History after the War: Challenges for Post War Reconciliation
Repost This Article
[Editors note: Also listen to podcast by author here.]
The end of the war is certainly not the end of the conflict that led to the military confrontation between the military forces of Sri Lanka state and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). This conflict surfaces in different guises, the military episode being only one. It is well-known that conflicting interpretations of the past of the island by conflicting parties is a major factor in the conflict.[1] When the military confrontation was the dominant form of the conflict, the importance of other forms were less evident. With the military episode completely over, non military aspects of the conflict are again coming to the fore. It is in this context that the renewed role of “history” in the Sri Lanka ethnic conflict has to be discussed.
In the collective imagination of the ‘Sinhala-Buddhist South’, the ‘Tamil North’ occupies a very special place. In short, it is a place to be conquered and occupied. To the Sinhala-Buddhist mind the “North” is very much part of the Sinhala-Buddhist territory. This territory has long been illegitimately occupied by Tamils, or, according to more sophisticated versions, occupied mostly by former Sinhalese who have metamorphosed into Tamils following some maneuvering by elite groups and European colonial rulers. Sinhala nationalist propagandists such as Nalin de Silva and Suriya Gunasekera have been the most vocal and strident proponents of this view.[2] Although this explanation is restricted to a limited group who are very well familiar with their literature, there is a general consensus among ordinary Sinhala-Buddhists about the Sinhala-Buddhist ownership of the North.
This Sinhala-Buddhist perception towards the Tamil North is very much part of the ideology of the Post-Colonial Sri Lanka state. In this ideology, the territorial integrity of the state is articulated in a very special way. In the minds of the Sinhala-Buddhist, “Lankawe ekeeyabhwaya” (Unity/unitariness of Sri Lanka) is not a notion of modern territorially based statehood or constitutionalism, but a historically constituted notion that is well represented in the Sinhala-Buddhist parlance “dedahas pansiya wasarak tisse pevethi ekeeya rajjaya” (United state that existed for the last 2500 years).
The notion of island (dvϊpa) formed part of the ruling ideology of Anuradhapura, at least at the time of the compilation of the Mahawamsa in the 6th century CE. Apparently there were two sources of this ideology of ‘islandness’. One is the outsiders’ perception where the geographical entity was identified as a social entity as well. For reasons that are not clear, a powerful group of inhabitants in the island, at least a section of which formed the ruling elite of Anuradhapura, came to be known as sīhala and the island was named by many outsiders as the ‘Island of sīhalas (sīhaladīpa or its variant serendib as pronounced by Arabians). The other source of this ideology is the world view of the bikkhus (community of Buddhist monks) who were a decisive social group in the pre-modern historical development of the island. The idea that the ‘island’ is the place destined to preserve Buddhism in its pure form for five thousand years was central to the world view that was propagated by a dominant section of the bikkhu community, who were probably close to the ruling elite. The notion dammadϊpa perfectly encompassed this world view. Attempts were made through mythical traditions to link this world view with the wishes of living Buddha himself, where he prepared the island for the ordained task by visiting the island three times and asking the god sakra to protect Wijaya and his retinue.[3]
Through the articulation of this ideology, the post-colonial ruling elite sanctified the existing territoriality of the state. In the context that the existing territoriality is being constantly put into question by the Tamils not only though alternative ideology but also politico-military means, upholding this sanctified tradition is immensely significant.
Although the comprehensive military victory over the LTTE was celebrated on a massive scale and the entire Sinhala-Buddhist populace responded to it as if they achieved the ultimate victory over the Tamil North, there is also wider acceptance, at the same time, that the mission is not fully accomplished.[4] There are a number of fronts to fight in: taming and de-nationalizing Tamil politics, discrediting the Tamil Diaspora, changing the demography in the North, etc. In addition, the reconstitution of the “historic” Sinhala-Buddhist North (and East) is also recognized as a prominent task.
Post-war politico-ideological interventions in relation to the North are fascinating and quite significant. Apart from continued military presence and “development process” as defined by the Sinhala state in line with neo-liberalism, there are other ideologically driven interventions. Pilgrimage has become one such phenomenon. Sinhala-Buddhist pilgrims who are flocking into Jaffna peninsula in large numbers I will argue are engaged in a politico-ideological act rather than a religious act. Beneath the official rhetoric of bringing about ethnic harmony through North-South people to people encounters, these pilgrimages reproduce conflicting interests between Sinhala and Tamil ethno-nationalist identity politics. Although pilgrimage has provided much needed economic benefits for the North, they have at the same time created a sense of anxiety among politically and ideologically conscious Tamils.
The major ideological inspiration for these Sinhala-Buddhist pilgrims is arguably the discourse of “Sinhala-Buddhist heritage in the North and East” (uturu negenahira Sinhala bauddha urumaya). The most vigorous propagators of this ideology, with the moral, institutional, material and political support of the state and, particularly unofficial backing of the military, became very active in the post-war context. In their point of view the most important task of the post-war reconstitution of the North (and East) is to re-establish the historical rights of the Sinhala-Buddhists in this territory.[5]
Photo courtesy Transcurrents
As permanent residents of the North territory are unlikely to be converted to the Sinhala-Buddhist ideology, the strategy that propagators of the Sinhala-Buddhist ideology have adopted is to create an alternative and parallel space of social relations in competition with that of Tamils. It is possible to compare this strategy with the one that Sinhala-Buddhists have adopted in relation to Buddhist sites in India.
Buddhist sites in North India and Nepal, for which Sinhala-Buddhists use the name dambadiva form a part of the imaginary Sinhala-Buddhist territory. Dambadiva, as found in the Sinhala Buddhist imagination, is not a location of the geography of South Asia. Therefore dambadiva vandanava is a pilgrimage to the imagined part of the Sinhala-Buddhist territory. Moreover, this is not a visit to a foreign land either. The usual term rata yanava (going abroad) would not be used for this journey. It would simply be referred to as dambadiva yanava (going to dambadiva, not even ‘going to India’).
If the ultimate realization of the Sinhala-Buddhist territoriality in relation to dambadiva is the pilgrimage, the case of North-bound pilgrimage is different. As mentioned at the beginning, the North, unlike dambadiva, is, in the mind of the Sinhala-Buddhist, a place to be conquered and occupied. If they are satisfied, in the case of dambadiva, only with preserving Buddhist sites in India as pilgrim destinations, something more has to be achieved in the North. As a religious act of ordinary devotees, pilgrimage to the North is of course an end in itself. For the politically and ideologically conscious pilgrims, this is more than that. They are quite conscious of the broader significance of their journey. They share the view that the historical sequence that linked the modern Sinhala-Buddhist with early Buddhist affairs in the island has been broken in the North by way of de-buddhisization and de-sinhalization and its Sinhala-Buddhist heritage has to be re-established.
The decisive feature of this post-war Sinhala-Buddhist imagination of the North is that it is solely based on the historical consciousness of Sinhala-Buddhists and runs completely against the Tamil nationalist and Southern non-nationalist political imaginations of the post-war North. In particular, it runs against the notion of ‘traditional Tamil homelands’ which is the political core of the Tamil historical consciousness.
There is an important factor that gives an extra advantage to the Sinhala-Buddhist historical consciousness. The historical narrative that is linked with the latter is generally compatible with the dominant paradigm of the modern historical scholarship in Sri Lanka. That is the reason why dominant figures in the Sri Lankan historical scholarship such as K.M. de Silva have questioned the ‘traditional Tamil homeland’ theory as mythical and grounded in political interests of Tamil nationalism, without trying to question the mythical basis of the dominant paradigm, which supports the Sinhala-Buddhist consciousness and the political interests of the Sinhala-Buddhist ruling elite.[6]
Conclusion
From the point of view of a post-war reconciliation that should accommodate the legitimate demands of Tamils in the North and East, the renewed importance of ‘history’ in shaping the post-war dynamics of the ethno-political conflict will certainly pose a major challenge to those who wish to overcome the horizons of nationalist imaginations in a new post-war rethinking of politics. In a context where extreme Sinhala-Buddhist nationalism is unprecedentedly strong and ideologically aggressive, providing the ideological support for the political system that excludes Tamils, the need to build an alternative discourse of history becomes more than a naïve academic pursuit. It is a profound political and ideological task that has to be given a high priority.
###
This essay is part of a series on the theme of post war reconciliation, justice and development initiated by the International Center for Ethnic Studies, (ICES). Colombo. The views expressed are the author’s own and does not necessarily represent the views of the ICES.
[1] For a review of the role of “history” in the conflict see, Gunawardana, RALH, Historiography in a Time of Ethnic Conflict: Construction of the Past in Contemporary Sri Lanka, (Social Scientists’Association: Colombo)1995. also see, Coomaraswamy, Radhika, ‘Myths without Conscience: Tamil & Sinhalese Nationalist Writings of the 1980s’ in Abeysekera, C. and Gunasinghe, N. (eds.) Facets of Ethnicity in Sri Lanka (Social Scientists Association: Colombo) 1987.
[2] Both these writers mainly write in Sinhala Prof. Nalin de Silva’s writings are available online in www.kalaya.org. Dr. Suriya Gunasekera’s writings on this subject mainly appear in Divaina Sinhala newspaper. For a systematic elaboration of this approach to the history of Sri Lankan Tamils see the following work which is heavily influenced by Prof. Nalin de Silva’s work: Jayasumana, Channa Sudath, Demala Janathawage Sankshiptha Itihasaya (“The Short History of Tamil People”) (Visidunu Publishers: Boralesgamuwa) 2009.
[3] For a comprehensive analysis into the mythical tradition that link living Buddha with the Lanka island see, Gunawardana, RALH, ‘Kinsmen of the Buddha: Myth as a political charter in the ancient and early medieval kingdoms of Sri Lanka’, in Sri Lanka Journal of Humanities vol. 2 No. 1, pp.53-62, 1976
[4] Again Prof. Nalin de Silva and many prominent supporters of the government articulate this view. Prof. de Silva, in particular, clearly states that the Tamil problem will be solved only if, and when, Tamils in Sri Lanka agree to accept “the history of the land” and Sinhala-Buddhist as legitimate owners of the island. See De Silva, Nalin, Ape Pravada 3 (Our Theories 3) (Visidunu Publishers: Boralesgamuwa), 2010.
[5] Works of Rev. Ellavala Medhananda, a leader of the Jathika HelaUrumaya and a member of parliament, is very important in this connection. He is passionately involved in collecting epigraphic records pertaining to the early history of North and East. He also promotes the Sinhalization of place names in the North under the pretext that Sinhala names are the original ones. Such examples are Sinhalized Mūladīpa in place of Tamil Mulathiv and Kandurugoda in place of Kandarodai.
[6] See De Silva, KM, The Traditional Homelands of the Tamils, Separatist Ideology in Sri Lanka: A Historical Appraisal’ Tamil Home Lands, (ICES: Kandy) 1995. Although he alludes to the works that analyze the mythical aspects of the dominant paradigm, their political and ideological significance is not questioned in the same way that he has done in relation to the traditional homelands myth of Tamils.
Thank you, Dr Dewasiri, for very logical clarification of the issue.
apart from a few points, I do agree to the overall analysis of your article. But I am curious, if this notion of ‘Sinhala-buddhist’ conquest of the North is not an aberration, but inherent to the unitary structure of the postcolonial SL state, what do you think is the way out?
Intelligent, valuable and timely piece, Nirmal. Congratulations and thanks. It is however, incomplete and somewhat unidimensional and mono-causal, in that it fails to address the following issues:
1. Is the perspectival position you describe here, that of the Sinhala mainstream or of a (thick or thin) fringe, as currently represented by the JHU etc? Note that I say ‘perspective’ not ontology or worldview, because if you scratch deep enough, it may be indeed the worldview, but does not necessarily translate into a position/stance.
2.Is there no pluralist, liberal, secular, modernist perspective which would argue for a unitary Sri Lanka ( albeit with substantial devolution of powers) and regard the possibility of Tamil irrendentism as a danger? I would emphatically say there is. For instance, the US PACOM report that warned about the deadly threat to Trincomalee harbour from the LTTE buildup during Ranil’s CFA (which many civil society intellectuals supported), certainly did not come from a Sinhala Buddhist historicist perspective! Any strategic thinker anywhere in the world, looking at Sri lanka, would identify as the North — whether it be populated by Tamils or Martians — as a highly vulnerable security perimeter of the island. He/she would also identify the huge pro-secessionist buildup in the Diaspora (watch the demonstration under the Tiger flags in Geneva on Monday) and residual Tamil Nadu ultranationalism as potential threats.
An excellent example of the perspective I refer to — and commend– would be David Kilcullen’s analytical, critical support of Sri Lanka’s war, as presented at the Defence seminar last year, in contradistinction to both the cosmopolitan liberal pro-CFA critique and the Wimal-Champika-Gomin defence of the war and its aftermath. Other examples would be David Blacker, Godfrey Gunatilleka and Michael Roberts’ views.
3. Many states – ranging from Cuba to the Philippines, from Vietnam to France, opt for unitary systems, for reasons completely other than archaic or antiquarian historicism.
4. So long as a pluralist, modernist patriotism is lacking in Sri Lanka, the advantage will remain with Sinhala Buddhist chauvinistic patriotism. It has the dual advantage of being organic as well as a default option.
5. Thus, the ideologico-political project of the day is the forging of a modern, liberal, pluralist patriotism that is able to credibly present itself as a strong defender of the state, its sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity– and yes, its unitary character. I would illustrate this by drawing a distinction between Obama’s handling of terrorism (and Osama Bin Laden) and that of George W Bush, the Indian Congress party’s idea of India and its security (including in Kashmir) and that of the BJP, Israel’s Labour party’s Zionism and that of Likud (not to mention the settlers). What is needed is a social democratic or liberal democratic nationalism/patriotism; a modern patriotic centre with a social democratic economic programme; a combination of national and popular sovereignty, with autonomy and the rights of the individual citizen.
“Any strategic thinker anywhere in the world, looking at Sri lanka, would identify as the North — whether it be populated by Tamils or Martians — as a highly vulnerable security perimeter of the island.”
Unfortunately, it is populated by Tamils. For now, that is.
If this ‘strategic thinker anywhere in the world’ thinks from the pov of Colombo, then yes, Dayan’s view is right.
But assuming that Dayan allows the Tamils to have something akin to a subjectivity (it is, of course, a known fact that an oppressor regime first and foremost deprives the subjected people of subjectivity), and should the ‘strategic thinker’ be a person following the pov of Sivaram, then the North and what the Sinhala army-state apparatus is doing there takes completely different connotations.
Dear Nathan,
1. Since I knew Sivaram BEFORE he joined even the PLOTE, I know — and Qadri Ismail can attest– that his POV changed drastically. The objective evidence is the collection of Taraki columns written for The Island, and published as a booklet in France, contrasted with the Taraki columns written for the Daily Mirror in the later years.
2. ‘The POV of Sivaram’ which I think you are talking about — the same POV that got his coffin draped in an LTTE flag–was put to the ultimate (Thucydidean-Clausewitzean) test and dismally, utterly failed.
3. The hardest line militarists in the SL Establishment completely agree with you, and assume that ‘Tamil subjectivity’ automatically translates into ‘the POV of Sivaram’! This is why they are acting as they are, and preparing to prevent/pre-empt it ‘by any means necessary’, including ‘changing facts on the ground’.
I do not agree with them or you.
Dear Dayan,
I know that his POV changed over the years – just as I know that your POV changed too, from the Stalinist study circle to where you are now.
I am talking about the POV Sivaram had when your government decided to put a bullet in his head. Yeah, maybe its the same one that got his coffin draped in a LTTE flag.
All this is fine, but I find it rather ironical that you say that you do not agree with the ‘hardest line in the military establishment’ when you have argued elsewhere that military presence in the north is necessary (which to me, my subjectivity and that of those in Vanni, is the ‘hardest line’). Dayan, I am too old (a bit older than you actually) for this bad cop, worse cop game, the line which goes ‘hey, better listen to me who says that army occupying the north is necessary but few excesses are unfortunate. Else you will be talking to Gomin who says army occupying the north is necessary and excesses are necessary too.’
Point is, whether my subjectivity exists or not, whether you agree to the hardest line or not, just the mere burden of history and a specific intent in COlombo compels the system to prempt a future Tamil movement by any means necessary.
Your idea of pluralism is also a part of this – subjugating any possibility of a Tamil identity based resistance by assimilation through any means necessary into the ‘Sri Lankan’ identity.
Nirmal,
Thanks for starting a discourse on this important topic. I do not understand the significance of ‘Dambadiva’. Is it different from Mecca for Muslims and Jerusalem for Christians?
“In the collective imagination of the ‘Sinhala-Buddhist South’, the ‘Tamil North’ occupies a very special place. In short, it is a place to be conquered and occupied”.
Dr.Devasiri obviously has taken poetic licence to the extreme, to support the above hypothesis. In science a hypothesis is formulated, researched, statistically analysed, peer reviewed and then published. Unfortunately, in politics, impressions,sometimes quite untenable are projected as facts/ truth.
Yes, there are of course Sinhala-Buddhists who think the north and east are places to be conqured and occupied, through political manoevers, if not war per-se. They go to extra-ordinary lengths to deny Tamil claims to the north and east as their traditional areas of habitation (I do not accept the homeland theory). However, these individuals are few in number and belong to the Sinhala-Buddhist intellectual fringe. Their views may find resonance among a minority of the Sinhala-Buddhist citizens and a sizeable number of Sinhala-Buddhist politicians.
The vast majority of the Sinhala-Budhist people cannot be accused of having this ‘Pathological’ mind set. They visit Jaffna to see a part of the island they have not had free access for several decades, see the war damage, see the left-overs of the LTTE war-machine and rule, pray at the Nagadipa Vihara and Nallur temple and buy dry fish, grape juice, Pinnatu (Palmyra toffee) and Palmyra juggery. Some may drink Palmyra toddy too!They also mostly visit at the invitation of their relatives, who serve in the armed forces, to see what their sons/husbands/ cousins/nephews etc., fought for and accomplished. They definitely are not vsiting to see a conqurered land. They come to see a land regained.
Many visited VP’s mother in hospital, when she was alive. They carried apples and grapes as gifts for her. Many were also curious to see the house of VP’s parents and carried away bits of soil. Many despised what VP stood for and did, while admiring him for his capabilities. Many thought of him as an unusually capable Sri Lankan. They were curious to see the mother who had given birth to such a son!
Dr.Dewasiri’s analysis is misleading to the extent that it attributes malafide intentions to the collective thoughts of the Sinhala-Buddhists. This is no diffrent from calling all Tamils, Tigers or accepting the rant of a small Tamil fringe as the collective thought or opinion of the Tamils.
We are passing through a tricky phase in inter-communal relations in Sri Lanka and the intellectuals like Dr.Devasiri have to be extremely careful in what they say and write. This applies to the Tamil side too.
Dr: Rajasingham Narendran,We sure could make this a wonderful place with a few more Sri Lankans who look at things from your perspective
Dr. Dewasiri,
Thank you for your analysis. The problem is a Gordian Knot and you have shone some light on it. The persons who can untie this knot, rather than cut it, should practice to pull the strings off a Stringhopper without breaking it. Frying it , even with sugar, will make it tasty but will also make it brittle to the bite and fall apart.
Dr Dewasirir,
Thank you for this analysis.
Dear Dr Jayatilleka
You’re paid to see that the youth in the South don’t see the light. You are supplementing the damage done through our education system.
We need solution for what each and every Sri Lankan government has been doing from independence till today.
We need solution for the destruction of physio-psycho-socio-economic-environmental destruction of the ethnic minorities in the last 64 years in Sri Lanka.
Bring in Good Governance – that is an action/cause.
Don’t bring in patriotism – that is a reaction/consequence.
Bring in Human Security – that is the bottomline.
Don’t bring in ”sovereignty” – that is a structure that needs a bottom to sit on.
Bring in simple language to enlighten the society to move forwards.
Don’t bring in obfuscating language to disorient the society.
Make clear connections between the present mess in Sri Lanka and where they ALL can find peace and prosperity.
The 64-yr political, economic, social, cultural and environmental oppression by the State has not been challenged by the international community enough because of Sri Lanka’s geographical location of geopolitical significance. For anything to be different and for geopolitics to be meaningless in the conflict, the South should stop relegating
Dear Dr Narendran
We’re talking about the critical mass of the South who dictate what the President should do:
”President Rajapakse handed them a flat ‘Nyet’ and for once in a lifetime he spoke the truth. “If I make any devolutionary concessions to the Tamils, 13A Plus, Minus, Divided or Subtracted, it will be curtains for me” – Sri Lanka: Indian Delegates go Home Empty Handed, Kumar David, 15 June 2011 – http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers46/paper4558.html
contd.
Sorry, I didn’t complete one sentence:
The South should stop relegating their duty to concrete Buddha statues.
Dr. Rajasingham Narendran,
On the same token one might say that your analysis is not scientific too. Apart from few anecdotal references have you done any scientific research to prove your points? It is basically your interpretation of your observations. Anybody can interpret anything to suit their ideologies. I also accept that it applies to Dr. Dewasiri as well.
However, when you look at the working of the politico-military machinary of the government, which represents their thinking, you would see how their minds work. The war victory was projected as the Sinhala Buddhist victory over the Tamil rebels, who was hell bent on destroying the unitary state of Sri Lanka. Mahinda Rajapaksha was hailed as ‘Great King or Maha Mahinda’ emulating the Sinhala Buddhist kings who united the Island of Sri Lanka in the past. In their minds the Island of Sri Lanka had been ruled by Sinhalese Buddhists kings as a single entity most of the time and it is considered as the norm. The few interludes of invasions from South India with subsequent independent tamil kingdoms are considered as aberrations.
The actions of this machinary after the war, setting up of miliatry camps in every nook and corner of north and east with ubiquitous presence of Sinhala Buddhist soldiers, putting up Buddhist relegious edifices where ther are no buddhists, suppression of tamil political activity with killings, abductions and disappearnces, destruction of graves of war dead, etc amply shows the ideology behind them.
The myth of Sinhalese Buddhist unitary state, which is propagated by the ideologues supporting the government and accepted by the government shows that it is the pervading idelogy, which powers the thinking of ruling Politico-military machine. The same ideology prevents them from recognising the political aspirations of tamis who inhabits north and east. If it were not for the international community, in which India plays the biggest rule, the goverment would exclude the Tamils totally from the post war discourse without giving any space for them to air their greivances.
The fact the Sinhala Buddhist majority voted for the government continuously supporting the activities of its politico-military machine should reflect its thinking. Therefore, the statement that the majority of Sinhala Buddhists think that ‘its a place to be conqured and occupied’ and the rest has to be considered as correct.
PitasthrayaPuthraya,
I was only suggesting an alternate hypothesis based on my perceptions and interactions. The problem in Sri lanka throughout has been the noise of a vociferous minority being mistaken for the voice of the silent majority. The media and the politicians have been guilty on this score. This applies to both the Sinhala and Tamil sides of the equation.
Should academics who should occupy the middle ground contribute to propagating extremist thoughts at this juncture of our history, by projecting the thoughts of a minority as the thoughts of the Sinhala-Buddhist people as a whole? Dr. Dewasiri, while highlighting the thought processes of a vociferous minority had failed to shed light on those of the silent majority of Sinhala-Buddhists, thereby playing into the hands extreme Tamil fringe. This what the Tamil fringe likes to hear and accept as gospel truth.
The noise of the extreme Tamil fringe is also similarly receiving undue importance in the media and by politicians claiming to represent the Tamils. The Tamil politicians are totally out of synch with the needs and aspirations of the war-affected Tamils, as much as the Sinhala politicians are with the opinion of the majority of the Sinhala-Buddhists.
Mary,
The ‘Çritical mass’ you refer to is a myth and an over-inflated balloon. The Çritical mass’you refer has taken communal relations in Sri Lanka to where it is and precipitated a tragedy that will be an ugly part of our history forever. Academics like Dr.Dewasiri have to explode these myths and puncture these balloons with rigorously designed scientific studies. Reviwing the writings and opinons of the extremist fringe is not research. It can only be a preliminary to the research to confirm whether theyrefelct the opinion of the overwhelming majority.
Politicians come and go. They are a birds of a feather. They are opportunists of the worst sortr. They are like weather cocks pointing in the direction of the wind they perceive. The only wind that the media and the ‘critical mass’ project is the opinion of a miniscule minority. It is the academics and persons of learning and wisdom who have to blow the stronger wind by finding and stating the ‘Truth’ to the best of their abilities.
Mary,
” Leaders must lead”. Unfortunately we have not had politicians, who were also leaders. What we have are politicians driven by the ‘ Crtical mass’ you refer. Leaders have to communicate to the people their vision and convince them of its relevance and importance. The academia and the media have an obligation to articulate a ‘Nation building vision’ in the absence of such political leaders.
PitastharaPuthraya,
You wrote “In their minds the Island of Sri Lanka had been ruled by Sinhalese Buddhists kings as a single entity most of the time and it is considered as the norm.”
Why are you propagating these Lies?
Sow more seeds of disunity?
The Tooth Relic of the Buddha, that is kept in Kandy, is the most prized and venerated object for Buddhists. It was also the symbol of State power. The King was the custodian of the Tooth Relic.
How many Nayakkars did the Sinhalese Buddhists INVITE to be their King (not by conquest)?
Were they not the custodians of the Tooth Relic?
Were they not Hindus?
Was not the last King of Kandy a Nayakkar?
Why are you Lying?
Dear OfftheCuff,
Sorry, I did not see the post.
The fact that Nayakkars ruled Kandy after the last Sinhala King, Sri Veeraparakrama Narendrasingha does not negate my argument.
In fact through out our history Sinhala royal blood had been a mixture of Sinhala and Tamil Blood. The common man did not seem to bother about it.
The Sinhala Buddhists under Nayakkars were not as naitonalistic as they are today. In fact, nationalism as a concept was alien to them. They were unlikely to have had any issue with Hindu Malabars at that time in the same scale and intensitiy as we see today.
They were not happy with Sri Wickrama not because he was Tamil but because he acted like a despot. The Aristoracy may have problems with him becasue he did not care about them and not merely because he was Tamil.
Resurgance of Sinhala Buddhist Identity started in the 19th century with the re-discovery of Anuradhapura and Polonnaruwa and translations of Chronicles. Then they were used to uplift the morle of the Sinhalese to show them they had been a proud people for many centureies. This was a completely a natural thing to do and in fact should be a must in a nation, who had been under colonial yoke for many centuries.
But during that process Sinhalese Nationalist leaders, some with intention and others inadvertantly, crossed the line and projected the view that the island belong only to Sinhalese Buddhsts and all the other ‘Demalu’, ‘Marakkalu’, ‘Hambayo’, ‘Parsi’, ‘Hetti’, etc were aleins. Moreover, these minorities were branded as Imperial collaboators, who were collectively an impediment for the uplifmant of Sinhalese Buddhsits.
That was the origin of the problem.
I am not lying. You may not be either. That’s how we understand the history according to our capacities.
Dr. Narendran,
This is the thinking of the majority Sinhalese Buddhists. Their leaders reflects their thinking. If the ideological background of the MR’s government is pro-Sinhala Buddhsits and anti-Tamil the majority of Sinhalese buddhsits who voted that government should be pro-Buddhists and Anti-Tamil.
In any country democratically elected government represents the thinking of the majortiy. Majority of Sinhalese buddhists do not vote Ranil to power because his politico-cultural ideology is not accepted by them. According to them he is anti-buddhists and pro-Tamil. Sajith Premadasa may have much more acceptance among Sinhala Buddhsits because he seems to be a man with a pro-Sinhala buddhists standing.
This is the only way you can judge the ‘national ideology’ (Jathika Chinthanay according Amarasekara) of a nation. There is no other way. You can obviously have a referendum to decide a question like this.
Can a non-Sinhala Buddhist ever become the president of Sri Lanka? Most of the Sinhala leaders in the past had converted to Buddhism before them thought about being elected. Why?
PitastharaPuthraya,
I find your arguments untenable and unacceptable. The Sinhala-Buddhists are a majority and they will influence the direction Sri Lanka takes. However, to say that Mahinda Rajapakse was elected president because of the ‘Sinhala-Buddhist’ ideological vote, is wrong. In the first election he won by a narrow margin, because VP decided that the Tamils should not vote and enforced it violently. In the election following the war, the Sinhala-Buddhists voted for him, because he comprehensively defeated the LTTE. I considered it a reward he deserved.
Sinhala-Buddhism is not a monolithic entity, pursuing extreme objectives. The Sinhala people vote on the basis of issues that matter to them in daily life. The Sinhala and many Tamil people will vote for Mahinda Rajapakse in the future too, because of the development they see around them. Unless he makes a grievous mistake he is yet on the electable mode. The Tamil vote in the north and east, is yet influenced by past experiences. It will change towards greater objectivity once the proceses now underway produce tangible economic benefits and safeguard their security and identity as Tamils.
When Chandrika Kumaratunge contested the presidential elections for the first time, she was portrayed dressed in saree the Tamil way and wearing a pottu. The implication was that she was pro-Tamil and hence should not be voted in. Sinhala-Buddhists and Tamils voted for her in overwhelming numbers, because they saw hope in her after a long spell of UNP rule, which had set the country on fire. Sirimavo Bandarnaike was kicked out of power in a humiliating manner, because of the economic failures of her government, although she did more for the Sinhala-Buddhist ideology than any other politician. J.R.J was elected to replace her with a 2/3rd majority, although he listed the problems of the Tamils in a very explicit terms in his election manifesto (what he did after being elected is another story).
Luxshman Kathiragamar may have been elected president, if he had lived long enough and had the will to contest. A similar figure from among the Tamils may emerge in the future, who will be acceptable to the Sinhala-Majority. I saw a documentary on the veteran trade union leader, Bala Tampoe, by Kannan Arunasalam, recently. Bala Tampoe-a Tamil- was so acceptable to his trade union followers- mostly Sinhala-Buddhists- that he was cheered on many occasions as a ‘Sinha Pattiya’ (Lion cub).
I have hope for a better Sri Lanka and all her peoples, because I have faith in the wholesomeness, inherent goodness and decency of the majority of the Sinhala-Buddhist people.
Dr. Narendran,
How do you measure a goodness of a people? We had seen violence directed against innocent Tamils by Sinhalese (mostly Buddhists) from 1958 to 1983 in several occasions. Does it matter whether the participants were a minority? What did the majority, who did not directly participated in the mayhem, do? Some enjoyed it and others ignored it. (I accept that a few actually risked their lives to save Tamils. But that was only a handful of occasions.) The perpetrators were not members of any organization, party or any terrorist organization. That was a spontaneous reaction by the angry Sinhalese later usurped by the criminals. Therefore, for the killings of innocent Tamils during those anti-Tamil rights Sinhalese (buddhists), as a single entity is responsible.
Mahinda Rajapaksha, when he was the prime minister, did only one thing, which was worshiping at different buddhits temples with flowers in hand. That was how he won the hearts of the Sinhalese Buddhists in the south. At the time of the 1st presidential election he did not show his pro-Sinhala Buddhist and anti-Tamil tendencey to the same extent as he did in the second occasion.
Whatever their political differences Sirimavo, Chandrika, Premadasa,and JRJ were primarily Sinhalese buddhists. Every body did their part to impress the Sinhalese buddhists to get their support.
With all due respect to Kadiragamar and Bala Thampo, they were not tamil nationalists. One was a trade unionist and other was a English speaking, Oxbridge alumnus, who opposed Tamil militancy. What was there for Sinhalese to fear?
How many Sinhalese buddhists are concerned with the immense suffereing undergone by the Tamil civilians during the war and after the war? Was/is it possible for a Sinhalese to express his concerns in public in this regard without being labelled as a ‘traitor’?
Your trust on Sinhala Buddhist goodwill to understand Tamil fears and take measures to alleviate is not founded on solid ground. It seemss to be more of a wish. For last 64 years Tamils demanded Sinhalese to hear them in various ways. They started with non-violent demonstarations, which were responded by violence. The next generation tried to make them heard by using unforseen violence. What is the result?
Still they are enjoying the fruits (?) of war thinking that the war, which had just finished was the end of all wars. They do not understand that most of the time in the history lull between two wars are very short unless you take concrete steps to correct the reason for war.
Dear Dr.Rajasingham Narendran
I would have voted Mr Laksman Kadirgama for the Presidency without batting an eyelid. Looking at your moderate views as expressed in the few posts that I have read on this thread, I have no doubt you would be an excellent replacement for the highly respected and much loved Kadir.
BTW I am a Sinhalese and also a Buddhist.
Sorry, ‘you cannot obviously have a ………)
Dear Nathan,
It was when I was a member of the ‘Stalinist Study Group’ that I supported (in a series of articles in the Lanka Guardian) the decsion that Vietnam took to militarily crush Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge. (John Burns, Pulitzer Prize winning New York Times journalist, defined Prabhakaran as “the Pol Pot of South Asia”.)
It was the same line I took towards the JVP’s second insurrection and the LTTE.
Whatever else may have changed about my POV, Nathan, the detestation of fascism and the determination to crush it, remains a constant.
That, as you may or may not know, was what constituted the continuum between Roosevelt, Churchill, De Gaulle and Stalin, despite their respective POVs.
As for what you call the ‘good cop/ bad cop’ routine, if you think there is no appreciable difference between the Israeli Labour party and Likud, between the US Democrats and the Republicans; if you think there’s no qualitive difference between the pluralism and devolution that I advocate and the model that the militarist Sinhala ultras wish to implement; go ahead, be my guest. I won’t be living under this or that model of ethnic occupation.
Dear Dayan,
Now, I am actually curious to know what is your opinion on the Chinese position on Pol Pot and China’s invasion of Vietnam. Things werent so simple as you seem to put it.
The earlier JVP, for all its faults, for all the problems with Wijeweera’s social and political analysis, for all the ‘brutalities’ they committed or were accused of committing, were nevertheless a group of utopian idealists who unfortunately took a extreme-left deviationist path. But the state apparatus which crushed them – and later the LTTE with generous aid of foreign powers – was downright reactionary, a coterie of cynical manipulators. It is hard to imagine what sort of a ‘leftist’ would throw in his lot with such a state, defending it with inapplicable analogies.
‘the detestation of fascism and the determination to crush it’ is a noble thing indeed. Fascism, as I understand it, is a slave of finance capital. LTTE was a slave of finance capital? Really now? And what explains the Communist Party of Phillipines, the FARC, the Maoists expressing grave concerns on the internationally abetted military defeat of the LTTE?
As for the difference between the labour party and the likud, the US democrats and the republicans, I prefer to take the Hezbollah’s POV than yours.
Hey Mary, before you arrive at conclusions about me and our youth, read my piece on Stephane Hessel on this website. And..er, by the way, who among those on GV discussion threads, do you think has a bigger youth audience and more credibility among the Lankan youth…me or those whose views you would cheer? Ask any media outlet in SL
)
Dr.Nirmal Ranjith Dewasiri,
“In the collective imagination of the ‘Sinhala-Buddhist South’, the ‘Tamil North’ occupies a very special place. In short, it is a place to be conquered and occupied. To the Sinhala-Buddhist mind the “North” is very much part of the Sinhala-Buddhist territory. This territory has long been illegitimately occupied by Tamils, or, according to more sophisticated versions, occupied mostly by former Sinhalese who have metamorphosed into Tamils following some maneuvering by elite groups and European colonial rulers. Sinhala nationalist propagandists such as Nalin de Silva and Suriya Gunasekera have been the most vocal and strident proponents of this view. “
Reading this article made me wonder how a Head of a University’s Department, could peddle his imagination, as an Analytical work and yet manage to sink to the depths of depravity.
In 1981 there were 10,288,300 Buddhists in Sri Lanka. The number of Sinhalese amongst them would have been close to it. Thirty one years later that number would have swelled considerably.
How the good doctor assessed and came to a Scientific conclusion about the COLLECTIVE IMAGINATION of this large group is not stated and can only be imagined.
Does Prof Nalin de Silva represent this 10 million + Buddhists?
Does anyone else represent this large population?
Can the writings of one or two people be used to Psycho Analyse 10 million + people?
It appears that this tirade against Prof Nalin has roots elsewhere.
Probably in professional jealousy.
A glimpse of the friction between Dr.Nirmal Ranjith Dewasiri the FUTA President in 2011 and the previous FUTA President Nalin De Silva can be seen from the following, which is an extract of a letter published in “The Island”, a National Newspaper, on May 12, 2011, under the heading
“FUTA chief’s false claim”
Of the eight Heads of Departments in the Faculty of Science, University of Kelaniya only four tendered their letters of resignation, and I have duly forwarded them to the Vice Chancellor. It is the Council of the University that will finally take a decision on these letters of resignation, and all that I can say for the present is that Dr. Dewasiri either does not know that the Deans cannot accept or reject this type of letters of resignation, in which case he is not fit to be the President of FUTA (Federation of University Teachers’ Associations) or he is making these statements with ulterior motives.
Nalin de Silva
Former President of FUTA
What future would Sri Lanka have, with people like you, injecting your venom, to the cream of Sri Lanka’s youth, the future leaders of Sri Lanka?
Hey, OfftheCuff, do not fall into such low levels. Attack the man by showing the falsehood of his claims and not by ‘mud slinging’ and name calls.
Dear PitastharaPuthraya;
But, I think Dr.Nirmal Ranjith Dewasiri is showcasing his own figure, and Off the Cuff was only pointing to it.
I think showcasing is the problem not the pointing.
Thanks!
Hey PitastharaPuthraya.
Low levels?
That is what the writer has done.
Did you care to criticise it, rather than applaud it as it mirrors your own thoughts?
A University Teacher, responsible for moulding the cream of Lanka’s population, who would be our future leaders, should have had the foresight to write a balanced article, especially when the subject so chosen, is about Ethnic issues.
Why is he injecting Venom into society?
Where is the evidence that substantiates his imaginary claims that I have highlighted? Why are you and many others praising this tripe?
There are many others trashy comments that I have not written about.
Here is an example.
He complains that the Sinhala Buddhist who go on pilgrimage to India does not say that they are going to India but instead says that they are going to Dambadiva.
So what?
The term Dambadiva defines several specific places in India and Nepal that is important to Buddhists. In his haste to vilify the “Sinhalese Buddhists” he has forgotten that.
Dambadiva is not India alone. It is India and Nepal.
Quite an intellectual, not to know that.
He is speculating and using an extreme nationalist’s views, to stereotype over 10 million people.
Is Nalin de Silva a representative specimen of the Sinhala masses for him to do so? Has he proven that in the first place?
Is Prabahkaran or Anton Balasingham or Tamil Chelvam a representative sample of the Tamil people? Can you justify stereotyping the Tamil people using either of them?
Why is he attacking Nalin de S here on GV?
Why criticise a man in his absence?
Dewasiri and Nalin de S were fighting publicly in the National Newspapers at one time (proof provided).
Has that acrimonious animosity subsided?
Is that personal feud clouding issues?
Is he fishing in troubled waters?
Is it spilling over here at GV?
I doubt whether Dewasiri will ever have the guts to defend the tripe that he wrote. Since you seem aggrieved, why don’t you provide the answers on Dr NRD’s behalf?
While you are at it, why don’t you respond to the following post on this thread addressed to you that you have failed to reply?
http://groundviews.org/2012/02/25/history-after-the-war-challenges-for-post-war-reconciliation/#comment-41998
Dear OfftheCuff,
I posted a reply to your earlier post.
I am no Dr. Dewasiri’s proxy to talk on behalf him.
However, I do not see a point in raising the issue of Dewasiri/Nalin debate when talking about this article. Moreover, Dr. Dewasiri did not make a single personal attack on Prof. Nalin and Dr. Suriya. It was purely on conceptual basis.
I also do not understand the relevance of Dambadiva Vandanawa to prove his points. In fact I questioned him about this but to no avail.
Nevertheless, I do not agree with you that he is trying to inject venoms into the society. This a very important topic, if not the most, to discuss today in our country. I know how the students of 30-40 years ago were taught to beleive the myths of Mahavansa without any discretion. Some of them still beleive every single word in Mahavansa and subsequent improvements made on these chronicles by the wanna be Mahanamas. It is high time that we should look at ourselves realistically.
Glorifying a country’s history, its mythological begninngs, greatness of its ancestors, relegion, culture and language etc are vey important in ‘nation building’. In fact they should be encouraged and supported.
In our country it is slightly more complicated than in a more homogenous country. If you are looking forward to unite rival ethnic and relegious communities under a single banner you should be able to find a common, (uncontentious, acceptable to everybody) ground to unite them.
Glorifying the history, culture, language, myths, etc of only a single ethnico-relegious group is not going to be accepted by all. When this glorification is clouded in ambiguity as to the correctness of the claims it would seem like a deliberate attempt to undermine the other ethnico-relegious groups.
The situation in the northern Ireland is a good examples. The government policy of segrgation of Protestant and Catholic communities with their own schools and curricula has exaggerated the problem.
What do our present generation know about the the history of Tamil people in our country (also Muslims, Estate Tamils, Malays, etc)? Where do we get our knowledge about Tamils in our country? From the pseudo-philosophers and historians among the Sinhala Chauanists. The Sinhalese who listen to these one sided falsehoods day in and day out do not have any alternative but to beleive them.
We need more and more academics like Dr. Dewasiri to act with the common good of the human kind in thier minds. Whenever there is a cancerous growth in the body the only cure is to surgically remove it. it is pain full but there is no other way. Covering the growth with sugary coats may kill the man with septicaemia in the future.
People like Dr. Dewasiri should be commended for swimming against the tide through all the possible obstacles imaginable when it is much much more easier to get a good govenment post with a thumping salary if their energy is turned into up hold the government policy and keep the Sinahala Buddhist in ever darkening blackness of ignorance.
Good essay though it is somewhat different to the discussion in the pod cast link.
Dr Dewasiri’s analysis that equates the Sinhala-Buddhists (in terms of their imagined history) to Jewish-Israel is a point already shown by Mark Juegensmeyer and Jonathan Fox. What is important to understand is that it is not only the Sinhala-Buddhists who ‘past-forward’ a historicized ethnic superiority. Wherever post-Asokan Theravaada Buddhism arrived as a political project ( note not as a religious enlightening) this ethno-nationalist hegemony has been constructed. This is the case in Burma and Thailand. The majority community considers themselves as guardians of the land and Buddhism. Of course the oppression during the colonial era further deepened such anxieties.
On the other side of the measurement, when one is ‘engaging’ as Dewasiri says it is also important to ask why and how such ‘imagined history’ could get textulized and historicized?
Why did Mahathera Mahanaama of the Mahavihara faculty undertook such a myth-history project such as the Mahavamsa? Why did an otherwise moderate kind Daathusena sponsored such a project?, Surely there are others geo-political dynamics at play. At present scholars agree that an extreme Hindu revivalism that began from the 3rd to 4th Century made Theravadian fear of losing their place and identity
Therefore I ague that Sinhala-Buddhist ethnonationalism is also a counter product of the ethno-Lingustic nationalisms of the Tamils
can we imagine how the Sinhala-Buddhist ethnonationalism would have transformed if there were no invasions from South Indian dynasties, if there was no 400+ years colonialism and finally if there was no Tamil nationalism in Sri Lanka?
@Suren Raghaven,
While agreeing with what you say, let me also point out that without 400+ years of colonialism,
You and I would not be commenting today in English.
Duncan White would not have won a silver medal in the 400-metre hurdles at the 1948 Summer Olympics in London, England.
We would not have won the Cricket World Cup in 1996…and no Dave Whatmore to coach the team.
There would not be tea or tea plantations in Sri Lanka.
There would not be Rubber plantations.
There would not be baila music.
There would not be…
Pieter Keuneman – Sri Lankan Politician
Professor David de Kretser – Governor of Victoria, Australia
Lionel Wendt – Sri Lankan photographer and founder of the 43′ Group
George Keyt – Sri Lankan painter and founding member of 43′ Group
Aubrey Collette – Sri Lankan cartoonist and founding member of the 43′ group
Barbara Sansoni – Artist
Rodney Presure – Sri Lankan Artist and politician
Jean Arasanayagam – poet and painter
Rosemary Rogers – Best selling author of romance novels in the USA. Has been on the New York Times best-sellers list.
Michael Ondaatje – poet and author of numerous novels, including The English Patient
Dr. RL Brohier – Historical Author, writer of ‘Changing Face of Colombo’ (1505–1972)
Carl Muller – prolific author of many books including The Jam Fruit Tree, The Yakada Yaka, Once Upon a Tender Time and Children of the Lion
Charles Henry de Soysa – 19th-century Sri Lankan philanthropist
Maureen Hingert – represented Sri Lanka (then Ceylon) when Ceylon took part for the first time ever at the 1954 Miss Universe pageant. She was the 2nd runner-up.
Jacqueline Fernandez – represented Sri Lanka in Miss Universe 2006 pageant. Acts in Bollywood films.
Andrea Fonseka – winner of Miss Malaysia Universe 2004, for Singapore.
Michael Vandort – Sri Lankan cricketer
Graeme Labrooy – Former Sri Lankan cricketer
Michael Bevan – Australian Cricketer
…to name just a few non-Sinhalese who have bought fame and glory to Sri Lanka.
ps. and lest I forget, there would not be a David Blacker to regale us with his humorous tall stories about the humanitarian war of zero casualties.
There is no evidence of any conflict between the Mahavihara and Saivism at the time the Mahavamsa was written. However there appears to be a good deal of tension between the Mahavihara and the Mahayana sect at that time.
Also, I dont believe the recording of history or attempting to reconstruct a history from whatever available sources is necessarily a result of political or religious insecurity. Mahanama had no idea the Tamils and Sinhalese would be in conflict 1500 years from the time he wrote his cronicle. There is a desire in every human being to know his origins. Wilhelm Geiger was convinced that the earlier chapters of the Mahavamse were extracted from a previous chronicle. The mythical aspec content in the Mahavamsa is no different from other chronicles of the age.
PitastharaPuthraya,
Thanks. I take my stand from my experiences. I was a 12 year old witness to the 1958 riots in Kurunegala and the elections that preceded it. Our Sinaha-Buddhist neibours were concerned for our safety and were on the alert. I heard W.Dahanayake exclaim at an election rally at the 1956 elections raising two fingers, one short and one long, ” How can these be equal? If they have to be made equal the longer finger has to be cut! What will then happen? It will bleed and be painful”. I was also victim of the 1977 riots and had a narrow escape. I was left a pauper as a result. I experienced the horrors of the 1983 riots indirectly from abroad because I had left my son in Colombo to attend school and he along with my close relatives was a victim. I was alo a victim of LTTE and IPKF malfeasance.
All riots in Sri Lanka were sponsored by politicians and in the years of JRJ, by the state as well, using thugs and henchmen. The Sinhala-Buddhists, the silent majority, were shocked spectators. I have seen them cry at the dastardliness that unfolded before them. I have seen them help and heard of their sheltering many Tamils at their own risk. I have been also helped by the Sinahala-Buddhist people and Sinhala-Buddhists in the armed forces and police in my times of distress and need. My Sinhala-Buddhists students at Peradeniya risked their lives to help me.
I have seen how the Buddhist temples and the Sinhala-Buddhist people, in almost every village in Sri Lanka, responded magnificently and generously to the material needs of the IDPs from the last war. I have seen Sinhala-Buddhists cry at the plight of these IDPs. I have heard Sinhala-Buddhists express shock and cry on witnessing the war damage in the north. I speak Sinhala and hence am able to communicate with a wide spectrum of Sinhala-Budhist people. Most are not what you portray them to be.
The Sinhala-Buddhists are innocent victims of pernicious politics as much as the Tamils are.
Dear Dr. Narendran,
Thanks, I can not dispute the fact that you had tasted the good will of the Sinhalese Buddhists first hand during those trouble times. That may be the reason why you still adore them after having undergone untold hard ship and misery in the hands of a few of them. I envy your ability to beleive in human goodness in spite of all the evidence to contrary.
What was the reason behind the inability of successive governments to solve this problem by having a genuine discussion with the Tamil leaders? What made Bandaranaike to make a ‘U’ turn tearing the ‘pact’ in front of a gathering of Buddhist monks and laymen? Why the opposition chanted ‘Dadlige Bade Masala Vade’ to discredit him to score cheap points from their electorate?
It was the anti-Tamil sentiment in the collective Sinhala Buddhist psyche wasn’t it?
The reasons for being suspicious of Tamil political aspirations would have been multiple. But wasn’t it primarily the beleif that the island, which was thought to be a unitary state ruled by Sinhala Buddhsits kings through out the history, belongs only to the Sinhalese Buddhists and Tamils were illegal migrants from India (Kallathoni)?
I am trying to stress this point because I beleive that until the Sinhalese Buddhsits accept that Tamils were as ancient a people as themselves who has equal rights to our emarald island there won’t be genuine peace in our country. To be successfull, Sinhalese Buddhists should be able to get rid of their prejudice and trust Tamils. (I also beleive that this process nedd to be two way. But I would like to put the responsiblity of reconciliation more with the Sinhalese Buddhsits.)
Pitastharaputraya.
Thanks for revealing your honest intents. [Edited out] As I had said earlier these were the actions of pernicious politicians. The majority of the Sinhala-Buddhists have been tainted forever by the tactics and actions of these politicians.
The ultimate solution to our communal problems can come only when the voice of the silent majority of Tamils and Sinhalese is heard in the corridors of power. Men like Dr.Dewasiri must make this voice heard loud and clear.
“I was also victim of the 1977 riots and had a narrow escape. I was left a pauper as a result. I experienced the horrors of the 1983 riots indirectly from abroad because I had left my son in Colombo to attend school and he along with my close relatives was a victim”.
A correction to my comment above:
The above sentence should end “——————————–and he and my close relatives became victims”.
Suren Raghavan,
I concur with your hypothesis. There was an element of jingoism in the Saivite revival ‘Bakthi movement’spearheaded by the saivite saints-Appar, Sundarar and Manickavasagar- to counter the rising tide of Jainism and Buddhism in Tamil India. Appar refers to Lord Buddha as “Puthan enum mathan” (Buddha the thick headed one) in one of his thevarams.
Fortunately, while the saivite preeminence was ensured, Lord Buddha was accepted as a saint by Hindus and his enriching thoughts were incorporated into Hinduism. Mahatma Gandhi incorporated the principle of Ahimsa in Buddhism into his theory of Satyagraha.
The Mahavihara monks succeeded in their efforts to preserve Buddhism in Sri Lanka against the winds of revivalist Saivaism blowing across from India. This effort involved a certain amount of jingoism too, which is detectable in the Mahavamsa . Unfortunately the Saivite Tamils in Sri Lanka reacted by thinking that everything that smacks of Buddhism was antagonistic to them. This attitude is prevalent to this day.
The Buddhism in Sri Lanka took in the ‘Hindu Gods’ and practices within Buddhism and made it part of a belief system -syncretism, from very early times. Statues of Hindu Gods are enconsed in all Buddhist temples. Large statues of Ganesha are being erected by Sinhala-Buddhists in predominently Sinhala areas.
Increasing numbers of Sinhala-Buddhists visit Hindu temples now, because it fills the urge for seeking divine help and mind-satifying rituals, in stressful times. This convergence has not been unfortunately appreciated by both the Sinhala- Buddhist and Tamil-Hindu intellectual elite. This could be the key to bring about national reconciliation.
I’ve written a long reply on my blog: http://www.pjeganathan.org/south-paw/2012/3/1/history-historiography-and-the-sinhala-buddhists-a-reply-to.html
Thank you.
I second Groundviews; Prof Jeganathan provided a far more educated and useful perspective on Sri Lankan history than Dr Dewasiri’s. I would highly recommend it to the readers here.
Frankly, as Dr. Dewasiri has mentioned, I too cannot see an incompatibility between Dr. Jeganathan’s views and his own. What Dewasiri has described is the mindset as it exists and the sources from which it draws its inspiration. That the mindset itself exists is gloriously exemplified by the bevy of voluble “spoons that taste no soup” in this very forum. What Jeganathan has argued for is that this mindset is a recent construct, which I do not see Dewasiri necessarily disagreeing with. Therefore, what is the nature of the disagreement, if any?
The one thing I would like Dr. Dewasiri to elaborate upon, is how prevalent he considers this mindset to be. In my own experience, I have encountered this mindset within various levels of social strata, in varying intensities, but have been unable to ascertain the extent of its grip on social consciousness. How deep does the rabbit hole go?
My apologies for failing to define a term before using it.
A “spoon that tastes no soup” refers to Keynes’ enlightening treatment on the matter.
Enlightening to some, but not to the spoon of course.
Wijayapala : Prof Jeganathan provided a far more educated and useful perspective on Sri Lankan history than Dr Dewasiri’s.
Gamarala’s reply : Frankly, as Dr. Dewasiri has mentioned, I too cannot see an incompatibility between Dr. Jeganathan’s views and his own
Language barrier seems to run deeper than the purported Rabbit hole ha ha haa.
The Soup is putrid but yet some like it.
To flies, that smell is heavenly.
Keybyes! must be referring to Gamarala,in mentioning spoon, I think the arrow has accidentally found its target, Gamarala is so excited about it.
You mean to shoot at the rabbit, dear Gamarala?, arrow found the bush.
Ha! Ha!!
Thanks!
An excellent impartial enlightening essay by Dr.Rajasingham Narendran.
Thanks, Sir!
Sorry, I was really referring to the article by Dr. Pradeep Jeganathan.
Thanks!
Please read the following link to ‘History of Jaffna’in 1905:
http://books.google.de/books?id=S4_domy-aYsC&printsec=frontcover&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
According to this publication,
The Jaffna Kingdom may have existed from much earlier times than hitherto thought. The King of Jaffna may have also ruled the whole of Sri lanka for a short time, including the Kandyan Kingdom (of which the east was a part). There were Sinhalese living in Jaffna from very early times.
The contents of this hand book confirms the history of Jaffna I had heard from my parents, grand parents and learned elders as a child. The traditional ‘Óral History’, which is reflected in a peoples memory are ignored by modern historians, in search of proof.
The Mahavamsa version of history has unfortunately over shadowed Sri Lanka’s story, because it is in black and white and is hence considered proof.
Dear Dr Narendran
“The Mahavamsa version of history has unfortunately over shadowed Sri Lanka’s story, because it is in black and white and is hence considered proof.”
Actually the reason why it has “over shadowed” Sri Lankan history is because there is no other comprehensive chronology that provides an alternative version.
Thank you very much for all the comments. Rather than answering each and every comment seperately I am thinking of addressing them in a seperate essay. Especially Dr. Narendran’s point about ‘Dambadiva’ is well taken. So is Dayan’s comments. I do not understand Pradeep (Jeganathan)’s critic. It’s not difficult for me agree with what he say and also I don’t think that what he says contradict my argument. Anyhow I will address them also separately. I don’t know how to answer “Off the Cuff”. I do not know how he know my intenions. I consider Prof. Nalin de Silva as a teacher. I have learned a lot from him and still learning from him. But none prevent me from critically engaging with him. If it is ” professional jealousy” what should I say? Should I stop commenting on anyone in my profession? I wonder, then, what happened to the intellectual life? I don’t know how to comment on this statement: “What future would Sri Lanka have, with people like you, injecting your venom, to the cream of Sri Lanka’s youth, the future leaders of Sri Lanka?” So people like “off the cuff” have to work hard to protect the future generation from people like us. All the best for them.
Nirmal Ranjith Dewasiri
Nirmal,
I think there is indeed a way to comment on that last statement you are referring to. We know that at the very beginning of philosophy, there is a bloody murder: the death of Socrates. He was sentenced to death, for precisely the crime of corrupting the minds of the youth. As Badiou elegantly claims, it “is the destiny of philosophy to corrupt the youth, to teach it that immediate seductions [like 'nationalism', 'patriotism' and so on] have little value, but also that superior seductions exist.” So, I think, if any thing, we should always take it as an immense compliment if your opponent/enemy is accusing you of corrupting the minds of the youth: a sure sign that we are fulfilling the Socratic destiny of thought.
Vangeesa
Dr.Nirmal Ranjith Dewasiri,
You wrote “ I do not know how he know my intenions. “
If you could explain how you were able to read the minds of 10 million plus Sinhalese, who practice Buddhism, in making statements such as, “In the collective imagination of the ‘Sinhala-Buddhist South’, the ‘Tamil North’ occupies a very special place. In short, it is a place to be conquered and occupied. To the Sinhala-Buddhist mind the “North” is very much part of the Sinhala-Buddhist territory. I would be most happy to enlighten you as to how I knew your intentions.
You wrote “I don’t know how to answer “Off the Cuff”. “
I hope you have read the following comment by Dr.Rajasingham Narendran (February 26, 2012 • 8:07 am )
“In the collective imagination of the ‘Sinhala-Buddhist South’, the ‘Tamil North’ occupies a very special place. In short, it is a place to be conquered and occupied”. Dr.Devasiri obviously has taken poetic licence to the extreme, to support the above hypothesis. In science a hypothesis is formulated, researched, statistically analysed, peer reviewed and then published.
Apparently you do not know how to answer Dr Rajasingham either.
He had asked you the same question.
Any justification for your silence?
You wrote “I consider Prof. Nalin de Silva as a teacher. I have learned a lot from him and still learning from him. But none prevent me from critically engaging with him. If it is ”professional jealousy” what should I say? Should I stop commenting on anyone in my profession?”
If you were criticising Prof Nalin and his work, then you would be justified in doing so. But you were using the extreme nationalist views of Prof Nalin, to vilify 10 million plus Buddhists, who were Sinhalese, without first proving that Prof Nalin voices the views of these 10 million plus people.
What made you chose Prof Nalin’s work (with whom you had an altercation as the FUTA President), if you cannot prove that his views represent the views of 10 million plus Sinhalese Buddhists?
Is it not professional jealousy and a desire to kill two birds with one stone?
You wrote “I wonder, then, what happened to the intellectual life? “
Yes, that’s a question that begs an answer, when a University Teacher, who is supposedly an intellectual, decides to write trash in a Public Forum, without an IOTA of evidence as to how he KNEW, the collective imaginations, of over half the population of Lanka.
Was it by peeping into your Crystal Ball like a charlatan or was it by carrying out a survey of a representative random sample of the 10 million plus people, as any intellectual worth his salt should have done?
You wrote “I don’t know how to comment on this statement: “What future would Sri Lanka have, with people like you, injecting your venom, to the cream of Sri Lanka’s youth, the future leaders of Sri Lanka?”
Of course you would not know, as instead of presenting an intellectual argument that you could defend, you decided to be a mind reader. Unlike an intellectual presenting a scientific analysis, a charlatan can hardly defend what he writes.
You wrote “So people like “off the cuff” have to work hard to protect the future generation from people like us.“
That Sir, I have already done, by asking you questions, that has stripped you of the “intellectual” cloak, leaving you exposed.
BTW, I have no problem in apologising to you, if you can prove that your statements meet the criteria that Dr Dr.Rajasingham Narendran underlines, in his post, that I have referred to.
Dear off the cuff,
Thank for your reply. I am addressing most of the issues that you have raised in an essay that I am writing. When you expect a responsible behaviour from your intelocutor, you have to ask yourself whether your are behaving responsibly. Why are you hiding your identity? Now you may ask me to answer the questions and not to bother about your identity. Yes I will cenrtainly do that. But when one opt to hide ones identity in this kind of serious engagement it raises serious ethical question.
Dear Dr. Nirmal Ranjith Dewasiri
It is strange to see Authors, writing articles to Websites, questioning the use of pseudonyms.
I write using the pseudonym Off the Cuff.
It tells the reader that the writer is using a pseudonym.
That is the ethical reason for choosing such a name, instead of an accepted name.
If I were to use a popular and accepted name how would you be certain that it is also not a pseudonym? Would you be asking for my residential address or some other personal information in order to be certain?
On the web, only a very few have the ability to prove their identity beyond doubt, all others are anonymous, even those with an accepted name.
How would you know that M.N.I.N. Perera is not a pseudonym?
No one can find that out.
Only the author would know for certain.
You would know whether M.N.I.N. Perera is a pseudonym only if I chose to declare it.
You have asked, like many others have asked before you (some who are doctors of medicine and some with PhD’s and some without any educational credentials attached to their names), about the ethics of using a pseudonym.
“But when one opt to hide ones identity in this kind of serious engagement it raises serious ethical question”
Those ethical questions are imaginary and only serves to save face.
If I used M.N.I.N. Perera you would not have raised this question.
If I used Dr. M.N.I.N. Perera you would still be in the dark about my educational background.
What is important is the subject matter, not the purported identity of the writer.
Hopefully, you would have realised that an accepted name hides one’s identity more effectively than a Pseudonym. The web and even GV is full of such names.
Hence it is Futile and exhibits a weakness of the Authors who questions the pseudonyms instead of addressing the questions asked. Many are guilty of that mistake.
I have no intention of ridiculing you, about questioning my identity.
I just want to drive home a point.
Here is my full name.
My Name Is Not Perera
Thank you
M.N.I.N. Perera.
We are anxiously awaiting Dr.Nirmal Ranjith Dewasiri’s answers to Off the Cuff’s questions.
Thanks!
Here is the final post of our friend Saban to the article “Mr. Minister, my name is Sunanda Deshapriya. I am not a terrorist.”
http://groundviews.org/2012/02/05/mr-minister-my-name-is-sunanda-deshapriya-i-am-not-a-terrorist/#comment-41616
Dear Dr.Nirmal Ranjith Dewasiri;
Your silence, creates………
Thanks!
Thank you Dr.Nirmal Ranjith Dewasiri for such a wonderful analysis. With regard to history I have read many articles. The actual fact is, the Sri Lankan history is highly controversial. Don’t you think that the Mahavamsa what we have today (discovered by the British) is not the actual version but is modified by someone?
I have read very interesting but highly controversial articles on Sri Lankan history in DBS Jeyaraj’s website recently. The reader comments on these articles are even more interesting and informative. The links to those articles are as follows:
http://dbsjeyaraj.com/dbsj/archives/1886
http://dbsjeyaraj.com/dbsj/archives/1922
http://dbsjeyaraj.com/dbsj/archives/1954
http://dbsjeyaraj.com/dbsj/archives/1956
http://dbsjeyaraj.com/dbsj/archives/3031