Ancestry and Ethnic Identity in the Australian Census… and thus to Sri Lanka
Repost This Article
The 9th of August was census night in Australia. The census form has three boxes relating to “Country of Birth,” one’s “language other than English at home” and “Ancestry”— all interesting formulations that bear on one’s ethnic subjectivity and one’s explicit identity.
Ethnicity is a complex phenomenon that is nourished over the years by the influence of many factors. Ethnic self-perception is always inter-relational and thus inter-subjective.[i] It can rest lightly on some and weigh heavily on others. Ethnic terminologies deployed in official domains and brought into everyday speech are among the factors that mould these self-perceptions. As the subaltern historians of India have revealed, census making and bureaucratic categorization in the everyday world had a considerable bearing on the shaping of ethnic identities from the colonial period onwards.
Placed within this introductory note let me refer to the decision taken by the Australian Bureau of Statistics to seek information not only on the “Country of Birth” in Question 12, but also to pose Question 16 as “Does the person speak a language other than English at home?” and press forward with Question 18 on “Ancestry.” It is the last that is the most significant and can generate both amusing and confusing results.
Question18 is posed thus: “what is the person’s ancestry”… followed by several boxes below catering to specific ethnic identities:
English
Irish
Scottish
Italian
German
Chinese
Australian
Other – please specify…
with four lines left for this last miscellaneous section.
Given the individualistic epistemology that prevails in Australia and the West, clearly, most people will adhere to their self-perceptions in answering this question. It is likely that quite a few Australians whose arrival dates back to the nineteenth century would mark their Irish, English, Scottish or Welsh ancestry, even though they are ardent Australian patriots whenever, say, the Aussies face England or Ireland at soccer or cricket. Even those of Irish lineage who do not have any interest in hurling and are ardent fans of footie and root for Collingwood or Geelong may well indicate their Irish ancestry/heritage. Again, speculatively, I surmise that quite a number of second- and third-generation Italian migrants would tick the box “Italian,” but a few may well disclaim their Italian-ness and insist on being Australian and Australian only.
Let me add here that when the Socceroos played Italy in the World Cup a few years back a significant number of Italian-Australians were cheering for their homeland, though others were ambivalent; and even among those shouting for the Italian team there was a degree of affinity for the Australian side.
This has not been so for those Sri Lankan Tamil migrants in Australia who have been partial to the LTTE or expressed their fervent attachment to Tamil-ness in recent times during the emotional moment attending the collapse of the LTTE military enterprise. When the Sri Lankan cricket team faced Australia in late 2010 (and now when they confront each other in Sri Lanka) most of these migrants are said to be partial to Australia; while some express this Aussie patriotism and/or hostility to Sri Lanka with considerable fervour.[ii] These acts of vociferous expression can be interpreted as acts of retribution inspired by their sense of humiliation and bitterness after the defeat of their LTTE talaivar, Velupillai Pirapāharan, and the demise of the Eelam project.[iii] The expression of such sentiments, of course, is an exercise of their democratic rights and one cannot object to their actions (unless they peddle lies).
From within the same consequences of war and its setbacks, the Australian Tamil Congress has stepped forth to advice Sri Lankan Tamil residents in Australia how they should fill their census forms.[iv] Tamils are requested to fill Question 12 as “Ceylon” and refrain from any reference to “Sri Lanka.” They are advised to say “Tamil” to Question 16 (it is not clear to me if this answer was to hold even where English is the predominant mode of exchange at home).
The more significant advice is with reference to Question 18 on Ancestry. They offer the following advice: “at the last census (in 2006) all the Tamils who responded to this question as Sri Lankan have been counted as Singhalese. This question is not about country of birth. Ancestry does not depend on the place of birth. it relates to heritage. Australian politicians consider the number of voters impacted when they evaluate any policy matters. Tamils have a long and colourful heritage and we should be proud to be part of it.”
No one can deny the richness of the Tamil heritage. It is the associational activity seeking to expand the clout of the Tamil lobby in the Australian political circuit that I highlight as a significant fact (again an exercise of democratic rights). But I am also interested in what sort of statistical results will emanate from this process. How does the Bureau of Statistics compute the results of data conveyed in Question 18? And is the Tamil Congress’s allegation that those who said they were “Sri Lankan” in the previous census of 2006 were thereafter transformed into “Sinhalese” in the census enumeration a valid claim?
The further problem here is that Australia contains a number of people of Tamil heritage from India, Malaysia and Fiji among other countries. Where they too indicate their Tamil ancestry within this box, then one has results that amalgamate all of them as one category. To the extent that these figures boost the number of “Tamil Australians” in particular electoral constituencies, this request is an intelligent tactic on the part of the Tamil lobbyists.
Personal Idiosyncrasy
As a personal statement of some import, let me indicate here how I filled the boxes within Question 18. I inserted four categories within the frame “Other”.
Barbadian
Sinhalese
Burgher
Mongrel
The simple point is that my father is Barbadian. But being coffee-coloured rather than deep black, he probably had quite a smattering of white genes (untraced) in his distant parental past. My mother’s father was a “Perera” according to her birth certificate; but her mother was a Bastiansz from Matara. So she herself was a mix of Sinhalese and Burgher in the Sri Lankan scheme of things. Thus I am a quintessential thuppahi in Sri Lankan terms.
Thuppahi is a disparaging term, part of the weaponry of denigration. It derives from the history of Portuguese Empire in the Indian Ocean and the emergence of a category of mixed bloods and/or indigenous Christians who were called “Topaz,” “Tupass” and other such related derivatives, that is, of mixed ethnic-stock. Given the prevalence of caste thinking derisive of mixtures, and thereafter the deepening during the colonial era of racial thinking hostile to racial mixtures or people of colour, one had the making of a pejorative amalgam.
Those interested in this terminology should dip into Hobson-Jobson, being A Glossary of Anglo-Indian Colloquial Words and Phrases, prepared by Col. Henry Yule and AC Burnell in 1886 (London, John Murray) which is available in modern editions. They should also consult my clarification of this process in the world of Sri Lanka and more specifically within Sinhala nationalist thinking and everyday speech during British times which can be found in the chapter “Pejorative Phrases: the Anti-Colonial Response and Sinhala Perceptions of the Self through Images of the Burghers,” in the book People Inbetween. The Burghers and the Middle Class in the Transformations within Sri Lanka, 1790s-1960s, (Ratmalana, Sarvodaya Publishing Services, 1989).
Thus, in summary, thuppahi (more correctly transliterated as tuppahi) means low, inferior, intermixed and pariah in the Asian categorical order. The best translation of such Asian terms as “pariah” and thuppahi for those who are not familiar with this vocabulary is “mongrel.” I mark it here because it is also a sign deployed as a masthead for my web site – as, indeed, clarified in “Why Thuppahi.”[v] By stressing this dimension of my bloodlines I am deliberately seeking to confront, challenge and undermine the thinking of those who are attached to notions of caste distinction and/or “racial” superiority.
An incidental question arises from this intervention: how will the Australian Bureau of Statistics treat my answer? One presumes that I will be the only one to use the term “Mongrel.” It is probable that this answer will be slotted into the miscellaneous box “Others” created by the Bureau to encompass categories of Ancestry that are too small to be enumerated separately. That is fair dinkum of course.
However, there is an intriguing possibility. One of my tennis mates, Mike Morley, is a Kiwi long resident in Adelaide. He told me that he had indicated his Irish ancestry in Box 18. When I remarked that I had also inserted “Mongrel” in that listing, he immediately laughed and said he would have added that too if he had considered matters carefully. It is now possible that the two of us may initiate an association called the Mongrel Peoples of Australia to convey a point to both politicians and the Australian universe. Such a move will not create waves: most Aussies are likely to see the funny side and deem it a case of taking the piss out of the enumeration process.
From Australia to Sri Lanka
For Sri Lanka, however, such a step would not be light-hearted affair. For over ten years[vi] in deadly seriousness I have advocated a census enumeration which explicitly recognises “Mixed Lankan” as an ethnic identity within a scheme that also denotes other specific categories. This was spelt out in print form in “Some Pillars for Lanka’s Future” in Frontline, Vol. 26/12, 19 June 2009, pp. 24-27.[vii]
In this argument the government should ask each citizen/resident of Sri Lanka to indicate his or her ethnic identity in pre-determined categorical terms by ticking boxes which propose several alternatives, while leaving space – as in Australia – for individuals to specify other terms that are of their own choice.
Thus, the official listing should have the following categories: Sri Lankan, Muslim Lankan, Malay Lankan, Sinhala Lankan, Tamil Lankan, Malaiyāha-Tamil Lankan, Burgher Lankan, Eurasian Lankan, Colombo-Chetty Lankan, Borah Lankan, Memon Lankan, Malayālam Lankan, Parsee Lankan, Väddā Lankan, Sindhi Lankan and, last but not least, Mixed Lankan (or mishra sinhala in the Sinhala language).
This is radical move. It seeks to undermine prejudices in ways that will contribute to the development of unity in diversity over a period of time. For one, it attempts to initiate the development of hyphenated identities of the type embodied in such self-perceptions or descriptions as “Italian Australian,” “Jewish American” or “Polish American.” To install such a transformative set of concepts in Sri Lanka will not be a simple matter. For the process to have any impact the terminology has to overcome the resistance within Sinhala speech to the use of hyphens and thus to hyphenated labels such sinhala lānkika or burgher lānkika, etc etc. Thus, to repeat, this is a suggestion that can only take root over generational time – in the long haul.
Secondly, let me stress that my intention is to use this device as a means of undermining the insidious, but powerful, tendency among some Sinhala people to treat “Sri Lankan” and Sinhalese” as synonyms.[viii] This type of slippage enables the Part (Sinhalese) to equate itself with the Whole. It is a hegemonic act, even when working without aforethought below the surface.
When President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s victory speech on 19 May 2009 contended that ethnic identity was of no relevance within Sri Lanka and beat the drum of “Sri Lankan-ness” by indicating that the only relevant differentiation was between those patriotic (rata ādhara karana aya) and those unpatriotic (rata ādhara nokarana aya), the potential danger was missed by those who applauded this pitch. The emphasis concealed the possibility that the Sinhala part, a majoritarian part in the island’s demographic configuration, was encompassing the mosaic whole under the parasol of Sri Lankan-ness.[ix] As I argued in “Some Pillars for Lanka’s Future,” this potential was marked immediately afterwards at the celebration honouring the war heroes on Friday 22nd May. Here, the President
spoke of the jātika kodiya, sinha kodiya (national flag, Sinha flag) in the same breadth. In this critical conceptualization a part of Sri Lanka, the Sinhalese people, is equated with the whole of Lanka. This ideological act of merger is presented in a taken-for-granted manner, thus, insidiously and powerfully.[x]
This weakness also attends the remarkable and stirring expressions voiced by Kumar Sangakkara at the very end of his Colin Cowdrey Lecture in July this year.[xi] Speaking from a background and position that differed from that of President Rajapaksa, Sangakkara expressed a form of cosmopolitanism and idealism that fused a number of central identities within Sri Lanka into one being, Albeit well-intentioned and liberal in inspiration, the problem with this stirring formulation has been identified independently by both Kalana Senaratne[xii] and Aachcharya (alias Guruparan) in a different vocabulary from that used in my article, but with the same critical thrust.
Let me reiterate some of Aachcharya’s criticisms[xiii] here: firstly, he contends that “the idea of Sri Lankanness is identified in practice with the dominant political ideology in Sri Lanka, “namely, that of “Sinhala Budddhist hegemonism;” and, secondly, the type of idealism embodied in Sangakkara’s sentiments, he says, believes that “ethnic, religious and other communitarian groups are bad for the individual;” “[but represents a position that] rests on a poor understanding of the contribution that a communitarian setting makes to the well being of an individual.”
In opposition Aachcharya insists that “it is important to move from the particular to the universal and not to dichotomise the relationship between the two.” We must, therefore, “first understand the reality of value pluralism.” Thus, “the plurinational Sri Lankan identity can never be constructed without acknowledging and recognising (institutionally) the significance of other identities that evoke a sense of belongingness and community.”[xiv]
Summing up, therefore, in my argument the ecumenical approach presented so wonderfully by Kumar Sangakkara generates a notion of Sri Lankan-ness that is a melange of many categories, a pot pourri dish so to speak, one that could be depicted in indigenous metaphor as an achchāru (pickle). In itself that kind of category and identity is not to be discarded or disallowed. It can be a fertile and liberating perspective for individuals and families. The box “Sri Lankan” in my listing will enable those so minded, even those of mixed lineage, to mark that category if they wish to adopt such a cosmopolitan perspective.
But it is both illiberal and impolitic to deny others who are attached to their Sinhalese, Tamil or other specific communitarian identities the right to specify this affinity as one step in their being-ness as “Sri Lankan.” Patriotism and nationalism can be built up like a pyramid formation in gymnastics. By way of example I insist here that for many Burghers residing today in Sri Lanka it is through their life-world and being as Burghers (their Burgherness in other words) that they become Sri Lankans and adhere to Sri Lanka in subjectivity and loyalty. So, too, with necessary adjustments, can this be said of many Sinhalese, Muslims, Malays, Sri Lankan Tamils, Malaiyāha Tamils, et cetera — though I do not think that any social scientist could even guess at the proportions in each category which are so constituted.
The idealism that impelled Sangakkara to present what I have called “an ecumenical Asokan perspective” in such a majestic way[xv] should be encouraged via the category “Sri Lankan.” However, the census categories must – and I insist here on the MUST — permit other avenues of ethnic subjectivity, categories of being that have built, and can continue to build, Sri Lankan-ness on their communitarian pillars. Among the several such building blocks should be that collective identity which recognises and values the subjectivity of those sankara, namely, those with a mixed pedigree. In this manner one can strike a blow against casteism and any emphasis on racial purity. But, more vitally, it will remind people of Sri Lanka of the variety and complexity of their history. The island state and society has to be construed, like the skies above us, as a constellation of diversity.
[i] See Roberts, “Ethnicity after Edward Said: Post-Orientalist failures in comprehending the Kandyan period of Lankan history,” in Roberts, Confrontations in Sri Lanka: Sinhalese, LTTE and Others,”Colombo, Vijitha Yapa Publications, 2009, ISBN 9789556650358 (www.vijithayapa.com).
[ii] See http://cricketique.wordpress.com/2011/03/21/incursions-around-sri-lankan-cricket and http:// cricketique.wordpress.com/photo-shots/
[iii] See Michael Roberts, Incursions and Excursions in and around Sri Lankan Cricket (details in http://cricketique.wordpress.com/2011/03/21/incursions-around-sri-lankan-cricket/).
[iv] In a word file document “Say we are Tamils” (sent to me by a Tamil friend).
[v] http://thuppahi.wordpress.com/why-thuppahi/.
[vi] I first presented this suggestion during the Marga Workshops in the years 2000-03 devoted to “A History of Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka: Recollection, Reinterpretation & Reconciliation;” but the idea was not greeted with any enthusiasm by the liberal moderates who were the predominant element in the small seminar audience.
[vii] See http://www.hindu.com/fline/fl2612/stories/20090619261202400.htm. In this Frontline article I used the term “Samkara Lanka” (samkara can also be written as sankara). Sankara is an erudite Sanskrit-Sinhala word for mixed lineage or mixed blood. It was a term used occasionally by Piyadasa Sirisena. I have, however, been informed that this term would confuse contemporary Sinhala speakers and that it carries a pejorative connotation today. Thus, I now consider it best to use mishra sinhala in the Sinhalese language and “mixed Lankan” in English.
[viii] I spotted this tendency initially in some of the Anagarika Dharmapala’s writings in the early twentieth century. This finding was a critical ingredient in my pessimistic reading of the Sri Lankan political scene in the 1970s which contended that the island would go the way of Cyprus, Lebanon and Northern Ireland [embodied in an article drafted in Germany in 1976 and appearing in print in 1978: viz., “Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka and Sinhalese Perspectives: Barriers to Accommodation," Modern Asian Studies, 1978, 12: 353-76, which can be found in Roberts, Exploring Confrontation, (Reading, Harwood, 1994]. Dharmapala was a Sinhala Buddhist ideologue and can be considered the patron saint of what political analysts call “the 1956 ideology,” which in turn inspires the “Mahinda Chintanaya” of contemporary times. For my subsequent studies of Dharmapala, see the two essays, “For Humanity. For the Sinhalese. Dharmapala as bosat Crusader,” and “Himself and Project. A Serial Autobiography. Our Journey with a Sinhala Zealot, Anagarika Dharmapala,” which are reprinted as chaps 8 and 10 respectively in Roberts, Confrontations in Sri Lanka: Sinhalese, LTTE & Others, Colombo, Vijitha Yapa Publications, 2009.
[ix] As also stressed by Aachcharya in groundviews: “But when those who take part in the Sinhala Buddhist hegemonic project assert ‘Sri Lankanness’, as Rajapaksha did in his end-of-the-war speech (the no-minorities in Sri Lanka speech) many quite rightly suspected the motives behind such an agenda” (http://groundviews.org/2011/07/27/ back-to-basics-the-need-for-an-honest-conversation-about-%E2%80%98sri-lankanness%E2%80%99-and-%E2%80%98sri-lankan-identity%E2%80%99/)..
[x] http://www.hindu.com/fline/fl2612/stories/20090619261202400.htm.
[xi] http://thuppahi.wordpress.com/2011/07/09/kumar-sangakkara%e2%80%99s-ecumenical-lankan-nationalism/ and http://thuppahi.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/kumar-sangakkara%e2%80%99s-sentiments-as-an-ecumenical-asokan-lankan/
[xii] Senaratne, “Our Sri Lankan Identity: Another Case of ‘Being Nobody, Going Nowhere’? in http://groundviews.org/2011/07/17/our-sri-lankan-identity-another-case-of-%e2%80%98being nobody-going-nowhere%e2%80%99/
[xiii] http://groundviews.org/2011/07/27/back-to-basics-the-need-for-an-honest-conversation-about-%E2%80%98sri-lankanness%E2%80%99-and-%E2%80%98sri-lankan-identity%E2%80%99/
thank you for the analysis.
As for the census question on ancestry, since when are the countries listed refered as ethnicities?
Italian is a nationality as far as it is considered in Italy and other countries. Latin can be one way to refer to the ancestry of that person for that matter.
Tamil is a ethnicity so far, therefore it should not matter where it is from, whether from India, Sri Lanka, Fidji or Canada.
I have serious reservations in the way Australia addresses these issues, and as you said in the article, once people are moulded, politicians use those definitions for their policies, having important long term consequences.
I would like to point out the following confusions in Michael Robert’s paper:
Question 18 of the Australian census asks for the Ancestry. What is expected is the Ancestry of the person who is been counted. Thus the advised offered by the ATC is fair. If both your parents are Dravadian, your Ancestry would be “Dravidian”. If your parents were from different ethnic groups your Ancestry would be “Mixed”. Sri-Lankan is not an ethnic group, so this classification is not appropriate for Ancestry. Nor is “Sinhalese”. Sinhalese or Sinhala is not an ethnic group for the reason that to be of the same ethnic group, there must be genetic connections/common genetic characteristics within the members of the group. The so called Sinhala people have genetic connections mainly to different ethnic groups in different parts in India i.e. Bengal, Kerala etc. than to each other. Only commonality the “Sinhalese” share is the Language. This would not qualify as to be a separate ethnic group.
In Question 16, to write Tamil is correct. Since what is asked for is the language spoken at home by the person been counted, OTHER THAN ENGLISH. Here a Sinhalese speaker would be correct to write down Sinhala, as much as a Tamil speaker to write down Tamil, as both of these are languages other than English.
As with regards to Country of Birth, Sri-Lanka is a controversial term. This is because the term came in with the 1972 constitution. The geographical area governed by this constitution would be called Sri-Lanka and people living within it called Sri-lankan. This was NOT acceptable to most people at the time, other than the Sinhala-Buddhist, and it remains unacceptable even to date for most none Sinhala-Buddhist. Sri-Lanka and who is a Sri-lankan was defined by the constitution of 1972. This constitution placed one group of people superior to other groups living within it. It also opened avenues to give more re-cognition/privileges to that chosen group. This is a fundamental flaw for good nation building. It would never be able to be used to unify all groups within it. This had been the main reason for all the divisions/unrest the country has experienced so far and will remain so to the future. No one outside the “chosen group” cannot and would not with heart & mind like to identify themselves as “Sri-Lankan” (whatever spin anybody puts on what being a Sri-Lankan is) as long that definition is based on a bias. As things stand, identifying ones self as “Sri-Lankan” would be accepting this superiority of the chosen group. In this context, “Ceylon” would be the better term.
So what am I trying to say? I cannot see any other solution than admitting and learning from our mistakes of the past, and start from square one.
WHEN THE PATH CHOSEN DOES NOT LEAD YOU TO YOUR GOAL, I CHOOSE A DIFFERENT PATH. WHAT DO YOU DO?
Interesting take on “Sinhala” not being an ethnicity. That would be true prior to 1815 when “Sinhale” was the name of the nation which had emerged about a millennium prior as the people identified with the state. As Roberts himself outlines in his book on Kandian Kingdom and identity, even ordinary folk poetry alluded to such an identity in broad sections of the community by the middle ages. They would not have considered themselves an “ethnic group” although they readily identified “others” (see Roberts).
However, something paradoxical happened with the British conquest of the whole island (meaning that the “state” as identified by the royal person was taken into British custody). Curiously, the British who signed the treaty with the nobility of Sihale (the Board of Directors if you like) called the island Sihale by another name (we all know how all Europeans had called the island the same name as the recognised emperor did; ceialo, Ceylom, Zeylan, Ceylon are all corruption of Sihale or Seehalam).
Having called the island Ceylon (i.e. Sihale as an English corruption) the British curiously recognised two different ethnic groups which were invented for the first time in this World. Sinhalese based on the predominant language spoken on the island (sihala basa= sinhala or siyabasa – the latter meaning my language) and Tamuls based on the other major language spoken on the island ( Taymoli appears to have been corrupted to Tamul, the former meaning “my language”). Interestingly, “Tamuls” later became “Tamil” perhaps influenced by a Mahavamsa derision. Bishop Caldecott was certainly to be credited with taking this a step further and creating the Dravidian/Aryan (quite mythical- a myth created completely de novo in Caldecott’s mind) racial divide. This set the scene for further solidifying a deep rift especially by placing what were two sister languages in either side of an artificially created mythical divide.
As far as I am concerned all races and ethnic identities are bunk. However, as Dr. Roberts indicates, even though artificial, ethnic identities certainly provide practical assistance for policy makers who need to take into account the beautiful cultural diversity that different etnicities represent.
In this case these rather young ethnic groups, “Tamil” (not Chola, Chera or Pandya) and “Sinahla” (not people of Sinhale) are perfectly acceptable because the abstractions can be directly correlated with groups of people practising unique cultural attributes.
WRT not wanting to call oneself Sri Lankan but Ceylonese, I am not sure that Australian Bureau of Statistics would give a damn about an anachronistic identity. However, I have seen individuals who would definitely not think of themselves as “Sinhalese” call themselves Ceylonese as ironic as it may be! It appears those who are ethnically not Sinhala do an honour to the ancient Kingdom of Sihale/ Sinhale in insisting a connection to it whereas the Sinhalas do not have that psychological need.
Thus I agree with Dr. Roberts about the need to wipe out this identity Sinhala ethnic group will have with the island whether you call yourself Ceylonese or Sri Lankan. We might as well stick with Sri Lanka as, at least it has no etymological connection to any of the ethnic groups originating on that island even if one such group strives to expropriate the overall identity of the island-people.
Thanks Ravana for that well researched explanation on ethnicity. I do accept your point and I am also of the view that all races and ethnic identities are bunk.
But with regards to been identified as “Sri-Lankan”, would mean that one accepts the 1972 Constitution and values/principles contained within it (as it is this constitution that defined Sri-Lanka & Sri-Lankan). Futhermore, as this is the same constitution that first defined the principle of protecting and promoting one particular group’s values over and above Universal values, it would be morally unacceptable to a rational person of modern day thinking. For example, such a person would not be able to join the defence forces of SL, as this would mean that one would be required to take an oath to defend a Constitution which one knows is against the Universal values one holds. Thus this would make many people not be able to consciously ‘belong’ to and make them second-class citizens within that nation.
Therefore one must reject this Constitution as long these biased clauses are contained within it. That would also mean the rejection of the identity “Sri-Lankan”. Isn’t that the problem Sri-Lanka faces today? Is that not why Tamils and others (by the way I am not a Tamil) cannot completely accept the “Unitary State”. A unitary state defined differently may be very acceptable to all groups, e.g. India.
In the context of Australian Bureau of Statistics requirements, this information is to plan for how Federal funds are to be allocated to best benefit the many Nationalities that are within Australia. Thus Sri -Lankan would be one group (represented by Sri-Lanka High Commissioner in Canberra). There are others who feel that their interests are not represented by the SLHC for reason I mentioned above. The best available alternative for these others are, to be identified as Ceylonese (at least under the Ceylon constitution, every group had equality in re-cognition/rights and acceptable universal values). When the Australian Bureau of Statistics, publishes it’s census report, the group of people who identified as ‘Ceylonese’ would be a separate group distinct from ‘Sri-Lankan’. This would lead to a more accurate allocation of Federal funds to the best benefit of these groups within Australia.
Dear Mr. Roberts,
Interesting!
Just a clarification, wouldn’t Mixed Lankan be better translated as Mishra Lankika rather than “Mishra Sinhala”? Or alternatively maybe it would be better to use “Mishra Jathika” or simply “Sambole” to encompass all mixes including those with part colonial lineage? I guess the English translation would be “Hybrid Lankan” : )
If I was filling out the Aussie census I would have just put Austral-Asian : )
Thanks george the man
That was a gross error –a brainstorm on my part.. YES it shoudl be mishra lankika and that is whatit wa sin my Frontline article in the sens that i s used Sankara lanakika. I willask GV to correct this error.
I do not see why all this discussion about identity is around fostering a common “Sri Lankan” identity i.e. one that is founded on safeguarding this one nation concept, which if I may add, is only several decades old or as old as the United Nations is.
Or if I may be a bit decorative – a plural, inclusive, modern state. Sounds catchy but perhaps the author could suggest how this racial hegemonic control could be overcome. One look at the national flag with the lion holding a sword is enough to prove the point.
Analysing one’s hasbecome a hobby and there are manyTV programmes in the West devoted to searchthe past. I am not certain whether it is of much value though it is a beguiling hobby as much as the horoscope. Would a University Professor favour one over another because he has a common genetic stock in today’s world.
There was an interesting lecture by Sir V S Naipaul tracing his Napalese ancestry prior to hisforefathers moving to Trinidad by the indentured labour route. Time for such pursuits is a luxury that is not available to rest of us.
Does it matter whether our ancestors came as Tobacco farmers to Jaffna in Dutch raign or lost our belongings to be consigned to Dalit caste in the Sankili period or came to the island as soldiers or various trades in the bygone days.
I personally favour President Mahinda Rajapakse’s reasoning and accept to be called a Sri Lankan.
Civilsed Citizen,
“But with regards to been identified as “Sri-Lankan”, would mean that one accepts the 1972 Constitution and values/principles contained within it (as it is this constitution that defined Sri-Lanka & Sri-Lankan).”
You make a good point. The remedy may be to insist on making the constitution secular. I understand that the language issue has already been resolved at constitutional level. I am also aware that there are many more issues within both 1972 and 1978 constitutions which undermine basic rights of citizens as a whole. The constitution is worth repealing for these reasons. I do not believe that going back to a constitution imposed by a patronising coloniser (as “well meaning” it might have been) is the answer. Ceylon was a Dominion even after “Independence”. Australia has been a Commonwealth even without it.
I can appreciate that being in minority Sri Lankan group and being overseas makes it difficult to do something about it. Also, what benefit does the SLHC bring either Sri Lankan Australians or Sri Lanka? It is just a straw man.
It would be interesting to read Dr. Roberts writing on Australian Identity. Most of us probably identify more as Australian than Sri Lankan.
Thanks for this!
But the category ‘mixed Lankan’ Should translates into mishra Lankika and not “mishra Sinhala”. This mistake in your ‘translation’ shows your (ironically maybe unconsious) Sinhala nationalist bias and equation with Lanka with Sinhala!