Hybrid Histories of South India and Sri Lanka
by Rajan Philips
(A modified version of a Review Article originally published in the Sri Lanka Journal of the Humanities, University of Peradeniya)
Having lived my life in equal parts in Sri Lanka and Canada, I have often modified the remark by a former Canadian Prime Minister, McKenzie King, that Canada “has too much geography and too little history”, to describe Sri Lanka’s never ending predicament: too much history, too little geography.
Rajarajesvaram, Thanjavur: The oldest granite edifice now in its millennium year-Pic courtesy of The Hindu
Much of this old history has been abused as political instruments over the last seventy years to essentialize and perpetuate the ethnic divisions in the country. A concerted counter to tendentious historicizing began with the 1979 seminar on the “Nationality Problems in Sri Lanka” organized by the Social Scientists’Association. Since then several scholars and commentators have joined the debate to provide well substantiated alternative accounts of our past and challenge the mythopoeic creations and essentialist renderings that have for so long poisoned our politics.
Ruwanweliseya (2nd century BCE), Anuradhapura: The oldest brick stupa in the world-pic: dailynews.lk
K. Indrapala’s book (The Evolution of An Ethnic Identity: The Tamils in Sri Lanka C. 300 BCE to C. 1200 CE) is set in the same critical and positively revisionistic genre and, while primarily tracing the evolution of the Tamil ethnic identity in Sri Lanka, it provides a comprehensive account of the pre-modern phases in the evolution of Sri Lanka’s modern ethnic coexistences. The book captures “the complex interplay of cultures, languages and religions” over 1500 years based on a comprehensive and critical review of all available sources in archaeology, epigraphy, chronicles and literary texts.
The two-part book on Buddhism among Tamils (Buddhism Among Tamils in Pre-Colonial Tamilakam and Ilam) edited by Peter Schalk and A. Velupillai, with contributions from Sri Lankan and South Indian scholars (R. Nagaswamy, S. Pathmanathan, D. Dayalan), is a mixed bag of painstaking scholarship, exegetic interpretations and idiosyncratic commentaries.
While Indrapala attempts to extricate our ancient past from the quagmires of the present, Schalk’s commentaries unabashedly link the two in a seamless wrap that is also more polemical than analytical or reflective. The book labours the question why Buddhism historically has been nothing more than a minor religion or a minority religion in Tamil societies. Inexplicably and regrettably, the book takes an exclusively longitudinal approach, mixing past and present, rather than taking a more cross-sectional and comparative approach and asking the complementary question, why did Buddhism fail to flourish in almost all Indian societies? The more pertinent questions to my purpose are: how did Sri Lanka become the most abiding home for Buddhism throughout its history, and why did not Buddhism become Sri Lanka’s only religion in the pre-colonial era? These questions are not the main focus of Indrapala’s pursuit but they are important parts of the evolutionary history that he ends up weaving.
Neither the Sinhalese nor the Tamils arrived in their current habitats “pre-mixed, pre-cooked and pre-packaged”, as Indrapala reminds us drawing on British historian Norman Davies’s dismissal of similar renderings of the arrival of the English people in 5th century Britain. Those who now speak Sinhalese in Sri Lanka and those who speak Tamil in Sri Lanka and Tamil Nadu have been drawn from different ethnic stocks throughout their histories. Also contributing to these population pools were the ancestors of the present Keralas, Kannadas and Telugus of South India. Malay, Arabic and European elements would be added later.
There is nothing new about ethnicity, but as Indarapala emphasizes at the outset of the book, one has to differentiate between archaic ethnicity and modern ethnicity. One has to equally differentiate between ethnic consciousness and identity in the ancient world and what we encounter in our time. There is no connection at all between them, especially in regard to politics, and whatever connection that is claimed is claimed from the present to the past and not bequeathed from the past to the present.
The common SISL stock
Indrapala sets the geographical context for Sri Lanka’s evolution in what he calls the South India-Sri Lanka (SISL) cultural region comprising Sri Lanka, the present states of Tamil Nadu and Kerala and the southern parts of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. It is in this setting that the explanatory variables of population, language and religion began the evolutionary process that would eventually bring Sri Lanka to its current configuration. The material base that sustained this process was itself an evolving predicator, and one that was intimately shared by the emerging societies of the entire SISL region. The main stages in the development of this base are well established – beginning with the middle stone age (Mesolithic), through the Early Iron Age (EIA) and culminating in what has been called the hydraulic civilization.
Indrapala reiterates like others before him, including Senarat Paranavitana, that the main population source of the island was its original, Mesolithic inhabitants and not any massive population movement from elsewhere. He suggests that there is evidence of the Mesolithic peoples using different languages in the early phases. He notes the generally agreed beginning of the Tamil language before the Common (or Christian) Era (BCE) based on classical Tamil literature and contemporary inscriptions. The Sinhala language would emerge later in the Common Era, not from an immigrant population of Sinhala speakers but through a process of ‘language replacement’ involving transformation of one of the indigenous languages (presumably Elu) following its exposure to North Indian languages, Prakrit and Pali, as well as Tamil and even Munda, the Austroasiatic language from the Southeast Asian region. The emergence of the Malayalam, Kannada and Telugu languages in the SISL region went through a similar process.
Trade provided the primary avenue of contact between the SISL region and the outside world – northern India, Southeast Asia, West Asia and parts of old Europe. It was trade that brought in the Prakrit-speaking traders from the western and eastern costs of northern India and set in motion the process of language replacement. Prakrit was the first “lingua franca of South Asian trade”, just as Tamil would become a key mode of communication for trade involving the SISL region in later centuries, during the Pallava and Cola periods. There were also copious contributions from the religious and the learned languages of the times, Pali and Sanskrit. The evolution of languages in the early stages would appear to have been a syncretic process rather than a competitive one, and there was no rivalry between speakers of different languages on the basis of what they spoke. Indrapala recalls the earlier observation made by Leslie Gunawardana that it would have taken a long time before all speakers of a language were subjectively and objectively considered to belong to a group. This was no different from the evolution of linguistic identities in other societies. The use of language as a tool of divisive and violent nationalisms is a product of modernity.
Religion, and not language, proved to be the more potent agent of social organization, mobilization as well as differentiation. The evolution of religious societies in the SISL region went through several phases. There were pre-Vedic cults and rituals prevailing among the people. Commentators on classical Tamil literature have alluded to the secular nature of the Sangam poems, but this was followed by what Indrapala describes as the “silent penetration of the Vedic religion” from North India for about seven to eight centuries. Schalk opines that the bardic culture of the Sangam period that gave rise to Tamil heroic poetry composed in praise of martial chieftains blended well with the Vedic religious practices but was not amenable to the counter-ethos of Buddhism.
Buddhism in Sri Lanka, Saivam in Tamil Nadu
The most powerful impetus for a new religion was royal conversion. As with Asoka’s conversion to Buddhism before the Common Era and the conversion of Constantine to Christianity centuries later, the spread of Buddhism in Sri Lanka and that of Saivism in South India started off with respective royal conversions. In the third century BCE, Emperor Asoka sent his son Mahinda on a mission of conversion to Sri Lanka, who found his prize catch in Devanampiya Tissa the king of Anuradhapura. Tissa was the son of Muta Siva whose name, suggests Indrapala, implies the prevalence of Siva worship at that time. Velupillai asserts that the Mahinda’s mission was to include not only Sri Lanka but also Tamil Nadu, although there were no royal conversions to Buddhism in Tamil Nadu but to Jainism in the later Pandya and Pallava kingdoms. These kings were reconverted to Saivism in the sixth century CE that marked the beginning of the bhakti movement and the populist revival of Saivism in Tamil Nadu with spill over into Sri Lanka. The bhakti movement (6th-8th centuries CE) effectively ended the possibility of Buddhism and Jainism surviving as strong religions in Tamil Nadu.
While royal patronage might have been a necessary condition for a successful beginning or revival of a religion, it was not enough to ensure its continuing survival and growth. The social bases for Buddhism and Saivism in Sri Lanka and Tamil Nadu were provided by the agrarian economy and the hydraulic civilization that sustained it. What has been described by P. Ragupathy as ‘hydraulic Buddhism’ in relation to the Sinhalese society could be extended as ‘hydraulic Saivism’ to Tamil Nadu. Indrapala cites two notable commentators in Sri Lanka and Tamil Nadu, Sudarshan Seneviratne and R. Champakalakshmi, respectively, who describe essentially the same ingredients of socio-religious organization in both contexts.
Even though Buddhism did not become a major religion or a majority religion in Tamil Nadu, Tamil Buddhism enjoyed a status of some prominence in the overall Buddhist world including Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia. The specific social bases for Buddhism in Tamil Nadu during the pre-Pallava, Pallava periods, and later under the Cola rule even after the bhakti movement were mostly among urban elites and mercantile communities. Ragupathy has described this phenomenon as ‘mercantile Buddhism’ among the Tamils. Tamil Nadu was also home to some well known Buddhist monasteries and scholar monks who were prominently associated with both the Theravada and Mahayana schools. The monasteries and the mercantile community provided the resources and the conduits for Buddhist missions emanating from South India and reaching not only the Tamil speaking parts of Sri Lanka but also Southeast Asian countries like Thailand and Vietnam.
The urban social base and the mercantile classes by themselves would appear to have been inadequate to sustain Buddhism as a socially viable religion in South India. The monastic structure of Buddhism made it difficult for it to compete against a socially established religion like Hinduism not just in Tamil Nadu but everywhere else in India. Peter Schalk suggests that the apparent insistence by Buddhist monks on the use of Pali rather than Tamil as the medium of religious rites was a factor inhibiting the acceptance of Buddhism in Tamil Nadu. Even so, Seethalai Sathanar’s Manimekalai, one of the five great Tamil epics assigned to the 2nd century CE, espousing Buddhist doctrines and teachings, is evidence that Buddhist thought had found resonance in Tamil literature at the highest level long before the bhakti movement. According to Velupillai, the influence of Buddhist teachings is also evident in the copious hymns sung by the Nayanars (Saiva Saints) of the bhakti movement, notwithstanding their acrimonious disputations against the Buddhist religion.
What neither book suggests outright but provides enough grounds for others to postulate is that the competitive interests of the Brahman forces vis-à-vis the Buddhist monastic establishments would have been a formidable impetus for the bhakti movement and Saiva revivalism. The establishment of brahmadeyas, or Brahmana settlements, was an integral feature of hydraulic Saivism. Indrapala points out that “gifts of land by kings and their officers to temples and Brahmans” had become a common practice in all of South Asia after the 6th century. While this practice had been in vogue among local Tamil chieftains, the Pallavas raised it to a higher level as part of royal Sanskritization aimed at achieving dynastic validation among the subjects.
Indrapala uses the sociological concept of Sanskritization, developed by M.N. Srinivas in relation to social mobility involving lower castes who adopt Sanskritic names and rituals to claim a higher social status usually following political or economic advancements, to describe “the process by which north Indian influences spread in South India, Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia”. He justifies it as a neutral term indicating linguistic and cultural influences in preference to the more commonly used terms such as Aryanaization, Indianization and Hinduization with their corresponding racial, colonial and religious overtones. The various ‘origin legends’ (for e.g., the Agastya and the Vijaya legends) among the Tamils and Sinhalese are also presented as part of the Sanskritization process.
The Pandyas and Colas emulated these practices, with the latter extending it to Sri Lanka in the 11th century. The practice was also common among the Sinhalese rulers in the island. My point is that the Brahman forces in Tamil Nadu would have been threatened by the spread of Buddhism and the competition for patronage and land by Buddhist monasteries and that could have been among the more worldly factors behind the bhakti movement. At least, this is a more plausible line to pursue than the rather simplistic assertion by Schalk that Buddhism ran into suspicion in Tamil Nadu because it was associated with the enemy kingdom in Sri Lanka.
The circumstances in Sri Lanka were contingently different and clearly conducive for Buddhism to socially sink roots and flourish. The royal conversion facilitated the blending of Buddhism with pre-existing rituals and practices. The growth of a new religion and the emergence of a new language might have reinforced one another. More importantly, Buddhism became an integral part of the Sinhalese agrarian society that has appropriately been symbolized by the ‘robe and the plough’. Like Hinduism in India, Buddhism in Sri Lanka developed a syncretic ethos that allowed its followers to modify, adapt, and continue with pre-existing Hindu rituals and practices at the popular level, while developing its own reputation for orthodoxy and learning centred on the Theravada school. The Buddhist monastic establishment was also well positioned in Sri Lanka to thwart any competition for royal patronage and land from Brahman forces. As it turned out, no such competition materialized and although Buddhism had its difficult moments in Sri Lanka they were mostly the result of political changes and sectarian doctrinal disputes and not the result of proselytization threats from Saivism.
The evolution of identities
In Indrapala’s assessment, by the end of the 12th century the geographical and cultural platforms were by and large set for the emergence of the modern Sinhala Buddhist and Tamil Saiva identities. The once flourishing north-central parts of the island were depopulated and two distinct population settlements began to emerge with Sinhalese mostly in the south-western and Tamils in the north-eastern parts of the country. The main reason for the emergence of this particular configuration rather than any other configuration was the Cola rule over the northern half of the island for over fifty years in the eleventh century.
Inasmuch as the Colas could not extend their domination over the entire island they could not significantly alter the course of evolution of the Sinhalese Buddhist society. Buddhism in Sri Lanka was able to withstand the cultural pressures of Saivism just as the latter had been able to stem the tide of Buddhism in Tamil Nadu. The mutuality of influence between the two religions in the SISL region has been notably acknowledged. What the Cola rule may have prevented was the consolidation of Buddhism as the sole religion in Sri Lanka. In fact, it ensured the endurance of Tamil Saivism in the north-eastern parts of the country. The cultural sustenance of Saivism was reinforced by the arrival of Brahmans, soldiers, traders, artisans and other workers from South India. Although the influx of these social groups has been a common occurrence in the past, their arrivals during the Cola period left a more permanent imprint on the island’s population structure. The system of village administration introduced by the Colas as part of their governance structure remained in place long after the Cola rule had ended.
The point that Indrapala stresses in the end is that the eventual defeat of the Colas by King Vijayabahu was just that – a victory for Vijayabahu and defeat for the Cola ruling house, and nothing more. It was not a confrontation between Sinhalese Buddhists and Tamil Saivites, or between Sri Lanka and South India, as interpreted by Peter Schalk and many others. The armies of both sides were mixed with Sinhalese and Tamil speakers. Even after the expulsion of the Colas, Vijayabahu continued to patronize the Brahmans and Saiva temples just as the Colas had patronized Buddhism during their rule. The Tamil Buddhist and Saiva settlements that had emerged during the Cola rule continued under Vijayabahu and later.
The monarchical confrontations in the pre-modern SISL region were fights involving the ruling houses of Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka. There were more confrontations between the chieftains of Tamil Nadu than between Sri Lankan and Tamil Nadu chieftains. Indeed, there was collaboration between Sri Lankan ruling houses and the South Indian Pallava and Pandya ruling houses in opposition to the Colas. I am not aware if there was ever an instance when all the South Indian kings ganged up on Sri Lanka. The ruling houses in Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka were part of an endogamous group as exemplified by the numerous marital alliances struck between them. More importantly, the social and political organizations at that time were not predicated on an identity of interests between the ruling houses and their subjects. The powerful mercantile communities come across as independent and footloose rather than tied down to a territorial identity. In a remarkable observation, Indrapala notes that South Asian overseas traders were independent of their monarchic states whereas Chinese trade was state controlled.
He cites Leslie Gunawardana’s thesis that the term Sinhala, not unlike similar terms likes Moriya, Gupta, Pallava and Cola, initially applied only to the dynasty and the extended families belonging to the dynasty. It excluded the people who did not belong to the dynasty regardless of whether or not they spoke the same language or belonged to the same religion.
In this perspective, the oldest and the most debated monarchical confrontation in Sri Lankan history, between Dutthagamani and Elara, must be seen as nothing more than a monarchical confrontation despite the tendentious interpretations that it has received in modern times. The principal source for these interpretations is the 5th century chronicle Mahavamsa compiled by a monk named Mahanama, but as Indrapala points out extremists on both used have used and abused Mahanama by projecting onto his work present-day political controversies and ignoring the tradition, the context and the purpose behind his unique contribution to Sri Lanka’s historical sources. Indrapala argues that the Mahavamsa rendering of the Dutthagamani-Elara confrontation is a later day interpolation given the extent of its deviation “in style and content” from the rest of the chronicle. Even if one rejects this argument for other historical reasons, there is no excuse for using the chronicle as a contemporary political football.
Indrapala raises the interesting question based on epigraphic and literary evidence whether and how the Sinhalese or Tamils called themselves as a group, as opposed to how they were identified by others as constituting a group. Put another way, the self-expression of consciousness as an ethnic group that has become commonplace after modernity was hard to come by in the pre-modern period. One way of explaining this difference is to recognize the difference between archaic ethnicity and modern ethnicity and their corresponding attributes.
The available sources for determining the evolution of consciousness appear to be limited and it is not clear if Indrapala could have pursued this line more vigorously based on these sources. Such an investigation should go beyond the records of the ruling houses, and although Indrapala deals extensively with inscriptions relating to the mercantile communities, there is much unfilled void in regard to the evolution of the pre-modern social organization. There is hardly any description of the village organization including village assemblies even though, as Indrapala notes, records relating to them along with royal and religious accounts constitute the bulk of the epigraphic records in the SISL region. More significantly and rather inexplicably, the book is silent on the institution of caste. It would be impossible to get a complete picture of the evolution of ethnicity in the SISL region without bringing caste into the frame.
Indrapala draws his evolutionary story to a close at the end of the 12th century. By then, as noted earlier, the platform had been set for the Sinhalese and Tamils to arrive at where they are now. There were also other arrivals – apart from the continuing arrivals from South India who assimilated into the by-now indigenous Sinhalese and Tamil communities, a third community known as the Muslims of Sri Lanka began to evolve with the arrival of Muslim traders. The arrival of the Europeans in the 16th century led to the emergence of Burghers, and Malays came from the Indonesian islands during the Dutch rule. Finally, in the 19th and 20th centuries the British colonial rulers brought in a significant number of Indian Tamils to work the coffee and tea plantations. They are now called the Upcountry Tamils.
These recent arrivals have added to the historically entrenched hybrid nature of the Sri Lankan society. Sri Lanka’s hybridity needs to be celebrated and not questioned or denied. Celebrating hybridity means eschewing essentialism, the notion that the Sinhalese, the Tamils and the Muslims have been present in Sri Lanka from pre-modern times as “pre-mixed, pre-cooked and packaged” groups. Indrapala’s account of the evolution of the ethnic identity of the Tamils, provide evidence to the contrary. Notably, their group evolution occurred not in isolation but in interaction with the evolution of other groups. The interaction between these groups was informed by different circumstances and group characters at different times. It would be wrong to project on our past the controversies of the present. On the contrary, alternative accounts of the past challenging its more established versions, may provide more positive perspectives for dealing with our current predicaments.
25 Comments
"What the Chola rule may have prevented was the consolidation of Buddhism as the sole religion in Sri Lanka. In fact, it ensured the endurance of Tamil Saivism in the north-eastern parts of the country. "
While the above, quoted from the article by Rajan Philips,is pehaps the more black and white aspect of the story,
the quotation below from Gunadasa Amerasekara in the Sunday Observer is one of blending. It claims that Buddhism was saved from disappearance by Tamil Saivism.
" The maximum contribution to the Sinhala Buddhist civilization and culture, I believe, has been from Hindu Tamils which was of immense value in its evolution over centuries. I believe it was Hindu Tamil influence at the end of the tenth century that saved Buddhism from atrophy and disappearance. The victory of the Mahayana forms influenced by Hinduism at that point of time was what made Buddhism adapt itself to changing social conditions of the day......"
The pre-eminence of Tamil Hinduism in the region also served as a bulwark that ensured Buddhism in the South of the Island against the growing influence of Islamisation of the time that entirely took over the neighbouring group of Maldive Islands - whose citizens, to a large extent, identified more with the Sinhalese until then.
ISS
I agree that there is too much history in Sri Lanka. Sri Lankans should not be too obsessed by history and should look ahead to the future. Who cares if we speak tamil or Sinhalese. As a Sinhalese, I know that my ancestry is from South India (as most Sinhalese are. DNA studies prove this). However, I love Sri Lanka and all the people living there including Tamils. I am also a proud Buddhist. But I hate the idea of Tamils saying there some different ethnic group and thus they are entitled to to half our country. This is highly racist (and they call us racist).
What I can not understand clearly is that :
If there was so much things (culture, way of life, world view, life style) were common between the Tamils in south India and the people in Sri Lanka then how is it that majority of people in Sri Lanka speak Sinhala today ?
Sri Lanka was invaded at various times by Tamil speaking invaders throughtout the history this is a fact.
So under those circumstances WHY DID THE SINHALA LANGUAGE and a DIFFERENT world view exist.
Surely, if there were Tamils in Sri Lanka they would have sided with the invading Tamils than the locals.
So in time there SHOULD HAVE been MORE Tamils in Sri Lanka than any other group of people.
BUT TODAY'S REALITY IS DIFFERENT.
Sinhala Voice:
Both Sinhala and Tamils in the Island over the years are inter-mixed over the centuries. The more recent examples are the fisherfolk in the coastal areas where they migrate according to the seasons for their marine catches. Many of them married into the other community. It was shown the Sinhala fishing-business folk in the Negombo area - who attacked Tamil migrant fishermen from the North-East in 1984 - were in fact once Tamils. The migrating Tamil fishermen were Sinhalese around 200yrs ago. Stanley Thambiah (Harvard)and many others have captured details of similar historic realities in their writings. I believe Jehan Perera quoted some of this some years ago. What more, when Gen Sarath Fonseka - before he fell out of grace - claimed he has Tamilnadu origins (clearly some of his scholarly friends may have done some research for him) You will find it interesting to read how Hindu temple worker family Neelam Perumal Pandarams(Non-brahmins) evolved to the Sinhala noble family the Bandaranaikes of later Horogolla fame.
ISS
The writer implies that the ‘Prakit’ language as the forerunner to modern Sinhalese and was brought in by the traders of North West and North East India. He also goes further to evoke that a syncretic process took place that replaced the original ‘Elu’ language of the locals. I find it beyond any acceptable comprehension that the modern Sinhala language evolved purely due to the locals engaging in trade with merchants. It is likely that these traders eventually settled in Sri Lanka and large scale immigration from these regions of Northern India over a period of time did make an appreciable impact on the language and customs that eventually evolved. The similarities of Sinhala vocabulary with that of the Indian North West language like ‘Gujarati’ is astounding as they both had evolved from ‘Prakit’
The advent of Buddhism into Sri Lanka also permitted the rigid caste system of the Saivites to become less pernicious and meritocratic movement up the social scale was evidenced. The followers of Buddhism however did not altogether abandon their Saivite roots as even today, local Buddhists worship Hindu gods like Skanda (Murugan in Hindu) at Kataragama. These Hinduistic aspects have percolated into the rituals of common Buddhism even though Buddhism itself avows an atheistic philosophy in its purity.
The cultural and linguistic importance of the South Indian customs and language is also appreciable and the present day Sri Lankans are a hotch potch of North and South Indian races that mixed with the indigenous races at the time. Latterly genetic studies have proven that the Sri Lankan Tamils are genetically closer to the ‘Patha Rata’ (low country) Sinhalese than to their cultural cousins in Tamil Nadu. Settlers from South India also came with the invading armies and eventually mixed with the locals and hence South Indian soldiers in the pay of Sinhalese kings went through a process of localisation into being Sinhalese. The hybridisation was not only in one but both directions. A very good example is when Mogallana arrived with his Indian soldiers to defeat Kasyappa. Some of the warriors who accompanied Mogallana settled in Sri Lanka marrying local women and adopting the language and customs of the Sinhalese.
Its seems that people who try to establish a mono ethnic country in sri lanka are threatned by a book.Please note that even the Indian history is based on mahawansa.With out it no one will know about the reign of Ashoka.
Sinhala_voice
people like you dont know history and then question people who know history go to any costal church and ask the father to show the church documents it will show the present sinhalese were Tamils even in deep south Budhist ansestors were all Tamils that answers your question and please take a DNA test 60% will be close to Tamils. People like you need to be told the truth it is not paletabe.Please also note Tamil budhist lived in the north and east and Elara had sinhala captains and Duttu Gemmunu had Tamil Captains in their army.
Nathen
Hi Upendra de Silva,
I appreciate your future looking idea. Tamils too look for a future in Srilanka. If you are not a racist, can you whole heartedly welcome the idea of a secular Srilanka where all religions and languages are treated equally and nobody is discriminated on the basis of language or ethnicity in education and jobs? You are feeling comfortable in the status quo because you are a Sinhalese and the status quo is Srilanka is Buddhist state favoring Sinhalese in education and jobs and that is the starting point of all the troubles the country faced/faces. Instead of your sweet talk, first acknowledge the issue Tamils are facing and empathize with them instead of blaming them.
Mr. Arul Pandian,
Sri Lanka is not a theocratic state like Iran where the mullahs administer a Muslim caliphate in accordance with Islam. The Tamil language is enshrined as a national language together with the Sinhalese since the early 1990’s. Freedom of culture, religion and language (even the minority Malay language is spoken by Malays and archaic Portuguese is spoken in Trinco and Batticoloa by burghers) finds expression in Sri Lanka. The acknowledgement to Buddhism as a religion of the majority citizens does not impinge on rights of other religions and faiths in Sri Lanka.
The prime position of Buddhism in Sri Lanka is historic as all Sri Lankan kings from Devanampiya Tissa onwards took an oath to protect Buddhism in Sri Lanka (that oath even applied to the last king of Sri Lanka of the Nayakar dynasty who was incidentally of Malayalee and Telugu origins and was a Hindu south Indian).
This historic prevalence is applicable even in the United Kingdom where Anglican Christianity is the state religion since 1534 and is wedded much more into national affairs unlike Sri Lanka that has an older pedigree. The British Queen who is the head of state is also the temporal head of the Anglican Church and has the title ‘Defender of the Faith’ and by law Prince William cannot marry a Catholic. Also the Anglican Bishops are appointed to the House of Lords on the approval of the Prime Minister.
If the above scenario was applied to Sri Lanka then the Mahanayake of the Malwatte chapter would be the default head of state and bhikkus would be appointed to parliament by the President. The constitution of Sri Lanka is secular and it only acknowledges that the majority Sri Lankans are Buddhist.
I hope you are enlightened by this discourse. A lot of false propaganda is dissipated by the Diaspora and enemies of Sri Lanka in the furtherance of their secret agenda to discredit Sri Lanka and they are not partial to twisting the truth.
At the outset I must confess that I am no historian or even an ordinary student of history.Having grown up for fifty years amongst Sinhalese and Tamils, it was always my desire to trace links between the two races (?)rather than find the differences. Dr.Paranawithana, Dr. Indrapala and many other historians did not interest me because their language and terminologies were too high for my shallow wit and as I said, I was not even a student of history. I had a good friend (he is no more) who too was on the same wave length. One day we were discussiong about the caste system in Sri Lanka. He asked me whether there was a caste known as KOVIYAR in South India> I told him that I have read virtually all the volumes of "Caste Systems of India" in the Jaffna Public Library (before it was destroyed)but had not come across this caste mentioned in any of the volumes. It was then that he told me that this caste was exclusive to Sri Lanka and the members were Sinhalese. In times of war whenever the Sinhalese were defeated they were taken captives, settled in the North and called "Sirai Koviyar". I asked him why the appellation "Koviyar". Then he told me that in times of war the Goviyas (farmers)and others belonging to lower castes became the Sinhala warriors. Since Goviyas (Govigama caste)were farmers of equal status with the Vellalars they were given all the previlages amongst the Vellalars. Only marriage was taboo at that time. Since Tamil does not have the phonetic sound 'G', Goviyas became Koviyars.In course of time they lost their Sinhala identity and became integrated with the Tamil society of North Sri Lanka. That is why this caste was missing from the exhaustive list of castes in "Caste Systems of India". He then asked me whether I am aware of the Salagama caste of South Sri Lanka. He went on further to explain that these members were actually South Indians. They were artisans (weavers, potters,painters, stonemasons, etc)brought from Salem in Tamilnadu. Since they were from Salem gama they were referred to as Salagama. Since 'sa' and ha' are interchangable in Sinhala, they also came to be known as Halagamas or shortened to Halis. Like the Koviyars, the Halagamas also, with passage of time,lost their Tamil identities. I do not know how far the learned scholars would accept this.May be they too know this. But since it has not transpired in any of the articles above, I thought it fit to post it so that I too could be further enlightened on this if I am wrong. If this is true then a good majority of the Tamils are actually Sinhalese and vice versa. Has this got to do anything with General (Retired)Fonseka's claim ?
Mr. Arul Pandian,
I agree that there was (and still is) discrimination towards Tamils in Sri Lanka. Although, many Sinhalese wont agree with me the university admissions in Sri Lanka in the 70s was discriminatory. The fact is Tamil language marks was standardized to bring the marks of the Tamils down. For me this is clearly discriminatory (which was adapted by the SLFP during the 70s). I don't believe the current system is directly discriminatory because it gives advantages to poor districts not to the Sinhalese language).
I also agree the government service promotions was also discriminatory. My father was a doctor in Colombo. He easily passed the Tamil language test although he could not speak a word of Tamil. While his good friend a Tamil could speak and read some Sinhalese never could pass the Sinhalese proficiency test. My father got the promotions but his friend who was senior never got any promotions. This bothered my father a great deal.
So I accept that there was discrimination and we can see all the death and destruction that was caused by this.
The Tamils should have fought to remove these discrimination's instead of talking of creating an Eelam. The whole idea of breaking up Sri Lanka is a hugely emotional thing for Sinhalese. When the Tamils ask for this this distances the Sinhalese moderates. In the US the blacks won the civil rights war because there was a large number of white on their side. Not by forcing the whites to give their rights. I don't believe it is possible to create a peaceful Eelam.
Thus, the best thing for Tamils now is to fight for their rights within a united Sri Lanka. I don't believe in a Federal solution or I don't think the east and north should be merged. Even the moderate Sinhalese have apprehensions about this as this could lead to the break up of the country.
Dear Mr Upendra de Silva:
Your conciliatory remarks will be appreciated. There was a period of 21+ years between 1956 and 1976 for the Sinhala-dominated Govts to remove the discrimination - now widely accepted by the Sinhalese. 1956 Cabinet was Pan Sinhala and so Mrs B's 1970-77 except for the cosmetic appointment of Kumarasuriyar as Posts Minister. I believe the July 60-65 Govt of Mrs B too was the same. All these were wallowing in racial prejudice and could not care a tuppence for peaceful Tamil agitation (Remember the Galle Face incidents and SWRD's famous remarks when Tamil MPs were mauled by Sinhala thugs - with the Police watching?) The Kodeeswaran Case established this beyond any doubt in Courts. The Govt, in an unusual move in the sublime governance culture of that time, contested this. When it went to the Privy Council - after due deliberation - it was referred back to the Ceylon SC for review.
The message was the Privy Council found Kodeswaran's rights under 29C were violated but they did not want to embarass Ceylon in a sensitive political issue of the time. The Brits remained Gentlemen. But what did we do? We consigned such a sensational case and sensitive matter to the cold storage for years until Colvin came around and viciously threw out minority safeguards (to please his Buddhist supremacist PM and hawkish colleagues) under his Republican Constitution (1972) That Constituent Assembly was boycotted by elected Tamil MPs for the growing anti-Tamil discrimination.
We realise "Federal" "Devolution" are phrases anathema to the Sinhala psyche and requires packaging. This is best a Sinhala task. Under whatever Nomenclature internal power-sharing (within an undivided country) with sufficient finances are agreed upon, the Tamils - I believe - will settle for.
But now the South comes out with hypothetical fears to scuttle issues. This is why I argue the time now right for the Rajapakses to carry the Sinhala side to produce the peace and unity al of us need. He has no opposition around today. Even the JHU, JVP that fed on the dead-carcass of anti-Tamil prejudice are on board. So the parallel power of the powerful Buddhist clergy and the various Mahanayakas.
Since the Rajapakses are believed to suffer backbone trouble in this issue they can always call on Liam Fox to soothe MRs nerves. He badly wants to get into history in good light - and there will be no better times than this.
Namal can take over after 2016 and his children after 2060. All the Tamils want is to be allowed their inalienable rights to live in peace and to carry on with their livelihood in their ancient homes and areas. If the sinhala political side does not have the apetite for this - it is time the Sinhala public of good men like yourself take the initiative with others to usher in pece and unity. How you do it, friends, is entirely upto you.
The alternative of the 1980-2009 flavour is far too frightening.
ISS
I fully agree with Mr.Senguttuwan on para 1 of his comment dt. 18.3.10
But I totally disagree with him when he says "The Brits remained Gentlemen". They should have passed a judgement either way if they had found that Kodeeswaran's rights were violated instead of passing the buck back to Ceylon. In this, I don't see much of a difference between Pontius Pilate, the Roman procurator, who washed his hands at the trial of Christ and the Privy Council. Both remain guilty of neglect for convenience for all time. Mr. Senguttuvan's defence that "the Privy Council did not want to embarass Ceylon in a sensitive political issue" smacks of his anxiety to still please the Britishers. I remain convinced till I am proved wrong or otherwise.
Mr.Senguttuvan is right when he says "(LetMR rule now), Namal after 2016 and the grandchildren after 2060). It does not matter who rules as long as the rule is just, fair and impartial like the rule of King Elara.Till about 30 years ago there was a village in Anuradhaoura distict called "Demalagama". The appellation was not because the inhabitants were Tamils. On the contrary they were all descendants of Sinhalese who were loyal to Elara even after his defeat.
As a result these people were looked down upon by their brethren as outcasts. The name of the village has since been changed. There is a Tamil saying that "It does not matter who rules. Be it Rama or Ravana". They were both just rulers. It was only when a selfish desire crept into Ravana that he fell from grace and the downfall was caused not only by his human adverseries but by sub-humans as well.Let the rulers remember this, else history has ways of repeating itself.
I am grateful to the studied and careful intervention of Mr. Francis Alagaratnam. Calling the Privy Council as "Gentlemen" was only in that particular context. We all know the Brits were guilty of various crimes in their Colonial reincarnation. But if the PC was to announce in those sensitive days in somewhat undisguised form the Ceylon Govt was wrong, there would have been blue murder here. Tamil casualties would have gone into the lakhs in a political environment that was ideal or free of tension. Remember what happened to SJVC and the Tamil MPs in the vicinity of Parliament then; even Tamil teachers sporting National costume living in various parts of Colombo and the South/CP were set upon by thugs of the area - assaulted, knifed and humiliated to run through the streets in 1958 simply because they were Tamil. The Govt was forced to concede it had lost control of the law and order machinery and were forced to pack thousands of Tamils in ships, trains and under armed escort by road to the NEP. Mad-dogs, in a literal sense, had taken over and were, in due time, to also finish off their own "living god" in the most gruesome way. Those days were our own local version of "the Long Knives" You will forgive me if I maintain in those delicate times their Lordships in the Privy Council placed discretion ahead of candour
in the interest of an entire country on the boil. What the PC expected was the SC here to do its part. But that was not to be - because tinkering with the judiciary had started by then and grew to the confusion and comedy we have now. Presumably, even those fine gentlemen in our superior courts and the legal system, were forced to maintain silence in an issue that has, at that time, already embarrassed a Pan-Sinhala regime that rode to power on the crest of the Sinhala Only wave of untramelled racialism-communalism. To them,, it was a "save face"
mechanism to consign to hibernation the flawed Kodeeswaran Judgement - and the rest is history. Compare, by the way, how Motilal/Jawarhlal et al judiciously respected their own courts and its system (1930-1945)even when judgements went against them. No wonder, their superior Courts remain vibrant dispensing wholesome justice where even the mighty Indira Gandhi was sent to prison by due Court process.
While ours today????
Your mention of "Demalagama" in the Anuradhapura District is interesting - and demands study.
ISS
My grateful thanks to the writers Alagaratnam, Sengutuvan and de Silva for their enlightening contribution to this forum:-
While historic and anecdotal events are interesting and have a place in the memories of all of us, it is the lessons from these events that are of prime importance. It must be also noted that with the passage of time according to Thomas Aquinas and Siddartha Gautama Buddha impermanence is imperative and ‘change is inevitable’. Sri Lanka is not the same country it was 60 years ago. Economic changes in our lifetime have made China and India future global economic powers and the influence of colonial Europeans though still prominent is receding and will continue to do so. Changes in communication and transport technologies will make Sri Lanka a smaller place. Currently it takes eight hours to travel to from Colombo to Trincomalee by rail overnight (a distance of 164 miles). With the advent of 'bullet' trains within a decade with top speeds of 180 miles per hour this distance will be covered in an hour. In this climate of change do we still want demarcated regional homelands for the Sinhalese and Tamils? Will the smaller minorities like the Malays next demand ‘Jaela’ as their traditional homeland? You can discern how ridiculous such demands get especially in the twenty first century.
The fact remains Sinhalese, Tamils, Moors, Malays, Burghers and other minorities do make up the cultural kaleidoscope of the nation of Sri Lanka. Each of these communities has contributed in their own way to the Sri Lankan identity. There has been cross cultural and inter-marriage between individuals of all the communities and in the future of these enlightened times this will be the norm. The majority may be Sinhalese and the largest minority Tamil, but that does not in anyway, desist from the multicultural Sri Lankan identity. Language and culture though important for historic and feelings of community within the nation of Sri Lanka does not equate well in the global arena. The future generations of Sri Lankans will have to master English and Mandarin to be a part of the global citizenry. Sinhalese and Tamil will still have their regional, cultural and national relevance, though most Tamils (fifty five percent) in the south are Sinhalese speakers and conversely Sinhalese (twenty five percent) in the East are reticent Tamil speakers.
The discrimination of the past on race in employment and other areas could be thwarted by legislation and enforcement. The majority of Sinhalese are not racist and are accommodating of all other Sri Lankan races, though politicians seem to play the race card for personal gain and stir up ungainly passions. The Tamils on the other hand have to abandon their demands for regionalism and understand that the unitary nature of Sri Lanka is sacrosanct to the Sinhalese. Buddhism too is an integral part of Sri Lanka as integral as Sigiriya, the Sinha Raja forest, Pidurutalagala, and the Mahaweli Ganga. The energies of the Tamil politicians could be better used to fight for equality legislation for the betterment of Tamils and other minorities, instead of spending the next sixty years chasing the elusive dream of federalism in Sri Lanka.
I am extremely thankful to Mr. Senguttuvan for all the pains he had taken to defend the decision of the Privy Counsel.
Perhaps, the assumption that hell would have broken loose had it not acted in that manner, though a mere conjecture, needs serious thinking after all. It may or may not have happened.
Let us therefore, for a moment, presume that the PC was justified in passing the buck.
Can we now draw a parallel here? Was Pontius Pilate justified in washing his hands of the blood of Christ much against his conscience and against the pleadings of his wife?
Come to think of it. After all, had Pilate released him as innocent, Jesus would have merely continued (for few more years) his ministry, miracles and preaching to those who had ears to listen to him (possibly deaf ears); and after his death, would have been consigned to history as just another prophet in the long line of Jewish prophets.
No, that was not to be. Destiny had other ideas. Pilot took a 'gentlemanly' decision. He washed his hands and delivered him to his tormentors saying, "let not the blood of this man be upon my Caesar's) hands. You try him according to YOUR LAW". This was the turning point. By this gentlemanly decision Christ became the most powerful King of Kings in all history - thanks to his disciples, apostles and followers through ages who believed steadfastedly in his promise and sacrificed their lives for it.
After all, Mr. Senguttuvan is right. Can we expect history to repeat itself? This certainly is not sarcasm but writings on the wall (not Facebook wall)
I thank writer Merlin Van Tweest for her (or his?)appreciation of my mite to this forum. Though, in all humilty,I must admit that my contribution cannot be 'enlightening', could I term it 'food for thought'?
It is not my intention to go into the contents of paras 2&3 of his/her comments posted on 21.3.10 11.16 AM. These have been expressed, analysed and thrashed out ad nauseam by more learned contributors in this forum. If I choose to enter, it would be like 'sprats entering when
whales are fighting'. My mission therefore is only to raise some points of doubt which may have been missed by these writers in their exuberence to vindicate their points of view.
In the first place, why are we always blaming the politicians for every ill of the country ?
Aren't we the people who elected them by majority votes be they Sinhalese, Tamils or Muslims.
Aren't we the people who elected them by majority to express our views in the legislature?
Their manifestos were endorsed by us and therefore what they express is vox populi. So why
blame them ?I do grant that you, Mr.Seguttuwan, Mr.Silva and even I may not be guilty of
voting such politicians into power. But we remain a silent minority crying in the wilderness and praying for miracles to happen.
You say "discrimination of the past......could be thwarted by legislation and enforcement".
Legislation and enforcement by who ? Wishful thinking Sir/Madam, in view of my above para.
If Sri Lanka is sacrosanct to the Sinhalese, is it also not true that Ealam is sacrosanct to
the Tamils as well. Because, isn't it what the status quo was before the gentlemanly British
conquored us ? While it is commendable of your suggestion that the energies of the Tamil politicians could better be utilised to fight for equality and legislation for the betterment of the Tamils and other minorities, your view on this is partisan and to me it appears that "your slip is showing". Does it not apply to the Sinhalese politicians as well ? Or is it
your wish that only the Tamil politicians expend their energies while the Sinhalese politicians
conserve theirs ?
Once again I re-iterate that my views and doubts are only food for thought.
Ms Merlin Van Twest
Since you show good intention to bring communities together, let me say most Tamils even today live in an undivided country. In spite of much personal suffering to them, in the interests of future peace and unity, many Tamils may accept your comments “the majority of the Sinhalese are not racists” But the problem appears to be while the vast majority is silent the miniscular minority within them are allowed to run riot – which is a problem of the Sinhalese - which they must take steps to solve. One of the most dangerous voices on the Buddhist extremist side today is one born and raised as a Catholic but who has found fortune and political ascendancy masquerading as champion of the Buddhist Sinhalese. His pesudo-nationalist hordes attack and bring to the ground places of worship of the faith of his birth – all in the name of Buddhism. The excesses of the Austrian Adolf Hitler comes to mind here where he disgraced the entire German race with his own extremism in trying to outdo German bigots.
The benefits of the Provincial Councils under the 13th Amendment - originally designed for the Tamils – remain denied to them while the rest of the country got their PC’s. Tamils, therefore, are now compelled to insist on internationally enforceable guarantees to run their future. This should be under the reality of a Two-Nation recognition. They are not a minority in the real sense. You will appreciate when the matter intensified in the late 1940s and till now it is an issue between the two major communities only. Even today it is referred to as a dispute between the Sinhala and Tamils.
I am fully in agreement with you about the Malays and the Ja-Ela analogy. Neither can they lay claim (“ridiculous” – to use your expression) to Chavakachcheri or even Hambantota – as some of them now and then do – obviously engineered by others to discredit Tamil claims for Statehood. Or the Burghers to Nugegoda, Dehiwala or wherever. If that were the case, the small Sindhi community will claim Main Street, the Borahs 4th X Street and the Memons Keyzer Street – all in Colombo. The UN and the world are no fools and will insist upon necessary features for claims of a new State are satisfied. It is not every other week somebody runs to the UN and claim to be a new State.
The major criteria for the recognition of sovereignty, rights and self-determination are which the Tamils here can lay claim to. They being - as far as I understand (1) traditional and contiguous homeland. (Tamils were free, independent and sovereign before the arrival of the Portugese in the early 16th century and remained so for over a century after the Sinhalese lost theirs) (2) historic self-governance of the traditional Tamil homeland (3) religious, cultural and linguistic distinctions that have existed for millennia (4) infra-structure, will and determination inter alia to be independent and sovereign (5) capacity to govern democratically.
In addition to these is the fact the Tamil political leadership - after failing to gain their due after a quarter of a century – were pushed to call for a Separate State (1976) - even then allowing room for a viable alternative. This too was ignored. Upon further injustice imposed on the Tamils some of their youth were forced to resort to arms in defence against sections of the State that became unduly brutal when faced with peaceful dissent. For over 60 years successive Sinhala-dominated governments have been perfidious and deliberately procrastinating in their approach to a matter of life and death to the Tamils. In the interim, surreptitious and forced colonization fully utilizing State resources, changing names of Tamil towns/villages/land marks, engineered demography have cumulatively. All of which rendered Tamils as minorities in their own habitats. What more Kadirgamam,a major place of worship to Hindu Tamils – totally Tamil in character before the 1960s attracting Hindus from abroad as well- today hardly has little indications of a place of worship of the Tamils. It is almost entirely Sinhalised.
My point too – like yours – is “change is inevitable..Sri Lanka is not the same as 60 years ago” which is something, Madam, that should engage the serious attention of a thinking Sinhala audience.But they, forgive me, choose to be deaf and blind rather than pragmatic and realistic. As to your comments on the salient features of Buddhism - may I say, as a Hindu as Prince Siddartha was, we accept these as part of that primordial tradition of Sanatana Dharma – another identification of Hinduism- from which flowed what is practiced here as Buddhism.
Your kind thoughts “the discrimination of the past on race in employment and other can be thwarted by legislation” I fear, good lady, is something easily said than done. In fact, it is that “done” part that has not take shape for over half a century. And so was born Mr VP and comrades in arms. Slain he was – for the moment in his present incarnation - in a religious tradition that believes in several reincarnations, as you know. You will also realize the words “Federalism” and “Devolution” - path for peace and reconcialtion - are said to be “dangerous words the Sinhala people will not accept” (that was what President Rajapakse told Ravi Veloor of the Straits Times last week) But these were the very words and formulae that the very learned SWRDB was putting forward for a country with 3 different nations (in the 1920s) – The Low Country Sinhala, the Kandyan and the Tamils of the North-East “if the country is to remain in one piece” What a strange world we live in, dear Merlin - where it is sometimes believed “the more things change they remain the same” So let us change (as you advocate) and still remain same to recapture those halcyon days of the decades past. The alternative, I fear, is the more mellifluous thoughts Doris Day crooned – “Que Sera Sera” - which in our current context - sounds frightening in a morbid sort of way.
ISS
Once again I wish to digress from the main line of discussion to give some 'food for thought'to the readers and commentators of this forum. ( I sometimes wonder if I shouldn't have taken to catering as a full time profession).
As far and long as I can remember the average Sinhalese man referred to a Tamil as "Para Demala" - be it during an abuse, argument, a verbal fight or any such similar situation. To them it did not matter whether the subject of abuse was a high caste Tamil or not. Every Tamil was a Paraya whenever it became necessary to insult a Tamil. I don't think any of the readers or commentators will deny this. If anyone does, he must be below thirty years of age. Having
assumed that assurance from those who had touched their conscience to answer this, I proceed further.
"Para" as referred to by them did not mean 'foreign' as some commentators in other forums had tried to make out or as one would now try to interpret it. Tamil language has two 'R's and depending on the stress laid on that letter, gives off different meanings. A soft stress on the 'R' just gliding over it would mean "foreign' while the heavy stress as in Parrotta would
mean the adjectival form of Pariah - an outcast, untouchable. It is the latter version that was
used in contempt of a Tamil. I say this because to the best of my knowledge (and certainly would be acknowleged by others)Muslims, Burghers, etc, etc were never insulted with this sobriquet although they were more foreign to Sri Lanka than the Tamils.
Now why did I bring this subject into the discussion ? Isn't it strange that the Sinhalese don't
use it anymore on the Tamils ? They now call them "Kotti Demaloo". Wow, that's a more respectable title for them. How did this change come about ? Was it due to the impermanence of all things with passage of time as expounded by Gouthama Siddharta and Thomas Aquinas?. No, Sir,
it took almost thirty years and a Prabhakaran (may he rest in peace or rot in hell as you wish)to bring about this change. If it took that many years and thousands of lives just to bring about a change in sobriquet, how long and how many lives would it take to amend a Constituition ? That's food for thought, isn't it ?
In the intellectual depth Mr Alagaratnam displays the "PD' referrence is hardly worth consideration. It is simply one expressed in annger/annoyance in heated moments usually in the absence of "the other" Tamils use similar eputhets on others; in Malaysia the Chinese on the Bhumiputras; the Irish on the English: the US Blacks on Whites/vice versa - and so it goes. This is nothing more than a global negative throw-back that is best ignored with a friendly smile. In that world this generation lost we lost the annoyed Englishman at his worst would say "blommin-" or "crumbs" the Sinhalese "kehelmala" and the Tamil "mannang-katti" Globalisation has mde it
"s..h..t" "SoB" "F" "B..s..t..d and what else have you got??
ISS
Mr. Senguttuvan,
I acknowledge that successive Sri Lankan governments have been remiss in satisfying some of the aspirations of the Sri Lankan Tamils since Independence and that triggered dissension and frustration and culminated in the Eleam wars. However since the nineties legislation to address some of these issues have been enacted.
The intention of nationalist movement in the fifties was not meant for the detriment of Tamils but to redress the political power held by the English educated elite. ‘SWRD’ in his Sinhala only policy had made provisions for the ‘reasonable use of Tamil’ in the Tamil speaking districts. Unfortunately the likes of ‘JRJ’ used this opportunity to besmirch the legislation and utilise it for their political ends that resulted in communal riots. As other writers have eloquently described, the Sinhalese are a majority community with minority fears and the Tamils are a minority community with a majority mind set. The latter part of the above statement is witnessed in India where all other Indian states have embraced the teaching and use of Hindi in the legislature as a national language in addition to the regional language of each state, but it is only in Tamil Nadu that Hindi is not acknowledged as such.
Your assertion that at the arrival of the Portuguese there were two nations in Sri Lanka is historically partly erroneous. I have seen a presentation to some of the United States senators by the Diaspora that builds on this inaccuracy. Granted that during the arrival of the Portuguese there was a Jaffna Kingdom ruled by ‘Sangillian’. This Jaffna Kingdom was however a satrapy of the Kandyan Kingdom and owed allegiance to it. It has been shown that the Kandyan King sent troops to Jaffna to crush a rebellion against the Jaffna King ‘Sangillian’. Moreover Trincomalee was not under the jurisdiction of the Jaffna King, as later records show that ‘Robert Knox’ the shipwrecked Englishman and his shipmates were captured in Trincomalee in 1658 by agents of the Kandyan King and taken prisoner to Kandy (by 1658 the Portuguese controlled most but not all of the maritime provinces). We both can dissect history till the ‘cows come home’, but what matters for Sri Lanka now is the future political direction and the welfare of all its citizens.
As to Mr. Alagaratnam’s assertion that Eleam is sacrosanct to the Sri Lankan Tamils, I am afraid the concept of Eleam arose in the nineteen thirties borrowed from the Dravidistan concept of the ‘DK movement’ in colonial India. The ‘DK movement’ was the predecessor to the present day DMK in Tamil Nadu. This idea then percolated into the Sri Lankan Tamil mindset as Eleam, while the unitary nature of Sri Lanka is bathed in antiquity from about 270 BCE and beyond to this present day.
Dear Mr. ISS,
"kehelmala" and "mannang-katti" cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be construed an insult or an affront to the integrity of any particular person. They only mean "rubbish, nonsense". The English equivalent would be "poppycock".
They are often, if not always, used to mean "Don't talk through your hat, man". Similarly "blooming" (euphemism for bloody) and "crumbs"(Useless fellow) are harmless expletives. "S-it" is another expression used to convey one's frustration and also would mean "poppycock" and "worthless". "F', has so many colourful meanings that it is hardly possible to list them here. Suffice to say it fits beautifully into all parts of speech in the English Language conveying meanings stretching the whole gamut from the horrible to the sublime. Just to quote an example. The Captain of Titanic is supposed to have expressed his horror with these words "Hey, from where the f---s is all this water coming from".
"SoB" and "b-s-t---d" may be a little insulting if taken on their actual meaning but more often used as terms of endearment -Eg "you lucky SoB" "you are really a clever b-s-t--d". By this I don't mean to deny that they are never used in the offensive but in the words of Mr. ISS they are nothing more than negative throw backs best ignored with a friendly smile.
But the word PD (extended word appears to be anathema to Mr. ISS)has no other connotation other than "You outcast Tamil or untouchable Tamil". I have tried to prefix all the encouraging adjectives known to me just to console myself that it would give a harmless meaning; but as an exasperated person would say finally "Nothing doing, Sir"
Mr. Gnanendiran:
Let me conclude our debate with this. In the last recent episode in a Nawalapitiya function when Minister Mahinda Aluthgamage lost his cool and called Minister Muttu Sivalingam (CWC) with the "PD" expletive (anathema to all) there was neither low or untouchable class involved. Sivalingam is neither. Minister A was reacting in anger he was not invited to a "Govt opening" of a function. Thondaman and his colleagues left the Govt in a huff
(naturally to come back in a few days) and Basil R
caused a private apologoy as a save-face measure to all. Sometimes Tamil parents in caste homes also say "parappayela" to younger delinquents more in castigation than entering the ill-odorous caste pits.
ISS
Mr. Senguttuvan
Thank you for drawing my attention to conclude this unsavoury and unpalatable subject of debate.
I certainly would have, had you not brought forth a new issue in the same breath.Why oh why, did did Minister Aluthgama use that expletive on Mr. Sivalingam ? Was it not because he was unlucky to have been born a Tamil ? He could well have used an epithet like "ballige putha" ( Naai mahane (Tamil), Nayunda Mohne (Malayalam), etc.) a term more profusely used by the Sinhalese and others to give vent to their anger and frustration. Everyone would have just brushed aside such an outburst with a smile and there would never have been a situation requiring Mr. B. Rajapakse to make a private apology. The fact that Mr. B.R apologised for it as a save face measure itself shows how it would have hurt Mr. Sivalingam. Would Mr. Aluthgama have used this expletive had it been a Muslim minister ? No Sir, 1915 would have been re-enacted.
I do grant that sometimes Tamil parents do cast such aspersion on their delinquent children not as 'a form of castigation' but as 'the worst form of castigation' because such is the degree of contempt that word holds even amongst the Tamils.
Before I conclude let me draw Mr. ISS's attention to my comment dated 25th March wherein I had noted the change of mind of my Sinhalese brethren (with relief) in addressing the Tamils as KD and no more PD. But your revelation, Sir, of what happened at Nawalapitiya, dashed all my hopes. I can only lament like Prophet Jeremiah, "Can an Ethiopian change his skin, nor the Leopard its spots ?". No chance Sir, not for another 300 years at least