History-making in Lanka-I:Problems
April 16th, 2008
by Michael Roberts
Central themes in the understanding of Sri Lanka’s recent as well ancient history have been fashioned by two occupational categories, namely, schoolteachers and politicians. The school teachers of the first 75 years of the 20th century were mostly well-meaning personnel trained in the British empiricist traditions. Their tendency was to regard history as a collection of undisputed facts that could be juxtaposed along a chronological line. There was limited attention to the interpretive dimensions of the trade and the potential or existing debates around these interpretations. This heritage has been implanted in recent decades by what masquerades as an educational system (where I suspect that in practice it is a process of rote-learning that is now twisted by pliant teachers in each language stream to suit ethnic claims).
The political spokesmen were as categorical, but tailored their interpretations to their partisan requirements, among them the de-legitimation of opponents. Thus, for example, by weight of articulation the Lefties of the 1940s-to-60s were able to perpetuate the idea that the Fathers of Sri Lanka’s independence pursued begging bowl politics and only succeeded because India’s independence in 1947 paved the way for Sri Lanka in 1948 (a thesis that is quite fallacious).
So, HISTORY has been turned into a powerful FACT. It is not only part of the process of litigation seeking to establish property rights, whether paraveni (hereditary), willed by testament or prescriptive. It is also a foundation for claims to territory by states or embryonic states.
Where information is turned up by archaeology and its material products, whether visual paintings, artefacts or buildings in various stages of disuse, history is SEDUCTIVE. These remnants proclaim antiquity. Antiquity evokes respect if not awe. There are two scales here, however. The archaeological artefacts of so-called primitive peoples are increasingly valued in modern times, but have usually gathered less awe and political legitimacy than those of technologically advanced peoples and empires. The imposing ruins of ancient Egypt, Sumeria, Angkor Wat et cetera convey claims to greatness which the supposed descendants of the people who built them can parade with pride in ways less feasible for the ‘primitive’ aboriginal folk.
HISTORY is alsoBEGUILIING. Any Tom, Dick or Harry (hereafter shortened to TomDH) thinks s/he can write definitive history. Thus, recently in 2008 one C. Wijeyawickrema circulated a paper entitled “Ravana’s land and Tamil Nadu politicians: a brief history,” which not only brought alleged Tamilnadu versions of the Rama-Ravana story into play, but detailed 20th century events in Sri Lanka and Tamilnadu in order to present a picture of collusion over a long span of time between Tamilnadu separatists on the one hand and Sri Lankan federalists and Eelamists on the other. In short, historical ‘data’ (much of it spurious and questionable) was deployed to sustain his paranoid interpretation of the power wielded by Dravidian separatist forces in southern India as a major foundation for his rejection of federalism in any form for Sri Lanka.
Likewise, the Lanka Guardian (http://lankaguardian.blogspot.com) recently carried an article called “Vijaya came later” written by an intellectual associated with a movement known as Jatika Chinthanaya (Nationalist Thought), namely, Nalin de Silva, a don in the field of mathematics. In a series of ‘definitive’ assertions de Silva states (1) that there were “Hela people living in this country before the Aryan language speaking people came from North India;” (2) that “from about ninth century BC Indo Aryan speaking people migrated to Sri Lanka and Vijaya could be the name given to the Victor who established some kind of dominance over the Hela people who lived in the country” and (3) that “the Indo Aryans who migrated to Sri Lanka or Heladiva fought and mixed with the Hela people who were neither Aryans nor Dravidians, and in the course of time formed the mixed nation Sinhala.”
Though proclaimed without a shred of evidence to demonstrate that the term Hela was in use before the fifth century BC (BCE), the argument is innovative. In effect, it seeks to outflank the inferential, yet reasonable, speculation that Tamil-speakers were found within the island at the time of the alleged arrival of the eponymous ancestor of the Sinhala people, namely Vijaya, by diving (literally) deeper back in time. The word Hela becomes his magic wand.
In other words, this is a blatant effort to ‘out-primordialise’ the pro-Tamil spokespersons who claim a primordial civilisational presence in the island for Tamils at the time the speakers of what is taken to be an Aryan-language arrived under the leadership of one Vijaya. In the process, Nalin de Silva also ‘out-primordialises’ the conventional Sinhala claim to the island embodied in the Vijaya legend. Vijaya remains as historical fact however, but as the second stage in the emergence of the “mixed nation”of Sinhalese (Sinhalas).
The TomDHs of contemporary times are not only Sinhalese. Tamils attached to the contemporary claims of the Tamils also work print and cyber-space assiduously to claim not only that the Tamil presence in Sri Lanka pre-dated the purported arrival of the Sinhala forefathers (certainly a distinct probability), but also to proclaim a linear genealogical continuity linking these Tamils of centuries BC with those who existed, say, when the Portuguese imperial forces turned up in the sixteenth century–and thus with the Tamils of the 20th century. The latter is a representation that is as far-fetched as it is preposterous.
By way of illustration let me refer to the cyber-net response to an article on the “federal idea” in www transcurrents.com by one Sebastian Rasalingam, writing in opposition to the general thrust of Tamil claims today. Rasalingam was vigourously challenged on 9 March 2008 by a pseudonymous blogger with the nom-de-plume “ilaya seran senguttuvan.” Among other things Senguttuvan asserted that “the ancient Temple in Trinco [is proof that] the Tamil language-cultural traditions have been there for over 4,000 years.” When such monumental and sweeping claims can be made on the basis of one historical site of uncertain date (and possibly a medieval one at that), we are in the realms of fantasyland. Indeed, there is simply no foundation for meaningful discussion of historical issues with such ardent partisans on either side of the fence.
In this scathing comment on the intervention of TomDH types in Sri Lanka’s historiography I am not suggesting that a postgraduate degree in History is a pre-requisite for historical interpretation. Training in history does not preclude faulty interpretation. Ultimately, the test is in the content of one’s interpretation, its evidential grounding, the reasoning behind the linkages and one’s honesty of purpose. One test of intellectual honesty lies in the readiness to confront opinions and items of data that are counter to one’s argument. Where counterpoints are simply by-passed or glossed over, there it is that readers have room to question a writer’s thesis–the more so if his/her ethnic and other circumstances indicate affiliation with this or that political claim to territory or resource.
Experienced historians will also tell you that in any one subject there is often no agreement among specialist historians on the major issues within that defined subject. “Evidential grounding’ is not always positive empirical fact; it extends to circumstantial data. As illustration let me take a thesis that I presented in 1989 about the story of the arrival of the Portuguese apparently carried to the King of Kotte in 1505, that famous tale about “kudugal sapakana le bona minissu”–”people who devour stones and drink blood” (see journal Ethnos 1989).
My speculative suggestion was that this tale was a parable, one that depicted the Portuguese as destructive and viperish. In other words it was cleverly indicated therein that the Portuguese were demonic; they were yakku. In summary, the hypothesis rested on two suggestions: (1) that the story was concocted in the late 16th century AFTER the Sinhala people had experienced the terrible effects of Portuguese imperial activity; and (2) four or five clues within the text in question which pointed in the same direction, clues that are allegorical and cryptic.
When formulating this interpretation I consulted a literary specialist, Professor Suraweera, whose immediate reaction was to ask: “how can you prove your idea?” or words to that effect–a typical empiricist reaction. However, his widening eyes and subsequent translation of my article meant his acceptance of the idea. When the article saw the light of print howecer, it was dismissed by my former colleagues, Shelton Kodikara and C. R. de Silva, while imperiously disparaged by K. M. de Silva. Fortunately it has received since support in foreign quarters from Akhil Gupta (who uses the article in his teaching) and Richard Young. Indirect support was also provided by Young’s translation and analysis of a 18th century ola-leaf manuscript of older provenance that displayed virulent hostility to the Catholic and Saivite dispensations (The Carpenter-Heretic, Colombo: 1998).
History, then, is a contentious subject among academics. Where the investigation relates to the origins of particular named peoples and goes back deep in time to eras where the data is limited and fragmentary, the scope for contention is greater. The difficulties are exacerbated too at times by the requirement for multi-disciplinary skills that embrace linguistics and archaeological techniques. In fact, multi-disciplinary cooperation is a pre-requisite for rounded analysis of ancient Sri Lankan history.
All this, then, underlines the complexity of historical issues relating to the origins of the Sinhalese and Tamils of Sri Lanka and the identities that prevailed at various periods. From a logical point of view one can conjecture that many of the aboriginal people of the era prior to the emergence of writing in the Brahmi, Prakrit, Tamil and proto-Sinhala scripts, say, prior to the centuries four and five BC (BCE), eventually intermarried with migrants from the Indian sub-continent who brought the Tamil language as well as those who brought, or developed, the proto-Sinhala language from Prakrit, Pali and Sanskrit roots. But there seems to be limited information on the identities (as both subjectively and relationally constituted in each generation of twenty years, and thence continuously re-constituted) prevailing among the peoples of that time. Lacking expertise in this field I cannot say much more.
But it requires little more than common sense to stress that one cannot apply modern concepts to that era. To deploy the terminology of “nation” in this era, as Nalin de Silva does, is simply ludicrous. This concept has a modern connotation and is deeply influenced by the philosophy of the French Revolution, the theory of popular sovereignty and the idea of citizenship that did not rest solely on putative blood line or language of birth. It is also informed by the institutional practices of countless states in the last 200 years.
Let me conclude by attending to the vocabulary of “nation” in the English language. In 16th century England “nation” was synonymous with “a host of persons,” with a “particular class, kind, race and thus with “a family or kindred,” “clan” and “tribe.” These associations continued for several centuries, but within the context of intermittent wars between England (Britain) and France, and then because of the French Revolution the term “nation” came to denote “the political people of a society.” This is to simplify a long and complex story (see Roberts, Sinhala Consciousness in the Kandyan Period, Colombo: 2004, pp. 95-108).
The consequence is that the terms “nation” and “tribe” were gradually differentiated during the course of the period extending from1600 to, say, 1914, with “nation” carrying legitimacy, while “tribe” was associated with a primitive a state of being–so that the 20th century Leftists in British Ceylon in the inter-war years could disparage the Sinhala and Tamil communalists by depicting them as “tribal.” But this process of language change was partial. As Susan Bayly has emphasised, the British in India used “the terms caste, tribe, nation and race interchangeably and imprecisely” (”Caste and Race” in Peter Robb, ed., The Concept of Race in Asia, 1997, p. 175). Again, even in the early twentieth century one found aboriginal people and older generations in Australia equating “tribe” with “nation.”
In the 19th and early 20th centuries this confusion was compounded by the tendency both in everyday speech and bureaucratic practice for the terms “race” and “nation” (in its modern connotation) to be used as synonyms. This occurred in a context featured by the development of race theories associated with burgeoning imperialism and beliefs in White superiority. Within the Indian sub-continent Orientalist scholars also discovered a difference between the Aryan and Dravidian languages, but spoke about this distinction in ways that encouraged a slippage into racial difference. The result was a widespread belief in the distinction between “Aryan races” and “Dravidian races.”
In British Ceylon this tendency was further compounded by the multiple meanings attached to certain terms in the Sinhala and Tamil languages. In Tamil (guided here by Maya Ranganathan and S. V. Kasynathan) one would have to attend to the use of the terms inam, thesam, jati and kulam; the variations in written and spoken language; the variation between the practices of people in Tamilnadu and those in Lanka; and that between older generations and those of the 1990s & 2000s.
Some of these grounds of variation exist among the Sinhalese as well. In the 19th century in Sinhala the term jatiya could equate in relational practice with kula (caste, type). Once the European references to “race” entered the scene, jatiya was utilised for that concept too. Thus, in a setting involving interplay with the English language jatiya could refer to either caste or nation or race. To this day many Sri Lankans, especially those from older generations, use the term “race” freely in English-speak in referring to the Sinhalese or Tamils-entirely oblivious to the manner in which the concept “race” has been exorcised or downgraded in Europe after the Nazi upsurge; and neglecting the considerable admixture of blood in their own pedigrees.
There can be little doubt that the various ethnic categories residing in Sri Lanka today are all, every single category without exception, of mixed racial genealogy involving Veddas, Sinhala-speakers and Tamil-speakers as well as infusions of Black African (kaberi), European, Kerala, Telugu, Arab and Malay sperm in various measures. Racial purity is simply not a feasible claim.
This excursion on my part, then, asks for greater caution in extending modern terminology into the ancient period of Sri Lankan history. This does not mean that the people of that day did not make distinctions between categories of people; or that there was a state of categorical fluidity and confusion generated by continuous boundary crossing and intermarriage, a utopian scenario so prized by today’s post-modernists. Admittedly, over the last twenty-three centuries many Veddas have become Sinhalese and/or Tamil and a few Sinhalese and Tamils have become Veddas. Likewise, Sinhalese-speakers have become Tamils in subjective sentiment and language of preference and Tamils have moved the other way. It is the specific circumstances that encouraged such shifts of identity among significant segments of each category at particular points of time that require historical investigation. That is, as corollary, I hold in speculative assertion that such processes coexisted with attachment to their respective identities among significant bodies of each community, affiliations produced in part by numerical preponderance in specific regions and through a struggle for resources and control of existing states. In the long history of humankind it is war that has consolidated pre-existing identities, identities that, in turn, contributed in some measure to these very conflicts. Not all dynastic wars were simply dynastic wars.
The basic question at issue for ancient Sri Lanka is linked with the monopoly of violence, namely, the possession of state power and its spatial reach. In these terms, the inter-related issues for non-partisan historians are: (A) during the long span of 12-14 centuries prior to the emergence of the Kingdom of Yalppanam in the 13th century AD (CE), what language did the majority of people speak? (B) And which speech-community held the reigns of state power in those regions where a sprawling irrigation civilisation was being fostered? It is on this question-raising note that I end. [island.lk]
Entry Filed under: Federalidea
18 Comments Add your own
1. ilaya seran senguttuvan | April 16th, 2008 at 4:43 am
When I responded to Rasalingam on antiquity of Tamils in Sri Lanka, I was going by the evidence of the vast array of Tamil literature that is available for anyone to satisfy themselves with. Roberts is welcome to check the records of the Royal Asiatic Society in England where yet another distinguished Sri Lankan historianl - not known to re-write history - Sir Paul Peiris confirms the 5 eashwarams in Sri Lanka and near-by Tamilnadu are well over 4,000 years old. But if Roberts - admittedly no lover of every TomDHA, gets some strange satisfaction in believing Tamils came in only with the Dutch as Tobacco Planters from South India 400 years ago - pet theory of Co-founder of the Jathika Chintanaya Nalin de Silva, I am not going to stand in his way. What makes you think mine is a pseudonymous blog? How about names like Gomin Dayasiri or Arisun Avubudu. Where do they fit into in your arrogant mind-set which clearly assumes all knowledge of history flows only from a selected few of your choice emerging within 4 walls of Universities only?
2. Murugan | April 17th, 2008 at 2:46 am
In regards to Koneswaram in Trincomalee, I believe I read in ‘Ancient Jaffna’ or ‘Yalpana Vaipava Malai’ (I forget which one of the two); Anyways I read that actually the descendants of Vijaya or somebody descended from Sinhabahu actually built the 5 Sivan eashwarams. And then it was subsequently renovated by a Chola King something like 2,200 years ago. I mean Buddhism wasn’t even in existence 2,500 years ago, so it is is possible that the first Kings of the island were actually Saivite. Nevertheless the Sinhalese still trace their lineage to Vijaya and Singabahu etc. (who were actually HIndu from my understanding of history). To me the idea that these ‘Sinhalese’ built the Sivan Eashwarams is a plausible counter arguement to those who say “because of the 5 Eashwarams were built 2,500+ years ago then Tamils definitely inhabited the island first”.
Mr. ilaya seran senguttuvan seems to have appealed to the authority of records of the Royal Asiatic Society in England. So I don’t know which source is correct. My understanding could easily be wrong.
I would also like to point out that Michael Roberts makes a great point that we are taking our concepts of the present and we are trying to apply these present concepts of nationalism onto history. But this is WRONG. Did people 2,500 years ago think of themselves as Sinhala or Tamil? Definitely not. Throughout history did people on this island think of themsleves as TAMIL or SINHALESE or MUSLIM (as we do today)? Probably Not. We can not take the present, and project it onto the past. That is just flawed logic.
We can however take a snapshot of the island the moment the Portugese arrived:
You had Tamil speaking people in the Northeast. And a sovereign Jaffna Kingdom in Jaffna/ Mannar. And Tamil fiefs in the Vanni ( I assume loyal to Jaffna Kingdom)
Then there was the Kingdom of Kotte. And the Kandyan Kings.
But even this does not provide a black and white template for Tamil areas and Sinhala areas. Isn’t it true that the Kingdom of Kotte conquered the Jaffna Kingdom for a certain period in the 1400s? And also the Kandian kings supposedly spoke Tamil and Sinhala. In the past, the people were divided along language like they are today. And also I would venture to guess that the Kandyan Kings would have treated the Tamil speaking people in the Batticaloa fairly and equally.
And we have to remember the Tamil Nadu factor in history. Of course Tamils have been living on this island since immemorium, just look at a map. See the Pandyan capital Madurai? See how close that capital is to Yarlpannam? Yarlpanam is 18 miles from Tamil nadu (across the Palk Straight). It is just ridiculous to think that when the Pandyans who were having their very very ancient culture 2000+ years ago did not venture out to the island nearby. It is illogical to think that none of the fishermen living in Tamil Nadu would have ventured to the coastal parts of this island that was so close by.
Even if you take a snapshot of the island at the time of the Portugese arrived, there was no Tamil vs. Sinhala attitude. People probably didn’t even think of themselves as Tamil or Sinhala.
Even if you look at the Dutugemmenu Elara story. I have been told my knowledgeable uncle that it was Tamils that fought on the side of Dutugemmenu. And that Elara died because he was an old guy that fell off his elephant.
We are taking the present setting of Eelam War and the present setting of animosity between the two communities, and we are trying to project our current hatred onto history. We are making the mistake of trying to use history to justify the current war. But if you look at history there was no ‘Sinhala nation’ or ‘Sri Lankan Tamil nation’ These are post-colonial constructions that came into existence only after the British took conrol. So we should not look at history through a Tamil vs. Sinhala frame. Who came first? Niether of us. Because the people back then didn’t think of themselves as Tamil or Sinhala.
We should not let the current war blur our vision when we try to understand history.
I believe I also read that historically, ‘Singalese’ merely meant people who lived on the island. (It was not a ‘race’ or ‘ethnicity’ historically)
And I think that ‘Ancient Jaffna’ even says that Kandian customs in Jaffna show that the ‘Sinhalese’ inhabited Jaffna before the ‘Tamils’.
I don’t believe everything I read. Maybe, Mudliyar Rasnayagam also way guilty of applying his present to past history.
Anyways, I just want to point out that the article is very correct in saying we can’t take the present concepts of labelling people Sinhala Tamil and Muslim and then project these labels onto the past. Because in the past the people didn’t think of themselves as Tamil Sinhala or Muslim.
And if we want to use history to explain the conflict, it is probably best that we take a snapshot of either, when the portugese arrived, or take a snapshot of the island when the British unified the island to create Ceylon. But whenever we take these snapshots, we have to remind ourselves that the cultures were different back then, and our present concepts of nationalism and communalism probably did not exist in the past.
3. Dushy Ranetunge | April 17th, 2008 at 3:01 am
If you visit the Negombo (Halavatha) fish market today, you will find that the fish auction is conducted in fluent Malayali and the food is authentic Kerela. Close you eyes and eat the food while listening to the auction in Malayali and you will not know if you are in Kerela or Sri Lanka.
A DNA test I carried out based on a 12 marker y-DNA test came up with 15 identical matches on their data base in the United States, indicating a common ancestor about a 1000 years ago. The 15 were predominantly Northern European.
I informed my 86 year old father, a lawyer who has a first class honors degree in history from Peradeniya (who was convinced of his Sinhala credentials) that our ancestors were perhaps European mercenaries from Northern Europe.
We have over 20 documents in Dutch from the Dutch East India Company (VOC) etc. dating 1703, 1795 etc, hanging in my holiday home in Colombo, with our family name Ranetunge, but other names are European. We also have swords and spears etc which have been in the family for generations, including a title deed granting several lands in the Siyane korale, signed by the Captain General of Portugal in Malwana, where Portuguese military HQ was located. Some of our lands till recently were in Malwana.
Father Fernao de Queyroz in his works also refers to a Ranetunge, during the siege of Hanvella (Portuguese held) fort, by Raja Sinha II of Kandy, son of Dona Catherina.
I would suggest that DNA testing would prove that most of those arguing if they are Sinhalese or Tamils are in fact of European descent.
Look closely at Ranil Wickremasinghe and Mahinda Rajapakse. Do they look as if they are decended from the Vaddahs or Helas or whatever?
4. dingiri | April 17th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Negombo is Meegamuwa and Halawatha is Chilaw.
While on the subject of DNA surely there cant be many who believe that Sri Lankan DNA could be told apart from Southern and Central Indian DNA? To me, we seem to be a blend of three distinct physical types, Western Indian (Imran Khan), North Eastern Indian (as in the Hill tribes) and Southern Indian (which most Sri Lankans resemble). Everyone in the subcontinent to me seems to be a blend of the above three. What varys from individual to individual is just the percentage of one against the other.
All three types have been living cheek by jowl for too long to expect anything but a 1:1:1 mix of all three for most of us. The same goes for the languages and religions. Every language spoken in the subcontinent is a blend of the Sanskrit and proto Dravidian. Even the hindu pantheon is a mixture of North Indian and South Indian gods.
Think about it. If we have on average 3 generations every century, it would mean that a century ago we had 8 (2^3) ancestors. Thus, a thousand years ago we had 2^30 ancestors. Thats more than 1,000,000,000 (1 Billion) ancestors. There will be a certain amount of inbreeding so this figure in effect would be somewhat smaller but it would still mean that very probably we are all decendants of everyone who lived in the subcontinent 1000 years ago.
5. dias | April 17th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
A tiny island with a populous less than 1/4 of 1% of the entire world population, the majority nationals and the minorities have been squabbling for decades, unable to let go of their insecure attachments to the past - with total incapacity see beyond their noses to discover egalitarian solutions to live in peace with one another. Sri Lankan are behaving like mice trapped inside a tiny cage.
What matters is not what it was like then, rather, what it is today – in the precious present, the ‘now’ – the only true reality. Unfortunately, lacking in knowledge of modern systems or any creative visions for a 21st Century Sri Lanka, parochial thinkers of the likes of Michael Roberts, Nalin de Silva, Sebastian Rasalingam (of antiquity) continue their dominance in influencing the Sri Lanka matter with their varied versions of Sri Lanka’s history, and who did what to who first, and who was in the wrong and who was in the right. Why don’t you distinguished and learned elder ladies and gentlemen all go to some remote island (other than Sri Lanka) and debate among yourselves until hell freezes over and let us the younger generation develop a progressive modern Sri Lanka that will bring prosperity to all Lankans positioning it to be a space-age competitive island for the next generations. Just twenty years from now, all your mumbo-jumbo theories of history will anyway be mundane as by then Lankans will be busy living and laughing – and laughing mostly at all of you for your parochial irrelevancy. [And as for “learning from the past”, yes, we have beaten this snake to death thousands of times!]
6. Dushy Ranetunge | April 18th, 2008 at 4:05 am
Hi Dingiri,
I would suggest that Sri Lankan DNA is very different to Indian DNA because its an island and have been at the centre of massive east/west trade and its population exposed to a far greater extent to European armies than India and far greater trade driven migration than India.
Look at other islands in the world which were in the midst of major maritine movements and I would suggest that we have to be very different to the mainland, as Hong Kong and Macau is to China and how Singapore is to Malaya, or even the West Indies to South and Central America. Also South Africa in comparison to the hinterland.
I recently purchased a 1925 Christmas edition of the Ceylon Times and looking at it 1925 Sri Lanka was like a white country. 99% of the people in it were white, the marriages reported were all white, the business advertisements were all white owned firms etc.
I would suggest that the “locals” were driven off their lands, which were turned into tea/rubber/ coconut/coffee estates and the land handed over to Europeans, those of mixed race or those who were allied to the Europeans.
Sexual relationships among Sri Lankans was far more relaxed than it is today and women were known to have had multiple partners in their life time. It is also a fact that wives and daughters were offered as hospitality to european guests.
I would suggest that more than 50% of the English speaking class in Sri Lanka at present are of European descent.
In South America you see the Indians (South American) at the bottom of the pile and the descendents of the Spanish and the Portuguese at the top. Its more prominent in South America.
I would suggest that a similar phenomena exists in Sri Lanka. Observing the physical characteristics of the maids who travel to the middle east who make up the lower strata of the Sri Lankan population and then comparing them with the physical characteristics with the English speaking class and one may begin the realise the extent of the European influence in the Sri Lankan population.
I would suggest that the DNA of Sri Lankans may be closer to that of Goa, rather than India as a whole.
I agree that over 5000 years ago or more, Sri Lankan DNA may have been similar to India, but as maritime activity increased over the years, including during the Anuradhapura period a process would have begun, bringing visitors from other distant lands to Sri Lanka mixing the DNA composition of the island.
This explains the diverse physical characteristics of the people of Sri Lanka. Sinhala/Tamil are relatively recent identities based on lingustic nationalism.
Consider Sri Lanka as having been the Dubai of the middle ages with the vibrant ports of Mannar and Trincomalee.
Dubai has more foreigners than locals.
All the above I have stated is consistent with a DNA study of the Sri Lankan population I read several years ago. It concluded that the Sri Lankan Tamils were genetically closer to the Sinhalese than the South Indian Tamils.
Our nationalistic conditioning clouds our judgement as we are eager to conform to a pre determined nationalistic ideal. As in most cases, reality may lie elsewhere. In years to come we will realise that this passionate war we are fighting is a completely useless exercise of self destruction by both sides.
7. Dushy Ranetunge | April 18th, 2008 at 4:39 am
Hi Dingiri,
I failed to address your point on language.
If in a million years, archeologists were to start digging in the West Indies, they will conclude that the people there were Christians and spoke English. This conclusion cannot result in a determination that the West Indians are of English descent, as they are mostly Africans and Indians.
Similarly, the fact that we speak sinhalese, an indo european language and our religion is Buddhist, does not automatically make us North Indian.
I would suggest that the North Indian influence in Sri Lanka is similar to the English influence in the West Indies and it is only a lingustic influence and not a predominant racial influence.
In 1815, when the British brought down the Lion flag in Kandy, the official (Royal) language of Sri Lanka was Tamil. The King spoke Tamil, the language of the Kandian court was Tamil, the language of commerce was Tamil and the Sinhalese ministers signed the Kandian Convention mostly in Tamil.
In 1815 Tamil was the official language of the Royal court of Sri Lanka and in 1956 it became Sinhala only.
In between it was English.
What a transformation.
These are only influences.
Recently during a visit to Tissamaharama, the guide of the archeological department described the archeological ruins and told me that they were achievements of the Sinhalese.
I inquired if the people who lived during those periods would have identified themselves as Sinhalese?
He smiled and responded that I was right, that the people of Magama would not have been aware of a Sinhala identity. They would have considered themselves as Nagas or some other tribe.
Even the mahavamsa does not describe Dutu Gemunu as a Sinhalese.
We have in the 20th century gone back 2000 years and pinned a Sinhala tag on them, to justify our present nationalistic conditioning.
8. Michael Roberts | April 22nd, 2008 at 4:24 am
For ALL readers in response to ilaya seran senguttuvan
Whenever an academic enters a contentious debate within a website it seems a common reaction for others under attack for their views to accuse the academic of being arrogant and elitist-a playing of man not ball that is a feature of many Sri Lankans of all ethnic hues. So too with ilaya seran senguttuvan. I will not response in kind but focus on the contents of his comment.
1. My essay was quite explicit in stating that it was not academic qualifications that counted but the content of one’s representations [This was not read or it was ignored].
2. Nowhere have I said that the Tamils came to Sri Lanka in the Dutch period [an outrageous thesis presented by Nalin de Silva-some of whose views (specified by me) were criticised in my article].
3. If historical citations are provided it is necessary to quote chapter verse and page rather than asking readers to check all the records in the RAS library. That is a veneer that fools no one.
4. As for the use of Paul E. Pieris’s name. He was a Civil Servant who revealed some historical expertise. But his expertise did not extend to the ancient period of Sri Lankan history and whatever he had to say-a citation and further details are required here of course-on the so-called
“five eashwarams” would be of dubious value.
When a blogger cannot comprehend plain English and indulges in specious arguments on dubious foundations of “fact,” it is sensible, as well as appropriately arrogant, not to waste our time in debate with such a person. This dictum will be adhered to by me I from now on.
9. nathan | April 22nd, 2008 at 9:31 am
Anyone interested, please click ‘nilaperumal’ on Google.
The resulting websites are fantastic !
You will see the diversity of the ancesters of the
political families which ruled sri lanka since 1948.
10. sinhalese | April 22nd, 2008 at 11:06 am
I agree with Murugan’s comments here and some parts of Dushey’s replies. Vijaya came to Sri lanka before Buddhism arrived in Sri Lanka and it is safe to assume he may be Hindu. (Hinduism existed before Buddism as we know). So all those Sinhalese claims to be from Vijaya should accepst they were Hindus before. I also think Tamilnadu and Tamils had Buddhism before Sinhalse so, so called Sinhala Buddhist idea is a myth and racist. Buddhist cannot be Sinhalese, Tamil or any one else. it is a philosophy and a way of life. I argued with Agronot and Venkai in another thread who toghether with Pro LTTE Tamilnet opposing Buddhist monks in Tamilnadu. The way forwards for us to show fellow Sinhalese Buddhist pilgrims from Sri Lanka how close Buddihsim to India and also to Tamil people. Buddhist temples in jaffna must be from Tamil Buddhists not necessarily from Sinhalese buddhists. I will be hanged by some Sinhalses for this statement I suppose. Like Murugan says or like DBS Jeyaraj says about Colombo Chettis - Sinhalese identity not necessarily should be Buddhist. Tamils Nationalists with LTTE and Sinhala Nationalists knowingly misleading people for their own ends.
I refuse to accept Tamil Ealam because it based on Mono Ethnic Racist Tamil Idea and creating a pan Tamil State across the borders. Other ethnic groups do not have space there. Sinhalese, Tamils and descendents from Arab traders all have claim to this Island and while opposing separatism and war meaningful devlolution based on provinces or states should be applied. I am campaigning for that.
11. Vasco | April 23rd, 2008 at 12:28 am
Dushy,
When you did research on the negombo fisherman & found out about european ancestry, did you see/ read on the malabar coast.
The people of kerala have fair/ clear complexion. Them were the people who were exposed heavily to western/ arab influence. They have more foreign blood than any of the other major south Indian states.
Read the following case in points:
The food like Hoppers/ string hoppers/ pittu - malabar origins
The kolikuttu (banana) originates from Kozhikode (or Calicut); Tamils call it Kappal vazhaippazham (banana’s from the ship)
Vasco da Gama reached calicut - it was subsequently that the portuguese reached our shores.
Islamic schools prevalent in Kerala is Shaafi (Whilst the rest of India it is hanafi - attributed to the overland movement of the islamic empires)
The jews who escaped persecution in the middleEast arrived in Kerala: Cochin jews & Kerala Jews. Many migrated to Israel after its creation.
The Nasrani Christians (from Palestine/ Syria): who trace their origins to the jewish christians (or the early christians) who escaped persecution by sailing to Kerala.
I don’t know Dushy whether I am right here, but human development index of both Sri lanka & Kerala is very similar. Unfortunate side is we & kerala have this similarity in our people (both of us are laid back) & hence it’s reflected in our politics & economy. As a result we both send hordes of people to the gulf
12. Square | April 24th, 2008 at 9:14 am
I wonder what’s wrong with the Sinhala mindset. “Monoethnic state” in the north would be termed as an answer to “Sinhala Only” State. It’s an Action-reaction pair. Had their been a meaningful devolution then this sad story would have ended then. The two regions would have prospered considerably & would have created healthy competition for one another.
For the people who don’t heed, I think the only way to solve this problem is to prolong it for some time… lose many lives… go bankrupt… UN moves in… demilitarize… establish UN protectorates.. call in a referandum & award federal or statehood (Either call it south tamil nadu….) why I say it?
A thing to remember is that TN is fast becoming the most properous state in India. It’s the 2nd most industrialised state in India & is starting to exert more pressure on Delhi.
The Indian tamils don’t like the way the tamils are treated in Sri Lanka despite the LTTE’s intransigence. It should be warned that time is not far when TN would be able to twist delhi’s arm to force a solution for the Tamil’s problem.
By then I wonder who would feel the effects of 1956’s “Sinhala Only”.
13. sinhalese | April 25th, 2008 at 11:36 am
I Don’t beleive that Squere (Post 12) is still talking about 1956. Tamils asked 50/50 don’t remember? 1956 was essentialy against British Injustice to Sinhalese masses rather than against Tamils. But Sinhala Nationalists hijacked it and SWRD paid with his life. What Now? Tamils is and Official state Language with English any way (Last 15 years or so). I myself studied Tamil in school. Still remember small song Mr Kanagasabhapathy Taught us - “Nila Nila va va, Nillamal eri va, Malai meli eri va, Malli kaippu kondu wa ” At least that’s how it sounds.
About Tamilnadu- you, Argonout and Venkai can come to Horana - just down the road towards Rathnapura there are Indian Companies. Local Sinhalese do not go to work in those factories so illegal immigrants (Indians) are working there. Sinhalese and even the Police knows that. Sinhalse here in Horana do not bother. Some of these workers are coming to my Brother’s shop as well. I know them. Why are they here then? ( Don’t misunderstand - I have nothing against them. I also fully support citizenship to be given to all Indian tamils in estates). Just a queastion to so called propering tamilnadu Claim? I am sure tamilnadu is getting better and I wish them well. But think of Tamilnadu coming to rescue is a pipe dream.
Jaffna Tamils rescue lies with Sinhalese together. Not in pure ethnic Tamil state.
I have to run - LTTE bombed again a bus in Piliyandala right now. Surely some of the people I know must be dead.
14. Square | April 26th, 2008 at 9:59 am
My Dear Sinhalese brother,
I hope none of the people you know got hurt in yesterday’s brutal bomb. It’s a shame that things like this happen in our land. More these things happen (which also includes those terrible air strikes, disappearances, etc) the more polarized our societies become: moderate views give way to extremist thoughts leaving you & I to fight each other at an “extremist website”. If we cling to these views further would end up enlisting to do battle at the front.
Knowing the insecurity amongst the majority, I might have sounded offensive in my previous post by bringing in the Tamil Nadu factor. But my friend TN, as we all know, offered safe heaven to the Tamil youth who took to militancy. We never thought that India would involve itself in Sri Lanka in ‘87: but it happened.
Post Rajiv Gandhi India/ TN are beginning to change. While India is becoming a world power, TN is a major contributor towards India’s growth. And the Centre would not want its growth to be curtailed in anyway. The views expressed by almost all TN leaders have changed in recent times: Negotiated settlement is what they all are saying. If the situ in Ceylon is not properly managed and allowed to run riot, the Centre’s “hands off” approach would change to something radical. Karunanidhi has gone on record saying that Tamils in Ceylon should unite to fight the common enemy & that independence movements have been successful in other places. This kind of statements would have meant Hara Kiri or political suicide not so long ago. But then things have changed: there’s this new sense of boldness. We need to watch for what’s happening that could have a bearing on the future of this country.
As for your views on the “56 “Sinhala Only”, I don’t know how to talk to someone like you. If you think that British Injustice to the Sinhala masses could be offset by an act which robs the Tamil of his rights, then I think either you are indifferent to the Tamil’s problem or you are, excuse my French, simply dumb!
The colonization programs in the North & East, every piece of legislation passed to the detriment of Ceylon Tamils, marginalisation in Uni’s/ jobs, the frequent riots that took place & the letting down received though the constant abrogation of pacts (B-C, D-C..) in a “democratic setup” would mean a loss of faith of the Tamil democratic leader in his constituency. The movement for change using violence is justified & the democratic voices begin to fade: moderate politicians who try to talk (again! are looked at as colluding with the enemy). This is the recent political history of Ceylon Tamils. The same is true for the Sinhalese. The rural Sinhala youth took to violence when they sensed that the bourgeois in the Cities were little or not interested in solving their pressing problems. Doesn’t the Sinhala youth have leanings towards the JVP.
The methods used by the tigers are gruesome & hence should be very harshly condemned. But the rationale of Tamil militancy is very real. As long as Tamils are treated by their countrymen like rags (from checkpoints to government departments to public spaces) & denied their equal right to existence, peace in paradise cannot be guaranteed. The Sinhala people said no to the bargain at the elections & now we have this fellow (whose brother-1 addresses Tamils as pariahs & brother-2 tries to cleanse the south of Tamils) who thinks that bombing his country would solve his problems in office. What a pity! Take it away Sinhalese brother..
15. Square | April 26th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Sinhalese
Tamil as an official since 1988 eh; Are you serious of what you’re saying? Btw did you read what Mano Ganesan had to say about this. It’s a recent post of Tamilweek. I hope he’s not in your list of proscribed persons/ organization.
As for your 50-50… what about it? Where are we today?
And please let’s not dilute the topic by stating that you studied in a Tamil school & I studied in a madrasa. These individuality stuff doesn’t solve the problem though you may think of masking it.
To solve this problem it’s Sri Lankan leaders who have to first and foremost forget their ethnic identities & look at Sri Lanka in the broader sense.
As George Bernard Shaw once put it “You’ll never have a quiet world till you knock the patriotism out of the human race”.
Whilst you and I diffuse the situ by asking “What we need to do to the country instead of what the country could do to you”
16. sinhalese | April 28th, 2008 at 6:10 am
Well Square,
” If you think that British Injustice to the Sinhala masses could be offset by an act which robs the Tamil of his rights, ”
I amy be simply dumb! but you have not read what I said rather read it in haste to reply. As far as I know what my father and other village people who educated in sinhala wanted - not against Tamils but Sinhala was suppressed (together with cast system). 1956 SWRD trying to changed it. I said nationalists hijacked it - meaning - they put it against Tamils robbing their rights. _ I did not write that bit because I expected not so dumb everybody knows about that any way (specialy readers here).
Secodn thing I wanted to say I could not get to Engineering Faculty depite scoring marks because of Distrcit basis and I am Sinhalese. I was about to become JVP member but when Bopage left JVP re: Self Det. of Tamils I changed my mind too.
However Self Det of Tamils viable only in an enviornment where two ethnic groups are not killing each other with hate. It is only viable where status like Checks and Slovaks became.
What I am asking Tamils is to consider- bombing will bring more destruction to Tamils. Like yesterday I could not say to my Brother Police might arrest Tamils coming to his shop and to oppose it. he says may be they are LTTE and whether we like it or not better them arrested (even if they are innocent) than having bombs. You think I like it that SLAF bombing North. No I don’t.
17. Square | April 29th, 2008 at 2:46 am
Sinhalese,
You are a nice guy & a sane chap to talk to. There are a lot of you out there but you will never talk, just like me.
There are these racist/facists elements in both our societies who have always been at the forefront of our politics. Unfortunately it is them who have been shaping our politics for years & sane voices are looked at mockingly. Words like “Peace”, “Ahimsa” etc are not in fashion - are replaced by “kill”, “destroy”. Even religious leaders have become part of this “fashion” cult. Both sides blame the other for the problems & speak to their respective communities saying that they will put this right & justifiy the use of violence. The propaganda machinery is used to show that they have progressed well & without them none of us couldn’t have come this far.
Today we see that we have come far alright but in another direction. We just moved from the best governed state in the commonwealth with tremendous potential to something not far from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We still call our selves as “proud Sri Lankans”.
There’s a feeling of hopelessness now among the moderates. Even other minorities & westerners are saying “Will you two grow up please”. We have been waiting for a solution for so long now - but when will this problem put behind us…….
18. sinhalese | April 30th, 2008 at 6:23 am
Square,
I think we agree some points and disagree with some. I completely agree with this statment. “There are these racist/facists elements in both our societies who have always been at the forefront of our politics. Unfortunately it is them who have been shaping our politics for years & sane voices are looked at mockingly.”
That is very true. When my mum wanted to vote JHU in gen election I tried in vain to stop her. Her only arguement was that Uduwe hamuduruwos bana is good, he managed with all upasakamma’s minds so she voted him. that’s true for lot others who voted. they hardly would think about national politics. Politicians use this to maximum. Other thing was my grand ma died in 80s. When we live in colombo Local UNP organiser collected her voting card even she was dead. She still voted for UNP even she is dead. Same is happening here in where I live. Local SLFP pala baba collecting voting card of another dead member of our family last 2 elections. We just keep quiet. how can we talk when Local harak horas (cattle theives) are becoming elected representatives? we are prisoners in our own democracy. (For that matter vanni Tamils are prisoners in their own land as far I can see - same thing). we saw a funeral of a solider last year who was from a poor family. His brother accused of JVP conections and killed by para military (I think Pra associated with UNP goons and Army) in late eighties and body was found burning road side. His brother later went to army and died fighting for mother land. On esiter and old parents were left reeling in their poor house where very hard to get a coffin in. Sister told us - brother knew he was going to be dead perhaps soon but his pension from Army will help the family. so he sacrificed himself. First brother sacrificed life for some revelutionary goon idea and second for motherland.
Poor sinhalese are suppressed lot too in a way i think. The war propaganda fooling both sides into some unimaginary comfort thinking all will finish one day and every body live happily ever after like an Indian film.
Leave a Comment
Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed