust multi-ethnic nation. In this regard, it needs to be emphasized that the mix up of legend with history is unhelpful. It is just imagination that makes them think the Sinhalese are the sole heir to the entire island separated from south India by a narrow strait. Instead of accepting the traditional settlement pattern of the population and directing the efforts on national development, most governments since independence have been aiming towards changing the demography of the Northern and Eastern provinces, where the Sinhalese are not the major ethnic group.

Tamils have been living in the island long before the arrival of Portuguese in 1505. The Tamil farmers in south India following long period of severe droughts moved to better or promising places far outside their villages. There had been some migration centuries ago because of this need to seek a suitable area for cultivation. There were no border controls then and later on Indians were also brought in by the colonial rulers to work as menial labourers.

Even before the tea and rubber plantations emerged during British rule, they were brought to help in the growing/peeling cinnamon, fishing/pearl diving and coconut cultivation. The upcountry Tamils are the descendants of the labourers who arrived during the British rule. Unlike the earlier immigrants who assimilated into the indigenous communities, they have maintained their distinct identity.

Kusal Perera in his recent article posted by groundviews April 12 titled, “Aiding and abetting to kill plurality in ‘patriotic’ Sri Lanka has said: “Both the 1948 Indo-Ceylon Citizenship Act which turned plantation sector Tamil people into nonentities and the changing of demographic pattern in the East through large scale agri schemes in favour of large Sinhala settlements, provided for more Sinhala MPs in parliament. e.g. 07 Tamil MPs elected to the first parliament in 1947 from N’eliya, Maskeliya, Kotagala, Nawalapitiya, Badulla, Bandarawela and Aluthnuwara electorates were replaced by 07 Sinhala MPs at the next general election in 1952”. His analysis of the April 8 general election results sans two electoral districts Kandy and Trincomalee shows the increasing shift in the same direction. The contributions of the upcountry Tamils to the island’s economy have been quite significant. They have every right to be an integral part of the island nation.

It is an undisputable fact that it was the British who after capturing the kingdom of Kandy in 1815 had administrative control over the entire island. For few years the British Governor governed the Kandyan areas according to Kandyan law, with modifications as necessary. It was only in 1831 the island was brought under a single legislature by the British government. But certain customary practices observed by Kandyans and Tamils continued to have the force of law. The centralised administrative system did not exist before the British colonial rule. Different parts of the island were then ruled separately by monarchs or chieftains.

There were many separate kingdoms in medieval Sri Lanka. These were in Ruhuna, Polonnaruwa, Dambadeniya, Jaffna, Gampola, Kotte, Sitawake and Kandy, The Kingdom of Polonnaruwa was the second major kingdom. It lasted from 1055 under Vijabahu I to 1212 under the rule of Lilavati. The Kingdom of Polonnaruwa came after the Anuradhapura Kingdom was invaded by Chola forces. However, some territories were ruled by Sinhalese kings during Chola occupation.

There seems to be confusion between the concepts of unitary state as against unitary government. Unitary state can mean a federation and not a centralised government which is the case when reference is made to unitary government/ administration. This is evident from the resolution adopted at the March 1996 conference of the Maha Sangha held at the BMICH, Colombo under the patronage of the Mahanayakes of the three Nikayas, presided over by Venerable Palipane Sri Chandananda Mahanayaka Thera of the Asgiriya Chapter of the Siam Maha Nikaya. The declaration adopted at this Conference attended by over 2000 Bhikkhus stated that “the Island of Sri Lanka has been a unitary state for two thousand five hundred years. The coastline has been the border of this state”.

It emphasized the victory of Duttha Gamini in the fight against the south Indian invader Elara (2nd century BE, i.e. 5-6 century BC). It was stated that the victor "ruled over Lanka in single sovereignty". The missing part is the mutual understanding the subsequent rulers in Kotte, Kandy and Jaffna had for co-existence. Perhaps the intent was to stop the past pattern of conflicts for dominance and to ‘live and let others live’ peacefully. The object here is not to claim one version of the island’s history is more authentic than others but to emphasize the fact that there are fundamental contradictions which should not influence the way forward towards the island’s unity, peace and progress. However, there are some facts that are obvious and should not be ignored.
Clarifications

For example, one ‘patriot’ has commented (my previous article – ‘Create the conditions -------‘) that “there are not very much Sinhala like words in Tamil. It is more close to the Tamil in Tamil Nadu than to Sinhala”. This perceiver has asked: “WHY IS IT THAT TAMIL AREAS OF HIGH POPULATION EXIST NEXT TO TAMIL NADU where there are 70 million Tamils? Isn't it conceivable that Tamils at various times migrated to Sri Lanka from the neighbouring Indian area?” There were Tamil settlers in the Kandyan kingdom too. In fact the Kandyan rulers had close ties with Tamils than with low country Sinhalese. The Sinhalese opted to live in the wet zone where they do not have to toil as hard as those living in the dry zone.

A research project carried out in 1995 by Human Genetics unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Colombo in collaboration with the Department of Human Genetics, University of New Castle Upon Tyne confirmed that the Sinhalese and the Tamils in Sri Lanka are the descendants of a single genetic group. Moreover the DNA of Tamil Nadu Tamils also matched with Sri Lankan Tamils, Sinhalese and Muslims. (Report of Researcher E. Logeswaran) There are no indications to believe the Sri Lankan Muslims are the direct descendants of Arabs. Some speak pure Tamil better than the traditional Tamil Hindus.
There are many proofs to establish that Tamil was the main language even during the time the Portuguese landed. For example, the king of Kotte, Bhuvanehabahu VII signed the treaty with the Portuguese in Tamil. One of the Kandyan Chieftains, Ratwatta Disawa signed the treaty with the British in Tamil. There are also many original and modified Tamil words in the Sinhala language, which evolved as a distinct language of the settlers outside North-East Sri Lanka The spoken language of Sri Lankan Tamils, particularly Jaffna Tamils is still relatively pure. Those familiar with the Tamil used now in Indian TV channels would have noticed the increasing use of English words, particularly in teledramas.

Sinhala words borrowed from Tamil

Wiktionary says, the Sinhala language has borrowed a great many ‘loanwords’ from Tamil during the more than 2000 years of coexistence of the Sinhala and Tamil communities on the island of Ceylon The words pertaining to the fields of commerce, administration, botany, food, and military are numerous. This is because, (i) new innovations and goods usually reached the Sinhalese via the Tamils whose area of settlement separates them from the rest of South Asia and (ii) Tamil-speaking Muslims conducted most of the island's foreign trade since the 10th century CE. Moreover, since the two neighbouring settlers have been exchanging material goods, there are many Tamil loanwords pertaining to everyday and social life (kinship terms, body parts, ordinary activities etc.).
The main ways Tamil words are incorporated into the Sinhala lexicon with different endings indicated in Wiktionary are as follows:

* With an /a/ added to Tamil words ending in /m/ (e.g. pālam > pālama).
* With a /ya/ or /va/ added to words ending in vowels (e.g. araḷi > araliya).
* With the Tamil ending /ai/ represented as /ē/, commonly spelt /aya/.
* With the animate ending /yā/ added to Tamil words signifying living beings or /yā/ replacing the Tamil endings /aṉ/, /ar/, etc. (e.g. caṇṭiyar > caṇḍiyā).

Sinhala names of places and persons have also been derived likewise. For example, Tamil names ending with the letter m appear without this letter in the Sinhala version. E.g. Wijesingham, Wijeyaratnam or Rajaratnam in Tamil are Wijesingha(e), Wijeyaratna (e) or Rajaratna (e) in Sinhala. Mahendiran in Tamil is Mahendra in Sinhalese. The first name of many Sinhalese women are the names of Hindu goddesses e.g. Lakshmi, Janani. Saraswathi. Lalitha, Abhi or Abhirami

A list of the Tamil and equivalent Sinhala words together with the relevant field the usage emerged as given in Wiktionary is in the Appendix.

After independence many Tamil historical names of locations in the North and East have been given the Sinhala equivalents. For example, Manal Aru is now Weli Oya. This should not be confused with the contemporary non-Tamil names of places e.g. Jaffna because of occupation by the European countries beginning with the Portuguese in 1505 and later the Dutch and the British. Thus, contemporary Sri Lanka has place names which contain roots derived from Elu, Pali, Sanskrit, Sinhala, Tamil, Malayalam, Portuguese, Dutch and English names. Some twisted names are due to the inability of the invader to accurately sound a local name. Thus a name may have a variety of different spellings in English (Ref. Gam Vaesiya in Sri Lanka Guardian 5 April 2010).

The linguists have confirmed the fact that the Sinhala language is based mainly on Pali, Sanskrit, Tamil and other Indian and Portuguese languages. Portuguese names are common among low-country Sinhalese than Kandyans. The latter maintained their distinct identity like the Jaffna Tamils. It was easier for the Kandyans to embrace both their regional and national identities because they unlike the Tamils did not experience racial discrimination. The dual identity, with the regional being subordinate to national is common in multi-ethnic countries like India where the regions have some self-governing powers.

According to Wikipedia, the legend and early recorded history of the Buddhist Sinhalese is chronicled in two documents, the Mahavamsa written in Pali (not Sinhala) around the 4th century BC, and the much later Chulavamsa (probably penned in the 13 century CE by the Buddhist monk Dhammakitti). These are ancient sources which cover the histories of the powerful ancient kingdoms of Anuradhapura and Polonnaruwa. The Mahavamsa describes the existence of rice fields and reservoirs, indicating a well developed agrarian society. This also gives the reason for the Sinhalese to have preferred to settle in the wet zone.

Wikipedia also states: “The historical accuracy of the Mahavamsa prior to the death of Asoka is not considered to be trustworthy and so whether the story of Vijaya and Mahinda is true, is debated. According to Mahavamsa, the Sinhalese are descendants of the exiled Prince Vijaya and his party of seven hundred followers who arrived on the island at 543 BCE. Vijaya and his followers were said to have arrived in Sri Lanka after being exiled from the city of Sinhapura in Bengal, North East India.

The forgotten Tamil Buddhists

Buddhism is said to have been introduced from India by Mahinda, son of the Mauryan Emperor Asoka the Great during the 3rd century BC. An interview with the Thai Buddhist Social Thinker and Activist Sulak Sivaraksa by N. Shanmugaratnam on 20 July 1993 in Kyoto, Japan for Tamil Times (August 1993 and reproduced in 3 April 2010 Sri Lanka Guardian) also gives the links between the rulers in India and neighbouring Ceylon. As stated earlier some had their roots in south India and they helped to introduce Buddhism among the settlers in the island. There were Tamil Buddhists in south India and this helped the spread of Buddhism throughout Ceylon.

Scholar, Sulak Sivaraksa is the author of the book titled ‘Seeds of Peace – A Buddhist Vision for Renewing Society’. He believed strongly in the ‘Middle Path’ advocated by Lord Buddha. According to the interviewer, he has been engaged, along with several others, in a dialogue with Buddhist monks and lay Buddhists from Sri Lanka on the ethnic conflict with the aim of promoting justice and peace there.

The following answers to the questions posed during the interview are relevant here

(i) The beauty of the Buddhist view is that you do not have to believe in a god. First of all, you have to be a peaceful, humble and simple person who is in harmony with other beings including non-human beings such as animals and plants and the natural world in general.

(ii) Believers in God “spend a lot of time and effort to prove the existence of a god. The basic question is one of finding ways to help those who suffer. In a sense everyone in this world suffers in one way or the other. Helping others is a good way to build friendship. I believe that friendship is possible even between persons who hold different views and spiritual values”.

(iii) On the present dominant approaches to capitalism and socialism he explained that “both have used social engineering strategies in their own ways. Social engineering has failed to create the conditions for human development. Capitalism does not merely make use of human greed but glorifies this human weakness as a great virtue. It celebrates self-interested behaviour. Capitalism encourages accumulation of wealth but does not easily allow even a basically fair distribution of it. It subordinates human development to the accumulation motive by putting the economic objective above all else. The equalitarian ideology of socialism is wonderful but in reality it has led to state capitalism and authoritarianism. Capitalism permits some individual freedom while denying a fair distribution of wealth. Under socialism we are ensured of a fairer distribution but denied basic freedoms”.

(iv) The most crucial difference Buddhism has with capitalism is that it does not seek to make a virtue of self-interest, greed and self-aggrandisement. In fact, Buddhism condemns greed, which can easily lead to aggression and hatred, and shows how to be content by changing yourself and striving with your fellow human beings to improve everyone’s wellbeing. Unfortunately, Buddhists have failed to deal with problems in that spirit.

(v) On socio-cultural realities and their tensions that exist in societies, he said that “we have to understand these and “evolve appropriate approaches so that no section feels discriminated against. As a Buddhist, I am an advocate of what has come to be known as the ‘middle path’ when it comes to development. We cannot turn the clock backwards. We must adopt from the modern systems whatever is good for the people’s human development and build a righteous society. This is no easy task and I know it involves compromises for the sake of peace and harmony”.

It is also very relevant here to cite his exposition of the role of Tamils in south India, presently Tamil Nadu in propagating Buddhism in Thailand. To quote: “Before the establishment of close links between Lankan and Thai Buddhists, we had a long period of interaction with South Indian culture. Tamil Nadu already had a rich culture many centuries ago and there was constant intercourse between Thai and Tamil culture. The version of Ramayana we have in Thailand came from Tamil Nadu. The Brahmanic mantras chanted at ceremonies in the Thai court are Tamil in origin although many people still think that they are Sanskritic (in origin). In fact, some scholars have deciphered the words and shown them to be Tamil. And Buddhism came not only from North India but from the South as well. Tamil Nadu had one of the most active centres of Buddhism in Kanchi”. It is unrealistic to assume that Buddhism came to neighbouring Sri Lanka bypassing Tamils in India and Sri Lanka.

Buddhists in Sri Lanka still go to Hindu temples for praying. Even statuettes and portraits of Hindu deities are in Buddhist temples. Strikingly, Sinhala Buddhists too like the Tamil Hindus believe in rebirth and astrological predictions. They also observe auspices times to perform certain important functions. It is common knowledge that many Sinhalese after observing piously the shared Sinhala and Tamil New Year in April wait for the auspices day to resume their jobs. Some Tamil Christians too observe these discreetly. These too indicate the common root of the diverse ethnic and religious groups in Sri Lanka. The other contributions of Sri Lankan Tamils to the entire nation such as independence from British colonial rule, education, health and economy have also been ignored.

Co-existence of Buddhism and Hinduism

According to researcher E. Logeswaran, there were 7 Sivan Temples and a Murugan temple as far back as 600 BC in Sivapumi (Ceylon). The Hindu God Eeswaran was believed to be the guardian protecting the island on all four sides

The 7 Sivan Temples were (i) Rameswaram in Tamil Nadu (ii) Naguleswaram in Keerimalai (iii) Koneswaram in Trincomalee (iv) Thiruketheswaram in Mannar (v) Sivanoli Pada Malai in Ratnapura district (vi) Muneswaram (oldest) in Chilaw and (vii) Thondeswaram in Galle.

The Murugan temple in Kathirgamam (Kathiragama in Sinhalese) is in the Monoragala district, Sri Lanka and is a popular holy place for both Sinhalese and Tamils. The protracted war that ended last May prevented many Tamils in the North-East visiting this shrine. Rameswaram and Mannar were not separated about 6000 years ago. The rising sea levels submerged about 2500 sq. km of land under the sea.

The study also shows there were different kingdoms in the island ruled mostly by Sinhala Buddhists of Tamil origin and in some cases by Tamil Hindus. The existence of Tamil Buddhists in the island during the time when Buddhism was widespread in south India is evident from the unearthed ancient statues and coins. Kantharodai was a monastery for Tamil monks. Stupas discovered there are different from those found in other regions in Sri Lanka. Statues of Buddha were found in Kantharodai, Vallipuram, Ponnalai, Makiyapitti, Nilavarai, Uduvil, Nainathivu, Chunnakam, Punguduthivu and Nedunthivu. Coins unearthed in Kantharodai had the figure of Hindu goddess Lakshmi. Let no one hastily conclude as before that the Sinhalese resided in the North and the Tamils moved in later from south India (Tamil Nadu)!

Follow the true Buddhist precepts for peace and harmony

Thus, there is no conclusive proof that the Sinhala Buddhists are the original settlers in Sri Lanka. It is high time that the distorted versions of the history of Sri Lanka are left behind and a pragmatic approach to reconciliation and all-encompassing development is taken soon for uniting voluntarily the divided communities; a division that arose from the failure to follow the Buddhist precepts. In fact, this failure is visible not only in poor governance but also the damning political culture and the rise in violence with impunity. This is directly connected with the political aims of the powerful politicians and their close associates.

Observance of human rights, humanitarianism and equality and justice for all, regardless of ethnic, religious and other differences is concomitant with the Buddhist way of life. As suggested by the Thai Buddhist scholar, Sulak Sivaraksa, the diverse socio-cultural realities in the plural society must be recognized and the ‘middle path’ approach of Lord Buddha that avoids discrimination against any group taken with determination. This will definitely ensure lasting peace and harmony. Majoritarianism and Buddhism are certainly incompatible. And so is majoritarianism and democracy.

Appendix: Sinhala words of Tamil origin [PDF File] http://transcurrents.com/tc/SinhalaTamilWords.pdf

[The writer is Former Additional Deputy Secretary to the Treasury, Sri Lanka and UN Advisor, Development Economics/Planning]

http://transcurrents.com/tc/2010/04/post_509.html

Comments

Enlightened societies, sooner or later, enter the delicate front of faith and religion to separate history from myth and blind belief in a contempoary world where “instant-manufactured history” bring many rewards to the politically inclined.

The respected and commited historian Dr. Senarath Panditharatne came to grief for his own research to separate history and legend. Besides, the controversial Vijaya’s visit the cause of authentic history will be served with further focus on the 3 visits of the Buddha here. If Burma, Thailand and other countries also claim similar visits will be matters of interest.

Since the advent of Cyril Mathew psedo-nationalists are at work to “produce ancient history” in many parts of the country. The springing up of Buddhist temples in the North-East and the destruction of Hindu temples and Tamil archeological treasure presently when a political VIP of doubtful intent is at the helm can well end up with a sequel in fabricated history to suit the present and future political needs. Mahavamsa and Chulawansa can soon have a companion in a Weerawansa version as well in the style of the Mathew, Mark and Luke versions of the Gospels.

ISS

Posted by: Ilaya Seran Senguttuvan | April 15, 2010 03:54 PM

This sermon on Buddhism to Sinhalese Buddhists in Sri Lanka will not lead anyone anywhere. If people behaved the way Buddha and Christ preached them to the history of mankind would certainly have been different. People who applauded human bombs and gave cyanide capsules to children are now preaching religion. Diasporic literature is all about "democratic" Eazam Tamils.

Posted by: Daya | April 15, 2010 07:32 PM

The writer conveniently ignores the original indigenous ‘Elu’ speaking inhabitants of Sri Lanka to intimate his own views that the whole of Sinhala civilisation arrived from Tamil Nadu through northern Sri Lanka.

What he fails to fathom is that Sri Lanka being an island and as such migrations happened at various periods from all sides of the compass. Unlike in a contiguous land mass where migrations have to pursue a direct course in an island nation like Sri Lanka the migrations do not have to follow a linear course as journeys by sea follow a path that is multi-polar. This is very true of island nations. An island like Britain had migrations from the north and the east by Scandinavians (Vikings), from the south by the French and Germanic tribes, and southwest by the Iberian tribes.
These migrations were a result of trade winds that brought inhabitants to island nations. Similarly Sri Lanka underwent migrations from Northeast India from what is now Gujarat (incidentally Sinhalese and Gujarati have evolved from the ancient language Prakit). It is astounding the similarity in vocabulary of Sinhala and Gujarati. These traders that settled on Sri Lankan shores also incorporated the indigenous ‘Elu’ with their Prakit that evolved into Sinhala.

The writer also looks condescendingly on the Tamil that is spoken in Tamil Nadu as opposed to the purity of the Tamil spoken in Sri Lanka. Modern languages evolve by loan words from various languages. Modern English has French, Latin, German, Dutch, Tamil, Hindi and lately American words. With modern communications this will continue. Modern Sinhala has undergone this change too and has incorporated loan words from Tamil, Dutch and Portuguese. Please click on the links below to examine this phenomenon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_loanwords_in_Sinhala
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_loanwords_in_Sinhala
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamil_loanwords_in_Sinhala

As to the research by E. Logeswaran, he goes back to 200000 BCE without any archaeological evidence to supplant his Tamil centric views of Sri Lanka. As for the genetic research, Spencer Wells in his research on the ‘Journey of Man’ proves that modern Europeans are genetically linked to the ‘sand people’ of South Africa so it is not surprising that Sri Lankans and Indians have a genetic link too.

I agree with the author on the eloquent five points he makes about Buddhism. However I disagree with his observation and I quote ‘Sinhala Buddhists too like the Tamil Hindus believe in rebirth and astrological predictions’. End of quote. Rebirth in Hinduism believes that the soul (athma) progresses from one life to the next.
In Theravada Buddhism, only the ‘Karma’ is transferred to a new born life and the new born life is not the essence of the original person or life who subjected the deeds. In Theravada Buddhism there is no soul (Anathma) so there is no transfer of substance as such. Once a person dies there is no soul that lives on and only aspect that remains is the ‘Karma’ and that is transferred to another new born life. So equating Hinduism and Buddhism as such regarding re-birth is erroneous.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2010 09:08 PM

All this research and observations of Dr. Narapalasingham are mentioned in an attempt to convince the reader that the Tamils and Sinhalese could co-exist in this island Sri Lanka.

That is quite true,if the Tamils only desist from claiming a separate state and instead making up their minds to live peacefully with the Sinhalese where anyone can live anywhere in the island.

Posted by: Carlo Dissanayake | April 15, 2010 10:20 PM

"Thus, there is no conclusive proof that the Sinhala Buddhists are the original settlers in Sri Lanka..."

I guess in the next article you will be theorising HOW SINHALA-BUDDHIST have no right to exist in Sri Lanka.

Because, ALL Sinhala = Tamil and Buddhism is universal.

I don't think you have answered the question:

If Tamil and Sinhala were there together at one point. Why is it that there are NO Sinhala words in Tamil.

It is often the case that indigenous community take up words of a invader . Eg: Australian aborigines lost their language due to English.

MAy be the same way the Sinhaese adopted words that did not exist in Sinhala/Indigenous local Lanka language.

Posted by: Sinhala_Voice | April 15, 2010 10:53 PM

This author has unfortunately relied on the Wikipedia which is completely mis-representative when it comes to any politically charged matters like Sinahala-Tamil issues, due to the active politically motivated interventions of cyber-fighters who were carrying the LTTE war, as well as counter groups of the sinhalese into this on-line encyclopedia. Some of us who have studied south-Indian and Dravidian etymology, history and toponymics from an European perspective can say that most of the entries are mis-representative or downright wrong. As for place-names in the north and east, the early work of K. Velu Pillai (in Yalpana Vaibhava Kaumudi), J. P. Horsburg(in The Ceylon Antiquarian), Lewis, Rasanayagam, S. Paranavitana, Dr. K. Inthrapala are far more reliable than what has been generated since 1975 when the ethnic conflict began. Since then there has been a re-writing and falsification of history to prove the theory of "exclusive Tamil Homelands". The Sinhalese lived and ruled in every part of the Island including Jaffna. The Tamils also were found scattered, in much smaller numbers, in all sorts of places. Brahamins and religious people went about freely. The ethnic distinctions of today did not exist with the same sharpness and ferocity as implied by Narapalsingham, or some nationalist Sinhalese writers, or by the "exclusive Tamil homelands" advocates. Geographers like Gerald Peiries and Peebles have looked at this in detail. Michael Roberts has also alluded to the "rewriting" of history, by noting the sharp transition in the position of Dr. A. J. Wilson in his pre-1970 writings of social history and post-1970 writings of social history (see Roberts,J. South Asian Studies, vol XXVII, no.1 2004). Narapalasingham (an economist), has also fallen into the trap of following recently concocted history, etymology and toponymics found in the Wikipedia.

Similarly, I am utterly intrigued by his remark "south Indian invader Elara (2nd century BE, i.e. 5-6 century BC)". One may perhaps begin by noting that virtually nothing definite is known about South Asian History prior to about the time of Asoka. From sometime after that, the Mahavamsa account breaks away from myth, and becomes is remarkably accurate, keeping in mind that it deals with nearly a thousand kings, queens, princes, Generals etc., it certainly gets a number of them wrong. However, the percentage is less than a few percent. When Ponnambalam and others began politically motivated attacks on the Mahavamsa in the mid 1930s, Geiger himself wrote and article discussing its strengths and weaknesses, and Geiger published it in the Roy. Asiatic Soc. Journal. What Geiger wrote in 1935 is still valid and non-controversial.

The Mahavamsa author of the 5th century CE has done an astonishingly superb job, given that he did not have computers, libraries, scholarly conferences etc. for review and revision. However, he assimilated and transformed all the available material with genius. It is surely far superior in accuracy to some of our Epic historical poems of the West. In fact, Dr. Indrapala's recent book (Evolution of an ethnic Identity, 2005) has a strong defense of the Mahavmsa where a more balanced, scholarly evaluation has been given. The citizen's of Sri Lanka, whether they call themselves Tamil or Sinhalese, can be justly proud of the Mahavmsa as the greatest Epic Poem written in Pali and that it was a product of Lanka. It probably was a "best seller" which was taken along the silk route during its time, with translations in to Burmese, and partly into Chinese and other languages.

Posted by: Francois LaMarche | April 15, 2010 11:23 PM

Dr.Narapalasingham,
I quote you
"Thus, there is no conclusive proof that the Sinhala Buddhists are the original settlers in Sri Lanka. It is high time that the distorted versions of the history of Sri Lanka are...."
Please answer these questions

1.If Tamils lived from pre historic times in SL and had continuously had their own kingdoms why dont you have any stong archiological evidence for that?

2.Where are your Cities simillar to Anuradhapura and Polonnaruwa?

3.Where do you have any type of ruins that is found today in these cities?

4.In your great seperate civilisation,where is any creation like Sigiriya,Yapawwa?

5.You claim that Tamil language is a pure one that has a continous existance in SL.So can you show us any inscriptions written in Tamil by any Tamil King? Of COURSE there is one in Jaffna written by King Parakramabahu 1 in Tamil to facilitate trade between SL and South India.BuT WHERE are yours?

6. How come you become Buddists first and then become wholesale Hindus again cos you claim you became Buddhists fist and then Hindus.

7.The contents of Mahavansa have been significantly proven by archiological and other facts.That is why Tamils have a burning grude and jelousy against that?Can you prove any of your chronicals like that?

8.How come Sinhala language is unique to SL and Tamil not?If Sinhala is a product of Tamil why dont we understand your Tamil? If that was the case it should be like Tamil and Malayalam where one can understand the other.

9.Why sinhalese like Hindi Music and films as against Tamil songs and Movies if Sinhala was evolved from Tamil?

10.If Tamil was the main language in the country can you produce any tamil book written during that period probably in the so called Jaffna Kingdom?

Also my reply to some of your false assertions are as follows.

1.The country was one unit for long time till the Portugese came.In fact the cradle of the sinhala civilisation was Rajarata or the dry zone from Anuradha pura upto present day Jaffna.Only after the Kalinga Maga invation Sinhalese shifted to the south.In that sense Northern Province is our homeland two.

2.It may be true that for a small period(compared to the long history of SL) there was a kingdom in Jaffna.But that was a weak one which did not show any resistance to Portugeese and surrendered.The main main reason is this Kingdom was not so independant in fact was subservient to the Main ruler in Kotte.

3.Even after the surrender Jaffna Tamils did not offer any resistant to Portugese.In contrast there were large number of rebellion in south against Portugese and Dutch rulers.(Please refer to books published by Portugeese and Dutch historians not sinhala historians)

4.The entire country came under one flag for the last before the potugese under King Parakramabahu the sixth.Dont spread lies that British only did it.

5.Also you mention "The missing part is the mutual understanding the subsequent rulers in Kotte, Kandy and Jaffna had for co-existence. Perhaps the intent was to stop the past pattern of conflicts for dominance and to ‘live and let others live’ peacefully."How false this is.When ever there was a threat to the unity of the country the main ruler in the south has done the unification again Like King Parakramabahu.

6.The names like Wijasinha(m) are not found in Tamil Nadu as one of my TN friend told me.So the implication is sinhalese with these names who lived in the north became tamil with the influence of TN and loss of sinhala kings control over north due to Prtugese invation.

I can go on and break all points in your article but time does not permit me.

So I request you not to live in fantacies about your tamil nation.

Now the time has come for a great open debate between Tamils like you and may be Illaya seran and Sinhala historians to clarify matters.

In fact this challange has been done by Sinhala historians to Tamil side but no tamil has been dared to accept it for fear of revealing your false history.

Even today Nalin De Silva is repeating this challange.So would you accept????

Posted by: PP | April 16, 2010 01:14 AM

The famous quote, "There was only one christian and he died on the cross!" comes to mind while contemplating the impact of religions on the human species. All religions have become instruments of strife, because we have made them labels on empty containers. Identities, languages and cultures are evolving concepts, that define us as a people at any point in time. Are we a better people because of the language we speak, culture we live and the religion we practice? What matters is what we are now. Until we begin to look to the future and try to become more 'Humane' as humans, we have no hope as individuals and as a people. The most precious identity we share is being 'Humans'. The past is only a lesson for the future. Let us learn our lessons and move on.

Dr. Narapalasingam has underlined we are one people and share not only genes, but many aspects of our common identity. As he has rightly pointed out the Muslims in the Eastern province today are better versed in Tamil language and literature than the Tamils themselves. Similarly, I have come across Tamils and Muslims who speak better Sinhala than the Sinhalese. These are positive aspects in our society that have to be appreciated and encouraged.

let us remember that our primordial ancestor was an 'Ape' that learned to stand upright on two legs some where in east Africa! We have not walked over a long distance in time and space to become 'Apes' again!

Posted by: Dr.Rajasingham Narendran | April 16, 2010 01:20 AM

This is all Tamil racist BS, trying in vain selectively and dupliciously to impose Tamil hegamony/supriority/purity.

The exclusivist Tamil enclave in the North of SL where no none tamil has the right to live (or even to visit judging from recent articles)is the result of such racism.

Their armed wing was defeated. Their idealogical wing is trying to create space for resurrection of Tamil racist hegamony over the island which must be defeated too.

All people of Heladiva (Sri Lanka) had the right to live anywhere in the country in ancient times. It is time now to re create conditions where all Sri Lankans can visit, holiday, and live anywhere in Sri Lanka. There are no exclusivist enclaves designated for any particular community in this island. This is not supremacy. This is true democracy & accommodation.

Posted by: Hela | April 16, 2010 03:34 AM

iam convinced tamils were in s.l. even before the origin of my race sinhale.

iam convinced tamil buddhists were in s.l. before buddhism came to s.l.for me it is not important who ruled whom,nor the question of kingdoms ,or aryan,dravidian civilizations or development.it is history.as carlo dissanayake says what is important is that we s.l.ans,irrespective of our differences,live in peace and harmony in the future.for that to happen the chauvenistic way of thinking of the sinhale and the tamil people(chauvenist from both sides is not the majority).

what we need is a federal setup in s.l.(not because of the homeland theory).federal setup is not seperation ,nor would it lead to seperation.

whole of s.l. is the homeland for all s.l.ans.sinhalese who beleives s.l. belongs to the sinhalese are chauvenist just like tamils and muslims who beleive certain parts of s.l.belongs to them.decentralization of political power is good for the development of s.l.let us develope our country s.

l. together and this we can.your excellency M.R. it is in your power,and iam convinced you will do it. ranjit de mel berlin/colombo

Posted by: ranjit de mel | April 16, 2010 04:08 AM

''A research project carried out in 1995 by Human Genetics unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Colombo in collaboration with the Department of Human Genetics, University of New Castle Upon Tyne confirmed that the Sinhalese and the Tamils in Sri Lanka are the descendants of a single genetic group''

Never heard of a geneticist called Logeswaran. Could the author please give a reference to this study? Because no study I know has yet confirmed any origins that is descendants for any group. Infact no study using classical markers have been able to pin point origins for the Sinhalese, i.e who the Sinhalese are descend from. Some studies from the earliest times using classical markers and newer studies molecular markers have clearly shown that Sinhalese and Tamils have different origins. Sinhalese are an older race in the island, than the Tamils.

There's no trace of any permanant Tamil Kingdoms, before the establishment of the one in Jaffna, which was a result of the well known invasion in the 13th century.

Before you accuse the Sinhalese of racism and of supremacy complexes, you should look into yourself, and see what you are arguing for. For the Sinhalese Sri Lanka is their land. For the Tamils, you have your land in South India. Why try to make an alternative history, with ''facts'' obviously just taken out of thin air, for the sole purpose of laying a foundation to claim supremacy?

''Forgotten Tamil Buddhists'' - Now, what a revealing sentence? If Buddhism amoung Tamils was strong, we would see some Tamil Buddhists today and it would have left some traces in the Tamil commmunity.

Just because there were Tamil Buddhists in Tamil Nadu, and Sri Lanka had kings with Tamil ancestry does not prove that the present day Tamil population existed at all in Sri Lanka at that time, with a country/kingdom of your own. On the contrary, it really shows that there really wasn't a seperate Tamil country in Sri Lanka. Why did they have to go to south India to fetch spouces? No reference to intermarriages or wars between Sri Lanka and the made-up Tamil country in the island and wars or intermarriages between this made-up Tamil country and Tamil Nadu, is ever recorded anywhere.

Amma, Akka, Nangi are not Tamil words. They are Sanskrit words.

Posted by: Junejuly | April 16, 2010 03:01 PM

I take the position that disagreements over who came first are completely irrelevant to the discourse on the Tamil struggle. It is a struggle for justice based on denial of their individual and collective rights.
Some thoughts to debate:

1. The further we go back in time, the harder it becomes to verify anything with certainty. Some archeologists’ or anthropologists’ digging out a statute here or an inscription there doesn't give "proof" of anything; it is merely speculation and conjecture, better left to the academic musings of tenured faculty with nothing better to do.

2. Instead of focusing on inherently unreliable accounts of history and perpetually bickering about it, focus on ‘living memory.’ By this I mean the oldest memory of the oldest living person in the country. Suppose we have the oldest person at 100 years. His memory extends to another 100 years (by including what he heard from the memories his parents and his grandparents). So a 200-year history is what is ‘verifiable’ and ‘relevant,’ and this is what really matters. Those in engineering fields may know this concept as ‘windowing.’

3. Perhaps 99 % of Tamils in Sri Lanka had ancestors who can easily claim a 200-year history; that is more than sufficient to constitute a distinct group with a distinct memory. Going back even further to prove Tamil presence in Sri lanka is not really important, though I personally believe that Tamil presence in Sri lankia extends back by several centuries. Not that such a history is essential to demand certain rights; some people claim that their ancestors might have lived a few years, even a few centuries, more than the ancestors of others and therefore it gives them more rights to the land. Nonsense. Individuals have certain inalienable rights and their own ‘individual sovereignties” no matter what someone else’s ancestors did, how long or where they lived.

4. A state gets its sovereignty by the voluntary pooling of individual sovereignties. Where a large number of individuals forming a distinct group are denied their rights, they can collectively claim to have withheld their consent to be governed by the State and demand separate political arrangements; that is the case with Tamils in Sri Lanka.

5. States perpetually contend with the problem of how to balance the demands of popular sovereignty and individual sovereignty. Even after a few hundred years of democratic experiments, people in the US are still debating how much popular sovereignty can be allowed to encroach on individual sovereignty. The current health care debate is an example of this.

Posted by: Expatriate | April 16, 2010 06:30 PM

What was the population of srilanka before hundred years? before 500 years? before thousand years? and before two thousand years? Will any body enlighten me? In those days sinhalese may be few lakhs atmost and tamils may be few thousands in north. That's all.

Posted by: periyan | April 17, 2010 12:47 AM

1. Amma & Akka are Sanskrit? Where did you pull this out of? Have you ever since the Dravidian or Sanskrit etymological dictionary? Here is a hint, the Sankara word for Amma is Madha. Have ever read a Tamil or Sankrit Dictionary or research paper?

2. Have you ever read Manimekalai or Viracholiyam or any of the other Tamil Buddhist works? Did you know that after Sri Lanka, the most number of Buddha statues are found in Tamil Nadu?

3. What kind of evidence (Archaeological or otherwise) do you have to prove that the civilization of Anurathapura were Sinhalese? All the evidence only point to the fact that the majority of people in Anurathapura were Buddhists and their language was a form of Prakrit. Not even the chronicles say that there were Sinhalese in Anurathapura 2,000 years ago. In fact the word Sinhala nor hela appears in either the Mahavamsa or Dipavamsa. Have you ever gone thru let alone read either of these two works? (I have!)

4.How many rock inscriptions have you ever read in your life? Do you know that more than 125 rock inscriptions have been found in Sri Lanka (Majority at Trincomalee). Have you read the volumes by Paranawithara on the rock inscriptions of Sri Lanka?

5. Are you aware of the Sinhala word of Tamil origin dictionary published by the Lake House by a Sinhala professor? Do you know how many word that Dictionary contains?

6. Are you aware of the fact that Polonnaruwa was build by the Cholas as a front against the rulers of the south? Did you know its original name was Jananathamangalam? Did you know that there are more than 16 Hindu temples in Polonnaruwa? Did you know that the oldest temple in Polonnaruwa is a Siva temple? Have you ever seen this temple or any of the other temples in Polonnaruwa?

7. You talk about Anuradhapura, are you aware of the ancient Tamil cities of Punakari or Kalaththumedu in Vanni? Have you ever visited these places?

5. Do you know that Hindu Temples in Sri Lanka were blasted by cannon during the Portuguese period? Now why don't you point out some Buddhist archaeological remains like those of Anuradhapura & Yappahuwa in coastal Sri Lanka? You cannot because as with the 1000 Hindu Temples, Buddhist temples were also destroyed by the Portuguese in the coastal areas.

6. Did you know that just 2,250 that both Sri Lanka & Tamil Nadu formed one single landmass? there was no sea between the two areas like today! The Rameswaram temple records state that even as late as 1460 (when the remaining land bridge was destroy by a huge cyclone) you could cross over to Sri Lanka without a boat!

Posted by: S. R. Uthaya | April 17, 2010 01:47 AM

To S.R.Uthaya

Pont no 3

"What kind of evidence (Archaeological or otherwise) do you have to prove that the civilization of Anurathapura were Sinhalese? All the evidence only point to the fact that the majority of people in Anurathapura were Buddhists and their language was a form of Prakrit. Not even the chronicles say that there were Sinhalese in Anurathapura 2,000 years ago. In fact the word Sinhala nor hela appears in either the Mahavamsa or Dipavamsa. Have you ever gone thru let alone read either of these two works? (I have!"
)
So King Dutugamenu was also a Tamil king who fougt another Tamil King.So his father also a tamil was ruling in deep South.So Bikkhu Mahanama who wrote Mahawansa was also a tamil who wrote about Dutugemunu who defeated the invador Elara?

Better you read both books again.But make sure read the original books not the one translated or edited by an Ealamist.
LOL!!

Point 4
There are more than 125 inscriptions found in SL.IN fact it runs into thousands.I feel sorry for your poor knowledge.Vast majority proves the contents in Mahavansa.So refresh your knowledge again.

Point 5
Have you ever read a book or Dic about Sinhala word of Sanskrit Origin,Pali Origin,Portugese origin and with no origin to any indian languages?Dont get blinded by facts favourable to your fabricated story?

Point 6
Cholas were invadors.So the first local King to rule from there was King Wijayabahu.So is he tamil(King Wijayabahun or something?? LOL!!)

Point 7
So let us see the remains of those so called great Cities comparable to Anuradhapura or Polonnaruwa.

Point 8
There may be Hindu temples blasted by Portugese.But how come you do not have any trace? the fact is they are rudimentory tempory buildings as you just started settling in Jaffna by the time they came.

Please show us any book done by any of your scholars during that period.

Also please read the comments by JuneJuly and Francois for better understanding about Mahawansa and its reliability.

So you will not say next time that the great city was Anuradhapuram and was built by a tamil king called Pandukabayam and Buddhism was brought to SL during Devanampiyatheesan period and Khashyapa was in fact Kasiappan.

If you want you can say that great Polonnaruwa King Parakramabahu was infact a Tamil King called Parakramabahun.

Posted by: PP | April 17, 2010 11:34 AM

REF. ANONYMOUS OF 15 APRIL 2010.

I HAVE READ MANY A DEBATE BASED ON THE TAMIL-SINHALA ISSUES, ORIGINAL WRITINGS OF MR NARAPALASINGHAM AS WELL AS WRITERS BEFORE HIM AND AFTER, FOR MORE THAN 50 YEARS. MY CONTENTION IS THAT GOING INTO PRE-HISTORY, THE MAHAWAMSA, THE ETYMOLOGY OF WORDS ETC ARE NOT GOING TO HELP US. I WAS SURPRISED WHY TELEGU AND MALAYALI WORDS THAT INFLUENCED SINHALA AND TAMIL WERE NOT CONSIDERED IN THE DEBATE. FOR MANY YEARS THE TRI LINGUAL INSCRIPTION WAS CONSIDERED TO BE IN CHINESE PERSIAN AND TAMIL, BUT SCHOLARS NOW SAY THAT IT WAS NOT TAMIL BUT MALAYALAM. ACCORDING TO MY DEAR TAMIL FRIENDS MUCH OF JAFFNA FOOD PREPARATIONS WERE THOSE OF KERALA STATE AND NOT TYPICAL TAMILNADU TAMIL CUISINE. ITS WELL-KNOWN THAT THE KANDYAN SAREE'S ORIGIN IS IN KERALA. ALL MUST AGREE THAT THERE WERE TAMIL BUDDHISTS IN LARGE NUMBERS. BUDDHISM WENT TO CHINA , NOT VIA NORTH INDIA , BUT VIA PARTHIAN IRAN AS CHINESE ANNALS PROVE. KOREA AND JAPAN RECEIVED BUDDHISM LATER. HOWEVER, ACCORDING TO SOME SOUTH KOREAN SCHOLARS, THERE WAS TAMIL BUDDHIST INFLUENCE IN SOUTH KOREA IN A BIG WAY. IT SEEMS THAT EVEN TODAY KOREANS CALL MOTHER- AMMA, FATHER- APPA AND ANY LADY IN AN ENDEARING WAY ,"ANNI" - SISTER-IN LAW. FOR POLITICS OF SINHALESE AND THE TAMILS WHAT MIGHT BE RELEVANT WOULD BE TO GO BY THE BETTER KNOWN HISTORY FROM 1505-2010 AD AND ADDRESS THE HARM CAUSED TO ALL OF US BY THE FOREIGN INVASIONS; HOW AND WHY WE GOT DIVIDED; HARM CAUSED BY ONE TO THE OTHER OVER THE YEARS; WHY THAT WAS SO AND SO ON AND A SOLUTION TO SHARE THE RESOURCES AND LIVE IN HARMONY.SINHALESE WHO THOUGHT THAT TAMILS OF THE COUNTRY WERE NONENTITIES AND THE TAMILS WHO THOUGHT 'SINGHALAYA MODAYA KAWUNKANDA YODAYA' OVER THE YEARS, WERE BOTH PROVED TO BE WRONG!

IN THE ABOVE REGARD WE ALL MUST USE WHATEVER INFLUENCE WE HAVE TO URGE THE PARLIAMENTARIANS TO APPOINT A VERY STRONG AND FAIR MR SPEAKER, WHO COULD CONTROL THE MPs, A STRONG FAIRTHINKING OPPOSITION LEADER WHO UNDERSTANDS PROCEDURE AND MINISTERS WHO TALK AND WORK FOR THE COUNTRY AND NOT WASTE MOTHER LANKA'S FUNDS.

NOW I URGE "ANONYMOUS" TO CONSIDER WHAT I WRITE BELOW WHICH I HAVE DISCUSSED WITH THE LATE VEN DRs KOTAGAMA VACHISSARA - WHEN HE WAS TEACHING IN A LEADING BUDDHIST SCHOOL IN COLOMBO IN THE 1950s,WALPOLA RAHULA IN LONDON WHEN HE WAS WORKING WITH PROF I.B.HORNER, AND WITH DR E.W. ADIKARAM, DR ABRAHAM T. KOVOOR AND AN RAS MEMBER,WRITER AND FREE THINKING BUDDHIST MR S.D. DE LANEROLLE AT RATIONALISTS ASSOCIATION MEETINGS.

1.WHERE DID BUDDHA SAY THAT THERE IS A REBIRTH OF OR A REINCARNATION OF A PERSON ? HOW CAN ONE PROVE IT IF HE EVER SAID THAT? PIYADASSI THERO'S EXPERIMENTS AND HIS ELECTRIC BULB EXPLANATION WHICH HE HAD BORROWED FROM A BRITISH WRITER OF EARLY LAST CENTURY AND PROF IAN STEVENSON'S(WITH WHOM I HAVE CORRESPONDED AND PRACTICALLY ALL PARAPSYCHOLOGY DEPTS IN ALL THE UNIVERSITIES IN THE USA HAVE SUPPOSEDLY CLOSED DOWN)RESEARCH NEVER DID JUSTICE TO THAT INTERPRETATION OF BUDDHA'S TEACHING.
THE RATIONALISTS ASSOCIATION OF SRI LANKA OF THE 1960s CONSIDERED BUDDHA AS THE OLDEST RATIONALIST IN RECORDED HISTORY AND EVEN CHALLENGED SAI BABA( WHO WAS SHOWING MAGIC TO CREDULOUS DEVOTEES AND RECEIVING ATTENTION FROM THEM) WHO WAS TO VISIT LANKA.
2.
RE KARMA, WHO KNOWS HOW KARMA TRAVELS AFTER DEATH.PROVING A KARMA AND REBIRTH/REINCARNATION ARE LIKE TRYING TO PROVE OR DISPROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. THE KARMA OR VOLITIONAL ACTIVITY OF A PERSON SHOULD BE BETWEEN BIRTH AND DEATH. SEE WHAT HAPPENED TO HON. BOGALLAGAMA. WHAT HAPPENS AFTER DEATH NOBODY KNOWS.
3.
NIRVANA THAT BUDDHA PREACHED WAS THE STAGE IN THE RATIONAL MIND OF A PERSON THAT ENABLES A PERSON TO UNDERSTAND THE WORLD AS IT IS. WE THINK THAT THERE IS A SELF, BUT THAT IS ONLY THE 5 AGGRGATES-RUPA,VEDANA,SANNA,SANKHARA & VINNANA; WE GET OUR KNOWLEDGE FROM OUR BIRTH INSTINCTS- CRYING, BREATHING AND EATING MILK OF THE MOTHER FOR SURVIVAL, AND THEN VIA THE KNOWLEDGE FROM THE 5 SENSES AND THE MIND ( THE 6TH SENSE OF BUDDHISM) UNTIL OUR DEATH.
4.
WHAT I DISCUSSED WITH THOSE SCHOLARS WAS THAT IT WAS THE RE-OCCURING OR RE-BIRTH OF TANHA, THE ATTACHMENTS, THE SHAMELESS EMPTYNESS- NINDITHAVU HISDEYA- THAT BUDDHA WANTED STOPPED. BUDDHISTS AND BUDDHIST PRIESTS WERE SO INFLUENZED BY THE VEDIC CULTURES, SHAIVAITES AND VISHNUITES THAT THEY EMBRACED THE KARMA RE-BIRTH AND NIRVANA IN THE SAME FORM. EVEN THOUGH "ANONYMOUS" TRIES TO SAY 'ANATHMA' HIS MEDIUM THAT CARRIES THE KARMA HAS TO HAVE A NAME LIKE "ANTHARABHAVA" AND "GANDABBA."THOSE IDEAS ARE CONJECTURES AND A RATIONAL BUDDHA, THE AUTHOR OF KALAMA SUTRA , WOULD NEVER HAVE GIVEN THAT INTERPRETATION. AS HEIDEGGER, PALMER AND GADAMAR AND MANY OTHERS HAVE TOLD BEFORE THEM ONCE A WORD LEAVES A PERSON'S MOUTH THE SPEAKER HAS NO CONTROL. WHEN I SAY "I SEE A MAN SEATED IN A CHAIR WITH A TELESCOPE" EVEN TODAY, HOW MANY INTERPRETATIONS WOULD YOU GIVE TO SUCH A SAYING. AM I HOLDING THE T'COPE, IS THE MAN HOLDING IT OR IS HE SEATED IN THE CHAIR AND THE MAN HAS IT ON THE CHAIR -ON A SIDE? THIS IS A POPULAR EXAMPLE IN TEXT ANALYSIS AND NOT MINE.

ANONYMOUS, PLEASE TELL BUDDHIST PRIESTS TO PREACH ON THE DHAMMA CHAKKA- THE IST SERMON TO THE 5 MENDICANTS, KALAMA SUTRA, TEVIJJA SUTRA (RE TRI VEDAS), SAMANNA PHALA SUTRA AND BRAHMA JALA SUTRA. SOME CANNOT AS THEY ARE NOT EDUCATED ENOUGH AND SOME WILL NOT ! THAT IS BECAUSE THEY INDULGE IN ACTIVITIES LIKE WORSHIPPING AND BELIEVING IN GODS, SOOTHSAYERS,ASTROLOGY, NECROMANCY, CHARLATANRY,
AND ALL SUPERSTITIONS THAT GAUTAMA BUDDHA DID NOT DO. IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS HE PREACHES IN THOSE SERMONS THAT SHRAMANA BHAWATH GAUTAMAYO, AFTER ACCEPTING ALMS FROM DEVOTEES DOES NOT INDULGE IN SUCH ACTIVITIES. WHEN I TRIED SEVERAL TIMES IN DHARMA SAKACHCHA, THE ANSWER WAS SIMILAR TO SAYING,"MUDIYANSE MAHATTAYA HAS READ SUTRAS(KIYAWALA THIYANAWA,) THAT IS GOOD", AND THE DISCUSSION ENDED RIGHT THERE!

ANONYMOUS, IT IS ONLY A TEXTUAL HISTORICAL ANALYSIS TO THE SUTRAS THAT WILL SHOW WHAT TRUE BUDDHISM IS. LUZACS OF ENGLAND AND MOHTILAL BANARSIDAS OF INDIA PUBLISHED TRANSLATIONS OF THOSE SUTRAS. SINHALA BUDDHISM HONESTLY IS A MIX OF VEDIC,SAIVA,VISHNUITE , MAHAYANIC AND OTHER CULTURES AND PRACTICES. I RESPECT THE SASANA, BUT PEOPLE AND BUDDHIST PRIESTS ARE LOST IN A JUNGLE OF SUPERSTITION AND FOOLISH PRIDE DUE TO IGNORANCE THAT BUDDHA PREACHED OF. ONE GOOD EXAMPLE TO CONSIDER IS THIS QUESTION:

HOW MANY BUDDHIST GIRLS AND BOYS ARE SINGLE TODAY BECAUSE THEY OR THEIR ELDERS BELIEVE IN ASTROLOGY? BUDDHA IN ONE OF THE SERMONS REFERS TO ABOUT 150 THINGS THAT HE DOES NOT DO TO GET FAVOURS FROM DEVOTEES, AND ASTROLOGY IS ONE!

PLEASE RESPOND "ANONYMOUS" OR ANY OTHER.

Posted by: Mudiyanse | April 18, 2010 12:45 AM

REF. ISS OF 15 APRIL 2010

ISS'S COMMENTS ARE HILARIOUS! CYRIL IS A ONE T MATHEW AND THE OTHER OF THE GOSPEL I THINK IS "MATTHEW." THE ARCHAEOLOGIST IS SENARATH PARANAVITANE, WHO WAS SCHOLARLY TREATED BY DR JTR RE THE TOMB OF ELARA AND THE SO CALLED PARAKRAMABAHU STATUE. EVEN SIR DBJ WHEN HE WAS RAS PRESIDENT IN THE 1930s HAD DOUBTS ABOUT THE POPULAR VIEW IT SEEMS.

Posted by: Mudiyanse | April 18, 2010 01:08 AM

1. If I say yes what kind of evidence do you have to disprove me? Absolutely NON! Anyway you have not provided any proof that they were Sinhalese!. FYI: Dutugemunu & his father were from the Naga race, the Naga race also flourished in south & east India. Have you heard of Nagapattinam in Tamil Nadu?

Bikkhu Mahanama was from the great Buddhist centre at Kanchipuram, the biggest north of Anuradhapura at that time. He may or may not have been a Tamil. Most probably he was a north Indian. Nowhere does he state that he was a Sinhalese or had any connection with the Sinhalese.

2. I Read the books edited and released by the Buddhist Pali Centre. If you have any questions you better take it up with them dear :)

3. It has been said by schoolers (Sinhala & Others) who have intensively studied the Mahavamsa that the Dutugemunu / Ellaalan episode is an interpolation on the original work by Bikkhu Mahanama. The style and other features of the work do not match.

4. I am sorry I should been clearer, I said 125+ Tamil inscriptions in Sri Lanka, not the total number of stone inscriptions in the country. That 125+ number does not include the Pali & Sinhala inscriptions that refer to Tamils.

5. Yes I have read research papers & etymological papers as well as dictionaries (Tamil, English, Sinhala, Pali & Sanskrit). I am not claiming that I am an expert but I do know my numbers.

6. Vijaya, Nissangamalla (was he Sinhalese? No he was a Kalinga just like Tamil Kalinga Maga, the difference was that he was Buddhist while Maga was a Hindu) and a long line of others were also invaders. So what is your point? It was how things happened in those days, do not try to impose our present conditions on the past.

7. So did you know what remained of those great cities of Anuradhapura or Polonnaruwa 100 years ago? Let me tell you something dear what you see today at either Anuradhapura or Polonnaruwa are extensive reconstructions by the department of archeology. If that department had taken the same pain with the cities in Vanni, then their will be lots to see. Still you must visit these two cities in Vanni because like Anuradhapura or Polonnaruwa they were capital cities of the Tamil Kingdoms that flourished there at that time.

8. 100 of temples have been identified so far, and I suggest that you visit the national archive at Colombo and read the Portuguese documents there they will tell you lot about your temporary buildings (I did not know that people build temporary build with granite in those days, thanks for letting me know)and I suggest that you read the book called the literary history Tamil Sri Lanka(a Tamil book). It lists many Tamil works that were produced in this country before the 1800', on subject as far ranging as medicine, astrology, and science. Further one should not talk about subject on which one has no knowledge!

9. I have not questioned the reliability of Mahavamsa, I have only questioned how you Sinhalese try to interpret that great work. If you had really read that work then you would have known that it was written not as a history of this country but as a history of the Mahavihara. You would have also known that it makes no reference to the Sinhalese. But only to Buddhism. I also suggest that you read both the Ramayanam & Mahabharatam as well with the Mahavamsa. Because it will explain many stories in the Mahavamsa, that come before the time of Asoka.

10. I suggest that you visit the National museum at Colombo and view the rock inscription there that says how Rajarajendra 1 donated money to Buddhist temples. I have seen a list that mentions 100 such donations (and effort taken by them repair Buddhist temples) by the Cholas during their time here. So the theory that Cholas destroyed Buddhist Temples should be reviewed. It was written in the culavamsa hundreds of years after Chola invasion.

PS: Anuradhapura was build by the Brahmin Anuradha who came with Vijaya, according to the Mahavamsa.

You have answered non of my questions but have only asked more questions. Next time answer mine first before asking your own questions.

--

To Periyan: It depends on the time frame, it was as high as 5 million to low as a few thousands. And the percentage of Sinhalese to Tamils was not always 74% to 13% as it is now. Tamils were as high as 30% just 150 years ago. The Sinhalese were only 56% in the 1860.

Posted by: S. R. Uthaya | April 18, 2010 05:19 AM

It is VERY IMPORTANT for TAMIL COMMUNALISTS to ESTABLISH the LIE that they were in Sri Lanka first... After all, it is the Backbone for their ENTIRE JUSTIFICATION of TERRORISM towards the Sinhalese as a Means to get their TAMIL ONLY STATE.

Posted by: Devinda Fernando | April 18, 2010 10:36 AM

TO Mr.S.R.Uthaya

Simple answer I have for you is that if you so claim that there is no refernce in Mahavamsa about Sinhalese the simple reason is there were only Sinhalease in this country at the time of its first writing and after.Because Tamils were coming and going from TN to SL who did not have permanant settlement here until some 300 year ago.

Posted by: PP | April 18, 2010 01:03 PM

Dear Mudiyanse,

Tku. It is Paranavitharne. Typo error ended up as
Paditharatne as I was at the sametime doing some writing on the former UNP Chairman and noted Accountant.

ISS

Posted by: Ilaya Seran Senguttuvan | April 18, 2010 01:18 PM

S R Uthaya,

It is good that you accept that Anuradhapura was built by Anuradha who came to SL with Vijaya. Since many kings that Sinhalese consider as their kings are in fact Tamils (because you have added a "m" or a "n" at the end of their names) according to your version, Sinhalese must be a sub sect of Tamils. Therefore Tamils should embrace Sinhalese and should not try to separate from Sinhalese. Tamils also should not try to demarcate some parts of the country as traditional Tamil homelands as it is completely against your arguments.

On the other hand your denial of the existence of an old nation called Sinhala (going back to at least few thousand years) doesn't match with the ground reality and availabe historical evidence (an evolution of a distinct language & a culture primarily based on Buddhism and hydro agriculture system).

The language Sinhala is not spoken anywhere in the world and there is no evidence of a mass migration of people called Sinhala from any country to SL. Therefore logically (& evidentially) the Sinhala nation was born and evolved with in the confines of the island of Sri Lanka. The claim of Sinhalese to Sri Lanka stems from this base. The early migrants including Vijaya (and may be Tamils as well) were wise enough to join hands with the locals in building this great Sinhala nation.

The Tamils who came to this country with the South Indian & European invaders with the intention of conquering the island never seems to have assimilated themselves in to the Sinhala nation. That is why you come accross the first Tamil kingdom in SL in the 13th century soon after an invasion and always become pawns of outside powers (you are not rooted here).

One option for you guys (to achieve harmony) is to assimilate in to Sinhala nation like your ancestors did.

Posted by: Hela | April 18, 2010 11:21 PM

The same goes for Sinhala liers as well Mr. Fernando! Repeating the same lie over and over again will not make it the truth!

What proof do you have for your statements Mr. PP? The mahavamsa does not mention Sinhalese because their was no Sinhala language at that time. People spoke a form of Prakrit. The first rudimentary traces of Sinhala begins to appear only around the 8th century in rock cuttings, it is only from around the 12/13 centuries that Sinhala identity along with its language developed fully. This is not my personal view but the result of studies by prominent Sinhalese schoolers. The Mahavamsa and Dipavamsa speak only of prakrit speaking Buddhists and NOT Sinhala Buddhists!

Have you seen the rock inscription at galle were it says that the King gave donations to the large Brahmin community there? Are you aware of the Somasundarareswaram Siva temple at galle that was destroyed by the Portugese? Or the great Thondeswaram Siva temple at Dondra head? Did you know how many Tamils lived there? Are you aware of how many rock inscriptions have been discovered there? Are you aware of the countless hindu statues that have been discovered all over the island from Point Pedro to Dondra Head?

Have you read great Buddhist works of Manimegalai or Kundalakesi? If you had then you would be aware of the Tamil Buddhists of Sri Lanka. How the Buddhist ruins in the north and east match what is described in Manimegalai. They are different from the Buddhist ruins of the south.

Posted by: S. R. Uthaya | April 19, 2010 02:01 AM

Mr. Hela repeating the same gibberish over and over again without any proof will not cut it! Neither you nor your friends have answered any of my questions! So I am not going to waste my time replying to some people's lullaby tales. Unless someone decides to get rational and scientific I am not wasting my time!

Vijaya is no more Sinhala than you are British just because you speak English! Vijaya was a Prakrit speaking Hindu.

Even Geiger who defended the Mahavamsa has said that nothing prior to the Asoka period can be relied upon!

Some Sinhalese try to claim that Sri Lankan Tamils & South Indian Tamils while some like PP states that he cannot find the same things between them. Without realising that the Sri Lankan Tamils are unique to this country and that Sinhalese will not find coherance between the language, culture and heritage of Sri Lankan Tamils & South Indian Tamils.

Posted by: S. R. Uthaya | April 19, 2010 05:24 AM

Mr.S.R.Uthaya

"The mahavamsa does not mention Sinhalese because their was no Sinhala language at that time. People spoke a form of Prakrit. The first rudimentary traces of Sinhala begins to appear only around the 8th century in rock cuttings, it is only from around the 12/13 centuries that Sinhala identity along with its language developed fully"

You are spot on Mr.Uthaya.Great!!.So now you have admitted that Sinhala language has a long evolution and the prosent form of Sinhala started to be visible from 8Th century.

So the language can not evolve outof the blue or from Mars.It happended over a long period of time and it is still evolving daily.So this is the great evidence for the existance of Sinhalese in this country.

In contrast,Tamils speak Tamil very close to Tamil nadu tamil,so see the lesser extent of evolution of your language.This is the great proof for your recent roots in this country.In fact one TN friend told me that you speak Tamil like Malayalam and lot of Malayalam words are there.

Further in the records of early british rulers the people in Jaffna were called as Malabars.

There was no need in Mahavansa to speak about Sinhalese because there were no other races in this country at that time.

There i

Posted by: PP | April 19, 2010 05:57 AM

My friend S R Uthaya,

The last independant kingdom of SL was called Sinhale (why not Demale?) though it was ruled by a king from South Indian origin.

It is interesting that you accept few things that most Eelamists, Tamil Nationalists & other anti Sinhalese have been denying for at least 80 years now (i.e. Vijaya's comming to SL and building of cities by his followers, the authenticity of Mahavansa etc. etc)

However, your logic has failed to explain how almost all Budhists of Sri Lankans being ended up as Sinhalese & the dominant community of the country (by an overwhelming majority). It would be still higher if you discount the Tamil labour that was brought here by the European invaders.

Again and again your all encompassing identification of Tamil heritage covering all of Sri Lanka negates any & all justification for listing specific areas exclusively as Tamil homelands. There's no need for it as the entire SL is a Tamil homeland.

Therefore GOSL is right in it's efforts to open up North & East for Sinhalese, Muslims & any others to settle down.

Please pass this revelation to all Tamils, especially the diaspora who is harping on only a part of the country as theirs and thereby giving up the rest of the country.

Posted by: Hela | April 19, 2010 08:36 AM

Dear Anonymous, Mr ISS or Dr Narapalasingham,

The dialogues in this forum are indeed interesting & thought provoking. Could one of you or TRANSCURRENTS arrange a scholarly discussion on the so called Theravada Buddhism in Sri Lanka based on what ANONYMOUS wrote on 04 April 2010 and my comment thereto.

As a student of Buddhism and other World Religions and an Agnostic professing a Buddhist way of life, I can have a healthy and friendly discussion here with those who attempt to maintain that Sri Lankan/Sinhalese Buddhism is the pure Buddhism preached by Gotama Buddha in 550 B.C.(sic). Much water has flowed under the bridge since the series of debates starting with those of Very Rev Fr Jacome Gonsalvez for Catholics Vs Huguenot( French Protestant)Ambassador Sieur de la Nerolle in Narendrasinghe's Court, Waragoda Debate, Panadura debates of Rev M.Gunananda Vs Christian Fathers Sirimanne, Edirisinghe et al as reported by Rev Peebles and Humanist Dr JAMES T. RUTNAM'S Journalist father whose original notes are well-bound and preserved and are deposited with the Evelyn Rutnam Institute in Jaffna.Unlike in those good old days when Lankans had only one enemy in the person of a foreign invader, and 2 influential religions openly debating to show superiority, today we have the opportunity to comment on the wrongs of our own interpreters of scripture/that there are other interpretations that are possible .

I personally am beholden to TRANSCURRENTS, other sites that promote scholarly discussions and those scholars and writers like ISS who write sense as they give ample information to the readers who go by just claptrap - the garbage enmassed in gunny bags of religious, racial and other discriminations for generations- in their discussions.

Posted by: Mudiyanse | April 22, 2010 10:41 PM

Sri Lanka being a island is as expected a hybrid nation. Pluralism of Buddhism and Hinduism makes sri Lanka rather unique,it has made the worship of both Tamils and sinhalese intertwined. This relationship has being going on for centuries and should be safeguarded. It is the monoaesthetic religeons that find this pluralism unacceptable.They are the advocates of separatism from chelvanayagam to Prabahakaran.

Posted by: vas | April 24, 2010 04:50 AM

REF.VAS OF 04/24/2010

DEAR VAS,

I RESPECT YOUR OPINION. AS A STUDENT OF WORLD RELIGIONS I WAS CONFUSED AFTER READING YOUR COMMENT ,AND WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR EXPLAINING THE FOLLOWING:
1. IN WHAT SENSE DO YOU CLASS BUDDHISM AS A PLURALISTIC RELIGION ? IS IT BASED ON BUDDHA'S TEACHINGS OR THE BELIEFS AND PRACTICES THAT GOT ATTACHED TO IT OVER THE YEARS ? WHEN YOU TALK OF BUDDHISM IS IT HISTORICAL BUDDHA'S BUDDHISM OR ANOTHER? IF IT IS HISTORICAL BUDDHA'S BUDDHISM, WHAT ARE THE TEACHINGS THAT YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH?

2. HOW DOES NON VIOLENT POLITICAL SEPARATISM OF SAMUEL JAMES VELUPILLAI CHELVANAYAKAM GET CONNECTED TO HIS CHRISTIAN BACKGROUND ? DO YOU MEAN TO SAY THAT WHEN A PERSON PROFESSES A MONOTHEISTIC RELIGION, THE TENDENCY FOR THAT PERSON TO BECOME A SEPARATIST IS GREATER?

I DO NOT WISH TO COMMENT ON VP AS HE PREACHED MILITARY SEPARATISM.

THANKS

Posted by: Mudiyanse | April 25, 2010 12:17 PM

I just logged in here and the post of our friend Mr Mudiyanse (April 22). One has to tread delicately in the subject because faith is something one is expected to respect even in those instances where you have much evidence in support of your own opposite view. Adherents of Buddhism in different lands appear to have their own perception on a a given issue. I found recently the Dalai Lama in a Conference of the Theology of Freedom (Rheinhold Neibur) talks of "being nearest to God" Whereas in SL Buddhists are taught to believe there is no God as such.

Nonetheless, I wish to join you in your compliments to Transcurrents providing a platform for a healthy
discussion in this and many other subjects. I'd like to learn and possibly make my own humble contribution
in this interesting subject - whenever necessary.

Many thanks and greetings/ISS

Posted by: Ilaya Seran Senguttuvan | April 25, 2010 10:51 PM

Post a comment

(The comment may need to be approved by transcurrents.com. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting; generally approved/posted if they are not abusive of the topic as well as the author and/or another commenter.)

Name: