How does one BECOME Sinhalese or Tamil in Sentiment?

April 30, 2008 at 8:37 am · Filed under Federalidea

by Michael Roberts

My interpretation of the present impasse in the politics of Sri Lanka, determined as it is by the competitive jostling-cum-conflicts between the three main ethnic groups (where “Muslim” is ‘ethnic’ by virtue of its relationship of opposition to “Sinhalese”and “Tamil” in the same sentence), leans towards an emphasis on how one should address present circumstances. Though I am a historian, I believe that delving into ancient history is of limited value for any exercise in rapprochement. Indeed, I would go further and insist that the circumstances of the immediate present, today in 2008, must mould any constitutional and economic arrangements seeking a modus vivendi. We cannot erase memories of the atrocities committed by all parties in the conflict that rest within the minds of today’s victimised survivors. But, subject to such caveats regarding the immediate past, a bracketing and limiting of historically-based claims would be of immense benefit towards paths of reconciliation. Even the census of 1981 cannot be a baseline for territorial adjustments. The hard realities of the present-day ground situation must assume predominance for pragmatic adjustments of accommodation.

History, however, looms large in the claims to space within Sri Lanka among the propagandists and ultra-nationalists who are at the cutting edge of claim and counter-claim. Historical data, or, rather, what passes for data, is at the root of arguments of legitimisation and demand. Any Tom, Dick or Harry in the ultra camps feels that s/he can deploy bits and pieces of historical ‘fact’ to support the various claims to island-space. They also voice interpretations of the more recent past to emphasise their grievances and the legitimacy of political position.

These claims cannot be majestically cast aside: for the reason that they emanate from emotional commitments and earnest belief and, as such, are part of the politics of identity and political competition. It is for this reason that I addressed the subject of “History-Making” in an article that appeared in cyber-space within www.federalidea.com. The main argument was directed towards illustrating the sweeping character of the theories about the ancient history of Sri Lanka presented by some of the ultra TomDHs who ventured boldly in this field without any expertise in the subject. The emphasis was not on their lack of disciplinary training, but on the manifest absurdity of some arguments and the manner in which vast claims were asserted on the basis of one alleged ‘fact’, a fact that, as often as not, was of dubious authenticity.

Insofar as some of the extreme views that I challenged had harped on racial distinctions, one of the subsidiary themes in History-Making argued that the peoples of Sri Lanka were racially mixed and that blood-distinction was a non-issue. This assertion — and let me stress that it is a conjectured assertion – is based on common sense and the geographical location of the island in the sea lanes of the Indian Ocean, its proximity to the Indian sub-continent and a considerable body of widely-known facts about bodies of people who migrated to Sri Lanka at various moments during the last fifteen centuries or so.

Strikingly, though, this sub-theme is the issue that attracted most comment (thus far a week into the event). Apart from a few carping attacks by readers who had not understood my contentions, both Dushy Ranetunge and the pseudonymous Dingiri concentrated on this facet of my argument. Both in fact supported my thrust and stressed the mixtures of ‘blood’ or country of origin that have shaped the genes of the peoples who have lived in Lanka in recent past and distant past. Both even sought to provide a positivist cast to our series of assertions by suggesting DNA testing as likely proof.

It is this emphasis that gives rise to this particular essay. The emphasis on the racial aspect, our blood pedigree so to speak, is worrying even if the speakers are taking a moderate line that celebrates hybridity. For one, it demonstrates the power exercised by the racial categories spawned in the West and imported in the course of imperial expansion in an era marked by Darwinian currents. Such forms of thought found fertile soil in countries where varna theories held sway and caste distinctions averse to the mixing of blood (just read Piyadasa Sirisena’s novels of the early 20th century and the first chapter in People In between) had deep roots.

For another, it encourages a misunderstanding of ethnicity in the contemporary world and the force exerted by its depth of subjectivity. Ethnic differentiation is not solely “racial” or based on contemporary beliefs about supposed racial distinction (though that can be one powerful ingredient in such distinctions). Ethnicity is a subjective group sentiment. It is such sentiment that drives the ideologues who seek to manipulate the sentiments for their own immediate purposes. As subjective sentiment, ethnic identity is always in context and in relation to other groups in an interactive setting in territorial space. There is a “We”:”They” dimension to ethnic differentiation, one that can differentiate XYZ from several categories of neighbouring people (so that “They” can be a cluster of named others).

Such differentiation can be sharpened where there is competition for resources and for institutional power, including state power. That type of competition will be familiar to most readers so let me focus here on the cultural ingredients of subjective We-ness, that is, the cultural practices that sustain the distinctions and, then, reproduce them over generational-time in dynamic ways that can insert shifts in emphasis amidst significant continuities.

Language is often a fundamental dimension of one’s experience of the world, though it does not necessarily serve as a major factor of distinction everywhere or constitute difference in the same fashion. It is also a complex phenomenon because there can be meaningful dialect differences within each language. The dialect variation among the English and the Germans, for example, have been of considerable import for centuries and one facet of their emergence as “nations” was the moulding of an overarching ‘standard’ form of English or German that confederated their loyalties within the emergent new state.

The state as an institution was so central to the development of Englishness in the period extending from the 15th to 18th centuries that some historians depict the process as one involving a state-become-nation. But this state encompassed the British Isles and was known as “Britain” rather than “England.” Thus, the Scots, Welsh and Cornish were among those drawn into the confederative concept of Britain in the early modern and modern eras, an incorporation that was made easier by the economic opportunities opened up by the imperial expansion of Great Britain.

A subjective attachment to “Us” as distinct from neighbours is rarely constituted, and then re-produced over time, by just one central factor. It is a multi-factor process. Among other factors, self-perceptions and the sentiments around such affinities are moulded by everyday practices of a complex kind engaging preferences in cuisine, dress, tonsure, cosmetics, bodily cleanliness, architecture and so on. Let me illustrate from close to home.

In the late 1990s I was sent a draft manuscript by an Indian journal for review as Referee. The article was by Dennis McGilvray, an experienced American anthropologist conversant in Tamil and familiar with the Eastern Province. Addressing the issue of Tamil and Muslim identities in the Eastern Province his conclusions stressed the many commonalties they share and expressed a hope for political reconciliation in the immediate future. This emphasis was clearly motivated by well-intentioned hopes of peace, besides his knowledge of the regional scene. [See McGilvray’s revised article in Contributions to Indian Sociology and then again as a Marga Monograph in 2001 entitled "Tamil and Muslim Identities in the East"].

In reviewing the draft I expressed my reservations about the overly one-sided stress on similarities. Besides the evidence of recent clashes of a violent character between elements within these two bodies of people in the EP, sometime back I had chanced upon a Jesuit missionary document that recorded a violent riot some 110 years earlier in the 1890s. I also suspected that over the last century there would have been occasional bazaar clashes and land disputes with ethnic hues, flash-points that never reached newspaper reportage. So I had always been sceptical of platform rhetoric from local politicians affirming life-long amity among the different communities in the Eastern Province.

This caution was backed by my attentiveness to the significance of cultural difference of the sort embedded in practices of cuisine, coiffeur, tonsure et cetera and the reproduction of community endogamy because of the limited degree of cross-ethnic marriage throughout Sri Lanka. I therefore suggested that McGilvray’s essay could be improved if he attended to a whole range of seemingly minute areas of difference: for example (a) architectural practice relating to the directional location of one’s household cesspit and (b) the trimming of pubic and armpit hair that was enjoined on good Muslims.

Marriages across ethnic boundaries do occur in Sri Lanka. With reference to the last two centuries, say, from 1796-to-1981, one can say that in some areas, such as the Chilaw-Negombo coastline and the sparsely populated dry zone jungles there has been some degree of inter-marriage between Sinhalese and other ethnic categories — including Väddas in some places. Likewise, in the slum and shanty areas in Colombo and among the jet-set elites such cross-ethnic marriages seem to be greater than among the general populace. But subject to such caveats one can present broad generalisations to the effect (1) that Muslim women have rarely married outside their community, though some Sinhala brides have been absorbed by the community; (2) that caste-oriented marriage practices among the Sinhalese and Tamils have assisted a broad process that sustains ethnic endogamy as a general feature and (3) that the Burghers have shown the greatest propensity to marry outside their group, though even here the pukka upper-crust Burghers tried to remain pukka.

Thus, for every instance of cross-ethnic marriage in the recent Sri Lankan past one could find another case where an individual who defied community and/or parental preference was disinherited or shunned; and there are surely enough anecdotal tales of boy-girl love interests that were vetoed by parental or sibling fiat.

Marriage, however, is not the only arena where one can evaluate degrees of cross-ethnic amity. Food sharing and funeral arrangements provide litmus tests. It is not enough to share Muslim feasts at Ramazan or other symbolic moments. It is when and with whom food is shared that is significant. For that matter, it is how food is shared: does a visit to a Muslim household by a Tamil or Sinhalese friend (male?) involve eating rice out of the same main dish as everyone sits on the floor in a circle around the repast? The latter practice is one sign of Muslim-ness, inclusion in the brotherhood of local being, albeit, ultimately, a pointer towards the pan-Muslim community or ummah.

This long digression is directed towards emphasising the significance of a range of cultural practices – which obviously vary with area, climate and peoples – in moulding community sentiment of an ethnic kind in the global universe writ large. Travel and migrant movement in this era of globalisation may generate melting pot conditions in some places, but at the same time one also finds the development of heightened ethnicity shaped by nostalgia, ethnic networks of support, urban clustering, ghetto situations and the prejudices of host populations. Thus, ethnic affiliations always emerge in particular “sites” in the broad sense of the latter word (inclusive of class and time-period). They also are shaped by their relational field of structured social exchanges, including the impact of demographic weight and the control of resources and state power.

Thus, the appeal in this article is for us to move away from a focus on racial pedigree or beliefs about racial origins (though the latter can be one factor in the scenario) and to consider the range of factors, including seemingly benign everyday ways of dressing, cooking, eating or refining one’s body, that constitute difference.

Towards this end I would ask each Sinhalese who reads this piece to reflect on the following issues: What makes you FEEL that you are a Sinhalese? How did you become Sinhalese? What made your parents think and feel themselves Sinhalese? And are you at the same time a Sri Lankan in sentiment? Or is the last question redundant in that “Sinhalese” is equivalent to “Sri Lankan”?

Likewise, with adjustments and a deletion of the last question, this battery of reflective questions can be pondered over by Tamils of Sri Lankan origin, some of whom may well have jettisoned their Sri Lankan-ness at this stage of their life as a result of recent experiences. In this regard the Tamils can also ask themselves if they have any sense of warm affinity to Tamils nourished in Tamilnadu, Malaysia or Fiji? In other words, is one’s “Tamilness” locale-specific and rooted in memories of place or places, say, Manipay, Paranthan or Passekudah?

To put my question in a nutshell: how did each of you become Sinhalese or Tamil and develop attachments to that entity? The inspiration for this question, I add, comes from the grave. On one occasion in August 1983 a few weeks after the anti-Tamil pogrom of that year, Charles Abeysekera and Newton Gunasinghe (both now deceased) were at the SSA office in Nawala Road reflecting on the situation facing their country. As related to me once by Newton, he was forced to confront a question on the lines above raised by Charlie: “how do you know you are Sinhalese and what makes you Sinhalese?” It was not a joke, but an analytical twister. Newton had proceeded to address it with due seriousness and in analytical fashion. It is this I ask of you. [island.lk]

36 Comments »

  1. Ram the 2nd said,

    April 30, 2008 @ 5:05 pm

    how did each of you become Sinhalese or Tamil and develop attachments to that entity?

    I was born in SriLanka to sinhala parents.
    I read, write and spoke sinhala flusntly when I left that island some 40+odd years.

    Now I think and live as a white anglo-saxon and lead a similar life but every where I go the white men will treat me like an asian though I have nothing left to be an asian.
    Some how they know I can not be a white person. I thought of changing my name to an English name in an futile attempt.

    Any tamil persona will tell I am not a tamil and any sinhalese will tell I am not a tamil.

    Presently I am scouring the my brains to develop attachments to what entity I must belong.

    I think it will be dictated by the genes of my parents.

  2. nihal pathirana said,

    April 30, 2008 @ 7:36 pm

    The original name of the country was Sinhale this was the name when the country was handed over to the British in 1815 and signitories to the document was in Sinhala Tamil and Portugese. As collectively we the Sinhala Tamil and Muslims are all Sinhalese belong to Sinhale,like Germans in Germany or French in France. Language is not the criterior to determine the people in the country.

  3. Bonny Williams said,

    April 30, 2008 @ 7:45 pm

    These type articles should be in main stream publications in Srilanka. As average lankas shroud read and try to think as lanks not as Tamil or Sinhala.
    This poison was fed to us by politicians who is narrow mind with devilish thoughts.

  4. Expatriate said,

    April 30, 2008 @ 7:50 pm

    Mr. Roberts,

    I have always put the Tamil struggle in the context of a group of people individually and collectively seeking their just rights. It doesn’t involve ancient history or ‘ who came first’ arguments.

    The State terrorism of the last half century and the fact that our ancestors have lived in the North-East for no less than 300 years (it is not that they didn’t live before that, but just that it is impossible to trace family history longer than that) , are sufficient reasons to seek some form of separation from the implacable State terror.

    (How many Sinhalese can really show proof of their families/ancestors owning land or simply having lived in the Noth-East by 1948, at the time of independence? If no proof can be given, their claim to the North-East is just a bogus claim; if proof is given, those who historically lived in the North-East , regardless of ethnicity, should have every right to live there. )

    My sense of Tamilness comes from the language I speak and the values, history and experiences I share with a group of people who call themselves Tamils. These experiences include our shared suffering at the hands of the terroristic SL state and its minions.

    I am an atheist and my Tamil identity is largely secular–my family’s saivite traditions don’t play any significant part in it, though I acknowledge that these traditions shaped what we call Tamil culture today.

    And because one’s sense of connectedness to a place (or people) is stronger when he/she spends more time there (with them), I have a stronger connection to Jaffna. This ‘connection’ is far from the kind of regionalism some people display. Enough said for now.

  5. S Rasalingam said,

    April 30, 2008 @ 9:47 pm

    How does one define oneself to be a tamil or Sinhalese?

    This question posed by the historian Michael Roberts can be taken at an individual- personal-experience level or on a politico-historical level.. Let me first look at the politco-historical approach.

    I have an old press cutting which shows that in 1934 G. G. Ponnambalam asserted in the state council that “he is a Proud Dravidian”, and this was soon followed by similer assertions by Natesan and others, sort of in opposition to Sri Pathmanantha (who did not know any tamil) and others who were even more elitist han the less upper-class Ponnambalam, and more fevourable to the “Ceylonese Identity” peddled by the anglicized Colombo society. The 1930s was the time when the Dravidian-Aryan distinction was being pushed by historians and anthropologists, and the Tamil poltiticians found a strong need to establish a historical intectual base (”history making”) that could effectively compete wih the readily available, already well established Mahavamsa tradition (myth or reality) of the Sinhalese. Thus it was that the 1920s, 1930s constituted the time when many histories of the Tamil People and of Jaffna (e.g., Fr Gnanapragasar, K. Velupille’s works etc) were written. Also, the political attacks on the Mahvamsa by Tamil intellectuals and politicians began at that time. As a person who grew up in the Donoughmore era I know that the political meetings in Jaffna had a strong impact in building up the Tamil nationalist feelings as well as generating negative feelings towards the Sinhalese. When there was a shortage of jobs due to the world-wide 1930s dipression, this was very successfully blamed on the Sinhalese!

    Being a Tamil implied following the lead of these upper-class, upper-caste Colombo tamils who were like demi-gods to the lower caste village tamils of the time.

    So the consciousness of ethnic identity is SET by your leaders, superiors and parents. These political leaders AMONG THEMSELVES were actually NOT that ethnically conscious. Most of the leaders of that era were more comfortable in English and some “Tamil” leaders did not know Tamil, were NOT Hindus although they strongly supported the caste system. Some did not even have Tamil names (Wakeley Paul is a modern Tamil with a strong “tamil” consciousness who is not a Tamil by name).

    On the other hand, the Hindu religious leaders were very important in setting the ethnic identity. The role of Arumuga Navalar in setting the Tamil-Saivite identity is well known to Historians like Roberts. He mentions the Sinhala writer Piyadasa Sirisena, and I believe that Sirisena would have been a literary mouth-piece of the sinhala-Budhist consciousness aroused by the leadership of Anagarika Dharmapala – a Buddhist version of Navalaar..

    Now, let us we move away from the politico-historical approach and look at the individual-experience level. I myself as a young man found that as a low-caste tamil my chance for education was because I could use my christian faith to advantage. Even here, those days, being low-caste meant that you have to literarily sit on a small low-chair (stool) and not on a chair of the standard height. When Chelvanayakam was claiming that the Indian tamils were being discriminated by the Senanayake citizenship act (which was actually a very liberal legislative act for its day), Chelvanaikam had NO PROBLEM with the utter oppression suffered by the low caste tamils (even Mavattipuram came 3 decades later, with Shanmugathasan). How-ever, as young people born to the system, we did not know any better, and we were tamils first and the question of our relationship with the Sinhalese DID NOT CONFRONT US till we were much older.

    So, although people like MIchael Roberts or Charles Abesekera, i.e., people living in multi-ethnic cosmopolitan Colombo, may have this problem of decideing if one was a Tamil or Sinhalese ot not, WE NEVER HAD THAT PROBLEM. Our social skills and social norms required us to know and understand how to pay attention to expected caste-respecting behaviour (or get assaulted, especially those days).

    It was when I moved to Hatton, and then to Colombo that I began to understand the issue of ethnicity and race more clearly. The friendships and links of being a Tamil helped me to find cheap lodgings, lines of clear favouritism which helped me to get jobs, find a wife, contacts with the Tamil clerk in the bank which helped me to get a housing loan etc etc. Thus one’s Tamilness was strongly associated with the social network that helped one to find one’s feet, even when one is away from home. This is true even today in Torornto – Scarborogh. We know that the Sinhalese have their network of friends and relatives who would work for them in exactly the same way, and define their ethnicity. Thus a village Tamil coming from Jaffna, and I presume a village Sihalese coming from Matara would not face the problems (or questions of identity) that Michael Roberts poses.

    Michael Roberts, being a fine historian and Anthropologist with Oxford connections, is also omewhat brain-washed by western anthropologists with their search for signs,symbolysm and ritual as the signposts of ethnicity or what ever they are studying. So Roberts thinks that the location of the cesspit in the home or the shaving of the public hair are important. Whether one observes a “Thedchana-moorthy” by observing ths southerly direction or not, and where one puts the cesspit, matters only once your ethnic sense is developed. So these symbols are symptoms of the long UPBRINGING and not the essense of the matter.

    I think one’s ethnicity is determined mainly by the social network which defines one’s kith and kin, support group and associates. If you are part of that network, you have to be loyal to that network, and if you deny any aspects of it, you can be branded a renegade or even a “traitor”, as has happened in extreme Tamil nationalist politics. The strongly connected social network, cemented by years of training in mental subservience due to the strength of the caste system, is probabaly far stronger among the Tamils than among the Sinhalese. When in Colombo I found that the Sinhalese regarded me as a tamil, and caste disticntions did not matter that much, and I was treated with reasonablke dignity. But I had no links to their social networks withtin them where by I could obtain any special favours.

    That distinguished me as a tamil and NOT a sinhalese. But I imagine this would be less sharp for a tamil who went to a Colombo school and had many sinhalese friends who could be relied upon to help them if needed.

    The inbred subservience that we have in Tamil society to our “superiors”, be they parents, elders, masters, Kurukals, political leaders, or so-called “upper-caste” members is noteworthy. This is why Colombo diplomats would always prefer a tamil household servant to a sinhalese servant, because the tamil house boy is more subservient to his master. Most tamil house boys are low-caste tamils, from the Estate sector. The upper caste Colombo Tamils would probabaly never be good servants – but they were good “civil servants” of the british, i.e., surrogate managers.

    How does all this bear on the “national question (National Tragedy) “?

    There is absolutely no doubt that the Tamils of Today were sinhalese at one time and the Sinhalese of today were at one time Tamils, depending on which type of Royal house ran the country. Kathigesu Indrapala, and K. Suppiah point our that many place names in Jaffna and the Tamil East are distorted Sinhala place names. The Tamil and Sinhalese languages are very very similar, although at first sight they look different. They have a vast common pool of words derived from Sanskrit that makes it easy for a Tamil or a Sinhalese to learn each others languages. The national tragedy has arisen due to the relative isolation of the people of the North from the peoiple of the South. Instead of separation of the North and the east from the south, we need more intermingling, inter-ethnic dialogue. Instead of resisting and protesting “sinhalese colonization of the East and the North”, we need to call for reciprocal recolonization of the south by the Tamils and the north by the sinhalese. The Banda-Chelva pact would NOT have failed if such dialogue and ethnic inter-networking had existed. Without such inter ethnic networks, Federalism, Eelam or the Unitary state will ALL continue to breed hatred and inter-ethnic warfare. In such warfare, the minorities will ALWAYS suffer – the lower castes, and the most poor of the tamils and the sinhalese will be the cannon fodder. The continued financial support given to the armed groups by the diaspora, based on racial hate will NOT help. Will the diaspore give as generously to BUILD the ravaged North and the East? Knowing how poorely the Tamils responded to the Jaffna University movement of the 1960s, 1970s, and the Batticaloa university project of the 1980s, I believe that when it comes to CONSTRUCTIVE ACTION, for some reason, the generocity of the diaspora will disappear. They will say, if YOU the STATE bombed the North and destroyed it, now YOU the STATE had better fix it.

    Once again the poor and the oppressed tamils would continue to suffer.

    by Sebastian Rasalingam

  6. Sri said,

    May 1, 2008 @ 12:55 am

    How did each of you become Sinhalese or Tamil and develop attachments to that entity?

    A very good question in the context of the ongoing debates, but still irrelevant!

    It doesnt matter whether you are a Tamil or Sinhalese or whether you belong to this or that caste.

    I am very much interested in the ongoing debates on Gender and Feminism and some of the ideas developed could be gainfully used in addressing racial and caste issues.

    What is relevant is not whether you are a Sinhalese or Tamil or whether you belong to this or that caste, but every one is entitled to rights that are universal which are also called fundamental rights which include equity.

    But Mr Michael Roberts as a historian, Is it possible for you to enlighten us on some frequently asked questions regarding history of Sri Lanka at least from the 13th century onwards – the people and their origins.

    This should include settlements during the Portugese, Dutch and British periods and also about tobacco cultivation and deep well technology.
    This should also include Muslims and settlements from Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Anthara Predesh and Karnadaka.

    The pseudo historians have a field day on these topics.

    I am asking these questions out of historical curiosity, but not to formulate any theories to exclude anyone and claim some superiority and to deprive some people of their rights.!

  7. Dushy Ranetunge said,

    May 1, 2008 @ 4:28 am

    Hi,
    My life experience is similar to that of Ram the 2nd with the following exceptions.

    I grew up in Colombo in an English speaking household and although I studied in the Sinhala medium, my Sinhalese skills were never considered by me as being fluent. We had Tamil and Muslim family friends in Colombo and perhaps identified and had greater allegiance with “class” rather than with race or ethnicity.

    This trend has continued into our adult life.

    I am aware that there are Sinhalese and Tamils who have never in their life spoken to the other. At a LTTE conference in Ottawa a Tamil from the United States, originally from Jaffna spoke to me for a long time and then told me that I was the first Sinhalese he had spoken to in his life.

    Unlike Ram the 2nd, I am not concerned or bothered by the opinions of the natives of England or Sri Lanka in relation to my identity. I subscribe to the notion of citizenship rather than tribe.

    On examining my Sinhaleseness, I feel a certain sympathy and connection to the Sinhalese, particularly in the rural areas in Sri Lanka, more than I would feel for those in the rural areas in Britain. We have Tamil domestics in Sri Lanka and I do not feel any different towards them than what I feel for Sinhalese, with the exception of their performance of their duties.

    I recognize that the Sinhalese struggle/aspiration/psyche as one of a nation building compulsion, the same process that led to the establishment of Anuradhapura or Polonnaruwa, the same feelings that are to be found in Hindi India, in Russia, in the White United States etc, perhaps majoritarian compulsions.

    I feel that their behavior is very similar to those of the English, their historical suspicions of the French over the “Palk Strait”, their psyche towards Muslims building mosques in the UK.

    I share the curiosity of Roberts, in trying to find out the Sinhaleseness of particularly the rural Sinhalese, who particularly form the support base of Mahinda Rajapakse.

    I reject the notion of the Mahavamsa mindset as most rural Sinhalese have not read the Mahavamsa and their statements in relation to their identity, fears and suspicions are no different to what I hear in Britain from British village folk.

    There is however one thing that I have noticed over the years. A Social revolution is taking place among the Sinhalese quite unnoticed, even by the authorities, something like what happened in the 60’s in Britain. A social awakening of the lower strata of society, visible by the gradual disappearance of mud houses and being replaced by brick houses, changes in dress, with increasingly women wearing trousers, young people interacting and involved in the music scene as never before, increased overseas travel, particularly to the middle east.

    With this movement, political and cultural preferences and more importantly expectations may change, quite unnoticed by those in power, who are still hanging on to old theories.

    I would suggest that this Sinhaleseness/Tamilness, religiousness, caste affiliations etc has a direct correlation to disposable income with a slight skew at the salaried lower middle class, where heightened awareness increases intensity for resources and discrimination.

    At the lower level of subsistence farming working the few acres of land there is little prejudice and more fear of the unknown.

  8. ranjithsenavirathna said,

    May 1, 2008 @ 6:00 am

    What makes you FEEL that you are a Sinhalese?
    why dont you ask same from V Prabhakaran?.
    what makes You FEEL That you Are A Westerner?British, Irish Scotish,Or else.The same way we are Sinhale Sinhalese.We are most proud of that,But mostly we respect others identity also. not like some dubble game westerners,who give arms and trainging to Terrorists and come to madiate for negotiations on behalf of cold blooded killers.Mr Michael Roberts,pls come to Sri Lanka, and mingle with Sinhale sinhalese. then you will understand Why and What makes you FEEL that you are a Sinhalese?.We are Friendly,Proud, peace loving and Smiling SINHALESE in a multiethenic, multicultural sociaty.

  9. shan said,

    May 1, 2008 @ 7:40 am

    s rasalingam ,factual and very true. But how many wants to understand the reality

  10. Hela said,

    May 1, 2008 @ 9:45 pm

    I tend to align with comments made elsewhere re Sinhale.

    Sinhala (both the language and the community) can be found only in Sri Lanka (Sinhale). It was formed by the tribes/clans who were borne or selected Lanka as their home. These tribes/clans included visitors from neighbours (mainly India) including Vijeya, (if ever there was one) and the 18 castes of skilled people who accompanied Theri Sanghamitta and who contributed laying the foundations of the great Anuradhapura, Polonnaruwa civilizations.

    As Mr Rasalingam points out, lot of Tamils have become Sinhala and lot of Sinhalas have become Tamils (like koviars). They are all part of Sinhale.

    The question is one’s willingness (or otherwise) to identify one with Sinhale. The root to the conflict appears to lie therein.

  11. dias said,

    May 2, 2008 @ 1:08 am

    A question that is wholly irrelevant to cosmopolitan liberalism – where the only requirement is that you be a homosapien!

  12. Deva said,

    May 2, 2008 @ 2:22 am

    Mr. Rasalingam

    Under the title *The Beginning of the Problem* our famous Sinhala-Buddhist Chauvinist Scholar, the Pseudo- Historian and Charlatan Prof. Nalin De Silva says,

    *****“If anybody is not happy with what I write over the origins of the Tamils in Jaffna all that has to be done is to analyse the Tamil as spoken by people in Jaffna and in South India and find out the time after the two dialects branched off. It will be found that the it is less than three hundred and fifty years and that Vellalas became dominant in Jaffna with the help of the Dutch. Under the British the Vellalas became dominant in Colombo and with the assistance of the British governors and others gradually became dominant in the Legislature and the Professions.”*****

    He further says,

    *****It is in this background I read articles by MR. RASALINGAM with enthusiasm as they contribute towards finding a “solution” to the “ethnic problem”. Of course one always finds satisfaction in reading articles that collaborate at least to some extent with one’s ideas on the causes of the “ethnic problem”, and it is no exception in this case.*****

    Sir, from your articles and replies it is very clear that people like you were discriminated by the so-called “upper-caste” Tamils during the olden days. I can understand your problem sir even though as a person who was born in Jaffna in the late 70s, I did not undergo what you did, but the past is gone.

    Why are you punishing the entire Sri Lankan Tamil society by feeding misinformation to the so called History-scholars such as Prof. Nalin De Silva who is in the process of creating a new history for the Tamils and the Sinhalese.

    For the last 40 years, the Sinhala Buddhist Chauvinists, the Pseudo-Scholars and Charlatans such as Prof. Nalin De Silva have built up a very strong love and affection towards the Tamil PhD student K. Indrapala due to his 1965 PhD thesis which was in favor of the Sinhalese.

    When Prof. K. Indrapala retired from his profession after 30 years of extensive research as a Senior Archeologist/Historian/epigraphist and a University Don, he settled down in Australia.

    All these Sinhala Buddhist Chauvinists, the Pseudo-Scholars and Charlatans who kept on using his 1965 PhD thesis as a guide in all their writings must have had a heart attack when they read the book what Prof. K. Indrapala wrote in the year 2005, 40 years after his 1965 PhD thesis.

    Today, these same Sinhala Buddhist Chauvinists, the Pseudo-Scholars and Charlatans have found a new lover, they are using the articles what you write on frustration as a guide for their new history lessons to misguide the Gullible Sinhala-Buddhists.

    A group of Sinhalese has formed an organization known as Hela Havula founded by Munidasa Cumaratunga. Today they are in the process of creating a new Hela History for Sri Lanka which is different from what is said in the Mahavamsa. To support them there is another Jathika Chinthanaya group founded by Gunadasa Amarasekera which is not only misinterpreting and abusing the history but also creating a new meaning to the existing history. Prof. Nalin de Silva comes under this group. He is a Physical Science/Maths Professor.

    Nalin De Silva is more a mark of failure of our pathetic education system. The problem with our education system is till a PhD what matters is only intellectual capacity. What they never realized was after PhD what matters is not only the brains. The peer recognition is more important at that level. If your work is not recognized by peers you are nowhere. So when they realize they cannot get the recognition they expect for what they do they try to move into more *popular* areas where people (not necessarily academics, but society) might treat them as *scholars* even if they are not.

    The problem with people like Nalin de Silva is what they speak is dangerous to the society. They are brainwashing the gullible younger Sinhala-Buddhist generation and creating racists, ultra-nationalists, and extremists among the Sinhalese. This is detrimental to country and should be stopped at any cost but unfortunately people like you (Rasalingam) are feeding more and more false information helping them to destroy our country even further. My advise to you sir is, in this old age where most people tend to be more spiritual, please do not do the opposite.

  13. N2 said,

    May 2, 2008 @ 6:54 am

    Obviously once the so-called Sinhalese and the so-called Tamils ponder the question ‘how do you really know that you are really Tamil/Sinhalese?’ apparently the whole problem will be settled. :)

    Besides the matter that he has blurred epistemological and ontological issues, Michael Roberts has of course missed the elephant in the room.
    If those who were/are responsible for the conflict were that philosophically minded in the first place then there would be no conflict at all!

    Does Michael Roberts truly believe for example that those who went around burning, looting and killing in 1983 are/were capable of pausing and asking their victims whether they were really really really Tamil or pause to wonder and verify if they themselves were/are really really really Sinhalese?

    Buddhist philosophy already asks these sorts of questions (and it does so much more thoroughly and clearly than Michael Roberts), so as to detach people from their false attachments.
    There are many ways as to how these attachments and identifications arise. Nothing wrong with them and the point is not to deny them but to be aware of them and their potential deceptiveness. And in fact the search for essences is futile because there are no essences but emptiness/Sunyata.

    So, if Buddhism itself has had no impact on the thought patterns of the Extremist-Sinhala-Buddhists how presumptuous it is of Michael Roberts to think he could!

    Silly naive imperialistic western educated sociologist

  14. N2 said,

    May 2, 2008 @ 8:29 am

    #7. Dushy Ranetunge: “I reject the notion of the Mahavamsa mindset as most rural Sinhalese have not read the Mahavamsa and their statements in relation to their identity,”

    Nonsense! It is still possible to have a Mahavamsa mindset without having READ anything: it is called inculturation or, as some prefer to call it, brain-washing. Unfortunately it is illiterate and/or uneducated persosn who are most easily brainwashed into this or that mindset.

    Almost every rural Sinhalese believes that they are descendants of Vijaya with a foremost right to the land of Lanka that is ordained to be a Buddhist haven.

  15. Tikira said,

    May 2, 2008 @ 12:46 pm

    When tamils bomb Colombo and suberbs, I feel Sinhalese. When my Tamil Boss replaced me with a another Tamil, I felt Sinhalese….When Tamil trader in N.eliya refuse to sell his product to us (Just because we’re Sinhalese) I felt Sinhalese …etc etc.

  16. Dushy Ranetunge said,

    May 2, 2008 @ 12:56 pm

    Hi N2

    Racism / nationalism / patriotism and even fascism is found in all societies and I would suggest that all the above are far more virulent in the United States, and India than among the Tamils and the Sinhalese.

    Look at how the Whites treated the blacks in the US.

    I studied at the LSE with Indians and the hatred that they expressed to me of Muslims in India has no comparison in Sri Lanka.

    I would suggest that the problem in Sri Lanka is not the mahavamsa mindset, Sinhaleseness, Tamilness, nationalism, Racism or for that matter fascism, but poor governance.

    In the United States and India, the management of racism /nationalism / patriotism is far more successful than in Sri Lanka, mainly because quality personnel man key positions of the civil service and even political life.

    Sri Lanka has a huge problem in that quality immigrates first to the private sector and then abroad.

    Even among Tamils, quality has fled. Poor economic management and Mugabe style land reform are greatly to blame for structural destabilization.

    There is no mahavamsa mind set among a majority of Sinhalese as Tamils percieve. Fascism exists only among a minority, but I agree that they are vociferous. Fear is far more of a potent threat to stability.

  17. Devinda Fernando said,

    May 2, 2008 @ 2:46 pm

    The reason we have this problem is Tamils (and I generalize so please forgive me since I know not ALL Tamils fall into this category,..but the Majority DO) don’t want to be ‘Sri Lankan’. This is mostly the fault of their Communalist leaders who propagate Racism and a sense of Superiority over the Sinhalese. Being Equal is not enough because that means they are still a Minority in Sri Lanka.

    Tamils, like all other Sri Lankan Citizens are equally protected under the constitution of the Land. There is nothing a Tamil CANNOT do that other Sri Lankan Citizens can. But this is not enough is it? They want Equality in the forms of aspects which are not physically viable or Practical!!!. That is why the big problem remains with Sinhala being the Official language of the Land. From a practical point of view a Country needs a common tongue, and while Tamil is recognized, practiced, even offered as a Medium of learning in Schools it is simply not enough for Tamils who want the majority 75% of the land learn Tamil to be TRULY IDEOLOGICALLY EQUAL…. Sinhala being the official language is because it is the Majority language…. English is the Official language of the UK, and USA because the majority speak it. It also coincidentally happens to be the language of the White Anglo-Saxons but no one calls them Racist for having that country speak English only…. even though these countries have very diverse and large minority populations… Funny how no one tells the UK or USA to learn other languages?

    Funny still are the Tamils who migrate to these countries and become Citizens of these countries… they have no problem Assimilating into the common tongue of these countries? They seem to accept the Demographic reality that they are a Minority in those lands. Not a Peep out of them there. Everyone loves being Tamil-Canadian, or Tamil-American, or British Tamil, etc… I guess English is a “Step Up” – right? The mentality I see is that Tamils should be happy to Learn English, as that is an achievement for them. But to learn Sinhala…and be a Sri Lankan Citizen….well that is just a Burden isn’t it? That is below Tamils to do. That is a subjugation for Tamils, almost a Human Rights violation for Tamils to learn and speak Sinhala….

    LOL.

    I now await the Chorus of Tamil Nationalists,Racists, and Communalists to proceed to call me a “Chauvinist” and “Racist” for these comments…

  18. Devinda Fernando said,

    May 2, 2008 @ 8:31 pm

    *** Nonsense! It is still possible to have a Mahavamsa mindset without having READ anything: it is called inculturation or, as some prefer to call it, brain-washing. ***

    N2,

    If your theory is sound (which it isn’t – you are a Lunatic!) then how do you explain the Tamil resort to violence? Is that also inculturation as you say? Is that Brain Washing too? or is that just Reactionary and in Self-defence as you apologists always seem to claim? Seems only Sinhala Buddhism is the root cause of all conflicts yet there has been no repeat of the 1983 riots since then but we have witnesses Bus bomb after the next, suicide bomber after the next,… village massacre after the next from the LTTE… what is all that N2? All Self Defence?

    LOL! when the LTTE cut off the water to Marvil Aru in 2006 and started shelling the Army to kick start Eelam War IV – what exactly was that? Stop trying to place all the Tamil problems on the shoulders of the Sinhalese. You are becoming a Pariah Ethnic group, a bunch of Victim-Welfare-Mentality cases.

  19. JeyP said,

    May 2, 2008 @ 9:10 pm

    #17
    From the last sentence you wrote, it seems to me you write not to convey intelligent, coherent arguments but rather to provoke others especially those of Tamil ethnicity. Pity really.

    Michael Roberts is giving an academic argument to what is essentially a very emotional topic.

    For Tamils to consider themselves truly Sri Lankan the Sinhalese (Sinhalese-Buddhist) need to stop equating being Sinhalese Buddhist with being Sri Lankan. All this research into History and languages doesnt mean Sh.. to those suffering.

  20. N2 said,

    May 3, 2008 @ 9:06 am

    #16. Dushy Ranetunge:

    The reason for SL’s bad governance is because the Sinhala politicians made use of the ‘Sinhala-Buddhist’ slogan (at the expense of the Tamils) to come to power. So of course there will be bad governance by such people who fan and thrive on communalism for their political ambitions.

    In the case of SL (as with many African countries) power/ego mania along communal/tribal lines has resulted in both bad governance (because the power/ego maniacs are otherwise incompetent) as well as polarisation of the communities/tribes.

    Certainly there are communal/racial issues in many societies: but the ones where politicians do not exploit it are much better off in every way. And even though the politicians in these other places also have big egos they satisfy their ambitions in other ways.
    Since you have lived in Britain you will know that those politicla parties and politicians who have attempted to exploit the race card have never got far.

    And YES! The cause of all the problems whether bad governance or communalism is because the Sinhala politicians played the ‘Sinhala- Buddhist’ card and promoted the Mahavamsa mindset. (The only moral Sinhala leader who came to power was Dudley Senanayake.)

    And I think you have mixed with the wrong kind of Indians!

    #18. Devinda Fernando: I think you have shown by your ‘comments’ that I am right :)

  21. Devinda Fernando said,

    May 3, 2008 @ 10:36 am

    *** For Tamils to consider themselves truly Sri Lankan the Sinhalese (Sinhalese-Buddhist) need to stop equating being Sinhalese Buddhist with being Sri Lankan. ***

    JayP.

    Seems that you are not intelligent enough to understand what I’m saying… not my problem… perhaps you should read my post again…more slowly this time, and use:

    http://www.dictionary.com – to look up the long words!

    I don’t know how many times I have said this but I have not equated now or Ever: Tamils to Sinhalese Buddhism. For the reason stated above, to which you are unable to counter to this day…

    To Repeat myself since it is obvious to me that you have not read the entirety of my post and have only picked up on the last statement: I don’t even mention Religion as part of being Sri Lankan, I simply address the fact that Tamils have to get round the very real demographic reality that they are a minority population numerically speaking. So to place their unrealistic and impractical demands such as force the majority to learn the minority language is their stupidity or stubbornness as it is not a practical solution in other countries, and is definitely an Ideological double standard placed on Sri Lanka as opposed to other countries to which Tamils are minority citizens of. It seems that the Tamil Communalist politicians have preached that the learning of Sinhala in Sri Lanka is somehow beneath them and somehow makes them less ‘Tamil’. So please feel free to tell me I’m wrong on this… ;)

    And FYI – I am not even Buddhist… and according to many here I am not even completely Sinhalese… which matters not to me since I have maintained all along that I’m Sri Lankan…..

  22. rk said,

    May 3, 2008 @ 3:35 pm

    If folks are still following this (and it is important) please visit
    http://www.youtube.com and key in CEYLON 1932, and Ceylon 1931
    and finally Ceylon Home Sweet Home.

  23. JeyP said,

    May 4, 2008 @ 1:43 am

    Devinda,

    On the contrary to what you write, I did in fact read your initial post but thought better of replying it but your response to my post brings about this reply.
    The whole issue about Tamils having to learn another language is that the fact of the matter is that Sinhala was NOT the National language of our beloved country before ‘56. English was. If it had continued to be thus we would not be having this discussion. If you take any aspect of human relationships between those who consider themselves to be equal and introduce anything which gives one a competitive edge over the other the one who is disadvantage will protest. In making Sinhala the official language of this country all Tamils were all of a sudden made second class citizens. I hope this negates your initial view that this country needs a common language. The fact is, it did, till SWDR came along and created history. The irony of the whole issue was Bandaranayake couldnt himself talk Sinhala fluently.

    My earlier post may have misguided your intelligence by its inherent brevity. Though the initial paragraph was aimed at your usual unintelligible tirade the rest of my comments were not aimed at yourself or your ethnicity or your religion. They were based on my life experience mainly among those of the Majority. See I have lived most of my life with Sinhalese some of whom are my very very good friends, indeed my best friend is a Sinhalese though not a Buddhist. At school I never did consider them as Sinhalese and they me as Tamil though we studied in different mediums. We were all just good buggers who studied at the best school of all. I will not be so biased as to claim that all Sinhalese Buddhist share the opinion that equates Sinhalese Buddhist with Sri Lankan but unfortunately that is the view of most. It is a result of indirect indoctrination that comes along with putting one religion and language above the other. Why do you think America separates the Church from Government? The English language is a world language. Learning it is something that anyone should do to get ahead in this world. Thats why most Tamils migrate to English speaking countries as opposed to other countries. On the other hand Sinhalese also migrate to English speaking countries where they learn the language without any problem. So they shouldn’t complain if Sri Lanka was to make English its language of administration. To create a truly Sri Lankan identity you should not glorify the difference but rather the things that make us the same. In glorifying one religion and language over the other, where before ‘56 all was “equal” we created an inequality.

    Though I lived most of my life in the South I never felt the need unfortunately to learn to read and write in Sinhala though I can speak the language without any discernible accent. My wife on the other hand does not know any Tamil. She by the way is Sinhalese. Do I need the feel the need to learn Sinhalese to consider myself Sri Lankan? I dont think so. And if someone were to insist on it I would definitely sat no thanks! I am fine the way I am. I support the Sri Lankan cricket team and watch every single match I can much to the detriment of my marriage. I even used to go the grounds to watch it live whenever I could. Why? I love to support my country. But if my country says that I must learn something that was not mine from when I was born as your post seems to imply from its emphasis on learning Sinhala then I will say not on your life.
    FYI: I dont really think Tamils want you to learn Tamil, they just want to be allowed to live their life peacefully! Do you really think that a 100 years down the road that anyone will really care?

  24. Devinda Fernando said,

    May 4, 2008 @ 1:47 pm

    *** #18. Devinda Fernando: I think you have shown by your ‘comments’ that I am right :) ***

    #20

    N2,

    Proven what? You have said nothing and have clarified nothing. You are incapable of discussing a topic or arguing a point.

  25. Dushy Ranetunge said,

    May 5, 2008 @ 6:43 am

    Hi N2

    I agree with your comments but in every country politicians use tribalism, including the Clintons and the Obama’s of this world.

    British and American societies are developed to an extent where the impact of tribalism is minimized, but the same tribalism exists. Even in Britain or America if you are a minority isolated in rural areas, you will feel tribalism. Its only because most live in multicultural cities that the situation is contained.

    There are in fact two problems.

    We have expectations which are closer to the developed Western mean political standards and expectations, because we communicate in English and have been conditioned in the Western way.

    In all these countries the system works and meets the expectations of the majority or the government will get voted out.

    In Sri Lanka, also the system works for the majority( all communities), but they are poor and have low mean political expectations. So the standards expected and delivered are poor in comparison to our expectations, and we are disappointed.

    In Britain or America if it was publicized that the Chief Executives son who has no private means had secured an Aston Martin, it would be a scandal and the man will lose his job.

    In Sri Lanka 90% don’t know what an Aston Martin is, and they don’t care as it is a perception alien to them, but only the Colombo English speaking class who are about 1% of the population gets excited and expresses outrage.

    So to get the Sri Lanka that you and I want, we have to raise the mean political expectations and awareness of the voters to our level. Only Then would we have the Sri Lanka that you and I want. Terrorism is like banging your head on a brick wall as it brings no change, but makes the situation worse.

    If you look at the Tamil struggle, its strongest advocates are those who have our mind set and they are expecting from Sri lanka our/western standards and ideals.

    For the rural Sri Lankan its as alien as an Aston Martin. Considering their lot, they simply cannot understand what the rumpus is about, as they face similar struggles everyday in their lives.

    Thats why mahinda Rajapakse has his support base and is in power.

    The Tamils and Sinhalese are racially, culturally and even politically far more closer than any other ethnic group in Sri Lanka so much so they should be natural allies.

    The present crisis is a tragedy of huge proportions.

    Look at the Black struggle in the United States. It only succeeded, when whites marched with the blacks as the Whites understood the black grievances and expressed outrage.

    The Tamil struggle will only succeed, when the Sinhalese march with the Tamils and express outrage.

    This is difficult now, because the political establishment in Sri Lanka has addressed Tamil grievences over the last 20 years of the conflict and Tamil grievences have now been replaced by Tamil aspirations.

    You cannot mobilise the Sinhalese for the Tamil cause with aspirations.

  26. Ram the 2nd said,

    May 6, 2008 @ 7:14 am

    In SriLanka Velupillai Prabakaran fighting a war, what he calls tamil struggle, because he has identified who is a tamil.

    In India Vaiko is vocal and arguing with the Indian central government for the tamils in SriLanka, because he has identified who is a tamil.(He is not concerned when the lives in the Southern SL are destroyed)

    If you are a tamil, specially living abroad, you get comfort knowing there are similar people like you calling themeselves tamils fighting for your interests. Not for the sinhalese.

    In my view tamils are like jews spread all over the world, trying to establish a land that they want to call ‘Tamil Homeland’.(TamilNation.org)
    A concept many other nationalities had embarked on.
    The place they have chosen for this homeland is wrong.

    It is foolish to assume the struggle would be easy with an unorganized weak state. In fact this destruction for the past 30 years had strenghen the SriLankan state.

    It takes a some life experience for one to look at a person and see beyond his/her colour, ethnicity, religion,language. That can only be achieved by association.
    I question, has the tamil diaspora outside SL developed that?
    I for one do not think so. They go out of the way to segregate themselves to protect the tamil identity.
    The sentiment of being tamil is important to the tamils.
    because they know there are VPs, Vaikos, Karunanidhis to support this so called tamil cause.

    They chase it just like horse chasing the carrot.

  27. Shan A said,

    May 6, 2008 @ 9:04 am

    I saw this article yesterday and thought I will respond to Mr. Roberts original question: how did each of you become Sinhalese or Tamil and develop attachments to that entity?

    In my experience, it was primarily who my parents were, customs/practices of my family/community and interactions with other communities that has shaped my identity. Being a product of an English speaking Sinhala Buddhist father and a Sinhala speaking Sinhala Christian mother, I think I have a relatively weak Sinhala identity. I think chances are it would be a lot stronger and perhaps a more settled identity if I had both Sinhala speaking Sinhala Buddist parents ( I think I feel closer to Christmas or Elton John than Aluth Avrudhu or Amaradeva). Being exposed to and enamored with western scientific and philosophical ideas perhaps weakened it still further. This is not something I am proud of or ashamed, but simply the way it has worked out for me.

    On the flip side though, if cricket fervor is any guide, I have a strong Sri Lankan identity and living in the west has made me realize that my Sri Lankan identity has significant psychological value.to me. Sri Lankan achievements make feel good. May there be more of such events

    Shan

  28. Devinda Fernando said,

    May 7, 2008 @ 5:20 pm

    *** The whole issue about Tamils having to learn another language is that the fact of the matter is that Sinhala was NOT the National language of our beloved country before ‘56. English was. ***

    To stop myself repeating myself, I will paraphrase what I wrote as a similar response to Ms. S. Ganga on a previous thread on this Website:

    http://federalidea.com/focus/archives/425

    English is an Alien Language, it was forced upon everyone when the British conquered the Island. The reality is that while it is a useful language to learn in this globalized world, it is not a language native to Sri Lanka….Both Tamil and Sinhalese are Native to the Island, but that was when the Isalnd was decentralized and non-integrated. We are integrated now, Tamils also live in the South and Sinhalese also live in the North and East (before the Ethnic Cleansing by the LTTE that is,…)

    Basically you saying that Tamils would prefer to have English as a National Language over Sinhala proves my point that it is the Tamil Communalist mentality that has an Aversion to Sinhala and all things Sinhalese.

    And let me point out that you say one has to learn Sinhala to feel sinhalese? That is your statement, not mine… I said that the Sri Lanka needs an Official Language and that language practically should be Sinhala. (and in case you want to know,…I can barely speak sinhala myself… but I understand the need for there to be a common tongue)

    And as for your statement that all was equal before 56′ is the most ludicrous thing I have heard yet… Only if you enjoyed being Colonial Lackies then you would actually come out and say that British Rule was a good thing… Subjugation to another Race… yup! Is that why Tamils like living as Second Class citizens in the UK and Canada and other Western Countries? Is the Colonial House-Tamil mentality that is talking over here? Your statement below proves my point:

    *** In making Sinhala the official language of this country all Tamils were all of a sudden made second class citizens. I hope this negates your initial view that this country needs a common language. ***

    This says it all… because under the British, you did not perceive yourselves as Second Class Citizens…(LOL) it was a desirable thing to be for Tamils during Colonial Rule, right? Only when the Language was changed Back from your Colonial Master’s tongue to a Native language do you lash out saying Tamils are 2nd Class Citizens…

    LOL!

  29. N2 said,

    May 9, 2008 @ 8:40 am

    # 25. Dushy Ranetunge, below are some comments on what you wrote:

    “We have expectations which are closer to the developed Western mean political standards and expectations, because we communicate in English and have been conditioned in the Western way”

    This is not quite correct. East or West, English speaking or not, people have sense of political decency and political expectations. However education (and a culture in which education is highly valued and seen as important) makes a difference to one’s political awareness and participation. And for this reason Tamils have always been ahead of the Sinhalese in regard to being politicised. This is clear if you look at the political scene during colonial times. Also during those times while the Tamil politicians believed that they were as good as the British, the Sinhala leaders mostly aspired only to be to be Kalu Suddhas. So when the British left the Sinhala politicians had no idea about politics or good governance, but only grasped that they were in power and that politics was about getting power at any cost, by any trickery. There are huge cultural differences even though genetic and historical commonalities are also considerable. Mastery of playing cunning games is not the same as mastery of good governance.

    “If you look at the Tamil struggle, its strongest advocates are those who have our mind set and they are expecting from Sri lanka our/western standards and ideals.”

    Not at all. Tamils have always been more politically educated and socially aware.

    “In all these countries the system works and meets the expectations of the majority or the government will get voted out.”

    But the politicians in those countries do not seek to get at the majority by relying on and playing the tribal/communal card. Benjamin Disraeli for example could never have become the Prime Minister of Britain along race line for he was of Jewish descent. And now in the US there is Obama. And at independence Tamils did not think along communal lines but assumed that they were all Ceylonese.

    “In Sri Lanka 90% don’t know what an Aston Martin is, and they don’t care as it is a perception alien to them, but only the Colombo English speaking class who are about 1% of the population gets excited and expresses outrage.”

    Whether or not people know what an Aston Martin is irrelevant. However they do understand neglect, corruption and opportunism. If you tell someone that a certain politician’s relative has got an Aston Martin and they do not know what it implies of course it won’t make a difference; but explain it and it most certainly will get them exited and they will express their outrage.

    I agree that there is a huge necessity to raise proper political awareness especially among the Sinhalese. As mentioned already Tamils are ahead in this and that is why Tamils have politically protested since independence. The common Sinhalese also had very good reasons to protest for being neglected by the Sinhala elites but did not; rather they only got stirred up by the Sinhala politicians along communal lines over and over again.

    Also when the Tamils protested peacefully in terms of their grievances the Sinhalese never joined (except for one or two communists maybe), but the peaceful Tamil political protests were always met with violence at the hands of Sinhala thugs (including members of the armed forces and police) organised by the Sinhala leaders. The 1983 anti-Tamil riots were meant to teach the Tamils a lesson that they would never forget! The burning of the Jaffna library in 1981 was also intended to put the Tamils down. It is not at all surprising that the Tamils saw that the only way to address their grievances would have to be through armed means.

    Also separating aspirations from grievances is fallacious. Grievances exist because aspirations are thwarted. During the time of peaceful protests the aspiration was to be and succeed as an equal citizen of the country. Since that aspiration was thwarted, the grievance of being denied has now turned to an alternative way of reaching for normal human aspirations.

    “Look at the Black struggle in the United States. It only succeeded, when whites marched with the blacks as the understood the black grievances and expressed outrage.”

    As for the “Black” struggle of the US, there have always been “Whites” who have been sympathetic. There was always a strong anti-slavery movement to begin with.

    “The Tamil struggle will only succeed, when the Sinhalese march with the Tamils and express outrage.”

    So why didn’t the Sinhalese join the Tamils when there were peaceful protests for about 30 years after independence in 1948?

    “This is difficult now, because the political establishment in Sri Lanka has addressed Tamil grievences over the last 20 years of the conflict and Tamil grievences have now been replaced by Tamil aspirations”

    It was always difficult for the Sinhalese to accept Tamil grievances given the Mahavamsa mindset, and it will probably be so for a long time to come. Independence was in 1948, Tamils protested exclusively peacefully until the 1980’s, so isn’t it telling that Tamil grievances have only been addressed minimally over the last 20 years and only after the armed conflict? And even now the best the Sinhala political establishment has to offer is the useless 13th amendment.

    “You cannot mobilise the Sinhalese for the Tamil cause with aspirations.”

    See earlier comment about fallaciously separating aspirations from grievances. So the above is merely a political slogan that seeks to lay the blame on the victim.

  30. dushy ranetunge said,

    May 11, 2008 @ 11:10 pm

    Hi N2

    You are continually advocating that Tamils are superior in some way to the Sinhalese. I have interacted with Tamils and Sinhalese my whole life and I see nothing superior in Tamils or Sinhalese.

    Both have educated elites and both have fascists, and both have innocents who make up the majority.

    I employ both Tamils and Sinhalese both in Sri Lanka and in the UK and also several other nationalities, and other than cultural conditioning I see no difference between different nationalities.

    There is bad and good, intelligence and ignorance in all of them.
    There are wealthy successful Tamils in the west as well as successful wealthy Sinhalese.

    I do not see the differences that you see among Tamils and Sinhalese but more similarities.

    I am not sure that you are aware that a significant sections of the Sinhalese society is made up of recently Sinhalised Tamils.

    In fact recently the war in Sri Lanka was conducted primarily between Tamils who had been absorbed into the sinhalese identity and tamils who had not been absorbed into the sinhalese identity.

    During the chandrika regime, the army commander, the defense secretary and significant portions of the sri lankan forces were and are even today manned by Sinhalese of Tamil descent who are distinguishable by their caste.

    Chandananda de silva and Rohan de silva daluwatta belong to the Karawe caste among the Sinhalese.

    It is a south indian caste found mainly in sri lankas coastal regions.

    Karawe is the same as Karaiyar, Prabakarans caste.

    Any academic historians would tell you that the Sinhalese castes of Karawe, Durawe and Salagama are of recent South Indian descent. The JVP represents the under castes among the Sinhalese who are now more sinhalese than the sinhalese.

    Not many Tamila are aware that many Sinhalese worship hindu gods and hindu shrines are found in most buddhist temples.

    So things in sri lanka are not black and white as what fascists try to make it out to be.

  31. N2 said,

    May 13, 2008 @ 6:29 am

    #30. dushy ranetunge,

    ” You are continually advocating that Tamils are superior in some way to the Sinhalese.”

    Not at all. I never said that.

    I refer you to my earlier comment where I wrote: There are huge cultural differences even though genetic and historical commonalities are also considerable – (#29).

    As you can see, I have emphasised that there are indeed considerable GENETIC and HISTORICAL commonalities.

    However there are huge differences in culture and consequently attitude. For example Tamils BY CULTURE and ATTITUDE have always valued education and intellectualism since time immemorial – for example Tamil Sangams or academic assemblies began thousands of years ago; some people suppose that these are legends that arose say around 1500 years ago, but even then 1500 is still a very long time ago!
    Here is another cultural point that many Sinhalese do not seem to grasp. Now days everyone (Sinhalese included :) ) speaks about the value of getting a good education, optimising job opportunities and so on.
    But culturally Tamils also value learning for learning sake.
    It was this attitude to education and intellectualism which was the foremost reason that the Tamils gained considerable educational, social and economic advantage during British colonial times.

    And even earlier in pre-colonial times the so called Sinhala kings relied heavily on Tamil advisers and expertise.

    I say so-called Sinhala kings because the Sinhala Kings were of Tamil extraction. It was only their kingdom which was a Sinhala Kingdom. You are no doubt also aware that the higher caste or aristocratic Kandyan Sinhalese are descendants of the Tamils who accompanied the various Kandyan Kings and their wives from India. (It was very unfortunate that the British also killed many of them for resisting/protesting).

    So I agree with you that from top to bottom, Kings to commoners, many Tamils came to see themselves as Sinhalese and in fact also vice versa – the genetic and historical commonalities are considerable. And of course all share a common human nature of good and bad etc. too.
    And of course there are good and upright Sinhalese; there are some who voice their concern even now; and I mentioned in post #20 Dudley Senanayake as an example of a moral Sinhala politician.

    What is even more interesting is that most Tamils are fully aware and informed of all this and have always been.

    But most Sinhalese are not, and still continue to hold on to the Mahavamsa mindset and believe that Tamils are really foreign invaders or migrants, who the Sinhalese either could not repel or graciously permitted to settle.

    It is the Sinhalese who erroneously believe that they are some sort of distinct lion-blood Aryan tribe descended from Vijaya with a special claim to Lanka over everyone else. Much of this foolish thinking is largely due to Anagarika Dharmapala who promoted the silly and false idea of an Aryan Sinhala-Buddhist race, perhaps as a reaction to the inferiority he felt with regard to the British and in search of some sort of identity in the face of an opening up of the world. (If you read some of Anagrika Dharmapala’s writing you will be shocked as to how much he actually loathed himself and the Sinhalese people whom he wanted to remake as a glorious race that the British would respect). I always found it highly amusing when Sinhalese are frequently surprised that there are so many light skinned Tamils, which is indicative of the Sinhalese (or Sinhala-Buddhist conditioned) mind wanting to stereotype and narrowly categorise people.

    Tamils on the other hand are not bothered by matters of mythical genetic identity, but are very much concerned about CULTURAL IDENTITY and FREEDOM in that regard.
    And I refer you to post #13, where I pointed out the dangers of being excessive in regard to identifications and attachments, which is explicit in Buddhist philosophy. And Hindu philosophy is also clear on this. And did you know that the Tamils had a long history of Buddhism too? – and Tamils are aware of this through the older Tamil literature.

    So at independence Tamils were happy to be Ceylonese together, while the Sinhalese could not grasp the idea of multiculturalism and religious multiplicity, but got carried away with the narrow minded stupidity of Sinhala-Buddhist extremism. And of course the Sinhala politicians took full advantage of the extremist communalism (and some of course also subscribe to it).

    Again you can see the cultural and attitudinal differences between Tamils and Sinhalese (or I should say Sinhala-Buddhist intoxication).

    dushy ranetunge you wrote “Not many Tamils are aware that many Sinhalese worship hindu gods and hindu shrines are found in most buddhist temples.”

    Again not at all! Rather Tamils are well aware of this, it is nothing new. So I would say that you should have said “Not many Sinhalese are aware that Tamil are fully aware that many Sinhalese worship hindu gods and hindu shrines are found in most buddhist temples.”

    Actually even that is not quite right: you should say “…worship deities and gods described in Hinduism and Hindu type shrines …”! :) . But you know what? Hindu philosophy, or at least its interpretation, has also benefitted much from Buddhist discourse. Again, did the Buddha consider that he had made a new religion or did he see himself as a Hindu reformist? Can we discuss these sorts of without feeling our sense of who we are getting challenged?

    “So things in sri lanka are not black and white as what fascists try to make it out to be.”

    The people who have painted things black and white are indeed the fascist narrow minded Sinhala-Buddhist extremists.
    For these fascistic narrow minded extremists it all clear and simple.
    Their silly story goes something like this: The Vijaya descended lion-blood Sinhala-Buddhist has the foremost claim to the land of Lanka; and they came to Lanka before the invading foreign Tamils. Us and Them; Black and White; Our Sinhala-Buddhist land versus Foreign Tamil invaders, and so on and on. (That is why I said that there is a huge need to educate the Sinhalese and make them more historically and socially aware so that they can get out of the mahavamsa mindset.)

    But dushy ranetunge I think you are referring to the protesting Tamils as fascists, are you not? :)
    Does this not show that you are still unaware of the history of the people of Lanka and the history and reasons and causes of the conflict?
    How do you expect peace to happen when even you, an educated Sinhalese is still blaming the victim for daring to say enough is enough?
    And if you an educated western-advantaged Sinhalese (I am using your view #25 on “western-advantaged”, not mine) cannot understand it what hope is there for the rest?

  32. dushy ranetunge said,

    May 15, 2008 @ 10:21 am

    Hi N2,

    I understand your position on these issues, but there are other opinions and let us say that a majority of the Sri Lankans would not share your views.

    Just because they disagree with you does not make your point of view moderate and their point of view extreme.

    The Sinhalese compulsions are no different to majority compulsions in other countries and all societies have extremism.

    There is nothing that has happened in Sri Lanka in the last 100 years in respect of minorities that has not happened in the United States ( with the blacks), Britain (In Ireland) and India.

    As to the educational achievements of Tamils, let us say that we have different point of views.

    I am of the school of thought that if two communities have equal access to education and resources their success in education of in any other fields will be similar.

    Tamil educational achievements and motivations in this respect is no different to those of Sinhalese in the coastal areas, as Colombo and Jaffna had the best schools, teachers and resources and the English speaking Sinhalese and Tamil classes dominated Sri Lanka, 50 : 50.

    The rural Tamil and Sinhalese underclasses who lived in rural areas had nothing.

    The State adjusted this imbalance and the English speaking Tamils and Sinhalese were disappointed.

    So let us say that on all these issues we have a different point of view. I am not saying that you are wrong or that the Tamil point of view is wrong.

    I am saying that the Sinhalese have a different point of view and it is as valued as the Tamil point of view.

    Unfortunately, in most countries the majority point of view prevails. Terrorism will not reverse or change this in any way.

    Like the Tamils, the Jews in Europe could claim that they have been around for thousands of years in Europe, that they have been discriminated, that they wish to retain their language, that they are smarter, more educated than the Europeans.

    But there will be no Israel in Europe. This is reality.

    The Europeans unloaded their burden on Arab land in the middle east and they are paying a heavy price for it even today.

  33. N2 said,

    May 17, 2008 @ 9:26 am

    # 32. dushy ranetunge,

    Below are some comments on what you wrote:

    “I understand your position on these issues, but there are other opinions and let us say that a majority of the Sri Lankans would not share your views.”

    OK. It is clear that you (and those you refer to as “us”) disagree with what I said and do not share my views. But is there any reason beyond merely disagreeing or not liking what I have said? Can you point out features of my position or viewpoint that you can rationally and factually dispute? Or is the earth still flat?

    In reminding you, in brief, I have said as follows:

    The Sinhalese and Tamils have considerable genetic and historical commonalities across all levels of society, but are culturally and consequently attitudinally different.

    Tamils have lived on the island of Lanka since way way back and have always been a part of Lankan society (from the aristocracy to the commoners) since way back, as far as you can go. And not only have Tamils have been Sinhalised but Sinhalese have also been Tamilised.

    Tamils have always been aware of these commonalities and so had no problem in regarding themselves as all Ceylonese together at independence. That is, Tamils never had a problem with cultural diversity under a common humanity.

    However the Sinhala-Buddhist extremists (with their Mahavamsa mindset as outlined above, see post # 31) together with the opportunistic Sinhala politicians threw away both the possibility of a great national future as well as the facts of history (which they substituted for the fabrication of the Mahavamsa mindset).

    And when the Tamils repeatedly engaged in peaceful political protest, such as peaceful marches, they were met with violence that frequently grew into wholesale anti-Tamil pogroms, many of which if not all were well organised and orchestrated, meant to teach the Tamils a lesson for daring to question the Mahavamsa mindset.
    Wasn’t this terrorising of the Tamils a most evil kind of terrorism?

    Not surprisingly Tamils said enough was enough: hence the armed reaction to anti-Tamil violence.

    I also pointed out that the Mahavamsa mindset was largely due to Anagarika Dharmapala.

    Among the cultural differences I pointed out the Tamil attitude to education/learning – which was why the Tamils both took and benefitted from the opportunities during British colonial times. (And this would have been true of the Tamilised Sinhalese too.)

    As long as the erroneous Mahavamsa mindset continues genuine peace is far away.

    So dushy ranetunge, are you saying that you and the “majority of the Sri Lankans” do not agree? If so on what point or fact? (Of course a person is entitled to hold onto the belief that the earth is flat, but where will that get you?)

    “Just because they disagree with you does not make your point of view moderate and their point of view extreme.”

    It’s not about moderation and extremes: its all about facts versus dangerous Mahavamsa mindset fictions.

    “The Sinhalese compulsions are no different to majority compulsions in other countries and all societies have extremism.”

    The question is not whether it exists or not but about its acceptability and how much it is condoned and even sanctioned.
    Violence and murder are found in all societies, but does that make it alright? Racism exists in many countries but does that make it acceptable?

    So dushy ranetunge, are you saying that Sinhalese extremist compulsions driven by the Mahavamsa mindset are acceptable simply because it exists?

    “Like the Tamils, the Jews in Europe could claim that they have been around for thousands of years in Europe, that they have been discriminated, that they wish to retain their language, that they are smarter, more educated than the Europeans.
    But there will be no Israel in Europe. This is reality.”

    dushy ranetunge, this particular comparison of the Tamils of Lanka to the Jews of Europe very clearly demonstrates that you too hold onto the Mahavamsa mindset, (which is probably why you think you know my position and disagree).

    The Jews of Europe are migrants who settled over many years in European countries among the Europeans.

    However both the Tamils and the Sinhalese (including the Tamilised Sinhalese and Sinhalised Tamils) are migrants from various parts of India. And both have been a part of the Lankan political and social scene from the earliest times (though the regions in which they each dominated do differ).

    Tamils belong on the land of Lanka as much as the Sinhalese and vice versa.

    So the situation with the Tamils of Lanka is completely different to the situation of the Jews in Europe.

    But what you dushy ranetunge are still saying (in line with the Mahavamsa mindset) is that the foreign/outsider Tamils (like the Jews in Europe) migrated into the Sinhala-Buddhist land of the Sinhala-Buddhists.

    Tamils are not separatists asking to carve out a place from the Sinhala-Buddhist land that belongs to the Sinhala-Buddhists at all.

    Rather since the Mahavamsa mindset seems to be so entrenched in Sinhala thinking Tamils wish to run their own affairs in their own land on Lanka too.

    Get rid of the Mahavamsa mindset through education or by legislation (like Nazism in Germany) and everyone can live together in peace: if peace together is not possible then isn’t peace apart more moral than continuing to kill each other?

    And if we were to speculate about the characters mentioned in the Mahavamsa itself (which doesn’t necessarily and unambiguously support the mahavamsa-mindset): do not forget that even Vijaya according to the Mahavamsa married a wife from (Tamil) Madurai. Clearly, in those days the Kings of the different parts of India knew each other and intermarried. The Tamil Madurai princess would not have been given away to an unknown nobody. Do not confuse the issue of a Sinhala kingdom on the island of Lanka with the race/community.
    It is also historically unclear when the Sinhalese language as such took on its distinctness. And indeed what was the mythical Vijaya? He is only credited with being the founder of the much later Sinhala Kingdom but was he Sinhalese? His children, the heirs to the Kingdom, were at least half Tamil. And what about his further descendants? For all we know Dutegemunu (or at least the personage behind the story) was a Tamil speaker though a Sinhala King, not unlike the last Kandyan King!

    So this is my position and above are some of my views. And I do not support terrorism of any sort, State terrorism included.

    “Unfortunately, in most countries the majority point of view prevails. Terrorism will not reverse or change this in any way.”

    I do not really like to say this, but still, since you said it first, let me put it this way: in the North and North-East the majority are Tamils. Therefore the majority point of view will prevail.
    And State Terrorism will not reverse or change this in any way.

  34. dushy ranetunge said,

    May 20, 2008 @ 7:30 am

    Hi N2,

    I am sorry for the delay in responding as I was away in Talawakele for the long Wesak weekend.

    You raise many issues, but as I stated earlier there are two points of view.

    We will argue till the cows come home, but will still disagree.

    I will try to address a few issues to highlight the problem.

    You mention of a Ceylonese identity.

    For 99% of the Sinhalese there is no such thing called a Ceylonese identity as Ceylon and Ceylonese is an alien British concept imposed by a colonial power. You only make them mad by waving colonial ceylonese identities. By making them mad, you will achieve nothing.

    Sinhalese do not accept Ceylon or Ceylonese, its Sri Lanka or Lanka, its not Madarasi or Madras, its Chennai and its not Burma but Myanmar etc.

    The Ceylonese will have to accept Sri Lanka, whether they like it or not, both sinhalese ceylonese and Tamil ceylonese.

    The statement that Tamils have lived in Sri Lanka from the earliest of times is misleading and is not accepted by the Sinhalese.

    Its like saying that the Romans, the legions of Julius Caeser, and so the Italians have lived in Britain from the earliest of times.

    Julius invaded Briton at the same time as Elara invaded Sri Lanka. The Romans have been absorbed into the English identity and the Tamils of Elara and now Sinhalese.

    The Italians in England today and the Tamils of Sri Lanka today are relatively recent arrivals who are yet to be absorbed into the Sinhalese identity.

    You trying to maintain a Tamil ceylonese in Sri lanka is as alien a concept to the Sinhalese as some Italians in Britain pointing to the Roman baths all over England and trying to safeguard an Italian identity in England.

    One fact remains undisputed.

    The Sinhalese identity and language is unique to Sri Lanka as the English identity and language is unique to England originating from the orginal inhabitants and absorbing many races over the years.

    The Tamil language, culture and identity is from South India.

    The above two facts are undisputed and from it flows the compulsions of the majority community.

    There is no mahavamsa mind set. The mind set of the Sinhalese is no different to the English mindset in England.

    Buddhism has always been the state religion of Sri Lanka, whether you like it or not. It was only under foreign occupations that Buddhism was distanced from the colonial state. Even then the British in the Kandyan convention agreed to give it special status.

    Tamil nationalists demanding that Buddhism should be distanced from the state is like the Tamils in Britain demanding that the Queen as head of state should not be the head of the Church of England.

    Such a demand also indentifies the Tamils as a community with the colonial invaders, a mistake Tamil politicians have repeatedly made, antoganising the Sinhalese.

    These are ground realities. I understand that the Tamil nationalist mind set do not accept these realities and are fighting, but at what cost.

    At the start of this fight, the Sri lankan Tamils were 12.8% of Sri Lanka’s population. Today its less than 4%. The Sinhalese know this, while the Tamils seem unaware that they are as a community self destructing.

    You can fight as long as you want, but the Sinhalese will not yield as they will fight as fanatically for their cause as the Tamils.

    Surely, there must be some other way?
    You said that the Tamils value education.

    Does an educated community hand over their destiny to a maniac.

    If you fight the Sinhalese, you will lose, slowly, but surely, as the numbers are against you. Even the Americans have reached this assessment in their military study.

    There is another way, the British brought down the Kandyans without firing a shot, remember? Now here are intelligent people who used their brains without waving clubs threateningly from caves.

    The Tamils are behaving like the Portuguese (aliens), raising the red flag to the Sinhalese, only to face destruction.

    There is another way.

    The Tamils can win the Sinhalese, not by threats or demands, but with understanding. Kadirgamar showed the way, by being accepted by the Sinhalese.

    Anandasangaree, Devananda and even Karuna and now Pilliyan have various degrees of confidence of the Sinhalese.

    The Tamils need a nelson mandela, or a Martin Luther, to lead them out of the darkness and the Sinhalese will join the ranks of the Tamils and on that day you will achieve your dream, holding hands with the sinhalese, not by demanding or threatening.

    I find this whole conflict a total waste as to me, Tamils and Sinhalese are natural allies and a little bit of understanding of each other could have saved so much misery.

  35. N2 said,

    May 26, 2008 @ 9:28 am

    # 34. dushy ranetunge, re what you wrote:

    “You mention of a Ceylonese identity.”

    When I wrote that, “Tamils have always been aware of these commonalities and so had no problem in regarding themselves as all Ceylonese together at independence.” (#32) I was not referring to a Ceylonese identity in the sense of a colonially imposed one at all. Rather I was simply stating the fact that at independence the island of Lanka was called Ceylon. (If it had been called Serendip I would have written “…all Serendipitians together…”. Etc. )

    And in order to avoid any possible misunderstanding I even followed with the very next sentence: “That is, Tamils never had a problem with cultural diversity under a common humanity.”

    The point was that at independence Tamils were happy to be part of a common nation (who cares what it was called) together with all the others on the island together. This would have been a great nation indeed if not for the Sinhala-Buddhist extremists and opportunist politicians (among whom were also many Sinhala-Buddhist extremists), who threw it all away.

    “For 99% of the Sinhalese there is no such thing called a Ceylonese identity as Ceylon and Ceylonese is an alien British concept imposed by a colonial power. You only make them mad by waving colonial ceylonese identities. By making them mad, you will achieve nothing.”

    “Sinhalese do not accept Ceylon or Ceylonese, its Sri Lanka or Lanka, its not Madarasi or Madras, its Chennai and its not Burma but Myanmar etc.”

    The above then is due to your misunderstanding of my point. You simply picked out the word “Ceylonese” and attacked it out of context.

    But your resentment at the use of “Ceylonese” is very strange: you say that it makes the Sinhalese mad. But if it did/does make them as mad as you say, why did the name change take place only in 1972? So are you saying that the Sinhalese were being driven mad for almost a full quarter of a century (1948 – 1972)? Or perhaps the Sinhalese (with their Mahavamsa Sinhala-Buddhist mindset) were so distracted by their virulent ant-Tamil stance that they only realised in 1972 that the name should be changed to achieve peace of mind?

    Come off it dushy ranetunge, this nonsense of the Sinhalese being driven mad by the use of “Ceylonese” (I suppose by some evil Tamil design) as a contributing factor to anti-Tamil conflict is laughable.

    I suppose this is another example of preferring fanciful constructions to facts: just like the preference for the Mahavamsa mindset fabrications for facts.

    You also wrote “Sinhalese do not accept Ceylon or Ceylonese, its Sri Lanka or Lanka … and its not Burma but Myanmar etc”

    But have these name changes made any difference to the lives of the people?

    The regime that changed the name from Burma to Myanmar has ruined that country. Similarly the mindset that motivated the name change from Ceylon to Sri Lanka brought ruin to that country. There are also lots of African countries that are crazy about name changing, but with all the wrong motives including to distract from incompetent and corrupt governance.

    By contrast the change of name from Madras to Chennai, Bombay to Mumbai, etc. was simply due to the natural pride of the people in who they are with no motive to attack other groups or to distract.

    Also your reference to the Romans in Britain in comparison to the Tamils in Lanka shows that you do not like facts to get in the way of a good story. You wrote as below:

    “The statement that Tamils have lived in Sri Lanka from the earliest of times is misleading and is not accepted by the Sinhalese.”

    “Its like saying that the Romans, the legions of Julius Caeser, and so the Italians have lived in Britain from the earliest of times.”

    “The Italians in England today and the Tamils of Sri Lanka today are relatively recent arrivals who are yet to be absorbed into the Sinhalese identity.”

    Did you not know that the Romans were in Britain BEFORE the Anglo-Saxons? (And also when the Romans arrived the British Isles were anyway already inhabited by various Celtic tribes.)

    The reason the English language is called the “English language” is due to the invading Anglo-Saxon tribe – the word “English” is from Angle/Anglo/Anglican etc. after that foreign invading tribe.

    So if you compare the Romans/Italians to the Tamils and the Sinhalese to the Anglos, then you are of course saying that the Tamils were first. :)

    In fact in saying this you would of course be correct. You don’t even need to look for any hard evidence for this: it is obvious that anyone who had boats like the Tamils would have come across the Palk straits. If Vijaya could have come all the way from East India why wouldn’t anybody else?

    The Ramayana also at least attests to the fact that people from India came over to Lanka. (According to the story Ravana was also an Indian who came over and took over the Kingdom of Lanka from Kubera who was his older half brother. Note also that the name “Lanka” was given to the island by the Indians in Hindu mythology and considerably predates the existence of the Sinhalese and the Mahavamsa, Dipavamsa etc. And if you like, “Lanka” is also an Indian Hindu colonial name, only much older than “Ceylon”.)

    Anyway, the point of the Vijaya story is about the establishment of some sort of Kingdom. But that was done only with the help and agreement of the Tamil Madurai Kingdom, from where Vijaya got his wife who was also accompanied by various ministers (who helped set things up). So Vijaya’s Kingdom would have been subject to the will of Tamil Madurai Kingdom. The post Vijaya Lankan Kingdom owes its very existence to the Tamils.

    Even though no doubt it was well known and visited for its riches, probably no one bothered to set up any permanent Kingdom on the island for a long time (since whatever gave rise to the Ravana story) – maybe the interior was too wild, maybe people were scared of those they called the Yakas etc. But since Vijaya had no choice but was forced out and ended up on Lanka and seemed to have conquered the Yakas with the help of Kuveni, it looks like the Tamil Madurai rulers took the opportunity to use Vijaya as some sort of Viceroy.

    Note that the idea of a Kingdom and its rulers must be separated from the people who are ruled. Sometimes there is high correlation sometimes not. After Vijaya died, the Lankan Kingdom continued under people who came over from India – some from the Kalinga dynasty and some from dynasties that would be regarded as Tamil, (and don’t forget that the Indian dynasties were related and intermarried just like the European dynasties).

    “The Sinhalese identity and language is unique to Sri Lanka as the English identity and language is unique to England originating from the orginal inhabitants and absorbing many races over the years.”

    Certainly what is called the Sinhala language evolved in Lanka, but it does not follow at all that the Sinhalese are the original inhabitants of Lanka. The English identity and language is unique to England but the English are largely invaders from other parts of Europe who violently conquered and displaced the indigenous Celtic tribes – just like with the incoming Indians and the native Vedha tribes of Lanka. And don’t forget that the Romans were there before the Anglos!

    The British Isles have had a very volatile past just like Lanka.

    (In fact when the Portuguese arrived there were 3 Kingdoms on the island of Lanka: the Jaffna Kingdom that was Tamil; the Kandyan Kingdom which was a Sinhala Kingdom but ruled by a Tamil – and as mentioned already the Kandyan aristocracy is more Tamil than Sinhalese; and the Sinhala Ruhuna/Kotte Kingdom. In fact the Jaffna King may have brought the whole of Lanka under his rule (like Parakramabahu the ‘Sinhala’ King whose language was Tamil) if not for the arrival of the Portuguese.)

    Anyway your point about uniqueness is trivial – of course every language group can lay claim to uniqueness. So what!

    But you are trying to falsely extrapolate from only originated on Lanka to sole right to Lanka. Firstly every language group cannot but originate from where it originates – this is trivial. Secondly, now kangaroos are native to Australia, Polar bears to the Arctic region, giraffes to Africa, Ceylon jungle fowl to Lanka and so on; but there are also various other animals and birds and so on in these same places – so it does not follow that kangaroos have a sole right to Australia over Koala bears, giraffes to Africa over zebras, Ceylon jungle fowl to Lanka over peafowl and so on.

    “The Tamil language, culture and identity is from South India.”

    Is this meant to be a revelation? Again so what! And don’t forget your geography. Guess what? Surprise! Surprise! Lanka is in the region of South India. If you persist with this line of thinking you will get into a terribly confused muddle in noting that Telugu for example is also from South India. Think about it – unfortunately this is something the Mahavamsa mindset does not seem to allow. Why should the Tamil speaking regions end on the beaches of India? Why do the Tamil speaking regions in India have the rough land borders that they do?

    That the Tamil speaking regions extend across the Palk straits and to parts of Lanka is no more nor less amazing or puzzling than the fact that Tamil speaking regions have their extent on the land. The sea is not an impassable barrier for humans you know! If you ‘think’ in the way you are doing, the next argument will be about which side of the river, which side of the mountain, which side of the city, which side of the street etc.

    Besides, the island of Lanka was never so isolated from the outside world nor an impregnable fortress where some unique Sinhala race evolved, like say the finches and iguanas on the Galapagos Islands.
    Language development on the other hand can be extremely fast and can happen in just a few generations. Classical Tamil is different from modern Tamil Nadu Tamil, (and Lankan Tamil is closer to Classical Tamil), and Malayalam most probably originated from some version of Ancient/Proto Tamil – Kerala was part of the Chera Tamil dynasty so perhaps in those times there was something that could have been called ‘Tamil-Malayalam” or something; clearly now there is a divergence of Malayalam and Tamil as separate languages.

    Similarly early Sinhala would have had considerable commonality with early Tamil: many Sinhala words are only superficially different to Tamil words. The reason why Sinhala has a linguistic structural similarity to Indo-European languages is probably due to the powerful influence of the Mauryan Emperor Asoka and the spread of Buddhism in the medium of Pali (which also belongs to the indo-European family): so Sinhalese perhaps evolved from as a Prakrit-isation (due to Asoka’s influence) and Pali-isation of whatever was spoken earlier on the island of Lanka. Note also that the Sinhala script is very similar to South Indian scripts such as Malayalam, Telugu etc. and also Thai and Cambodian – that is the Sinhalese did not originate their script from ground zero either.

    But again it is clear that (when you say “The Tamil language, culture and identity is from South India.”), you dushy ranatunge are still deeply under the spell of the Mahavamsa-mindset: what you are trying to say is that the Sinhalese are descendants of the mythical lion-blood Vijaya Aryan race while the Tamils are not; the Sinhala-Buddhist Aryan lion-blood Vijaya descendants have a foremost claim to the island of Lanka while the Tamil Hindus do not.

    “The above two facts are undisputed and from it flows the compulsions of the majority community.”

    Well, I have just shown you that your “two facts” are meaningless. So any compulsion arising from meaninglessness must also be meaningless and foolish – for example the Mahavamsa-mindset compulsions.

    It is truly ironic that while Buddhism preaches that wrong views and ignorance are causes of suffering, the Sinhala-Buddhists of Lanka (in as well as the one’s who have left Lanka) insist on perpetuating wrong views and ignorance. :)

    Why should Tamils (and even any normal minded Sinhalese) live under threat of violence if they do not subscribe to the wrong views and ignorance and lies of the Sinhala-Buddhist mahavamsa mindset? Why should the Tamils and others live a lie just to keep the violent Sinhala-Buddhist blackmailers happy? No doubt you know that Sinhala-Buddhist Sri Lanka is one of the worst human rights abusers in the world.

    “Buddhism has always been the state religion of Sri Lanka, whether you like it or not. It was only under foreign occupations that Buddhism was distanced from the colonial state. Even then the British in the Kandyan convention agreed to give it special status.”

    Untruths again dushy ranatunge! Buddhism only arrived on the island of around 200+ AD due to Asoka’s son Mahinda, during the reign of Devanampiyatissa. Buddhism only very became seen as the “state religion” very much later; well over 1000+ years later – go and check out the real history for yourself.

    Also around the time Buddhism grew on the island of Lanka very many Tamils (both in India and Lanka) were also Buddhists. It was largely Sankara Acharya (around 750AD), but also others such as Ramanujan (around 1050 AD) who revitalised and revived Hinduism and which resulted in the decline of Buddhism and Jainism in India (and the areas of Lanka that were in communication with whatever was going on in India). The further regions of the island remained Buddhist.

    Also, the rise of the Chola Empire saw Hinduism spread into South-east Asia as well as consolidating Saiva Hinduism on the island of Lanka.

    I hope you are also aware that the reason why Buddhism was given recognition by the British was because Tamil Kandyan King supported Buddhism.

    “Tamil nationalists demanding that Buddhism should be distanced from the state is like the Tamils in Britain demanding that the Queen as head of state should not be the head of the Church of England.”

    The present Tamil nationalism is a consequence of the anti-Tamil Sinhala-Buddhist extremist Mahavamsa-mindset. As I said before at independence the Tamils were happy to be Ceylonese together (or if find that upsetting read it as “together as a common nation on the island of Lanka which was at that time known as Ceylon”).

    Tamils have nothing against Buddhism, and in fact many Tamils have considerable admiration for Buddhism, but the problem is that Buddhism has been hijacked by the Sinhala-Buddhists with their mahavamsa-mindset. And so the reason for keeping religion separate from the state.

    Again dushy ranatunge you have confused matters. The Church of England and the State/Parliament of Britain are very separate institutions/entities. The queen is merely the nominal/ceremonial head of both. For example suppose there is a cricket club and a rugby club there is nothing wrong with someone being the honorary chairman of both, and both rugby and cricket can be played without hindrance.

    “Such a demand also indentifies the Tamils as a community with the colonial invaders, a mistake Tamil politicians have repeatedly made, antoganising the Sinhalese.”

    This statement of yours is founded on confusion and falsehoods. The only antagonism the Sinhala-Buddhists are experiencing is self made – due to wrong views and ignorance as the Buddha might have said.

    “You can fight as long as you want, but the Sinhalese will not yield as they will fight as fanatically for their cause as the Tamils.”

    It is the Sinhala-Buddhists who are the fanatics and who caused the fighting in the first place. The Sinhala-Buddhist cause is founded on false views and ignorance. What choice do Tamils have?

    Much of what else you wrote is very confused and you are trying to clutch at straws, so I won’t reply point by point as there would be no point. :)

    However you keep saying that the Sinhalese and Tamils should walk hand in hand.
    That would be very nice. But why did the Sinhalese not do so for the period of almost 30 years when the Tamils engaged in peaceful marches/protests? Why did the Sinhalese/Sinhala-Buddhists react to the peaceful protests with violence and anti-Tamil pogroms?

    “The Tamils can win the Sinhalese, not by threats or demands, but with understanding. Kadirgamar showed the way, by being accepted by the Sinhalese.”

    Kadirgamar was useful to the Sinhala-Buddhist maniacs when he was alive as well as after he died. For example when alive he denied that there were any civilian casualties due to State aerial bombings of Tamils. After he died he was used to politically attack the LTTE. There are many highly plausible theories behind his death more so than the official one. Truth is clearly another casualty under the mahavamsa mindset.

    The threats have always been from the Sinhala-Buddhist side.

    You talk about understanding; now isn’t it strange that the Sinhala-Buddhists only realises the value of understanding after the armed reaction of the Tamils in response to the many murderous anti-Tamil riots. Where was this understanding during the time of peaceful protests? Where was the understanding in 1983? How much understanding is there now?

    Just like changing the name to Sri Lanka made no difference, merely using the word “understanding” will not bring it about. Is there any will on the part of the Sinhalese to banish the Sinhala-Buddhist mahavamsa mindset? Is there a sincere will to take up real Buddhism?

    dushy ranatunge you keep saying that there is no mahavamsa midset, but you yourself have shown it in what you have written.

    Think about this: A nation built on dishonesty and lies cannot stand; there is also no hope of getting rid of wrong views and ignorance if there is hypocrisy, dishonesty and lying.

  36. dushy ranetunge said,

    May 28, 2008 @ 2:02 am

    Hi N2,

    I am sorry if I misunderstood ceylonese, but, my misunderstanding has its origins in visiting too many LTTE conferences.

    You mention about Ravana, Mahavamsa etc and how Tamils were the original inhabitants.

    I would suggest that the Sinhala is older than the Tamil as you know it.

    For example, the Tamil identity as you know it did not exist during the Anuradhapura and polonnaruwa periods.

    At the time the identities were Chola, Pandya, Kerela and Sinhala.These were names of the royal houses.

    The Tamil nationalist mind set, like the Sinhalese nationalists have a habit of going back in history and attaching Tamil and Sinhala etho nationalist labels on those who lived in the past who had no such concept.

    The Sinhalese word Demala has its origins more in terms of outsider/invader/south Indian, rather than Tamil. Unfortunately its gained a Tamil identity over the years. Similarly, Sinhalese was the name of the royal house, which has evolved into a ethno linguistic identity.

    So what you and I understand today as Sinhala and Tamil identity, was an alien concept during the Anuradhapura, Polonnaruwa period.

    Why don’t you quote from your own Chronicle?

    The Yalpana Vaipava Malai states that the Sinhalese were the original inhabitants in Jaffna and that the Tamils got the land from the Sinhalese?

    You reckon the YVM is wrong?

    Why are there no Tamil inscriptions in Sri Lanka till the Parakramabahu period? No Hindu bronzes till this period.

    Let us say that we agree to disagree.

    N2, Sinhalese are not against Tamils. They have never been.

    If they are against Tamils, Colombo today will not be a majority Tamil speaking city. Can you imagine Tel Aviv being a majority arab speaking city? Belgrade a majority Albanian speaking city?

    This whole Sinahala thing was never against Tamils. It was a backlash against colonialism, everything English and Ceylon.

    The Sinhalese ceylonese saw the writing on the wall and put their heads down, while the Tamil ceylonese leadership believed in their Chola/martial/educational/intelligence superiority and thought that they could take on the Sinhala modayas.

    They are still taking them on and slowly dying in the process.

    Unfortunately in the Tamil community, Fascism has seized political power. In the majority community there is a gradual process of political power drifting from the old ceylonese families
    towards the Sri Lankan families. The Bandaranayake’s are no more, Wickremasinghe holds the last fort for the ceylonese. Once he goes, the ceylonese are no more. So its not 1971, its still going on and still the Sinhalese are showing their displeasure of the ceylonese, by not voting for Ranil.

    I feel that you are Tamil living in the West and has not been to Sri Lanka for many years. If so, please visit Sri Lanka and your prejudices will breakdown.

    The American Ambassador lives there and last Sunday he publicly stated that Tamils, Sinhalese and Muslims live here as friends, there is no ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka.

RSS feed for comments on this post

Leave a Comment