[Editors note: This article was originally published without the final two paragraphs due to an oversight by me in copying and pasting the text from the original Word document to WordPress post haste. The error is deeply regretted. Sanjana Hattotuwa]

“Ideas are great to the degree that they are feasible…Windbags with grand schemes are incapable of perceiving the relation between the ‘great idea’ that is put forward and concrete reality…”Antonio Gramsci (Notebook 8)

Dr Vikramabahu Karunaratne gets more things wrong than right, and he does exaggerate, but he hardly ever lies wittingly. Therefore I have no reason to disbelieve the following extract from his column in the Sunday Lakbima of July 1st, reporting a meeting in Matara.

“MP Sumanthiran was the special speaker at this meeting…Sumanthiran explained in very simple way and in an attractive style the meaning of ‘the right of self determination’. “Sinhala are a great people and we respect them” he said and added “So are we, the Lankan Tamils. We expect equal respect and we want to live in our way, within our traditions, in our homeland. We do not want to separate but if that is the only respectable option given to us, certainly we will take it.” (‘Removing the tattoos-Remembering the heroes’, Vickramabahu Karunaratne, Sunday Lakbima News, July 1, 2012)

What, as they say, is wrong with this picture? Firstly, it is a-historical and misses a sense of historical reality. This statement “We do not want to separate but if that is the only respectable option given to us, certainly we will take it” belongs to the past.  It pre-supposes that this path has not been tried. The lived historical reality is of course that it was tried in its most massive, intense and decisive form, that of a thirty years war waged by a powerful armed force. And it failed, it was defeated.

Mr Sumanthiran and those who see no fault in his statement may argue that he means the pursuit of separation by unarmed means, by methods of Gandhian Satyagraha. But that too was tried under a far more stellar leadership of Messrs Chelvanayagam and Amirthalingam and hardly proved fruitful. It was the failure of the peaceful path of secession that led to the armed option.

The historical reality is that four methods of separation have been tested out: peaceful protest (1970s, TUF, TULF), warfare (‘70s to 2009), external entanglement (UDI 1990) and negotiation (CFA’s ‘lines of control’, ISGA proposals).

All four methods failed, which does not mean that they won’t be tried again, in different guises and ratios. However, a rational politician or political party would say of the separatist option “been there, done that, got a whole wardrobe of Tiger T-shirts and won’t go there again”. Instead Mr Sumanthiran reveals that separation is still regarded as an option.

Since we aren’t naive, we must assume that his dogged optimism is based on a combination of external factors such as the Tamil Diaspora, elements in Tamil Nadu, pressure from certain quarters in the West, the campaign in the Western dominated international media, reinforced by and reinforcing a campaign of agitation on the ground.

Such a strategy has to be guarded against and it is only future history that will judge whether or not that version of the secessionist project will be successful.

Questions remain about some of his basic premises, such as “we want to live in our way, within our traditions, in our homeland”.  In a democracy, basic decisions on the form of the state are decided upon by majority vote in the country, state or political unit taken as a whole. While a measure of local self-governance is usually recognised, there is no absolute right of any ethnic community to ‘live in our own way, within our own traditions, in our homeland’. While any area may be considered a homeland of any community – just as I consider Colombo my hometown, where I was born and raised—this homeland is a sub-set of, and secondary and subordinate to, the larger political community; the whole country which is the homeland of all its citizens, irrespective of ethnicity.

Furthermore, what does Mr Sumanthiran mean by ‘equal respect’? If he means that every Tamil citizen of Sri Lanka must have treatment equal to that of a Sinhalese citizen; if he means that no one must have unequal rights and treatment because of his/her ethnicity, then he is indubitably correct. If however, he envisages a bi-polar situation; if he sees Sri Lanka as a Sinhala polity and he wishes to carve out a Tamil polity which will have an equal status, then he is wrong.

This latter conception is perhaps at the bottom of the TNA’s refusal to enter the Parliamentary Select Committee: it sees itself as the representative of a Tamil polity engaged in bilateral talks –as equals–with the Government which represents the Sinhala polity. This is simply not the case.

The crucial question is this: what should Mr Sumanthiran have said instead? While Sinhala racists would contest his claim for equal respect and his perception that it is observed in the breach, no rational and fair-minded person could expect him or the Tamil people to suffer inequity and oppression in silence.

What Mr Sumanthiran should have said is that if equal rights are not granted, then he, his party and his community will struggle for as long as it takes, by all peaceful methods for the elimination of discrimination and oppression in all its forms, for the achievement of equality of rights and freedoms in theory and in practice, and for a reasonable measure of autonomy—all in alliance with the rational, fair minded within the Sinhala and Muslim communities. He should also express determination and optimism that this struggle will succeed someday: ‘yes, we can!’

That is not what he said. Starting from questionable premises he concluded with a threat of separatism. This proves that even the most moderate of TNA leaders has not foresworn separatism, which in turn indicates the collective mindset behind and beneath Tamil politics. Mr Sumanthiran’s discourse also reveals the stark difference between a secessionist movement, however latent, and one for integration on the basis of equal rights. It also points to the difference between a secessionist project and an autonomist one. Mr Sumanthiran’s discourse fails the litmus test of a constructive, moderate partner for a sustainable peace.

Tamil nationalism has to reckon with four realities. Firstly, the demography of the island makes it impossible to make two numerically vastly unequal collectives, equal, except as individual citizens. Secondly, the practice of democratic elections ensures that one fundamental questions of the state, one community will always outnumber the other. (This is why the forefathers of Tamil nationalism were so hostile to universal suffrage and why the Tamil particularist project rises as a pre-emption of the effects of universal franchise.) Thirdly, as the aftermath of WW 2 most clearly demonstrates, throughout history, the post-war framework is drawn up by those who win a war. (If they are enlightened, the post war peace becomes sustainable). Fourthly, supporting or being identified with a side that loses a war imposes a cost, just as any gamble, if lost, has a price attached. This is more so when one has not made any criticism of that losing side or self criticism of one’s identification with it, and the identification or overlap continues. The sole exception is when the losing side has behaved with such exemplary nobility that even when it is militarily defeated it has morally and ethically triumphed. (Fidel after Moncada, Che in Bolivia and the Sandinistas after Carlos Fonseca’s death are classic positive examples, while the Tigers are among the classic negative examples of holding the ethical-moral high ground).

Conversely, Sinhala nationalism must realise that several of these realities, including the military-strategic balance, are up-ended when one steps outside the island.

Is a solution possible? Indeed it is. The Sinhalese do not vote as Sinhalese on every question. The two-party system embeds their natural individualism and fractiousness. It is only the continuing situation in the Opposition (essentially the inorganic character of its leadership) that has created a situation of overwhelming preponderance for one side. If the Tamils can win over a significant section of Sinhala opinion, then they can win equal rights and ‘equal respect’. However, this presupposes that a sufficient number of Sinhalese trust the Tamil political platform enough to risk endorsing it. This in turn means that Tamil politics be sufficiently realistic, rational and moderate, so as not to function as an electoral suicide bomber round the neck of any Sinhala political partner/candidate. It also presupposes a viable Southern Opposition. It most significantly presupposes the evolution of a normal politico-ideological spectrum and two party or two alliance system– centre-right and centre-left—within Tamil politics, so that all major formations in Southern politics have suitable Tamil counterparts who will be coalition partners within any administration and any opposition.

  • yapa

    It seems that separation is the “maekka” (flea) for Tamil politicians. Even on the body of a fish of deep sea invariably maekka is living happily awaiting his bite.

    The maekka will ultimately drown and die without realizing its evil goal. That much I can say even without a politically swollen head.

    Thanks!

  • If this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLBOaBDxQrw&feature=player_embedded is the video of Mr. Sumathiran’s speech i cant hear him saying “We do not want to separate but if that is the only respectable option given to us, certainly we will take it.”

  • Anpu

    What about trying the real BUDHIST method?

  • Ravana

    Mr. Sumithran IMHO, is one of the few respectable and eloquent politicians in Sri Lanka. However, respectability is clearly not to be equated with sensibility, if he continues to hang on to politics of race. What is recognised as the Tamil language (Taymoli) and culture is not about to die out in Sri Lanka. What he refers to as the Sinhala is again a falsely configured racial/ethnic group based on the fact of language which was the Sihala Basa, namely the language of the nation of Sinhale. A subset of the speakers of this language have decided to expropriate the ownership of the nation at the expense of speakers of the other sister language who are undoubtedly co-owners of the island. This is what Mr. Sumithran and those who have come before him should have always pointed out. Unfortunately, the voices of those (mostly Tamil-speakers) who have pointed this out have been drowned out by the racist rants of the extremists from both linguistic groups. Race is an oxymoron. There is only one race for humanity.

    What is interesting to me is that an author as highly qualified and clearly intelligent like Dr. Jayatilleke would ignore the bigger picture in an attempt to focus on Mr. Sumithran beating a dead-horse.

    What is looming in the background is the big brother India which wants the 13th amendment implemented (Mr. Sumithran and co are merely attempting to ride the coat tails). Dr. Jayatilleke may think that the average Sri Lankan is not aware of the Indian designs in controlling the island; you don’t need a PhD to see it.
    What our foolish Indian friends do not realise is that implementation of the 13th amendment will certainly lead to increased distrust between the Tamil and Sinhala speakers of the region including Peninsular India. The ongoing wedge between Sinhala, Malayali and Taymoli speakers (who are clearly related in multitude of ways) will only serve to keep this region open to exploitation by external players of The Great Game.

    If the region which includes Tamilnadu, Kerala and Sri Lanka is strengthened with close ties and recognition of ancient ties, then it will only strengthen the hand of India itself. Maintaining the tensions between Sri Lanka and Tamilnadu will only serve to weaken India in the next few decades while external players manipulate the region strategically. A 13th amendment will maintain this instability without overtly displaying the disadvantage of Tamil/Dravidian racism for India. Instead, by allowing New Delhi to believe it has control over Colombo through a 13th amendment, opportunity will be provided for the players of The Great Game to wreak havoc utilising subtle means.

    When the Indians wake up to it, it will be too late and it will be an observer in its own “region of control”.

    One solution for Sri Lanka is to go for a “13 +” solution in terms of devolution of powers not only to the Provinces but going much further to providing administrative devolution to water catchment based units (scientifically argued) and to make the primary unit of devolution, the village. India cannot possibly turn its nose up at the “Panchayat type system”. This will permit New Delhi to save face and permit them to chain the “jokers of Tamilnadu”. Sri Lanka, in its turn must make immediate inroads to reconciling not only with its own Tamil speaking community but also with Kerala (a clear and strong influence on Sinhala culture) and Tamilnadu (again with significant historical alliances from Pandya dynasty to the Nayakkar representatives of the Vijayanagar empire).

    Unfortunately, the “jokers of Hambanthota” are unlikely to have such vision as they do not have the sort of education which Dr. Jayatilleke has (even though there is much pretension by them). It is curious indeed that Dr. Jayatilleke choses to wax lyrical about this regime while at the same time pushing the 13th amendment agenda.

    Wake up Tamils, wake up! You have to give up racism now, before its too late. Go for racial vilification laws, join the mainstream to ensure ratification of the 17th amendment. Ensure, that Sri Lanka not only protects fundamental rights on statutes but in deed as well. Then offer to be ambassadors for Sri Lanka in the peninsular region. Don’t let this one last opportunity pass you by. Learn from the Chinese of Malaysia.

    As I have said before, DJ and I are often very close in our methods and philosophy, but we are, I suspect on opposite camps.

    • Dr Dayan Jayatilleka

      I suspect that Ravana is more right than wrong in his analysis and recommendations here.

      He is more wrong than right however, when he says I wax lyrical now or in the past tense about ‘the regime’. He must not confuse and conflate leadership with regime and regime with State. Í haven’t waxed lyrical about any of these categories, though I do defend the war, the State and its leadership against criticism I regard as unfair and inaccurate, and I do prefer the latter to the presently available alternatives.

  • Minority

    Fighting for human rights as Sri Lankans as opposed to minorites fighting or their rights are two different scenarios. Minority rights are specially relevant to racial discrimination and suppression of human rights based on race, religon etc. usually imposed by the Govts or Majority.

    This is specially covered in International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination – General Assembly resolution 2106 of 21 December 1965

    “Convinced that any doctrine of superiority based on racial differentiation is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous, and that there is no justification for racial discrimination, in theory or in practice, anywhere,

    Reaffirming that discrimination between human beings on the grounds of race, colour or ethnic origin is an obstacle to friendly and peaceful relations among nations and is capable of disturbing peace and security among peoples and the harmony of persons living side by side even within one and the same State,

    Convinced that the existence of racial barriers is repugnant to the ideals of any human society,

    Alarmed by manifestations of racial discrimination still in evidence in some areas of the world and by governmental policies based on racial superiority or hatred, such as policies of apartheid, segregation or separation,

    Resolved to adopt all necessary measures for speedily eliminating racial discrimination in all its forms and manifestations, and to prevent and combat racist doctrines and practices in order to promote understanding between races and to build an international community free from all forms of racial segregation and racial discrimination”

    We need to understand that the situation in Sri Lanka is far from normal and Tamil Minorities are being subject to various deprivation and discrimination. The time for talking has long past and having another bout at the PSC is an utter waste of time. Govt should prove its sincerity by implementing the LLRC report at least.

  • nathan

    The only way to win Sinhala respect is for the Tamils to crawl if the Sinhalese ask them to kneel.

    For refusing to do either, first through Satyagraha and later through armed struggle, we lost thousands of lives (whose numbers will be rejected by the author known for doublespeak as ltte propaganda).

    And as always, the author has rather conveniently forgotten why the Tamils started protesting in the first place.

    No anti-Tamil riots happened, no discriminatory laws were passed, no one made Sri Lanka a Buddhist state, no one privileged the Sinhala language at the cost of Tamil… Tamils were just lunatics to protest against the peace-loving Sinhala people. When will we ever learn!

    • Off the Cuff

      Dear Nathan,

      You wrote “The only way to win Sinhala respect is for the Tamils to crawl if the Sinhalese ask them to kneel“

      You should try discarding the Tamil Elite mindset of being Rulers of Lanka, courtesy the British.

      Those days when the Tamil Elites from Jaffna lorded it over the rest of the population is gone forever. No amount of cunning and misinformation will bring it back to you.

      Those days you treated the Tamil peasantry as chattel.
      You even deprived them from practising their religion by blocking access to Hindu Temples (The fines imposed by the SL courts on Suntheralingam were confirmed by the Privy Council in UK).

      UNICEF’s Javier Aguilar interviewed by BBC HardTalk says,
      We have about 8000 children and it is just a fraction of what really happened. Last six months LTTE recruited 200 children a month, some as young as 9 years old.

      For three decades before wars end, you treated them as Cannon Fodder to wrest government power.

      These 8000 are living and are being given back their lost childhood by the government. Those who died would have far exceeded that number.

      Under those circumstances, how you treated the Muslims and Sinhalese when wielding government power, does not need any further elaboration.

      Today you are fanning ethnic hatred again, attempting a Land Grab to cheat the Lankan Population of what is rightfully theirs. You have no concern of the price the Vanni Tamil Polity had to pay to sustain your avarice.

      Why should you?
      It was only the Vanni Tamil children who had to pay the price while your own children were safe and living it up elsewhere.

      To earn respect, try making fair and equitable claims on Lanka’s resources without trying to Steal the major part for yourselves, using cunning and unfair means as you are doing now.

      • nathan

        This made my day.

  • Anpu

    Separation was an option in Sudan and in many other places. Why it should not be an option for Tamils?

    • yapa

      Because it is not!

      Thanks!

      • nathan

        Says the Sinhalese?

      • yapa

        On behalf of Sinhalese I say so.

        Thanks!

      • Keynes!

        Yapa,

        Why do you believe that separation is not an option?

        It would be good to have an in-depth explanation and justification from a widely sought out intellectual like you.

      • yapa

        Dear Keynes!;

        It is highly unjustifiable in Sri Lankan Scenario.

        Do you have good reasons to believe separation is good in here?

        (Thanks for the comment which I think is not worthy of me.)

        Thanks!

      • yapa

        Dear Anpu/Nathan/Keynes!

        Does anybody think separation in USA, GB, Canada or India is justifiable?

        If not why, and in that case how it is justifiable in Sri Lankan Scenario?

        Thanks!

      • Off the Cuff

        Keynes!

        You ask “Yapa, Why do you believe that separation is not an option?”

        Though you ask Yapa for the reasons for his stand on separation, you have failed to ask those who support separation for their reasons. Is it because you support separation unequivocally?

        Tamils in the North is a majority (was mono ethnic before the war and almost mono ethnic today, thanks to ethnic cleansing by the LTTE).
        Tamils in the East is 40% of the Eastern population.
        About a million Indian origin Tamils live in the upcountry.
        A large percentage of Tamils live in the South.
        Muslims have their own enclaves all over the Island.

        If you believe that separation by ethnic enclaves is an option, why don’t you place your intellectual arguments to allow a constructive debate?

      • Off the Cuff

        Correction
        Tamils in the North is a majority (was mono ethnic before the war and almost mono ethnic today, thanks to ethnic cleansing by the LTTE).

        Should read as

        Tamils in the North is a majority (was mono ethnic before the war ended and almost mono ethnic today, thanks to ethnic cleansing by the LTTE).

        The error is regretted.

      • Keynes!

        Off the Cuff,

        “Though you ask Yapa for the reasons for his stand on separation, you have failed to ask those who support separation for their reasons. Is it because you support separation unequivocally?”

        Your statement is fair. I am yet to make up my mind on whether separation is a good thing or not.

        I thus ask the proponents of the 13th amendment, 13 Plus, Federalism, Confederalism, Total Separation etc. to lay bare their case througn in-depth arguments on this page.

      • Keynes!

        Yapa,

        I am yet to make up my mind as to whether separation is a good thing or not. The word separation is also highly loaded and could mean anything from the 13th amendment to 13 Plus to Federalism to Confederalism to Total Severance etc.

        I will thus be grateful if you could state as to why you believe that separation is highly unjustifiable in the Sri Lankan scenario.

      • yapa

        In any modern political notion (of west) or any old political notion “separate state” for Tamils in Sri Lanka is unjustifiable.

        I openly challenge anybody for a debate starting from any modern political notion or any old political notion to justify it.

        I will disprove anybody’s claim for a separate state.

        Is anybody ready for the debate?

        There is no way for a separate state other than just empty claims. Claims are not evidence, they are not proofs.

        Shall we do it with evidence, facts and proofs?

        Thanks!

      • Off the Cuff

        Keynes!

        You say “Your statement is fair. I am yet to make up my mind on whether separation is a good thing or not”

        Thank you for your sentiments I strive to be so. However you have skipped answering the first part of that fair observation. I am repeating it for your convenience.

        Though you ask Yapa for the reasons for his stand on separation, you have failed to ask those who support separation for their reasons.

        Hope you will answer it this time.

        In view of your failure to ask this question from those who were proponents of separation (Anpu and Nathan in this thread and many more in other threads) the professed indecision and the desire to learn sounds hollow.

        You have stated to Yapa the following
        “I am yet to make up my mind as to whether separation is a good thing or not. The word separation is also highly loaded and could mean anything from the 13th amendment to 13 Plus to Federalism to Confederalism to Total Severance etc.”

        I have already stated why I believe your professed indecision sounds hollow. I am a proponent of a modified 13A that recognises per capita allocation of ALL public resources. I cannot understand how you could classify 13A as a separation with reference to the Land Mass of Lanka. 13A is a section of a Constitution which states that

        The State.
        1. Sri Lanka (Ceylon) is a free, Sovereign, Independent and Democratic Socialist Republic and shall be known as the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.
        Unitary State.
        2. The Republic of Sri Lanka is a Unitary State.

        Is there anything in 13A that can override the above?

        Looking forward to your intellectual discourse.

  • Anpu

    RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION
    Tamil Eelam: Reversion of Sovereignty
    Paper presented by a Working Group of the International Federation of Tamils,
    at the London Seminar, Towards a Just Peace, February 1992

    “Two different nations, from a very ancient period, have divided between them the possession of the Island: the Sinhalese inhabiting the interior in its Southern and western parts from the river Wallouwe to Chilaw, and the Malabars (Tamils) who possess the Northern and Eastern Districts. These two nations differ entirely in their religion, language and manners.” – Sir Hugh Cleghorn, British Colonial Secretary, June 1879

    “As to the qualification required in the knowledge of the native languages, the Portuguese and Sinhalese only being mentioned excludes one which is fully necessary in the Northern Districts as the Sinhalese in the South. I mean the Tamil language, commonly called the Malabar language, which with a mixture of Portuguese in use through all the provinces is the proper native tongue of the inhabitants from Puttalam to Batticaloa northward inclusive of both these districts.. Your Lordship will therefore, I hope have no objection to my putting Tamil on an equal footing of encouragement with the Sinhalese” – Sir Robert Brownrigg, Governor of Ceylon, 1813 Dispatch to the British Colonial Secretary of State, Reported in the Tribune, 12 January 1956)

    ——————————————————————————–

    Apart from the right to self determination, the demand for Tamil Eelam may also be justified in international law under the concept of reversion of sovereignty.

    The island of Sri Lanka, then known as Ceylon, was ceded to the British Crown in 1802 by the Treaty of Amiens of that year. The map of Ceylon attached to the Treaty of Amiens call the Arrow Smith Map of Ceylon depicts the Island of Ceylon as two (if not three) different countries – a Tamil country composed of the Northeast and a Sinhala country composed of the South West and central parts.

    In an oft quoted minute, Sir Hugh Cleghorn wrote in June 1799 to the UK Government : “Two different nations from a very ancient period have divided between them the possession of the Island. First the Singhalese, inhabiting the interior of the country in its Southern and Western parts, and secondly the Malabars who possess the Northern and Eastern Districts. These two nations differ entirely in their religion, language and manners.” (Malabar meaning Tamil).

    Also Chief Justice, Sir Alexander Johnstone wrote on 1 July 1827 to the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland:

    “…. I think it may safely be concluded both from them and from all the different histories which I have in my possession, that the race of people who inhabited the whole of the Northern and Eastern Provinces of the Island of Ceylon, at the period of their greatest agricultural prosperity spoke the same language, used the same written character, and had the same origin, religion, castes, laws and manners, as that race of people who at the same period inhabited the southern peninsula of India:……”

    The Cleghorn Minute of 1799 and the Arrow Smith Map of 1802 are official proof that the Island of Ceylon consisted of two separate countries. We quote Sir Alexander Johnstone’s letter merely to show to the conclusions of a Chief Justice on the basis of available evidence.

    It is important to remember that the British Government became masters of the whole island only after the fall of the Kandyan Kingdom in 1815 and the Vanni Chieftains in 1818 and looked at this Island from the distant West as a geographical unit and not as political or national state.

    It was only in 1833 that the administration was unified under a single machinery. It would be appropriate here to mention that though the British Government unified the administration in 1833 it incorporated the different native administrative structures that existed earlier, with the Kachcheri system which it introduced.

    However, they were careful not to disturb the existing power balance between the different racial groups. In the Legislative Council membership was based on communal representation and there was an agreed proportion between the Sinhalese and the Tamils. Over the times this was changed and during the days of the Legislative Council (1924 to 1931) the proportion between Sinhalese and Tamils was 2:1. There were 16 Sinhalese members to the 8 Tamils. Further, the representation in the Legislature was subject to the Devonshire formula that no single community should be in a position to out vote all the others combined.

    This shows that the British did not make a complete break with the past. Again, local and customary laws were allowed to govern relations amongst members of the community. In the North, Thesawalamai, the customary law of the Tamil people was recognised. The Roman Dutch Law, introduced by the Dutch in the maritime areas, was continued as the common law of the Island. This is instructive. No system of law that existed before Roman Dutch law could cover the entire Island. This again was testimony to the fact that the Island had not been one country.

    The proceedings before the Donoughmore Commission in 1930 and the Soulbury Commission in 1946 are an eloquent testimony to the failure of attempts to create a homogenous single “Ceylonese” nation.

    Nevertheless, the Donoughmore Constitution, chose to conclude that ‘territorial representation promoted national thinking and that community based representation promoted thinking along communal lines’. More than twenty five years later in 1946, Governor Sir Andrew Caldecot and the Soulbury Commissioners, as well as the Colonial Office, thought in identical terms. They gave no explanation for dropping the clearly enunciated Devonshire formula adopted for multi-racial colonies as well as proportional representation agreed to between the Sinhalese and the Tamils.

    The political reality was that the new class of English-educated elite could not bridge the differences between the two peoples in the Island and convert them into a homogenous single nation. Needless to say with the departure of the British in 1948 the Tamils in the Island were left to the mercies of the Sinhalese, within the frame of the Soulbury Constitution that was adopted.

    Article 29 of the Soulbury constitution granted powers to the Parliament to make laws for peace, security and good Government but specifically denied capability to the Parliament to make laws discriminatory to, in favour of or adverse to any one community which were not equally applicable to the other communities.

    This provision in the Constitution was accompanied by a solemn assurance from the floor of the House by the then undisputed leader of the Sinhalese, the late Rt. Hon. D.S Senanayake, that no harm would befall the Tamils by their joining the Sinhalese in working the constitution.

    The Privy Council had held that this Article 29 was an entrenched clause and rendered the constitution and not Parliament sovereign. This provision together with the assurance by Rt. Hon. D.S Senanayake, made the polity of the Dominion of Ceylon a conditional polity. The condition is obviously an assurance of the ethnic majority that they will not avail themselves of the numerical superiority to discriminate against the Tamils.

    However on innumerable occasions this condition was violated and serious acts of discrimination did take place. That definitely gives the junior partner, the Tamils, the right to opt out of the polity.

    In 1963, the architect of the 1948 Constitution, Lord Soubury was moved to comment:

    “While the Commission was in Ceylon (in 1946), the speeches of certain Sinhalese politicians calling for the solidarity of the Sinhalese and threatening the suppression of the Tamils emphasised the need for constitutional safeguards on behalf of that and other minorities.. As Sir Charles Jeffries has put it… ‘the Soulbury Constitution… had entrenched in it all the protective provisions for minorities that the wit of man could devise’..

    Nevertheless, in the light of later happenings, I now think it is a pity the Commission did not also recommend the entrenchment in the Constitution of guarantees of fundamental rights… (However)… the reconciliation of Tamils and Sinhalese will depend not on constituitonal guarantees but on the goodwill, common sense and humanity of the Government in power and the people who elect it.” (Lord Soulbury, Preface to Ceylon, A Divided Nation by B.H.Framer, Oxford University Press, 1963)

    Be that as it may, in 1970, an ingenious device was resorted to deprive the Tamils of the constitutional safeguards and the characteristics of the conditional polity. A coalition of three Sinhalese political parties led by Mrs.Srimavo Bandaranaike, called upon the people to give a mandate (in the 1970 General Elections) for a new Constituent Assembly to scrap the 1948 dominion polity and create a new Republic of Sri Lanka. Whilst the voters in the seven Sinhalese provinces gave Mrs.Bandaranaike the mandate that she had requested, the Tamil voters in the Northern and Eastern Provinces summarily rejected her call. In the North and East, a mere 14% of the votes polled supported the call for a new constituent Assembly.

    It was this Constituent Assembly which did not have the support of the Tamil people, and from which the representatives of the Tamil people walked out, which enacted the autochthonous Republican Constitution of 1972. On one hand, the 1972 Republican constitution had no legal continuity with the earlier Constitutions under British rule. On the other hand, the Tamil people did not consent to its enactment.

    In the result, upon the break in legal continuity, the sovereignties of the inhabitants of the Island reverted to the situation prior to British unification and rule. The sovereignty of the Tamil people (who were ethnically, geographically and linguistically separately identifiable and distinct) revived. The legal and constitutional deficiencies in Sri Lanka’s claim to encompass the North and East should now be apparent. Sri Lanka is no successor to the earlier polities of the British dominion. Sri Lanka was constituted without the authority of the people of the North and East.

    The alleged territorial jurisdiction and sovereignty for the whole Island claimed by the Sri Lankan Government are constructed on a false premise. Sri Lanka has no legitimate or legal claim to encompass the North and East, the homeland of the Tamils – Tamil Eelam. Historically the territory called Jaffna Patam that belonged to the Tamil Nation lay in the northern and eastern portions of Ceylon from the limits of Puttalam and Mannar to the Kumbukkan Oya.

    In his July 1983 Report on ‘Ethnic Violence, the Independence of the Judiciary, Protection of Fundamental Rights and the Rule of Law in Sri Lanka – Fragile Freedoms?’ Mr.Timothy J. Moore, M.P. of the Australian Section of the ICJ commented:

    ‘The proponents of Tamil Eelam argue that the northern and eastern Provinces of Sri Lanka coincide with the historic boundaries of the kingdom of Jaffna and argue a case that seeks to establish that sovereignty over these territories was never ceded to any conqueror and that, even if such concession had been made at any time in the past, the unilateral renunciation of links with the United Kingdom which took place at the assumption of office by the government of Mrs. Srimavo Bandaranaike in 1972 resuscitated the Tamil sovereignty which had merely laid dormant until then… In the abstract theory of international law, it would appear that the Tamils have at the very least, an arguable case, and possibly a sustainable one.’

    It is our submission that in international law, that since 1972, the territorial jurisdiction of the Government of Sri Lanka does not extend to the Tamil homeland in the north and east of the island. The insistence on the ‘unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka’ is legally untenable and morally indefensible and works against the legitimate aspirations of the people of Tamil Eelam.

    • Off the Cuff

      Dear Anpu,

      Claighorn lacked only a horn and his utterances have no basis in history.

      If you are attempting to justify a Land Grab based on his ill informed 19th century minute you should find historical documents that can pre date the following 17th century record available in the Dutch National Archives and also explain why the Portuguese signed a treaty only with the Sinhalese King and not with any Tamil King.

      You say “…….Your Lordship will therefore, I hope have no objection to my putting Tamil on an equal footing of encouragement with the Sinhalese” – Sir Robert Brownrigg, Governor of Ceylon, 1813 Dispatch to the British Colonial Secretary of State,”

      Anpu, unfortunately the above statement is proof that Sinhalese at that point of time was on a higher footing than Tamil, else why was it required for him to seek permission to put Tamil on an equal footing?

      All your arguments have flown in your face.
      What else do you have to say to justify your Land Grab?

      Dutch National Archive Record.
      During the 17th century the Company was engaged in a war of attrition with the king of Kandy, who had close ties with Ceylon’s Buddhist population. There was a narrow tongue of land at Elephant Pass a fort was built to guard the border with the king’s territory.
      http://www.atlasofmutualheritage.nl/detail.aspx?page=dpost&lang=en&id=682#tab2

      Sri Lanka is one country.
      The purpose of my post is to break your argument as I believe in equitable equality of all her citizens. She is owned equally by ALL her citizens irrespective of Ethnicity.

      • Keynes!

        Off the Cuff,

        This refers to your excerpt from the Atlas of Mutual Heritage. One may only infer that the border of the Kandyan king’s territory was at Elephant Pass. One may also infer that Jaffna was separate since there was a border that had to be crossed.

      • Off the Cuff

        Keynes!

        Yes of course that is an obvious inference.
        I did not contest that.

        What I pointed out was that the border of the Kandyan Kingdom extended up to Elephant Pass in the 17th Century. Which means historically the whole of the Vanni was under the Kandyan Kingdom. The evidence is not manufactured but is on record in the Dutch National Archives.

        I thank you for agreeing with what I stated.

      • yapa

        There was no a significant Tamil population or any Tamil Kingdom in Sri Lanka until the 13th century. The Jaffna kingdom was formed by an Indian Invader, until that time the whole Sri Lanka was under Sinhalese kings. The descendents of the invader Aryacharkrawarthi ruled Jaffna peninsula for about 400 years, as then the Sinhalese kingdom was weak and also due to the difficulty of passing Elephantpass by soldiers as it was a thing strip of land. There was never a Tamil rule in East. When Robert Knox’ Ship arrived at Batticalo it was the Kandian king who sent his men to meet him, not any Tamil king.

        If on the basis of a rule of an invasion somebody can claim a separate country, the Britishers can claim this country as they ruled the whole country for about 150years.

        Tamil history in Sri Lanka does not go over 700 years. The history of many Tamils does not go over 300 years.

        As MP Sumanthiran claims Tamils have a long glorious history as Sinhalese have, in India but not in Sri Lanka.

        If they claim a separate country on the basis of the glorious long history, the place is India, not Sri Lanka.

        Why not Jayalaitha or Karunanidhi or any Tamil in Sri Lanka dare to claim a separate country in India, but claim it here based on a comparatively short history?

        Thanks!

      • Keynes!

        Off the Cuff,

        “What I pointed out was that the border of the Kandyan Kingdom extended up to Elephant Pass in the 17th Century. Which means historically the whole of the Vanni was under the Kandyan Kingdom.”

        The Kandyan Kingdom was founded only in the 14th century. This means that historically the whole of the Vanni could not have been under the Kandyan Kingdom. The Vanni and the East did exist before the advent of the Kandyan Kingdom. We thus need to come up with another explanation.

      • Off the Cuff

        Keynes!

        You say “The Kandyan Kingdom was founded only in the 14th century. This means that historically the whole of the Vanni could not have been under the Kandyan Kingdom. The Vanni and the East did exist before the advent of the Kandyan Kingdom. We thus need to come up with another explanation.”

        Not only the Vanni and the East but the North, West, South and Central Lanka existed much before that and was inhabited. In fact much before the Christian era.

        The question is about Historical Homelands.
        Anpu and the Working Group of the International Federation of Tamils bases it on the Claighorn Minute which is trashed by the 17th Century Dutch record.

        That is my understanding.
        What is yours?
        If it is different to mine could you argue your case with facts?

    • Ravana

      You are hauling old coals again. These issues have been argued in great detail in the past, but now the same arguments of separatism are brought up with the expectation that the “International Community” will legitimise it.

      Apart from OTC’s comments there are many other flaws in your argument which includes equating “malabar” with “Tamil”. Malabar in fact stands for the people of the “Malaya” coast or Kerala. Malayali as is Sinhala have much overlap with “Taymoli”. The European authors of various origins never refer to the people speaking a different language to the language of the island as “Coromandalese” which would have to be the case if they had originated from what is today recognised as “Tamilnadu” (don’t forget that there was no Tamilnadu in this World until the 1960’s).
      Cleghorn minute to a large measure is based on the Dutch view, intentionally created through the Dutch Governor encouraging the writing of the fictional history of “Jaffna”. There are many ironic references which caste the idea of an independent “Eelam” in a bad light including the claim I have seen that Sangkilli had signed a treaty with the Portuguese in Sinhala.

      Coming back to the central theme of territory, Whilst you have to acknowledge OTC’s statement about recognition of the “Kandyan” King’s territory extending to Elephant Pass, it must be kept in mind that the “territory” north of this was Dutch territory which they inherited from the Portuguese whom they evicted. Portuguese had taken over this territory in the 1600’s when they deposed Sangkilli (yes , the one who killed all the Catholics and killed or evicted the Buddhists and Muslims- sound familiar?). So, if there had been a “territory” which belonged to a distinct people, it would have been between the reign of Parakramabahu II and Sangkilli. (I would have to check my historical knowledge but I believ that the former was involved in a pact with the Pandya to sack the Cholas around 800 year ago- that was the beginning of the Vijayanagar empire). We also know that Aryachakravarti’s were nothing but the representatives of the Vijayanagar emperor. They did not take a foothold in Jaffna for long let alone the whole island. It is simply the case that chieftains from all the regions of the island have always vied for the position of the Emperor of the island but Jaffna Yapa never achieved it whether he was subject to a King in Southern India or to the King of Lanka. Many of the rebels from Ruhuna for example had achieved that status. That has been the medieval history of the island in a nut shell.

      One cannot form a nation out of a small peninsula of a small island. It is just not tenable. Cleghorn just got it wrong.

      With regard to distinct language its very clear that “Taymoli” and “Siyabasa” are distinct languages, especially since Taymoli has been stripped of its Sanskrit word roots (Ironically Taym derived from Tyam, I suspect is sanskrit in origin). However, I suspect that from the times of establishment of the Chola and Vijayanagar empires “Taymoli” has been an important language used in the island. It has been used not just in the north but in the south as well. The nature of its use as the language of Trade by the island’s officials is very apparent. Thus the argument of a distinct nation using a distinct language in the north is very hollow.

      The only distinction which emerged would have been during Dutch times when the population of the north was overwhelmed by the migration of Vellahla from Madras region whose descendents rapidly took over the control of land in the region. It is only natural that the rest of the population took up speaking “Taymoli” exclusively in addition to perhaps Dutch or Portuguese or English of the invaders by a minority (once again the Trading language approach).

      Since the argument of territory and language is hollow, I would challenge you to find any genetically distinct people form the North of the island (let alone the East). You simply would not succeed.

      That just leaves Culture. Well, ’nuff said lest I embarrass you further.

      BTW my appeal to Tamils in the comment above was because I don’t believe that appealing to the Sinhalas have worked. I appeal to the Tamils to give up racism because they have most to lose by following that path and most to gain by playing it smart.

      At one point there were two distinct centres in the island which produced the intellectuals and the educated within the island, namely Jaffna and Ambalangoda. Most of their progeny have now left the country. The Jaffna elite unfortunately have proved to be not as smart as they thought. I hope their progeny will be smart enough to join the progeny of Ambalangoda to produce a win win situation. Otherwise they everything to lose.

      • Jegan

        Off the cuff

        British Archive tells a different story,

        “TWO DIFFERENT NATIONS,FROM A VERY ANCIENT PERIOD, have divided between them the possession of the Island: the Sinhalese inhabiting the interior in its Southern and western parts from the river Wallouwe to Chilaw, and the Tamils who possess the Northern and Eastern Districts. These two nations differ entirely in their religion, language and manners.” (Sir Hugh Cleghorn, British Colonial Secretary, June 1879)

        Even though the island was ruled by Portuguese and Dutch and the British, the Tamil homeland in the North and the East was administered as an entity separate from the rest of the country.

      • yapa

        Dear Jegan;

        “Even though the island was ruled by Portuguese and Dutch and the British, the Tamil homeland in the North and the East was administered as an entity separate from the rest of the country.”

        What proofs do you have to say that East was separately administered together with North? Please provide evidence.

        East was never administered together with North. It has been a part of the Sinhala administration through out the history.

        Even North has been under Sinhala rule for 1800 years before Aryachakrawarthi invaded it. Thieu rule lasted only 400 years. If somebody claims Jaffna on the basis of the duration of the rule by them, Sinhalese has more claim to Jaffna as well than anybody else.

        Thanks!

      • Off the Cuff

        Jegan,

        You say “British Archive tells a different story, …blah blah blah …. Sir Hugh Cleghorn, British Colonial Secretary, June 1879”

        Firstly please post your comments addressed to me in the relevant thread.

        Secondly please read my posts before you post your reply to save your time and mine by avoiding repetition.

        When you talk of history and start making claims based on history, the earliest confirmed history supersedes the later. I trust you have the intelligence to recognise that. The Dutch record is 17th century and the Brits in the 19th century.

        You say “Even though the island was ruled by Portuguese and Dutch and the British, the Tamil homeland in the North and the East was administered as an entity separate from the rest of the country.”

        There was no Tamil homeland in the East.
        Please read Dr Pradeep Jeganathan’s article to understand why.

        According to the 17th century Dutch record, there was a Tamil kingdom North of Elephant Pass. I have not discussed the history of that Tamil Kingdom to see whether it was conquered by an invader or whether it was inhabited by an indigenous population but others may do so.

        My purpose here is to expose untenable claims because I believe that Lanka is the land of all her citizens disregarding ethnic, religious or language considerations. Those citizens have an equal right to enjoy the fruits of her resources equitably and equally.

        It looks like the 17th century Dutch record has taken the proponents of separation, using the Claighorn Minute by surprise.

  • Mahen

    Dayan Jayatilake says,
    Tamil nationalism has to reckon with four realities. Firstly, the demography of the island makes it impossible to make two numerically vastly unequal collectives, equal, except as individual citizens. Secondly, the practice of democratic elections ensures that one fundamental questions of the state, one community will always outnumber the other. 

    He very conveniently forgets that the state of Srilanka was formed by forging two different lands the Tamil kingdom in the north and East and Singhala kingdom or Kingdoms in the centre and south west. The union was achieved by the sacred promise and undertaking that the communities will live as equals in one country, underwritten by the Colonial masters and at the solemn promise of the first Government in power. If that is not honoured what is wrong with one or the other party looking to separate?

    • Off the Cuff

      Dear Mahen,

      you say “He very conveniently forgets that the state of Srilanka was formed by forging two different lands the Tamil kingdom in the north and East and Singhala kingdom or Kingdoms in the centre and south west. “

      Here is an extract from a well respected Tamil intellectual’s web site.
      “Yet also it is not historically accurate to say that the Kings of Jaffna ruled the east, certainly even a cursory glance at Dutch records and the doings of Rajasinha the 2nd will tell you, that the Kings of the Kanda Uda Pas Rate, (the five countries on top of the mountains) were also the overlords of Batticoloa and Trincomalee.“
      Dr Pradeep Jeganathan.

      I would also like to refer you to my comment to Anbu above
      http://groundviews.org/2012/07/07/equality-unity-autonomy-democracy/#comment-46464

      The East was never under a Tamil King
      The boundaries of the Northern Tamil Kingdom ended at Elephant Pass at the time of the Dutch.

      Hence you are writing under a false premise

      • Keynes!

        Off the Cuff,

        Thanks for the excerpt from Pradeep Jeganthan’s article. I would also like to reproduce another excerpt from that very article.

        “Indeed, as I have argued at length in previous work, the very idea that all of this island is rightfully Sinhala-Buddhist is a very recent idea. It is traceable to Geroge Turnor’s (and Edward Upham’s) colonial misunderstandings of the particular, parochial claims made by the Mahavamsa and the Vamsattappakasini, which they then universalized and associated with simultaneous readings of monumental remains in the North Central Province seen through this foggy lens…”

      • Off the Cuff

        Keynes!

        I used relevant extracts from Dr Pradeep Jeganathan’s web site to contest the claim made by Mahen who said “…. state of Srilanka was formed by forging two different lands the Tamil kingdom in the north and East and Singhala kingdom or Kingdoms in the centre and south west”

        According to Dr Jeganathan, who is a Tamil himself, The East was never a Tamil Kingdom. I reinforced my argument by referring Mahen to an earlier post I made as a reply to Anpu, wherein I provided evidence from the Dutch National Archives that the Kandyan Kingdom extended up to Elephant Pass during the 17 th Century (you have already agreed to what I stated about the boundary encompassing the mainland up to Elephant Pass).

        You are having difficulty in refuting what I stated and instead of debating my point about the non existence of a Tamil kingdom in the East, you are trying to quote Dr Jeganathan out of context to bring in the “Sinhala Buddhist” adjective that you seem to be fond of using often.

        Wonder what made you extract just a couple of sentences of what he actually wrote, when it could not disprove my contention. I am sure you have a sufficient command of English to understand what Dr Jeganathan was trying to say in his article. So why did you attempt to degrade his views by dishonestly and intentionally quoting him out of context?

        I remember you stating that you contribute to GV for fun.
        I believe you are Rabble Rousing to see the fun.

        Dr Jeganathan’s views are quite divergent to yours as he argues against the use of the “Sinhala Buddhist” epithet. as any unbiased reader can see from the following (emphasis, when used, is mine).

        Quote
        A century or so later, we find that Rajasinha the 1st, the great Lion of Sithawake, who fought the Portuguese to a standstill more than once, took to Saivism, and yet was king of a southern kingdom. Not every legitimate ruler of southern Lanka was a Buddhist in early modern times. Yet also it is not historically accurate to say that the Kings of Jaffna ruled the east, certainly even a cursory glance at Dutch records and the doings of Rajasinha the 2nd will tell you, that the Kings of the Kanda Uda Pas Rate, (the five countries on top of the mountains) were also the overlords of Batticoloa and Trincomalee.

        The Nayakkara kings who inherited the throne of the Kanda Uda Pas Rate, or what is now called the Kandyan Kingdom didn’t consider themselves Sinhala either. They were Telugu but spoke Tamil. But ruled as Buddhists leading an important revival Sasana and enabling the return of the higher ordination from Thailand leading to the founding what still to this day is called the Siam (Thai) Maha Nikaya which includes the chapters of Malwatte and Asgiriya. But in those days the Buddhist nobility did not always even write in Sinhala; in fact, Ehelapola, a key Minister of Sri Wickrama Rajasinghe, who would have indeed considered himself Sinhala and Buddhist signed the Kandyan Convention of 1815, in Tamil script, after he had helped depose his Tamil speaking King.

        Indeed, as I have argued at length in previous work, the very idea that all of this island is rightfully Sinhala-Buddhist is a very recent idea. It is traceable to Geroge Turnor’s (and Edward Upham’s) colonial misunderstandings of the particular, parochial claims made by the Mahavamsa and the Vamsattappakasini, which they then universalized and associated with simultaneous readings of monumental remains in the North Central Province seen through this foggy lens; the acceptance of Turnour’s work as ‘true’ authorized its continuation throughout the nineteenth century. This is where what Dewasiri correctly identifies as the “dominant paradigm of the modern historical scholarship in Sri Lanka” comes from. He is quite mistaken though, in seeming to assume, that this just the “ideology of the Post-Colonial Sri Lanka state.”

        On the contrary the very idea that Sri Lanka is made of discreet, competing communities of Sinhala, Tamil and Mohemedan is very much a colonial idea; first mooted in Colebrokke Camaron Reforms of 1833, which simultaneous with the misappropriation of Mahavamsa and the Vamsatthappaksini for a parochial European debate about the chronology of South Asian Kings.

        The idea that the Sinhala need a Sinhala representative and the that Tamils need a Tamil one, that the ‘Moors’ need a ‘Moor’ one is a colonial idea, a rupture in the human history of this island, that had seen settled, civilized human habitation for over 15, 000 years. This idea then, to repeat, was folded into the idea culled from a misreading of the Mahavamsa that history of this island is a series of battles between Sinhala Buddists and Tamil Hindus. There is no historicity to this, what so ever.

        We really must abandon this idea, that we are in grip of a 6th century Sinhala-Buddhist historical consiousness; this is a recent, colonial construction. Treating products of colonial interventions as a timeless essence adds to our difficulties, not allowing for the necessary plurality of imaginings of Lanka’s history to emerge in present times.

        Unquote

        Interested readers could access his full article at the following link and judge for themselves

        http://www.pjeganathan.org/south-paw/2012/3/1/history-historiography-and-the-sinhala-buddhists-a-reply-to.html

      • Keynes!

        Off the Cuff,

        “bring in the “Sinhala Buddhist” adjective that you seem to be fond of using often.”

        1. Please help me count the no. of times I have used the Sinhala-Buddhist epithet.

        2. Malinda Seneviratne, a giant in the field of local culture, is also fond of using the Sinhala-Buddhist epithet. Or are you implying that it is a term like Nigger, which is politically inflammatory and considered racist as long as the utterer of it is not coloured?

      • Off the Cuff

        Keynes!

        The theme running in Dr Jeganathan’s article is against the use of the “Sinhala Buddhist” epithet that Mr Dewasiri was using in his own article here on GV. I too wrote a comment criticising Mr Dewasiri for his lopsided article. Mr Dewasiri stated that another article that would address my concerns were under preparation and would be published soon. The “soon” has not yet come.

        I quoted Dr Jeganathan to refute Mahen’s claim that the East was under a Tamil Kingdom.
        You however quoted a para of Dr Jeganathan’s article out of context.
        Please explain why you did it, when the quoted para could not break my argument about the East never being under a Tamil Kingdom? This statement of yours does not explain why “1. Please help me count the no. of times I have used the Sinhala-Buddhist epithet”

        You state “2. Malinda Seneviratne, a giant in the field of local culture, is also fond of using the Sinhala-Buddhist epithet”

        It does not matter to me who Malinda Seneviratne is, if I need to criticise him on the inappropriate use of the Sinhala-Buddhist epithet.

        You ask “Or are you implying that it is a term like Nigger, which is politically inflammatory and considered racist as long as the utterer of it is not coloured?”

        You frequent this web site often.
        I believe you have the intelligence to see how that epithet is used here. What remains for me to imply?

      • Keynes!

        Off the Cuff,

        You’re beginning to sound like Ratnawalli.

  • Dear Dayan,
    The opening para indicates that you had grave doubts about the subjet but you tried to palm it off to Dr. Vikramabahu Karunaratne.

    Now Aachcharaya commented July 8, 2012 • 7:46 am giving reference to the youtube.com link where we could hear Sumanthiran’s speech. If this is the video of Mr. Sumathiran’s speech, even this writer cant hear him saying “We do not want to separate but if that is the only respectable option given to us, certainly we will take it.”

    Normally Dayan replies to readers comments instantly. So far he has failed to reply. Why are you silent Dayan?

  • The Owl of Minerva

    DJ QUOTES AS AN EPIGRAPH TO HIS PIECE:

    Ideas are great to the degree that they are feasible…Windbags with grand schemes are incapable of perceiving the relation between the ‘great idea’ that is put forward and concrete reality…” – Antonio Gramsci (Notebook 8)

    Is this meant as a self-criticism?!!

  • thivya

    “A striking flaw in the thinking of the government and most Sinhalese is the granting of rights to Tamils. What has to be realized is that the Tamils need not be granted any rights by a government or the Sinhalese because as citizens of this country FOR AS LONG AS THE SINHALESE HAVE BEEN, TAMILS HAVE INHERENT RIGHTS AND THESE RIGHTS HAVE TO BE LEGALLY IMPLEMENTED.

    Sri Lanka does not need the blessings or the munificence of New Delhi or the moral sanction of Washington, London or any other Western capital to resolve its national question. It has to resolve the issue of the minority Tamils by recognizing their rights as equal citizens. Until this issue is resolved we will have interested powers breathing down our necks using the issue of minority rights which is the latest instrument used to subjugate a nation.”

  • sinhala

    If the Tamils oppose a Sinhala hegemony or majority rule in whole of Sri Lanka WHY is it creating 2 independent hegemonies be any better ?

    Realistically speaking Sri Lanka has 3 ethno-worldview groups.

    Sinhalese (christian & buddhists)
    Tamils (saiva hindu and chrisitian)
    Muslims

    So we would have to separate the country into 3 regions of ethnic controls to satisfy all the groups in the country so that group rights are upheld above the rights of the individual.

  • thivya

    I would like to quote Justice Vigneswaran, the former Supreme Court Judge of Sri Lanka and it might enlighten Dayan Jayatileke’s Sinhala Buddhist majority racism infested mind.

    “The vast majority of the denizens of the north and east seek the restoration of their rights and not devolution of power. These are the rights which were snatched away from them by virtue of a mathematical innovation where the majority in the two provinces were added to the majority in the seven provinces and thus made a minority in the nine provinces”.

    The British never asked the Tamil’s consent before annexing our homeland with the Sinhala land. That’s why we don’t have to, and we will not, accept the Sinhala hegemony. Dayan Jayatileke and other Sinhala Buddhist chauvinists want to grab our historic homeland and
    We will do everything possible to resist that.

    • Off the Cuff

      Thivya,

      You wrote “ Dayan Jayatileke and other Sinhala Buddhist chauvinists want to grab our historic homeland and We will do everything possible to resist that. “

      Grab your historic homeland?
      Could you please define the boundaries of that historic homeland?

      History would show that the victims of the Land Grab are the Sinhalese, Muslims, Malays, Burghers and even Tamils residing outside the North and East.

      Please read the following two comments
      http://groundviews.org/2012/07/07/equality-unity-autonomy-democracy/#comment-46464
      http://groundviews.org/2012/07/07/equality-unity-autonomy-democracy/#comment-46466

      • thivya

        Off the Cuff,

        This is beyond any hatred and racism. The Sinhalese: the educated, uneducated, monks and layman all want to twist the history of Sri Lanka to deny the rightful place of Tamils in their own historic homeland. This Dutch National archive record is talking about something that happened after the fall of the Jaffna kingdom in 1624. The Kotte kingdom was already captured by the Portuguese before the Jaffna Kingdom. The only remaining King was the Kandiyan king. The Dutch, as the invaders were dealing with the only remaining Kandiyan king, and he would have claimed the entire country as his. A record written after the fall of the Jaffna kingdom obviously would not mention Jaffna kingdom because there is no king to dispute anything with the Dutch.

        It is very conniving to show this 17th century Dutch archive record to deny the existence of the Tamil kingdom. This is what the Sinhalese are doing now, twisting the history. The Portuguese signed treaty with Sinhala King of Kotte, because unlike the Tamils they were willing to give up their religion and country for booze, white women and some trinkets form Portugal. But the Tamils of Jaffna refused to sign and surrender their sovereignty, bravely fought to the end.

      • Off the Cuff

        Thivya,

        I requested you to define the boundaries of the “Historic Tamil Homeland” that you have been writing about. Why are you unable to do this?

        You say “It is very conniving to show this 17th century Dutch archive record to deny the existence of the Tamil kingdom”

        Oops who did I connive with? Certainly not with the Dutch.
        Instead of blabbering hysterically, why don’t you provide historic evidence as I have done?

        Thivya, please reread what I have written in the post addressed to you and the two posts that I referred you to. Is there anything in it which denies a Tamil Kingdom? Is it my problem if you have difficulty in understanding English? Or was the shock of seeing a historic Dutch record, that you cannot contest, pre dating the Claighorn Minute, too much for your sanity?

        The 17 century Dutch record provides proof that is independent of any Sinhala Historical document, confirming the Northern most boundary of the Kandyan Kingdom at that point of time directly and as you shall see it indirectly confirms the Northern boundary of the Kandyan Kingdom with that of the Jaffna Kingdom.

        It forestalls the usual separatist claim that the Sinhalese document is biased.

        The Northern boundary was at Elephant Pass.
        This means that the Vanni of today, was within the Kandyan Kingdom.

        That excludes the Vanni from the “Tamil Kingdom” and the purported “Historic Tamil Homeland”

        Your acrobatics and histrionics cannot change it.

        You say “This Dutch National archive record is talking about something that happened after the fall of the Jaffna kingdom in 1624”

        What were the boundaries of that Jaffna Kingdom?
        Did it go Southwards beyond Elephant Pass?

        Apparently it did not, as the Dutch took Jaffna from the Portuguese and the Portuguese took it from your Tamil King. If your Jaffna Kingdom extended beyond Elephant Pass the Portuguese would have conquered that too. Then the Portuguese – Kandyan Kingdom boundary would have been further South of Elephant Pass.

        When the Portuguese fell to the Dutch the same boundary would have remained under the Dutch as well and they would have recorded it at that time. This was not the case and it proves that the Southern Boundary of your Jaffna Kingdom was Elephant Pass.

        Proof that your purported “Historic Tamil Homeland” was limited to the Jaffna Peninsular even before 1624 when it was under the Tamil Kingdom as the Jaffna Kingdom-Kandyan Kingdom boundary would have still been Elephant Pass.

        You say “The Portuguese signed treaty with Sinhala King of Kotte, because unlike the Tamils they were willing to give up their religion and country for booze, white women and some trinkets form Portugal. But the Tamils of Jaffna refused to sign and surrender their sovereignty, bravely fought to the end”

        Oh sure the Tamils were exemplary patriots, but they did give up their religion to become lackeys of the Brits. Perhaps for white women, wine, song and positions in their administration!

        But this debate is not about that. It is about the following statement of yours.

        “ Dayan Jayatileke and other Sinhala Buddhist chauvinists want to grab our historic homeland and We will do everything possible to resist that. “

        Instead of running round the Mulberry Bush why don’t you tell us what the boundaries of that is?

        The Dutch tells us that it is the sea on the West, North and East and Elephant Pass on the South side.

      • thivya

        Off the Cuff,

        Have you heard or do you know anything about Kulasekaran Pandaravanniyan, the last king of Vanni? The racist Sinhalese, who dominate the archaeological department twist, hide and deny the history and contribution of Tamils in Sri Lanka. A well known anti Tamil racist monk being in charge of archaeology is a prime example of that.

        KULASEKARAN PANDARA VANNIYAN, the Last king of Vanni
        The East India Company took control of the pearl fishery and imposed several taxes including a tax on coconut trees. People of Kotte revolted and Britain took over the administration of the territories under the East India Company. It sent in 1798 FREDRICK NORTH and nine civil servants to take charge of the administration. The senior among the civil servants was Sir Hugh Cleghorn, a Scotchman. He was appointed Principal Chief Secretary and Governor’s Chief Advisor. He travelled throughout the territory under British control and was in charge of auctioning the rights for the pearl fishery. In a letter he sent to the British Government in June 1799 detailing the situation in Sri Lanka he wrote:

        One of the first decisions North took after the assumption of the office of Governor was to bring the entire country under British rule. Vanni and the Kandyan Kingdom were the only areas that remained outside their reign. The Portuguese and the Dutch had failed to subjugate those areas. North wanted to earn fame by capturing them. He started with Vanni.

        The origin of the Vanni chieftaincy is not clearly established but researchers maintain that human settlements in Vanni commenced in the first century BC. The Konesar inscription and old folk songs say sixty vanniyars accompanied the royal bride who came from Madurai in the first century BC to marry a king of Anuradhapura. Vanniars would have been brought from North Arcot in Tamil Nadu. The Vanniyars were settled in Vanni. This is not much different from all those Karava, Durava, Salagama people who came to our country piggy backed on the Portuguese claiming to be the direct descendants of Duttu Gemunu.

        Vanni came into the historical limelight around the beginning of the tenth century when the Pandyans invaded Sri Lanka and brought the Northern Province under their influence and control. Vanni’s importance increased during the period of the Chola invasion and Kalinga Magha gave importance to Vanni by making it one of his administrative divisions.

        G.C. Mendis in his book Early History of Ceylon (page 70) says Vanniyars occupied the territory between the Kotte and Jaffna kingdoms and acknowledged the supremacy of one or the other and remained independent whenever possible. He adds that the Vanniyars tried to be independent after the Pandyan and Chola invasions. They were tributaries of the Jaffna kingdom after it became powerful.

        Historically, THE VANNI ENCOMPASSED MANNAR, VAVUNIYA, TRINCOMALEE, POLONNARUWA, BATTICALOA, AMPARA AND PUTTALAM hinterlands. But the Vanniyars in the Vanni region were powerful during the Portuguese and Dutch periods.

        The Vanniyars belong to the warrior caste with heroic and marital skills. According to folklore, seven Vanni chieftains who fought unsuccessfully against the Dutch committed suicide to avoid capture. They are still revered at Natchimar temples in the Vanni and Jaffna.

        With the capture of the Jaffna kingdom by the Portuguese in 1621 Vanni was under their nominal control and `Parangichetticulam` of the Vanni may have been the fort of the Portuguese. The Dutch were only able to exact yearly tribute of 42 elephants from the Vanniyar chieftaincy. The conflict between the Dutch and Vanniyars came to an end when the Dutch defeated the Vanniyars in 1782.

        The Portuguese and the Dutch found the Vanniyars a formidable foe. Lewi, a Dutch commander praised their fighting spirit and said he had never met such resistance anywhere else in the world. He specially praised the valour of Vannichi Kurivichhci Nachiyar, whom he said was taken prisoner and detained in Colombo fort. Pandara Vanniyan, the last king of Vanni, was the most formidable of Vanni chieftains. He fought against the Dutch and the British. He formed an alliance with the Kandy monarchs in his bid to drive the British away. In his battle with the Dutch and the British he adopted conventional and guerilla warfare.

        In a surprise attack on the British garrison in Mullaitivu in 1803 Pandara Vanniyan’s forces, consisting mainly of Tamils of Vanni, overran the garrison and captured their cannons. The British forces under the command of Lt. von Drieberg withdrew to Mannar. Pandara Vanniyan’s forces overran the whole of Vanni and advanced up to ELEPHANT PASS. Vanniyan’s victory was short-lived. The British forces under the command of Drieberg attacked from three fronts- Jaffna, Mannar and Trincomalee- and defeated Pandara Vanniyan, captured and executed him on August 25, 1803. The British forces burnt all the houses which caused the people to seek refuge in the forest. Some of the people migrated to the Jaffna peninsula. The power of the Vanni Chiefs was thus finally and effectually extinguished.

        Here you can see the picture of a monument erected by the British in the memory of Pandaravanniyan.

        http://danielprasanna.hubpages.com/hub/thelastkingofvanni#slide5091031

        Here you can see what our fellow Sinhala countrymen in uniform did to the monument of a Sri Lankan King.

        http://www.sangam.org/2010/09/images/clip_image005.jpg

      • wijayapala

        Dear thivya

        The Portuguese signed treaty with Sinhala King of Kotte, because unlike the Tamils they were willing to give up their religion and country for booze, white women and some trinkets form Portugal.

        Actually the Jaffna royal family did convert to Catholicism, and as anyone can tell there were plenty of Tamil Hindus who became Christians.

      • thivya

        “Actually the Jaffna royal family did convert to Catholicism, ”

        That is not true. Jaffna King Sankili kumaran killed the Christian converts in Mannar. Francis Xavier wrote about that incident to Lisbon and Goa, asked them to punish the Jaffna King for his act against Christians. That is also one of the reasons the Portuguese waged a war against Jaffna kingdom. After they captured Jaffna kingdom with the help of Sinhala mercenaries from Kotte, the King of Jaffna was sent to Goa as a prisoner of war he died in exile. I read somewhere that his two kids were forcefully converted to Christianity and one became a priest and died in Goa. All these people who are claiming to be the descendants of Jaffna Royal family is a joke. The Jaffna king never compromised his Saivite belief and he died as a Tamil.

      • Jegan

        Dear OFF THE CUFF,

        BOUNDARIES EH? Take a Srilankan map, paint the areas that were bombed by Mi-27,Kfirs,MBLRL and Artillery belonging to SL Army, on completion you will get a perfect picture and the boundaries you fuss about.

        Does it matter who ruled East or does it matter who LIVED IN THE EAST?In the east 80% are tamils (hindus,muslims and christians), language and religion do not mix.

      • Off the Cuff

        Thivya,

        The 17th century starts from year 1600 and ends in year 1699.

        Hence it is pointless writing about 1799 which is the last year of the 18th century unless you can prove anything worthwhile that can contest my argument which is based on solid fact unconnected to any Sinhalese.

        The 17th century pre dates the 18th century.

        Instead of regurgitating your racist hatred over and over and running around the Mulberry Bush in the hope that you can confuse the reader, please define the borders of your Tamil Kingdom that can pre date the territory that was lost to the Portuguese as I have proved the actual boundaries of the territory that your Tamil King lost to the Portuguese and the Portuguese lost to the Dutch, had as it’s Southern most border, what is known even today as Elephant Pass.

        Please keep in mind that the Veddha’s, who are the aborigines of Lanka, are known as Vanniyalageattho. This has a direct meaning in Sinhala and means “the people of the Vanni”. Hence don’t go overboard with the term Vanniars.

        Sri Lanka is one country and all her citizens should have equitable rights to her resources. Land cannot be manufactured and is finite (reclaiming the sea is not an option). Land is the lifeblood of the population and hence the population will guard it with it’s life against any attempt at stealing it. Inequitable demand for land is stealing what ever the guise, is used to disguise it.

        I support devolution (including land and police powers) but based on per capita allocation of resources and not on any purported historic homelands.

      • Off the Cuff

        Dear Jegan,

        You wrote “BOUNDARIES EH? Take a Srilankan map, paint the areas that were bombed by Mi-27,Kfirs,MBLRL and Artillery belonging to SL Army, on completion you will get a perfect picture and the boundaries you fuss about”

        Jegan, that was really intelligent. As we say in Sinhala don’t go about exposing your head to the sky wear a hat always, to protect that intelligence.

        You wrote “Does it matter who ruled East or does it matter who LIVED IN THE EAST?”

        No it doesn’t, unless you are trying to use it to claim an exclusive historical habitat.
        Remember that the number of Indian Tamils imported from India and domiciled in Lanka exceeded the number of Lanka Tamils that inhabited Lanka and all of them are resident in the Sinhala hinterland of the Kandyan Kingdom.

        You wrote “In the east 80% are tamils (hindus,muslims and christians), ….. “

        That is a perfect example of a disguise used for stealing.
        In the East 40% are Tamil.
        Muslims are descendants of Moors.
        Are you claiming that Arabs are Tamils?
        Given your intelligence, I am not surprised.

        Many people here speak English but that does not make them English.
        Good luck with converting the ethnicity of Moors on that basis.

        You wrote “ …… language and religion do not mix.”

        Keep your hat on and hold on to it tightly, lest the wind blows it away….ha ha haa

      • thivya

        Off the Cuff,

        This is insane; you seem to think a few lines on a Dutch website, supposedly updated by a Dutch soldier or commander, negate all other evidence of Tamil rulers and Tamil settlement from Jaffna to Kathirkamam. The Sinhalese value Suddha’s opinions, as long as that Suddha’s statement or action helps them further their Mahavamsa agenda – claiming the entire country for Sinhalese. Your evidence is just a few lines by an unknown person on a Dutch website, but we have enough records to prove that it is not true.

        This is not from an archive updated by an unknown person but Portuguese Historians explaining the Boundaries of the Jaffna Kingdom when it was captured by the Portuguese. The point is your evidence in Dutch archives is debatable, so do NOT come to any hasty conclusion based on that. ?)

        There are interesting descriptions of the political organizations and demarcations of the Tamil people by Portuguese historians. The Portuguese Historian Father Fernao De Queroz is describing the boundary of the Jaffna Kingdom when they (Portuguese) obtained possession of the Kingdom of Tamils. Please read and enjoy.

        “This modest Kingdom is not confined to the little district of Jafanapatao, because to it are also added the neighbouring lands, and those of the Vani, which is said to be the name of the Lordship which they HELD BEFORE WE OBTAINED POSSESSION OF THEM, separated from the proceeding by a salty river, and connected only in the extremity or isthmus of Pachalaipali, within which were the lands of Baligamo, Temerache, Bedemarache, and Pachalaipali forming that peninsula, and outside it there stretch the lands of Vani crosswise, from the side of Manar to that of Triquilemale, being separated also from the country of Mantota in the jurisdiction of Captain of Manar by the river Paragali; which lands end in the River of the Cross in the midst of the lands of the Vani and of others which stretch as far as Triquilemale, which according to the Map appears to be a large tract of country.

        These lands are divided into Patus and the first near the River of the Cross is Tanamavaraddi, a very fine country but almost uninhabited becauseofwar, and because it was the route of our arrayals, the husbandmen who escaped from the war be taking themselves to the woods, leaving very few for cultivation. From thence to the side of Manar is the Province of Muliauali,whichconsists of three patus, Varcama, Valadadi and Melpatu. This Province is the principal one of all the lands of the Vani, and is fruitful, though badly peopled on account of war and because it is unhealthy.

        Next comes Carnapatu and the province called Panagamo the name ofthe Vania who resided there. It consists of the Patu of Urugare and of Valavi which border on the lands of Mantota, and along the cost ofthe sea or gulf of Ceylon there are the villages Parangali, Uerauil Punari, and others of lesser importance.

        TEMPORAL AND SPIRITUAL CONQUEST OF CEYLON, FATHER FERNAO DE QUEROZ, VOL.L, PAGE 51.

        PUTTALAM – CHILAW – MUNDAL – the coastal areas were part of the JAFFNA KINGODM- the Land of TAMILS:

        In this connection it is interesting to read page 229 of CCB,Vol:III, containing a report by Roman Catholic Bishop C.Bonnand dated 20th July 1854 AD addressed to Pope Pius IX arising of the dispute that had arisen about the boundaries of the two Vicariates of North and South of Ceylon. This reads as follows,

        “… while the conversion of the inhabitants of the Vicariates of Jaffnapatnam is difficult because from the Mission of Chilaw as far as Jaffnapatnam the inhabitants are Tamils by race and Hindu by religion’. Hence it would be seen that the division of the country for Catholic administration was based ‘according to people and languages instead according to territory’.(CCB,p 168,VoLIII).

        The division was, The Sacred congregation may propose that Colombo be in one part, and Kandy and Negombo in the other, that is, drawing the line of division from Negombo in the West to Batticaloa in the East, both towns included in the Northern region. It would be seen according to the above report there were Tamil Catholics in Marawila, Bolawatte, Katuneriya, Ninamaddama and Sindatri in the year 1854′.
        (CCB,p236,Vol:111). This does not include the Tamil Hindus who were domiciled in the said area.

        ‘ A garden situated at Charlieparmundel in the district of Calpentyn belonging to the society of the Roman Catholic Missionaries and surveyed by me on the request of the Reverend Constancio Gomes.
        Bounded on the North by the garden and Wasti(waste) Ground of Nachemutto Motayen and by the garden of Nayacadoo Police Vidane Manoel Pille, on the South by the garden wasti ground and Paddi fulo of Sinnrambi Cangani Thinavepille. On the east by the lake and on the west the sand wasti ground. Containing 38 acres, 3 roods and 20 20/25 sq.perches.

        Surveyed 15 December 1829
        signed R. Vare Gruster, District Surveyor
        Surveyor Generals office, Colombo, 20th Jan:1830 (‘CCB,p267, Vol:iii).

        The above testifies to the fact that Tamils were domiciled in the said areas and that the instrument of the title-deeds of the estate of Charleparmundel is in Tamil and was read in 27 May 1854’. (CCB, pp 267 & 268, Vol:lll).

        There is also proof that properties in Chilaw, Mundel and further down south at Kalalgoda, north of Hendala, in the western province have their title-deeds written in Tamil by Tamil Notaries, which proves that the civil administration of these areas were by the Kings of Jaffnapattinam.

        This is only the tip of the iceberg. There are many such properties where the title-deeds have been written in Tamil which proves that these lands were ruled by the Tamils from ancient times. A diligent search of the Land Registry offices would unearth this fact much to the embarrassment to the Government in power. The above known facts justify the position that these were the lands of the Tamils and their homeland which have been subsequently colonised by governments on the west coast from time to time by foisting draconian laws and forced the Tamils to the Sinhala way of life.

        These Tamils now speak Sinhala and have adopted the customs, dress of the Sinhalese, but nothing has changed the fact that the title-deeds to their properties and those of the Sinhalese are in Tamil. Now these Tamils are the ardent defenders of the Sinhala Buddhist chauvinism. That is the sad reality of Tamils in Sri Lanka.

      • yapa

        Dear wijayapala;

        “There is also proof that properties in Chilaw, Mundel and further down south at Kalalgoda, north of Hendala, in the western province have their title-deeds written in Tamil by Tamil Notaries, which proves that the civil administration of these areas were by the Kings of Jaffnapattinam.”

        There are title-deeds written in English today even in remote areas of Sri Lanka do you say this is an evidence for civil administration of these areas are under queen Elizabeth?

        Do you also think Kandian kingdom was under the kings of Jaffnapattinam just because the language used by then elite was Tamil?
        Do you think present day Colombo elites are Suddhas, because they speak English rather than Sinhala or Tamil?

        “These Tamils now speak Sinhala and have adopted the customs, dress of the Sinhalese, but nothing has changed the fact that the title-deeds to their properties and those of the Sinhalese are in Tamil. Now these Tamils are the ardent defenders of the Sinhala Buddhist chauvinism. That is the sad reality of Tamils in Sri Lanka.”

        Dear wijayapala, we have been talking about the difference between “race” and “ethnicity” throughout the discussions, still I feel even a bit of it has not gone into your repository of knowledge. Do you think still they are Tamils? There may be many Sinhalese whose ancient ancestor was a Tamil, does it say present day people are Tamils? On the other hand just because present day Tamils in Sri Lanka speak Tamil and There were Tami speaking ancestors of Sinhalese can you say that present day Tamils are the descendent of those ancient Tamils? Tell me your opinion whether the present day Tamils or present day Sinhalese are the descendent of those ancient in Sri Lanka? Can you also tell me when the oldest ancestor of present day Tamils came to Sri Lanka and also the other periods of time Tamil migration took place to Sri Lanka? Can you also explain how the present day caste system of Tamils was formed different from nabouring India? Can you also tell me why Jaffna Tamils think Eastern Tamils different from them? Can you tell us how and why the Law of Thesavalamai came up in Jaffna? To protect whose lands from whom?

        Thanks!

      • yapa
      • thivya

        “There are title-deeds written in English today even in remote areas of Sri Lanka do you say this is an evidence for civil administration of these areas are under queen Elizabeth?” Do you think present day Colombo elites are Suddhas, because they speak English rather than Sinhala or Tamil?

        Yapa,

        The deeds are in English is a proof that Queen Elizabeth was the ruler in that area. Why do you think the deeds are not in German but in English? Because the British ruled Sri Lanka and used their language for administration and we are still using them, similarly the deeds are in Tamil, because the rulers were Tamils and used their language for administration purposes.

        “Do you also think Kandian kingdom was under the kings of Jaffnapattinam just because the language used by then elite was Tamil?”

        No, but it clearly shows the rulers were Tamils and the Tamil language was the official language in the Kandiyan kingdom. The Elites of Colombo still speak English because it was the language of rulers and it gave them influence in the government. They still speak English because it is an international language, how do you think English got so much prominence in the World, because English ruled the world including Sri Lanka.

        It`s a well known fact that the Kandyan Convention was signed by the Kandyan chieftains and the British, what is less well known is that some of the chieftains signed in Tamil. Ehelepola and Ratwatte(ancestor of the President Chandrika Pandaranayake) signed in TAMIL. Pilimatalawe`s signature contained a mixture of Sinhala and Tamil letters as did the signatures of Dullawe and Millawe Disawas.

      • thivya

        [Do you think still they are Tamils? There may be many Sinhalese whose ancient ancestor was a Tamil, does it say present day people are Tamils?]

        The Tamils are not talking about the assimilation in the ancient past, but we are talking about the forced assimilation that happened after the independence. The Tamils of Chilaw and Puttalam areas were forced to assimilate by the calculated cultural genocide committed by the Sinhala regime by closing down the Tamil medium schools in the Negombo and Chilaw areas. The Sinhala Catholic priests played a role in that forced assimilation.

        “CUNNING SINHALIZATION OF TAMIL CATHOLICS OF CHILAW- `TAMIL SPEAKING SINHALESE

        It is a historical fact that Tamil Catholics have been comparatively reluctant to emphasise their `Tamilness` in earlier years. On the contrary some politicised Sinhala clergymen have not been hesitant to push the Snhala line. The most famous or notorious case being that of Bishop Edmund Peiris . When the Chilaw Diocese was carved out of the Northern diocese a substantial concentration of Catholics along the Western seaboard were Tamil Bharathas or `Parathavar`.

        Peiris came out with the nomenclature `Tamil Speaking Sinhalese` in relation to the Bharatha community and projected the line that their medium of instruction should be Sinhala. So 48 Tamil medium schools and Tamil streams in schools became Sinhala overnight. It was cultural genocide. The grandchildren began speaking Sinhala while the grandparents spoke Tamil. The parents were caught in between. Former Arch Bishop Nicholas Marcus Fernando`s mother from Mundal was LITERATE IN TAMIL ONLY. The son used to correspond in Tamil with the mother.

        SINHALIZATION OF COASTAL TAMIL TOWNS FROM NEGOMBO – (THEY ARE THE ARDENT DEFENDERS OF SINHALA BUDDHIST CHAUVINISM NOW.

        The transformation of Bharatha identity from Sinhala to Tamil through education is a phenomenal example of a majority assimilating a minority. Mercifully the Bharathas of Vankalai and Pesalai coming under the Northern diocese were free of this `Sinhalaisation` and remain fiercely proud Tamils. The tragic aspect of this identity conversion was the silent acceptance of this perversion of justice by Tamil Catholics in the name of religion.

        Catholics of a later era blame former Jaffna Bishop Emilianuspillai for this lapse. During colonial times the Catholic Church in Sri Lanka comprised only two Dioceses – The Northern and Southern. The Northern diocese consisted of the Northern and Eastern Provinces along with areas extending downwards to Negombo , Anuradhapura and Polonnaruwa. Though Tamils are only one – sixth of the Sinhala population the Sinhala – Tamil ratio in the Catholic Church was six to five.

        ACCEPTING SINHALA IDENTITY IS THE PERVERSION OF JUSTICE BY TAMIL CATHOLICS IN THE NAME OF RELIGION:

        If the Tamil Catholics were vigilant they could have sought and obtained a separate Arch Diocese for the North – East. This is both administratively convenient and culturally homogeneous. There is nothing wrong in this arrangement. In India for instance the state of Tamil Nadu though uniformly Tamil speaking has two Arch dioceses headquartered in Madurai and Chennai. Just as the political leadership of the Tamils at dawn of Independence from Britain failed to articulate and demand a federal set up the Tamil Catholic hierarchy too failed to get a separate Archdiocese.

        Years later the history conscious Jaffna Bishop Rt. Rev Deogupillai felt the necessity for a demarcation. He wrote to Vatican in 1976 seeking a separate Arch Diocese. There was immense merit in this request. Yet the Sinhala Catholics came down on him like a ton of bricks. Even a progressive like Bishop Leo Nanayakkara condemned Deogupillai for raising the demand. This was linked to the 1976 Vaddukkoddai resolution for Tamil Eelam and depicted as a separatist threat. Deogupillai backed down against his better judgement.”

        Ref: DBSJ

      • Keynes!

        Thivya,

        Digavapi in the Eastern Province predates the arrival of the Portuguese and Ferndao De Queyroz. So, don’t you think that the Sinhalese have a better claim to the East than the Tamils?

      • sabbe laban

        Off the Cuff & Yapa

        I was buying Off the Cuff’s argument about the extent of the Jaffna kingdom, until ‘thivya’ came up with de Quaros’ historical evidence to support his(or her) claim that a Vanni ‘Tamil’ kingdon too existed during the Portuguese period!

        Now I see conflicting evidence! Are you able to come out with further evidence to refute this theory?

      • yapa

        My apologies to wijayapala for mistakenly using his name in my post. It should have been addressed to thivya.

        Sorry, dear wijayapala.

        Thanks!

      • thivya

        “Digavapi in the Eastern Province predates the arrival of the Portuguese and Ferndao De Queyroz. So, don’t you think that the Sinhalese have a better claim to the East than the Tamils?”

        Keynes!

        Kathirkamam, the holiest of holy shrines of Sri Lankan Tamils predates the arrival of Buddhism in Sri Lanka. The Sinhalese hijacked Kathirkamam and got rid of the Tamil character of the Temple and Sinhalized it now. There are ancient Hindu remains all over the country, and Hinduism predates Buddhism in Sri Lanka. In that case don’t you think the Tamils have a better claim for the entire country than the Sinhala people who came in a dingy boat with their bandit prince (see Mahavamsa).

        The Tamil Hindu temples such as Kathirkamam, Munneswaram, and Thenavaram Temple in Thevanthurai (Dondra head) are in Sinhala areas now. Do you think the Tamils should claim that those areas belong to them and demand to be settled under state sponsored colonization aka ethnic cleansing – Sri Lankan version going on in the North – East now?

        Where is the evidence that Digavapi belongs to Sinhala Buddhists? Why can’t that be a Tamil Buddhist temple like Nathanar Koyil (Raja Raja Perumpalli ) aka Velgum vihari in the East. The vast majority of the Tamils were orthodox Buddhists in their distant past.

        “The Tamil problem in Sri Lanka is a problem not of history, but of the mischievous mystification of history by people with an axe to grind and reputation to foster.”

        VELGAM VEHERA – THE BUDDHIST SHRINE OF THE TAMILS

        http://www.lankalibrary.com/heritage/temples/velgam.htm

      • thivya

        -The Tamil Buddhists of the Past and the Future-
        http://www.srilankaguardian.org/2010/10/tamil-buddhists-of-past-and-future.html

        -Ancient Buddhist links between Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka-
        http://www.lakehouse.lk/mihintalava/gaya07.htm

      • yapa

        Dear Saban;

        Do you believe something consist of the following statement as a credible report?

        “There is also proof that properties in Chilaw, Mundel and further down south at Kalalgoda, north of Hendala, in the western province have their title-deeds written in Tamil by Tamil Notaries, which proves that the civil administration of these areas were by the Kings of Jaffnapattinam.”

        Tell me how should I call such a thing?

        Thanks!

      • Off the Cuff

        Thivya

        You say “This is insane; you seem to think a few lines on a Dutch website, supposedly updated by a Dutch soldier or commander, negate all other evidence of Tamil rulers and Tamil settlement from Jaffna to Kathirkamam”

        I see that an unanticipated and little known record from the Dutch National Archives describing a Fort built to protect the Dutch from the Kandyan Kingdom in the 17th century has caused insanity among those who thought the Claighorn Minute could be made unchallengeable by slandering the written history of Lanka as that history was written by a Buddhist monk.

        You say “The Sinhalese value Suddha’s opinions, as long as that Suddha’s statement or action helps them further their Mahavamsa agenda – claiming the entire country for Sinhalese. Your evidence is just a few lines by an unknown person on a Dutch website, but we have enough records to prove that it is not true”

        This is Hilarious Thivya, was it not you who cited Fredrick North as evidence?
        Was it not you, Anpu and the International Federation of Tamils that used Claighorn as evidence? Is the skin colour of Claighorn and North the same as yours? Probably the coloured glasses you wear make these White Suddhas look Dark Skinned like you? Please re read the posts of Anpu’s, yourselves and those who write supporting your views. How fickle can you get?

        Now, you are trying to do the same thing with the Dutch National Archives, that you did with Lanka’s written history, because you lacked a written historical record of your own that could match the Mahavansa in antiquity.

        You have forgotten in your insanity, that The Dutch National Archive is owned by the Dutch Government and is the repository of the History of the Dutch People. It is they, who have made that history available to the world via the web. They would have never dreamt that this record will assume such importance to demolish Tamil separatist claims of Historical Homelands. Hence you will find it very difficult, if not impossible to debate that Internationally.

        Please note that I refrained from using the Mahawansa due to the above fact.

        Tamil is a highly developed Language that pre-dates Sinhala (someone please correct me if I am wrong here). There is no shortage of Tamil Historians and writers and written historical works in Tamil. Under the circumstances, can you explain why there is no Historical document on Lanka in Tamil that can at least equal the antiquity of the Mahawansa?

        Was there a shortage of Tamil Historians and writers in Lanka?
        Why the Vacuum?

        We know that boundaries of kingdoms have been changing from time to time due to invasions and wars. Lanka has been invaded several times by what is now India, Portugal, Britain etc. The ancestors of the Sinhalese themselves, were not Sinhalese and were invaders from India, as this country was inhabited by the Veddhas (the Vaniyalageaththo) when they arrived. The Veddhas do have precedence over the Sinhalese in Lanka. Nobody else can claim such precedence based on recorded history as other than with the Sinhalese, such history is extinct. (I personally do not subscribe to such historical ownership but this is a counter argument to such claims by others).

        It is to be noted that the Indian ancestors of the Sinhalese did not speak Sinhalese but spoke an Indian language. Sinhala is a development within Lanka and is unique to Lanka. The “Veddha speak” is intelligible in Sinhala, pointing to the influence of the Veddha language in the development of Sinhala.

        We know that Elara, a Tamil, ruled in Anuradhapura as an Invader but was considered a Just King by the Sinhalese subjects. We know that the Telegu Nayakkars, who spoke Tamil ruled the Kandyan Kingdom as an invitee. The boundary of an invader, is not recognised by the indigenous polity. We know that Tamil was used in the Kandyan Court by the Sinhalese themselves.

        You say “This is not from an archive updated by an unknown person but Portuguese Historians explaining the Boundaries of the Jaffna Kingdom when it was captured by the Portuguese. The point is your evidence in Dutch archives is debatable, so do NOT come to any hasty conclusion based on that. ?)”

        Your ignorance does not mean that the Dutch government is ignorant. Hence go ahead and try disputing the Dutch Government Record Internationally. That certainly would open the eyes of the world, to the cunning and deception practised by Tamil Separatists.

        As I have pointed out in my argument, this 17th century Dutch record is irrefutable proof of the Border between the Tamil Kingdom and the Kandyan Kingdom at the point of time when the Tamils lost it to the Portuguese. If it were to be different there should be evidence that the Portuguese lost some of it’s possessions in the Vanni to the Kandyan King in between the conquering of the Jaffna Kingdom and loosing it to the Dutch.

        You say “There are interesting descriptions of the political organizations and demarcations of the Tamil people by Portuguese historians. The Portuguese Historian Father Fernao De Queroz is describing the boundary of the Jaffna Kingdom when they (Portuguese) obtained possession of the Kingdom of Tamils. Please read and enjoy.”

        Ha ha haa, So you are not averse to sucking up to the so called Suddha that you derided in this very post? Exposes you True colours does it not?

        Your reference says “This modest Kingdom is not confined to the little district of Jafanapatao, because to it are also added the neighbouring lands, and those of the Vani,”

        Please note the word “Modest”
        It means small.
        If, as you try to make the readers believe, the Jaffna Tamil Kingdom encompassed HALF of Lanka, the word “MODEST” would have never been used. So ponder why it is described as “MODEST”.
        The phrases “a large tract of country” and a “MODEST Kingdom” are not compatible.

        Although the Locals can distinguish between the Tamils, Moors, Malays and Sinhalese the distinguishing features are not apparent to the foreign eye.

        BTW do you know any Tamils by the name of Hendaramana or Singha or Kumara?
        The ending syllable is typically Sinhala.
        Since you seem to be a Historian you would realise the significance.

        Relating to deeds written in Tamil you say “ The above known facts justify the position that these were the lands of the Tamils and their homeland which have been subsequently colonised by governments on the west coast from time to time by foisting draconian laws and forced the Tamils to the Sinhala way of life”

        If you know your History of Lanka you should have known that ALL Land was owned by the King in ancient times. The King granted lands at his pleasure and these were held by custom and not by Deeds. This was one reason that the Brits could STEAL Sinhalese Lands by their draconian Land Laws (see below). So dont bank on deeds in whatever language it is executed as that does not prove any Historicity that can out date the 17th century Dutch record.

        The British enacted the Crown Land Enforcement Ordinance in 1840 to claim the unoccupied and uncultivated land in the Kandyan kingdom (Farmer 1957:90- 91). As a result of this ordinance, 90% of the land in the Kandyan highlands was designated as land belonging to the British Crown (Herath et al, 1995:77).
        The Waste Land Ordinance Act of 1897 (and the Crown Land Encroachment Ordinance in 1840), annexed more lands as crown lands where villagers could no longer claim them according to the new British- imposed rules (Roberts 1979:233, Obeysekara 1967: 98-100).
        The majority of the Sinhalese villages effectively lost the structural prerequisite of land tenure systems (Obeysekara 1967:101). These ordinances also created a large number of landless peasants in the former Kandyan kingdom, which had held land through customary means but without legal proof. Furthermore, the ‘Land Settlement Ordinance of 1889’ allowed the colonial authorities to sell crown lands at will. The impact of these land ordinances were uneven, because they were largely limited to the former Kandyan Kingdom (Mendis 1951:166).
        Many villagers in the Kandyan area were deprived of their high lands formally used for chena cultivation or grazing the cattle (Mendis 1951:85).
        These changes to the Kandyan land and service tenure systems disintegrated the old Sinhalese systems (Codrington 1938:63).
        According to the 1946 census on population in the agricultural sector of the island, 40% of the agricultural peasant families found in the former Kandyan Kingdom were landless while there were 26% landless agricultural families recorded in the wet zone (Herath 1995: 79).

        In 1881 there were 345,000 Lanka Tamils (approx) and 345,000 foreign Indian Tamils. Almost a 100% of these Indian Citizens of Tamil ethnicity occupied the Lands in the Kandyan kingdom so stolen by the British.

        You say “These Tamils now speak Sinhala and have adopted the customs, dress of the Sinhalese, but nothing has changed the fact that the title-deeds to their properties and those of the Sinhalese are in Tamil. Now these Tamils are the ardent defenders of the Sinhala Buddhist chauvinism. That is the sad reality of Tamils in Sri Lanka”

        Possibly your blinkers do not allow you to recognise that the Sinhalese who lived in Majority Tamil areas underwent similar changes. Singapore has a Tamil population. The country has Tamil as a National Language. Yet Tamil is on the decline there. The younger genertaion is getting assimilated as Singaporeans. The intermarriage within ethnic groups is high. If I remember correctly it is as high as 20% now. What will happen to the lakhs of Lanka Tamils now domiciled in the west? I personally know of Tamils marrying Sinhalese in Canada. Even Balasingham married an Australian white woman. You cannot stop this happening. It’s happening all over the world.

        Don’t forget that the ONLY ethnic cleansing that this country has seen happened in the North which became the only Mono ethnic region in Lanka.

        From what you write I believe you are a Tamil Christian, perhaps a Catholic. If so there would be a family down your family tree where the grandparents worshipped Hindu Gods and the Grand Children the Christian God.

        Consider the following.

        If you had the whole country to chose from when you arrived in Lanka where would you have settled? In a place where you had access to abundant fresh water or in an arid area?

        Given that the population growth rate of Sinhalese and Tamils are nearly equal how would you explain the Sinhalese becoming such an overwhelming majority?

        In 1881 there were 1,846,600 Sinhalese and 345,000 (approx) Lanka Tamils.184500 Moors and 41400 others

        This gives the following population

        Sinhalese 76.4%
        Tamil 14.3%
        Moor 7.7%

        Vijaya is said to have brought only 700 other Indians and later 700 Indian females and an Indian princes for himself. How did these few, overwhelm the Tamil population to such an extent when the growth rate was almost equal?

        Why are the Sinhalese in the South away from the Indian Mainland and why are the Tamils in the North adjoining the Indian mainland? Were the Sinhalese driven South by Indian invasions at a later point in time?

      • Off the Cuff

        Sabbe Laban,

        you say “I was buying Off the Cuff’s argument about the extent of the Jaffna kingdom, until ‘thivya’ came up with de Quaros’ historical evidence to support his(or her) claim that a Vanni ‘Tamil’ kingdon too existed during the Portuguese period! “

        The Dutch record is 17th Century. It is a description of a Fort built by the Dutch. I believe that Fort exists even today. Can you give any reason to doubt the Dutch record which is in their National Archive? Why should they build a fort at Elephant Pass and state it is the Boundary of the their possession and that of the Kandyan King? If the boundary was elsewhere wouldn’t they have built the fort at such boundary instead of behind the boundary lines? The Dutch just described where they built their forts. Their Maps of Lanka are also available at the Dutch National Archive. What we call the Vanni today is a vast area. Quaros’ calls the Jaffna Kingdom a MODEST one. This does not support the claim that Thivya makes of the Jaffna Kingdom encompassing the whole of the Vanni or almost half of Lanka.

        Quaros’s description is a subjective one, which depends on his perception of the inhabitants. The Dutch statement is a statement of fact and is not open to any subjective assessment. The border with the Dutch had been at Elephant Pass, period.

        Are you aware of any Tamils by the name of Hendaramana or Singha or Kumara?

        If I remember correctly a book written by a British Army captain describes Jaffna as inhabited by a large number of people wearing a strange hat. Tamils do not wear any but all the male Moors did in the past, remember the maroon cylindrical hat with a tassel hanging from the top? It is also a statement of fact and not a subjective assessment of what he saw.

        I also remember reading a book written by a Tamil author that stated something about Sinhala place names in Jaffna. I did not use these in any of my arguments, as the Dutch Record is an unshakable one. It cannot be slandered as Thivya attempted in his previous post. No one can attach an ulterior motive to the Dutch description of their own Fort.

        The Dutch did not build just one Fort. They built many and descriptions of all of them including Dutch Maps are to be found within the Dutch National Archive. Their authenticity is backed by the Dutch.

        This has become the spanner in the Claighorn minute works.

        Please read Dr Pradeep Jeganathan’s web site (link given earlier). There was no Tamil Kingdom in the East.

        I have no intention of selling my view but have every intention of breaking the divisive homeland claim that stands between a Just resolution to this vexed problem. Lanka is the land of all her citizens. Her resources should be equally and equitably shared by all. Singapore is a prime example of a country free of ethnic tension today, though they had ethnic riots in the past because they have ensured equitable distribution of their resources.

      • wijayapala

        Dear thivya

        All these people who are claiming to be the descendants of Jaffna Royal family is a joke. The Jaffna king never compromised his Saivite belief and he died as a Tamil.

        Thank you for the correction about Jaffna royal family. I have met other Tamils claiming lineage with the royal family, with the documents to prove it (although they are Hindu not Catholic).

        Are you saying that only Saivites are Tamils?

        Years later the history conscious Jaffna Bishop Rt. Rev Deogupillai felt the necessity for a demarcation. He wrote to Vatican in 1976 seeking a separate Arch Diocese. There was immense merit in this request. Yet the Sinhala Catholics came down on him like a ton of bricks.

        I can’t blame them, Deogupillai was trying to divide the Catholic community along communal lines. I feel the same outrage about the caste divisions in the Buddhist Sangha. The Catholics had the potential to play a moderating role in the emerging conflict given that there are both Sinhala and Tamil Catholics. Leo Nanayakkara clearly was trying to preserve that potential (although he sadly failed).

        If the Tamil Catholics were vigilant they could have sought and obtained a separate Arch Diocese for the North – East. This is both administratively convenient and culturally homogeneous.

        How are the Tamils culturally homogeneous?

        The Tamils of Chilaw and Puttalam areas were forced to assimilate by the calculated cultural genocide committed by the Sinhala regime by closing down the Tamil medium schools in the Negombo and Chilaw areas.

        Before you get over-excited by conspiracy theories (don’t worry, we have similar conspiracy theories about the Tamils trying to take over the island), how do you feel about how Sinhalese became Tamil in the Eastern Province during the colonial era?

        ‘This part of the District (Kaddukulam West) is inhabited by Sinhalese villagers of Kandyan descent forming an outlying community which is, I fear rapidly dying out or becoming effaced.

        This District is most interesting, being dotted over by numerous village tanks, some of which are restored and others abandoned„ The villagers retain many of the primitive customs of the Kandyans, but they are rapidly becoming ‘Tamilized’, which is a great pity. They inter- marry with Tamils and many of them speak Tamil as well as they speak Sinhalese. Even the Government School Master is Tamil and only that language is taught in the only school and unfortunately in some cases lands in Sinhalese villages have been bought out by the Tamils, who now own all the paddy lands of some villages. The Sinhalese have given up their patronymics and adopted the Tamil custom of perfexing father’s name instead of the usual patronymic and even the names of the villages are assuming a Tamil dress.

        This perhaps not to be wondered at when the interpreters of the court and the Kachcheri, the petition drawers and all through whom the villagers have access to Government officers, can speak nothing but Tamil.’ – C.M. Lushington, AGA Eastern Province, 1898

        http://rebelofkandy.blogspot.com/2010/01/yet-another-reason-why-sinhala.html

        Or how do you feel about how the Sinhalese in Jaffna had assimilated to become Tamil?

      • wijayapala

        Dear yapa

        Dear wijayapala, we have been talking about the difference between “race” and “ethnicity” throughout the discussions, still I feel even a bit of it has not gone into your repository of knowledge. Do you think still they are Tamils?

        I did not say those things. It was thivya.

      • yapa

        Dear Saban;

        I would like to address fully and specifically the posts thivya to show how they are fallacious and erroneous and misleading.

        Give me a little bit time. Don’t you think Keynes!’ question above is valid as well?

        Thanks!

      • yapa

        Dear thivya;

        Why you only addressed a part of my post of July 13, 2012 • 6:42 am erroneously addressed to wijayapala instead of you.

        Please answer the questions posed to you in the last paragraph as well?

        Thanks!

      • yapa

        “Now if I am told that I can’t sing the national anthem in Tamil, I will not sing the national anthem. And that is what the government wants. The government does not want the Tamil people of this country to sing the National Anthem.”

        I also heard that Tamils in USA, Canada, UK, Norway, France and Switzerland are preparing the Tamil versions of the national anthems of the respective countries so that they will sing the national anthems of those countries.

        What can we call these, if we don’t call them “Vigadam” (nonsense)?

        Thanks!

      • thivya

        Off the Cuff,

        You wanted proof for the boundaries of the Jaffna kingdom, I showed you the book written by a famous Portuguese historian, but you are still adamant that something scribbled by an unknown person is valid without refuting any evidence, saying “The border with the Dutch had been at Elephant Pass, period”. It sounds not only stupid but childish.

        FATHER FERNAO DE QUEROZ, a historian who lived in Jaffna and has seen the entire Jaffna Kingdom. He did not only write about Ceylon but about other Portuguese colonies as well. The Dutch archive note helps you say something negative about the Tamil’s homeland claim. Any non Sinhala neutral historians will tell you Father Fernao De Queroz statement is more valid proof.

        There is enough records and a Church in Mannar to prove that the Jaffna King Sankili kumaran massacred the new catholic converts in Mannar island, and everyone knows that Mannar was part of Vanni. If Mannar was not part of his kingdom and those converts were not his subjects, how did he dare cross the border to the other kingdom and kill their subjects? Why should he care about someone else’s subjects converting to another religion? It clearly shows Mannnar was part of his Kingdom

        [If I remember correctly a book written by a British Army captain describes Jaffna as inhabited by a large number of people wearing a strange hat.]

        Please give the name of the book so we can prove those people were Tamils, because until the late 19th century all Tamil men wore head gear (like Sir. Ramanathan) and kadukkan (earring) that was the custom of Jaffna Tamils. The “strange hat” worn by Jaffna men was nothing but Tamils ‘thalaipahai’. That custom disappeared in the 20th century but Tamil grooms still wear that “strange hat” to show their old tradition. I don’t believe all your other rants deserve my reply.

      • thivya

        [How did these few, overwhelm the Tamil population to such an extent when the growth rate was almost equal]

        “We can say very confidently that it is because of the Portuguese colonization that the Sinhalese find themselves as an overwhelming majority in Sri Lanka today viz a viz the Tamil minority.

        The most important contribution that the Portuguese did to the
        Sinhala Buddhist nation was the elimination of an important social
        distance indicator between coastal Tamils and Sinhalese in converting
        both to Catholic faith. Although most of the descendants of these groups today deny their obvious South Indian origins, true historians know the truth. If left alone, most of these coastal people would have coalesced into the Tamil minority of Sri Lanka. If that had happened Tamils might not have been the minority at all. But that is not what happened. The most important contribution that the Portuguese did to the Sinhalese was the elimination of an important social distance indicator between coastal Tamils and Sinhalese in converting both to the Catholic faith. It enabled the age-old assimilation of Tamils into Sinhalese to happen again, an assimilation which had come to a halt due to political and religious reasons.

        This is an important contribution in strengthening the Sinhala nation
        that the revisionists Sinhalese historians will not acknowledge in
        their anti Portuguese hysteria.

        During the Buddhist revivalist period instigated by Anagarika
        Dharnapala who was born into a Catholic Salagama family (originally
        Tamil Saliyar), many of these so-called coastal Catholics (both
        Tamil and Sinhalese) converted to Buddhism and even created their
        own Buddhist organizations because the traditional Kandyan based
        Upper caste oriented (Govi) prelates refused entry of these newly
        converted Buddhists of dubious caste origins into their
        organizations.

        If there is to be a looser due to Portuguese colonization in Sri
        Lanka, then it is the Tamil minority more than the Sinhalese
        majority. Tamils lost their independent Jaffna kingdom and lost
        considerably a large percentage of its ethnic brethren to Catholicism
        who have become Sinhalese Buddhist and Sinhalese Catholics all the
        way from Puttalam to Matara. It is only in the Northeastern
        provinces that Catholics have maintained their Tamil identity.

        These new Buddhists overwhelmingly supported and still support the
        suppression of Tamil language as well as civil rights since the
        populist prime minister Solomon West Ridgeway Dias Banadaranaike came
        to power in 1956. He himself came from an uppity so called “lower”
        Karave family (originally Tamil Karaiyar) of Catholic background.
        He converted to Buddhism as a way to gain power only to be shot dead
        by a Buddhist monk.

        Sri Lanka has not being able to overcome its colonial history, not
        because of the effects of colonialism because of the lack of vision
        of its post colonial political leaders to educate and lead the
        masses. It applies to both Tamil and Sinhalese politicians. This anti
        Portuguese is a misplaced effort at finding the route cause of
        today’s problems.”

      • thivya

        Here are the Dutch archives that show that the Dutch were DIRECTLY DEALING WITH VANNI CHIEFS not with the Kandiyan Kingdom.

        http://databases.tanap.net/ead/html/Colombo_Jurriaanse/pdf/Colombo_Jurriaanse.pdf

        If Vanni was Kandiyan territory why on earth were the Dutch dealing with Vanni Chiefs instead of the Kandiyan kingdom. Everyone knows the Tamil Vanni cheiftains ruled Vanni until the demise of Kulasekaran Pandara Vanniyan in 1803. Now I have serious doubt about the Dutch website, ‘Off the Cuff’ is parading around. I think Tamils need to contact the website and verify that information, and to know who else is behind that website. :))

        [CATALOGUE OF THE ARCHIVES OF THE DUTCH CENTRAL
        GOVERNMENT OF COASTAL CEYLON,
        1640-1796

        Agreements with Vanni chiefs.
        1671 -1770. ………………………………….Page 159

        Agreements between governors of Ceylon and the Vanni chiefs.
        1671 October 15 – 1767 November 20. Damaged by corrosion.

        1763 May 24, October 6; 1766 March 1; 1769 June 9; 1770 May 19.
        5 documents; the last two are copies. Damaged

        “GIFTE-BOEKEN” OR REGISTERS OF LAND GRANTS. 1679 – 1767.

        The right to make grants of land is a prerogative of the sovereign, which in Dutch time was held by the governor. On the 10th July 1745 [156], an order was issued that anybody receiving such grant should-obtain a “gifte brief” (title of the grant) from the secretariat and that the ordinary dessave-ola would no longer be sufficient. It is clear that there is a close connection between the tombo and this order.

        1763 May 24, October 6; 1766 March 1; 1769 June 9; 1770 May 19.
        5 documents; the last two are copies

        Report by the commissioners L. van Zitter and A. Samlant on their investigations into the disturbances in the Vanni. With annexe.

        1794 October 31. Damaged.

        Documents used by the commissioners Lambertus van Zitter and Abraham
        Samlant who were sent to Mullaittivu to investigate into the disturbances in the

        188. Damaged. Vanni. Copies.

        1794. Contains also the original instruction from governor van Angelbeek to the commissioners of 1794 September 9. The commission was appointed as a result of complaints against the Vanni headmen. See Council minutes of 1795 August

        26 in no. 227.

        Report by the secretary of the Jaffna “commandement ” Carl Fredrik Schreuder, and the “boekhouder” Lambert van Buuren to “commandeur” Christiaan Rose and the council of Jaffna, regarding their investigation into the troubles with the Vanni, especially with Don Diogoe in the provinces of Melpattuwa and Mulliyavalapattuwa with annexes. Copies.

        1788 – 1789. 3 files. Damaged.

        No. 2769 is from the Vanni and was originally annexe no. 3 of the annexes from Jaffna in no. 2768; the same remark applies to no. 2770, which is the original compendium furnished by the dessave of Jaffna to the “commandeur ” of Jaffna.

        1795 January 3 – August 13. Damaged by damp.

        MULLAITTIVU.

        The correspondence with Mullaittivu as the main seat of the Government in the district of the Vanni starts only towards the end of the year 1785 [128] . Prior to 1786, the correspondence of Thomas Nagel, “landregent” of the Vanni, had to be forwarded through the “commandeur” of Jaffna. After that year Thomas Nagel was given the privilege of corresponding directly with Colombo.

        1795. JAFFNA AND MANNAR.

        In many of the files the letters from the commissioners to the pearl fisheries have been entered. Prior to 1786, the letters by the landregent of the Vanni were forwarded through the “commandeur ” of Jaffna, and are found among the correspondence with Jaffna.]

      • Off the Cuff

        Thivya

        “Now I have serious doubt about the Dutch website, ‘Off the Cuff’ is parading around. I think Tamils need to contact the website and verify that information, and to know who else is behind that website.“

        That is easy to do. Just contact the Netherlands Embassy in Lanka and ask them whether the web site is of the same calibre of tamilnet?

        Your attempts at degrading that web site is hilarious 🙂

        You say “I don’t believe all your other rants deserve my reply”

        You mean you have been check mated about the Derogatory Rants you made about Sinhalese while using the Suddha as a crutch? Why no comment about the Suddha this time?

        Can you provide examples of Tamil names with Hendaramana or Singha or Kumara in the present day? I am not asking about Tamilised names such as Kumaran or Singham.

      • thivya

        Off the Cuff,

        Please see these links; this might help you to clear some of your doubts about the place names not only in Jaffna but throughout the island. 🙂

        Names and Places and Geographical Objects in the island of Eelam derivable from Tamil Words – Part II.
        http://thivyaaa.blogspot.ca/

        Names and Places and Geographical Objects in the island of Eelam derivable from Tamil Words – Part I.
        http://thivyaaa.blogspot.ca/2012/07/names-and-places-and-geographical.html

      • yapa

        Dear thivya;

        Say for a moment all what you have said are true. There were Tamil Buddhists, Katharagama, Wilgamvehera and Dondra belong to early Tamils lived in Sri Lanka.

        Even it is so is it a reason to say that they belong to present day Tamils living in Sri Lanka? The central issues is whether the present day Tamils are the descendents of those early Tamils. Do you think inheritance goes along the line of lineage or along a (discrete)race connections?

        The descendents of those early Tamils are Sinhalese not present day Tamils. Present day Tamils living in Sri Lanka are not descendents of those Tamils, but a different set of people who settled in here after the invasion of Aryachakrawarthi and brought by Dutch and Brits to work in Tobacco plantation in north, and migrants during this period, whose history does not go beyond 700years.

        Please answer the question: Do you think inheritance goes along the line of lineage or along a (discrete)race connections?

        AND also show how present day Tamils have a claim for exclusive ownership of the lands in North and East on this historical background.

        http://groundviews.org/2012/07/07/equality-unity-autonomy-democracy/#comment-46690

        Further please answer the questions I posed to you but you avoided answering after answering the convenient part of it.

        I reproduce it for your easy reference.

        “Dear wijayapala, we have been talking about the difference between “race” and “ethnicity” throughout the discussions, still I feel even a bit of it has not gone into your repository of knowledge. Do you think still they are Tamils? There may be many Sinhalese whose ancient ancestor was a Tamil, does it say present day people are Tamils? On the other hand just because present day Tamils in Sri Lanka speak Tamil and There were Tami speaking ancestors of Sinhalese can you say that present day Tamils are the descendent of those ancient Tamils? Tell me your opinion whether the present day Tamils or present day Sinhalese are the descendent of those ancient in Sri Lanka? Can you also tell me when the oldest ancestor of present day Tamils came to Sri Lanka and also the other periods of time Tamil migration took place to Sri Lanka? Can you also explain how the present day caste system of Tamils was formed different from nabouring India? Can you also tell me why Jaffna Tamils think Eastern Tamils different from them? Can you tell us how and why the Law of Thesavalamai came up in Jaffna? To protect whose lands from whom?”

        http://groundviews.org/2012/07/07/equality-unity-autonomy-democracy/#comment-46601

        http://groundviews.org/2012/07/07/equality-unity-autonomy-democracy/#comment-46693

        Thanks!

      • yapa
      • yapa

        Dear thivya;

        “The Tamil Hindu temples such as Kathirkamam, Munneswaram, and Thenavaram Temple in Thevanthurai (Dondra head) are in Sinhala areas now. Do you think the Tamils should claim that those areas belong to them and demand to be settled under state sponsored colonization aka ethnic cleansing – Sri Lankan version going on in the North – East now?

        Where is the evidence that Digavapi belongs to Sinhala Buddhists? Why can’t that be a Tamil Buddhist temple like Nathanar Koyil (Raja Raja Perumpalli ) aka Velgum vihari in the East. The vast majority of the Tamils were orthodox Buddhists in their distant past.”

        Even if those places you mentioned belonged to the Tamils living at that time, it is not a reason to say that those places now belong to present day Tamils. Present day “Sinhalese” are the descendents of those “Tamils”, so they are the rightful owners. Present day Tamils cannot claim for that heredity, as they do not descend from from those olden day Tamils. “Sinhalese” are those Tamils in disguise. Only the name change to Sinhalese after getting mixed with natives and Aryans came from India and and also embracing Buddhism. All those Tamils together with Aryans, Yaksas and Nagas etc. etc. became a single entity known as Sinhalese. We Sinhalese are the descendent of them including the ancient Tamils lived in this country. You people, present day Tamils have no any blood lineage to them, you guys roots started to hold the soil of Sri Lanka with the Aryachakrawarthi’s invasion.

        Even if there were Tamils living in the ancient past, that does not give any right to you guys, the way you are trying to claim heritage of this country.

        History is a bitter medicine for you. It will never cure your ailment or will not give the relief (inequitable privileges ) you are aspiring for. Please invent another argument.

        Thanks!

      • yapa

        Dear thivya;

        You are trying to tell the world that Sinhalese are twisting the history of this country. I put to you, you are doing it, though you have not provided any genuine facts to establish your claim.

        Following is an example for how you are trying to twist the facts. When you answer my questions I think you will realize this fact.

        You say,

        “Historically, THE VANNI ENCOMPASSED MANNAR, VAVUNIYA, TRINCOMALEE, POLONNARUWA, BATTICALOA, AMPARA AND PUTTALAM hinterlands. But the Vanniyars in the Vanni region were powerful during the Portuguese and Dutch periods.

        The Vanniyars belong to the warrior caste with heroic and marital skills. According to folklore, seven Vanni chieftains who fought unsuccessfully against the Dutch committed suicide to avoid capture. They are still revered at Natchimar temples in the Vanni and Jaffna.”
        …………….

        Questions,

        1. Do you consider Vanniars as kings or chieftains?

        2. Are you sure they are Tamils?

        3. Were they in Sri Lanka before Aryachakrawarthi invaded Jaffna peninsula in the 13th century?

        4. Was the Vanni alwys a part of the the Jaffna kingdom?

        6. If they were there in Vanni, before Aryachakrawarthis, to whom they were loyal, before they became loyal to Jaffna Kings when they became powerful?

        7. If the vanniars were Tamils why only the Jaffna kingdom is referred as first ruled by Tamil kings?

        8. If Vanniars were Tamils and they were there before Aryachakrawarthi captured Jaffna peninsula, how come Vanniars did not capture Jaffna which is closer to South India than Vanni?

        8. If Jaffna and Vanni were under the rule of Tamils why they prevailed as two entities?

        9. Where was the Veddha community during the period of Vaniars?

        10. It is true that all the areas you have highlighted in capital letters belonged to Vanni.

        Do you say that whole area was under Vanniars, as you are trying to indicate in the next paragraph?

        11. What historical records/evidence do you use to establish the claims you made with regard to the Vanniars?

        Thanks!

      • Off the Cuff

        Thivya,

        You say “Please see these links; this might help you to clear some of your doubts about the place names not only in Jaffna but throughout the island”

        Thivya, unlike you, I do not delude myself about who we are. As stated before, on this thread, the Sinhalese ancestors are from India that is a certainty. I am not sure where in India they originated from. Sinhalese and Tamils have a common genome of over 50%. These Sinhalese who have been ruled by Tamils by invitation and by invasion have lived all over this Island and hence they can continue to live all over this Island.

        I recognise the same rights for the Tamils, Moors, Malays, Burghers etc not just for those Tamils who call themselves Lankan Tamil but for Indian origin Tamils who are now citizens of this country. These Tamils do not have a History going back more than a few centuries in Lanka as they were brought in by the Colonials to work on plantations. Hence their short history in Lanka is undisputed.

        What I do not recognise is Exclusive Historic Homelands for any ethnic group, which is propounded for the express purpose of stealing land from the other inhabitants of the island.

        The Historic Tamil Homeland is aimed at Stealing Land and all the resource that goes with that land for the exclusive use of a minority of Racists within the Tamil Community.

        These racists have caused the death of tens of thousands of Tamil children (some as young as 9 yrs according to the UN), without batting an eyelid, in order to achieve their selfish ends. You talk of being proud Tamils. Did you or your children fight for the cause and put your lives on the line as those children were forced to do by no one other than Tamils?

        The request I made in my post of July 14, 2012 • 3:40 am
        was for names of Tamil Humans not names of Tamil places or Tamil dogs etc. You have been avoiding this question in your subsequent responses.

        I repeat my request again

        Can you provide examples of Tamil names with Hendaramana or Singha or Kumara in the present day? I am not asking about Tamilised names such as Kumaran or Singham.

        Is it a difficult question for such a well informed Eelamist like you to answer or are you worried of my subsequent question?

        BTW did you contact the Embassy of the Netherlands? There is one in Canada.

        Have you finished with the Suddhas (Claighorn, North and Quaros)?

      • Keynes!

        Thivya,

        The article by Walter Rupesinghe that you cited does not state that the Cholas built Velgam Vehera. We, thus, need to come up with another explanation.

        Here’s my first conjecture: the Cholas did not build Velgam Vehera but venerated and refurbished it out of compassion on their arrival.

        My second conjecture is far-fetched. Let me try nevertheless.

        The Cholas were avid patrons of Shiva and played an instrumental role in creating the cosmic dancer Nataraja, which is an iconic and potent political symbol. Angkor Wat was dedicated to Vishnu however and not to revere Shiva. Suryavarman’s decision to claim consubstantiation with Vishnu can be interpreted as a backlash against the indulgence of his predecessors and overseers in South India. A similar backlash may have occurred when the Chola chiefs entered the Eastern Province and decided to build a Buddhist place of worship instead. Karuna and Pillayan also decided to breakaway along the lines of Suryavarman.

      • Off the Cuff

        Thivya,

        History of Ceylon presented to the king of Portugal in 1685 by Joao Ribero, Joachim Le Grande

        Extract from page 50

        Antonio Amaral de Menzes had built a fort near Jaffna which prevented ships from approaching that place: and is another fort has been erected at Calmoni, no vessal would have been able to enter that arm of the sea which separates the Kingdom of Jaffnapatam from the country of the Vanias.

        That Kingdom is divided in to four parts. This division does not include the islands of Ouvatura, Cardina, &c. Those four parts are are Belligampate at the extreme point, and most to the North. Tenmoratchy, Wadoomoratch and Patiarapali: ….

        End Extract

        Here you see the Jaffna Kingdom, during the Portuguese period, with it’s boundaries described to a T. The description specifically excludes the Islets around Peninsular Jaffna. It puts an end to your Lies. Deception and Expansionist designs. It confirms what I have been writing and trashes your claims.

        To keep the argument about a Tamil kingdom in the East to the minimum, here is what Dr Pradeep Jeganathan, a Tamil himself, has to say.

        Extract
        it is not historically accurate to say that the Kings of Jaffna ruled the east, certainly even a cursory glance at Dutch records and the doings of Rajasinha the 2nd will tell you, that the Kings of the Kanda Uda Pas Rate, (the five countries on top of the mountains) were also the overlords of Batticoloa and Trincomalee.
        End extract

        Kalmunai was the royal farm of the King of Kandy, Rajasinghe (ii). The Muslims expelled from Colombo by the Portuguese were resettled by him in Kalmunai and Kattankudi. That is why the Muslims are a majority there today.

        I have to correct an error that I made in my previous post. It was not Tamils who ruled in Kandy by invitation. They were Telegu but were Tamil speaking.

        Lanka’s resources are for the common benefit of all her citizens to be enjoyed equally and equitably.

      • thivya

        Dear Editor,

        Please allow this post instead of the other one for the same question posted by ‘Off the cuff’.I apologize for the inconvenience.

        Thank you
        Thivya
        ………………………………………………………….

        //Can you provide examples of Tamil names with Hendaramana or Singha or Kumara in the present day? I am not asking about Tamilised names such as Kumaran or Singham.//

        Off the Cuff,

        This is the problem with Sinhalese, they try to interpret the history of Tamils in Sri Lanka with no or limited knowledge in Tamil and come up with all kinds of nonsense. That is NOT Singha but it is SINGAI, a Tamil word. The kingdom in Vallipuram, Jaffna was called Singai Nagar, The descendants of Arya Chakravarti married into Kalinga Magha family and created a dynasty of Singai-Aryans and ruled from Vallipuram and renamed it as Singai Nagar. Here the word Aryan denotes Noble in Tamil. None of the kings of Jaffna came from North India, I don’t want you to get mixed up with that. That’s why the Jaffna Kings had the title SINGAI – ARYAN not Singha Aryan.

        Hendaramana is what the Sinhalese called the last king of Jaffna, we have so many different names for the Kings of Sri Lanka. For example. Theva Nampiya Theesan is the son of Muta Sivan. the Tamils call the king who accepted Buddhism in Sri Lanka Theva Nampiya Theesan,( a Tamil name), so do you agree that he is a Tamil King?

        Theva = God in Tamil

        Nampiya (regular Tamil word) = believed

        Theesan = King or man of righteousness in Tamil

        Deva Nampiya Theesan = The King who believed in Truth(God)

        Muta = Elder

        King Muta Siva (you can’t get any more Tamil than this, because the word MUTA is still heavily used in Jaffna Tamil to refer elders or eldest Son)

        Can you provide example of Sinhala name THEVA NAMPIYA THEESAN? 🙂

        Kumara can also be a prefix in Tamil language, there are many names starting with Kumara, for example: Kumara Kuruparan, Kumara Singham, Kumara Sooriyar (I read somewhere that he was a Tamil minister in Sri Lankan government. but the Tamil word Kumaran as the last name got corrupted as ‘kumara’ in Sanskrit Palmleaf (Olai) writings and inscriptions. For example a Tamil poet would write the name of the last king of Jaffna as Sankili Kumaran, and it will become Kumara(dropping the n) in Sanskrit inscription for the same king. If you know the History of Tamils, you will know that the Tamil kings fostered Tamil and Sanskrit. Just like the Europeans used Latin for academic purposes instead of their own common language, the Tamils also used Sanskrit for inscriptions and historic records; this could be to prevent the academic issues reaching the commoners.

        P.S: I have a family, job and other commitments; if I don’t reply right away, please do not think you are right. 🙂

      • Off the Cuff

        Dear Thivya,

        You say “I have a family, job and other commitments; if I don’t reply right away, please do not think you are right”

        Is this unique to you? We have families, jobs and other commitments too. But what you did was avoid the question by omitting to answer it, though you have replied the rest of the post earlier. I note that this tendency to avoid, has been noted by others, who contest your views. However I do admire your intelligence, though you are fighting a lost cause.

        You say “Can you provide example of Sinhala name THEVA NAMPIYA THEESAN?”

        Of course not, as the Sinhala name is Devanampiyatissa.

        Can you support your Tamilisation by referencing Historic Tamil literature dating back to the same period? Piyatissa is a common Sinhala first name even today and so is Tissa. “Deva” means any god and “nam” means name as in “Thivya nam puthgalayek” (a person called Thivya).

        I accept what you say about Kumara but here again Kumarasooriya and Kumarasingha are Sinhala and the Tamilised version has an “m”, “n” or “r” at the end. The Kumara in Sinhala needs no corruption to identify DIRECTLY, with stone and Ola references.

        You say “Hendaramana is what the Sinhalese called the last king of Jaffna, we have so many different names for the Kings of Sri Lanka”

        Writing about the fall of Periya Raja’s Jaffna Kingdom to the Portuguese, Professor Peter Courtenay states,

        “…………..the defeat of the Jaffnese was complete, the town was taken. The King had taken to flight, but was found hiding in a Temple, brought before Andrew Furtado de Mendoza who, obeying the Viceroy’s orders had him beheaded. The Queen and all the royal family were among the prisoners.

        Master of the Kingdom of Jaffna, Andrew Furtado de Mendoza took seriously to heart the organisation of his conquest…………….

        After having heard his Council and his Superiors of the Mission, Furtado de Mendoza decided to chose, among the members of the royal family, to which the people seemed to be attached, a prince, whose character gave a guarantee that he would make a wise and just Ruler, and proclaim him King of Jaffna, on the conditions of the treaty of 1560, that is that he would accept the Portuguese protectorate and pay the Viceroy a yearly tribute.

        The choice fell on a prince named Hendaramana Singha Cumara, who was much beloved by the people, and he was proclaimed King under the name of Sagara Raja ll, with the condition however that he would only act as Regent till his elevation to the throne had been confirmed by the Viceroy.”

        Pages 188, 189, 190 History of Ceylon: An Abridged Translation of Prof Peter Courtenay’s work by Peter Courtenay, M.G. Francis.

        Why did Prof; Peter Courtney use the Sinhala name and not the Tamil one?

      • thivya

        //History of Ceylon presented to the king of Portugal in 1685 by Joao Ribero, Joachim Le Grande//

        Off the Cuff,

        Thank you, if it was not for you I would have never browsed through entire 277 pages.

        On page 50, there is not even a mention of the word BOUNDARY, but I guess you inserted that. He was talking about Vanni. Either you are confused or Joao Ribero, Joachim Le Grande got confused here. In page 51 he is not talking about the Jaffna Kingdom, as usual you rushed in to conclusion. 🙂

        Didn’t you see an * asterisk beside “That Kingdom is divided in to four parts.” If you look at the bottom of the page, it says “the Wanny as it is now called”. So obviously he is talking about the Vanni after the fall of Jaffna kingdom and he is not talking about the boundaries of Jaffna kingdom in Page 50, I hope you understand now. I think you should go back and read it.

        Look what I found in the same reference you gave me. 🙂

        EXTRACT FROM PAGE 19.

        “Trincomalee is an elevation near the bay dos Arcos, and there the coast extends further northward 36 leagues till we arrive at Point Pedro, a little further onward it turns east to west 24 leagues, which brings us to Mannar, and in the INTERMEDAITE SPACE LIES THE KINGDOM OF JAFFNA PATAM with all its Forts. ”

        According to the same book you are quoting, the Kingdom of Jaffna Patanam stretches from Point Pedro to Mannar.

        EXTRACT FROM CHAPTER XXV PAGE 82

        -Of the Islands in the neighborhood of Jaffnapatam-

        “At the extreme point of Jaffna Patam, there area several islands which, though small in extent, compose a considerable part of that kingdom. These islands are named orature, or dos Pagodas (Nainativiu), Caradiva, Porcadiva, or Deserba, Dona Clara. Do brannes , das Vacas, Palativa, there is one to which the Dutch have called Delft.

        EXTRACT FROM PAGE 169

        The PROVINCE of Jaffna Patam is not to be regarded in the same point of view as the Southern provinces. It is a Kingdom of ITSELF, having inhabitants of DIFFERENT NATION, NOT being under the authority of the Princess of Kandy, but wholly subject to the Dutch Company.

        The Jaffna Kingdom was captured by the Portuguese in 1619 and those Tamil chieftains in Vanni lost their power in 1803. These letters were submitted to the king of Portugal in1685, almost 65 years after.
        Just like Monk Mahanama wrote Mahavamsa 600 years after the arrival of the Vijaya and made up lots of stories, omission and commission could have also happened here. Therefore I would rather agree with the historian Father Fernao De Queroz( Temporal and Spiritual Conquest of Ceylon, , Vol.1, page 51) than Captain Ribero, Joachim Le Gran.

        This “History of Ceylon presented to the king of Portugal in 1685 by Joao Ribero, Joachim Le Grande” and the Dutch archives further prove the rule of Vanni Chiefs. But there are enough records in Tamil Nadu and in Sri Lanka (eg: Konesar Kalvettu (inscription) and the settlement of Vanniyars in Thirukonamalai by a Tamil king to serve the Koneswaram temple) to show the arrival of Tamil Vanniyar caste people to Sri Lanka. There is an abundance of literary evidence in Tamil about the Vanni chiefs in Northern Vanni and in the Eastren province. So now you need to go and twist the truth and say that Vanni Chiefs were Sinahelse and the Veddas are Sinhalese etc. The veddas might have called themselves Vanniyaltto or something like that in reference to the presence of strong Vanni trees in the Sri Lankan forests, but the Tamil Vanni chifes weere actual Vanniyar caste people who migrated from Tamil Nadu. Some of them were settled by the Chola kings in the East who renovated the Konesar Temple.

        T:)

      • thivya

        //The choice fell on a prince named Hendaramana Singha Cumara, who was much beloved by the people, and he was proclaimed King under the name of Sagara Raja ll, with the condition however that he would only act as Regent till his elevation to the throne had been confirmed by the Viceroy.” Pages 188, 189, 190 History of Ceylon: An Abridged Translation of Prof Peter Courtenay’s work by Peter Courtenay, M.G. Francis.//

        Off the Cuff,

        That is not Sagara king but Segara Kings. The Rasa Segaran and Kula Segarans are the Tamil Pandiya dynasty’s royal titles. The Sinhalese want to claim the ownership of Jaffna Kingdom based on names. That is crazy. 🙂

        In that case do you know who was the King DON JOAO of Sri Lanka, was he a Portuguese? That is the name the Portuguese gave to Wimala Dharma Sooriya. Many Tamils Kings in India and Sri Lanka had Sanskrit titles and many Tamil children of Tamils have non Tamil names. There is a chance the Portuguese got mixed up with names.

        Let’s agree the Tamil king Periya Pillai’s(Pure Tamil name) son is Hendaramana(and he is Sinhalese),the same Peter Courtenay says he was crowned under the name of Para Rasa Sekara Pandara(m), it is obviously to please the majority of the Population. Is there any Para Rasa Sekaran among the Sinhalese?

        To put an end to all your speculation, I would like to quote something from the same reference you gave me.

        “The PROVINCE of Jaffna Patam is not to be regarded in the same point of view as the Southern provinces. It is a Kingdom of ITSELF, having inhabitants of DIFFERENT NATION, NOT being under the authority of the Princess of Kandy, but wholly subject to the Dutch Company.”

        (‘History of Ceylon presented to the king of Portugal in 1685 by Joao Ribero, Joachim Le Grande’. – Page 169)

        It clearly says the inhabitants of Jaffna Kingdom are of “DIFFERENT NATION, that different Nation is still the majority in Jaffna and we are not ready to give up our homeland for any mistake the Portuguese made about the name of the son of a Tamil king named Periya Pillai. But you can dream on…. 🙂

        T:)

      • thivya

        //I have to correct an error that I made in my previous post. It was not Tamils who ruled in Kandy by invitation. They were Telegu but were Tamil speaking.//

        Off the Cuff,

        Whatever makes you happy? 🙂 But the fact is the Kandiyan Royal Family was Tamil blooded Telugu origin and their mother Toungue is TAMIL and the official langage was Tamil in the Kandiyan Kingdom. For example, the famous Tamil Nadu politician and a strong supporter of the LTTE, Vaiko, and his ancestors were Tamil blooded Nayake dynasty. I don’t think he would like to hear that he is not a Tamil. 🙂

        “PARAKRAMA BAHU the Great, a TAMIL Blooded King, Prince of TAMIL Royal Blood, PANDYAN DESCENT”. He is son of a Tamil man, in that case do you agree that PARAKRAMABAHI WAS A SINHALA SPEAKING TAMIL KING? 🙂

        Princess Mitta, the sister of Vijayabahu I, was given in marriage to a Pandyan Prince. Manahbarana, Kitti Sri Megha and Sri Vallabha are the three sons by this union. Parakramabahu is the son of Manabharana and Ratnavali, daughter of Vijayabahu and his Tamil queen, Thilokasundari. Parakramabahu I thus coming of TAMIL LINEAGE , easily ingratiated himself to the Tamils of Jaffna.

        [141. PARAKRAMA BAHU I 1140-1173 AD Grandson of Vijaya Bahu I, Prince of Royal Blood, PANDYAN DESCENT, son of Manabharana and Vijaya Bahu s sister, Mitta.

        http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ lkawgw/slm-kings.htm]

        If you want to know more about the Jaffna Kingdom, please go here:

        http://thivyaaa.blogspot.ca/

        T:)

      • Off the Cuff

        Dear Thivya,

        Trying your hand at confusing the reader again?

        You say “On page 50, there is not even a mention of the word BOUNDARY, but I guess you inserted that.”

        I expect you to be honest and not Cheat.

        Here is the Quoted text again

        Extract from page 50
        Antonio Amaral de Menzes had built a fort near Jaffna which prevented ships from approaching that place: and if another fort has been erected at Calmoni, no vessal would have been able to enter that arm of the sea which separates the Kingdom of Jaffnapatam from the country of the Vanias.
        That Kingdom is divided in to four parts. This division does not include the islands of Ouvatura, Cardina, &c. Those four parts are are Belligampate at the extreme point, and most to the North. Tenmoratchy, Wadoomoratch and Patiarapali: ….
        End Extract

        Now please show the GV readers the word BOUNDRY that you accuse me of inserting anywhere within that quoted text?

        You say “Didn’t you see an * asterisk beside “That Kingdom is divided in to four parts.” If you look at the bottom of the page, it says “the Wanny as it is now called”. So obviously he is talking about the Vanni after the fall of Jaffna kingdom and he is not talking about the boundaries of Jaffna kingdom in Page 50, I hope you understand now. I think you should go back and read it”

        You have been check mated and you are now groping at straws.

        The four parts are named.
        They are Belligampate at the extreme point, and most to the North. Tenmoratchy, Wadoomoratch and Patiarapali.

        Names sound familiar?
        Are Tennamarachchi and Wadamarachchi situated in the Vanni?
        Don’t be Daft Thivya.

        Belligampate is referred as MOST to the NORTH.
        Is the Vanni MOST to the North out of the named four?

        What you have forgotten, in your insane haste to devalue evidence, that does not suit your agenda, is that the ORIGINAL of this book presented to the King of Portugal in 1685 was in Portuguese.

        What we read in English today is a translation from the French by George Lee, Post Master General of Ceylon and dedicated to G. V. Torington, Governor General of Ceylon.

        The postscripts has been added by the translator, who is an officer of the British Colonial Administration, as an explanatory note, over a century Later

        The book has been printed at the government press, Ceylon.

        You should have looked at the format of the postscripts before putting your foot in the mouth.

        The asterisk refers to the word Vanias (the Wanny as it is now called ) just like the cross which references the word Budu to a postscript on page 57 (you will find a reference to the right canine tooth of the Buddha there)

        Page 15

        Extract
        The Kingdom of Kandy stretches from Adam’s Peak to Trincomalie and to the country of the Veddhas which is near Jaffnapatnam. ………….. Although Jaffnapatnam is in the same island, it is not reconed as belonging to it, as it is inhabited by the Malabars whom the Singalese despise exceedingly………….. But between Trincomalie and Jaffnapatnam there is a peculiar race called the Veddhas …….
        End Extract

        BTW Thivya, please indicate where your extracts end.

        The boundary of Jaffna Kingdom is very clearly stated and it is confined to the Jaffna Peninsular.

        I set out to establish that and that has been established.

        You cannot prove a non existing Eastern Tamil Kingdom. The Moors were settled there by the King of Kandy. Dutch records show that your claim is false. Please refer Dr Pradeep Jeganathan.

        Thivya you have stepped on quicksand.
        You cannot establish an expanded homeland other than Jaffnapatnam.

      • thivya

        141. PARAKRAMA BAHU I 1140-1173 AD – Grandson of Vijaya Bahu I, Prince of Royal Blood, Pandyan descent, son of Manabharana and RATNAVALI.

        Princess Mitta, the sister of Vijayabahu I, was given in marriage to a Pandyan Prince. Manahbarana, Kitti Sri Megha and Sri Vallabha are the three sons by this union. Parakramabahu is the son of Manabharana and Ratnavali, daughter of Vijayabahu and his Tamil queen, Thilokasundari. Parakramabahu I thus coming of TAMIL LINEAGE , easily ingratiated himself to the Tamils of Jaffna.

        (“He (the king) fetched the Pandu king who came of an unblemished line, and wedded him his Royal sister Mitta by name. She bore him three sons, Manabharana, Kittisirimegha and Srivallabha. To Manabharana he gave his daughter Ratnavali,” Cul. Ch. 59; 49-51.)

        http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lkawgw/slm-kings.htm

      • wijayapala

        Dear thivya

        This is the problem with Sinhalese, they try to interpret the history of Tamils in Sri Lanka with no or limited knowledge in Tamil and come up with all kinds of nonsense. That is NOT Singha but it is SINGAI, a Tamil word.

        The problem with you is that you try to interpret the history of Sri Lanka with no or limited knowledge of any language other than Tamil and thus come up with all kinds of nonsense. As I hope you are aware, Tamil is not a “pure” language (no language is) and many of its words come from Sanskrit. “SINGAI” is one such word. There is no Dravidian origin word for “lion” most likely because there were no lions in southern India. Therefore it is no surprise at all that the ancient Tamils had borrowed the Sanskrit word for lion and adopted it into their language.

        In case you still do not understand (which would be rather odd for someone who claims to value history as you do), take the Tamil word arasan or “king.” arasan derives from the Sanskrit/prakrit raja and therefore cannot be said to be a pure “Tamil” word. The word for “king” in old Tamil was ko which today is found in both Tamil and Sinhala names as the -koon suffix (i.e. Bradman Weerakoon).

        Here the word Aryan denotes Noble in Tamil.

        Here again, the word “Arya” has a Sanskrit, not Dravidian origin. It is another loanward. Thus the name “Arya Singai” has absolutely no Dravidian origins whatsoever.

        Incidentally, historians believe that the Arya Chakravarty dynasty was originally Brahmins from Ramnad area. That may explain why their dynastic name had a wholly Sanskritic/non-Tamil nature! 😉

        the Tamils call the king who accepted Buddhism in Sri Lanka Theva Nampiya Theesan,( a Tamil name), so do you agree that he is a Tamil King?

        No, I do not agree that he was a Tamil king. The name you have is a Tamil transliteration of the prakrit name Devanampiya Tissa. If you disagree with me, kindly show us the Tamil text or inscription which carries the name “Theva Nampiya Theesan.” Could you also explain why the ancient Brahmi inscriptions of that time are in Sinhala prakrit and not Tamil?

        If you knew the story of how Buddhism came to Sri Lanka, then you would know that “Devanampiya” was not the Sri Lankan king’s actual name but rather the Mauryan-inspired title he received at his second coronation (after Buddhism came to Sri Lanka). Tissa’s descendants also carried that same title although in literature they are not referred to as such.

        Theva = God in Tamil

        Wrong. Theva is the Tamil transliteration of the Sanskrit/prakrit word deva. Kadavul is a “pure” Tamil word for God (properly translating Kada = outer ul = inner; that which is inside and outside).

        King Muta Siva (you can’t get any more Tamil than this, because the word MUTA is still heavily used in Jaffna Tamil to refer elders or eldest Son)

        Here I would agree with you- Mutasiva has no Sanskrit/prakrit elements and most likely reflects a Tamil name. So how would you explain a Sinhala racist text like Mahavamsa having a Tamil name for a Sri Lankan king?

        the Tamil word Kumaran got corrupted as kumara in Sanskrit ola writings and inscriptions.

        That is because kumara is the Sanskrit/prakrit word for “prince,” which transliterated into Tamil as kumaran. It is not a “pure” Tamil word. I am sure there is a “pure” Tamil word for prince but I do not know it.

      • sabbe laban

        Off the Cuff/thivya

        After going through all the arguments and counter-arguments put forward by you,(as well as by mythical Ravana and Kaynes) once again I’m buying to what OTC says(eventhough he doesn’t want to sell it!)

        What de Queroz says doesn’t refute in essence, what the Dutch Archives record states, as pointed out by OTC; the latter seems to be a more objective record! All in all, what we can conclude of this rather obscure period of Sri Lankan history is, that the Vanni was sub-unit within the Kandian Kingdom which was run by chieftans or warlords who had their allegiences with the King of Kandy. Furthermore, the people of Vanni appear to be, according to the evidence, of a mixed ethnicity.

      • thivya

        //The boundary of Jaffna Kingdom is very clearly stated and it is confined to the Jaffna Peninsular.//
        Off the cuff,

        Please explain the contradictions on Page 50 & Page 82 and I will reply to the rest soon.

        I am not sure if you didn’t notice it or you just don’t want to talk about it.. 🙂

        Page 50 says: “This division DOES NOT INCLUDE THE ISLANDS OF OUVATURA, Cardina…..

        That Kingdom is divided in to four parts. This division DOES NOT INCLUDE THE ISLANDS OF OUVATURA, Cardina, &c. Those four parts are are Belligampate at the extreme point, and most to the North. Tenmoratchy, Wadoomoratch and Patiarapali: ….

        EXTRACT FROM CHAPTER XXV PAGE 82 – says:

        “At the extreme point of Jaffna Patam, there are several islands which, though small in extent, COMPOSE A CONSIDERABLE PART OF THAT KINGDOM. These islands are named orature, or dos Pagodas, Caradiva, Porcadiva, or Deserba, Dona Clara. Do brannes , das Vacas, Palativa, there is one to which the Dutch have called Delft.

        -Of the Islands in the neighborhood of Jaffnapatam-

      • thivya

        //Here again, the word “Arya” has a Sanskrit, not Dravidian origin. It is another loanward. Thus the name “Arya Singai” has absolutely no Dravidian origins whatsoever.//

        wijayapala,

        We are not discussing the Aryan or Dravidian origin of words here. The word Singai is a more Tamilized word than the word Singha. Based on your reply, I think you are not familiar with Tamil etymology. So I think it is such a waste of time for me to discuss this with you and I didn’t come here to discuss Tamil etymology with anyone. It seems like you think more highly of Sanskrit than Tamil, for your information Sanskrit heavily borrowed from Tamil.

      • thivya

        //Page 15

        Extract

        The Kingdom of Kandy stretches from Adam’s Peak to Trincomalie and to the country of the Veddhas which is near Jaffnapatnam. ………….. Although Jaffnapatnam is in the same island, it is not reconed as belonging to it, as it is inhabited by the Malabars whom the Singalese despise exceedingly………….. But between Trincomalie and Jaffnapatnam there is a peculiar race called the Veddhas …….//

        Off the Cuff,

        Please give me the internet link, the one I found on google doesn’t even have Page 15. I searched with the Veddha, veddhas, vedda etc and nothing came up. It says ‘nothing found’. It seems like we are looking at two different links.

      • thivya

        //Thivya, please indicate where your extracts end.
        The boundary of Jaffna Kingdom is very clearly stated and it is confined to the Jaffna Peninsular. //

        Off The Guff,

        Since you did not comment on the three ‘extracts’ I posted from “History of Ceylon presented to the king of Portugal in 1685 by Joao Ribero, Joachim Le Grande” I have print screened those pages. Please see the link below and comment. 🙂

        http://thivyaaa.blogspot.ca/2012/07/history-of-ceylon-presented-to-king-of.html

      • Keynes!

        Off the Cuff,

        “We know that Elara, a Tamil, ruled in Anuradhapura as an Invader but was considered a Just King by the Sinhalese subjects.”

        1. How did you come to the conclusion that Elara was an invader?

        2. How did you come to the conclusion that Sinhalese subjects lived in Anuradhapura during Elara’s rule?

      • Keynes!

        Thivya,

        “FATHER FERNAO DE QUEROZ, a historian who lived in Jaffna and has seen the entire Jaffna Kingdom.”

        What evidence do you have to prove this?

      • Off the Cuff

        Dear All,

        The book

        History of Ceylon presented to the king of Portugal in 1685 by Joao Ribero, Joachim Le Grande

        is available as a PDF download in Google books. (click on the wheel on the top right hand corner to access the pdf)

        It can also be viewed and searched within Google Books

        Try the following link or search for the name within google

        http://books.google.lk/books?id=D6M2AAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=veddas&f=false

        This is submitted at the request of Thivya

        This is a valuable book on Lanka History.

      • Off the Cuff

        Dear Thivya,

        You say

        EXTRACT FROM CHAPTER XXV PAGE 82
        -Of the Islands in the neighborhood of Jaffnapatam-
        “At the extreme point of Jaffna Patam, there area several islands which, though small in extent, compose a considerable part of that kingdom. These islands are named orature, or dos Pagodas (Nainativiu), Caradiva, Porcadiva, or Deserba, Dona Clara. Do brannes , das Vacas, Palativa, there is one to which the Dutch have called Delft.

        Vanni lost their power in 1803. These letters were submitted to the king of Portugal in1685, almost 65 years after. Just like Monk Mahanama wrote Mahavamsa 600 years after the arrival of the Vijaya and made up lots of stories, omission and commission could have also happened here. “

        Firstly, History as the subject implies, is a record of the Past.
        It is not written in real time in the present.

        Secondly, this is a submission to the King of Portugal and the King held absolute power of life and death. If you were the author of a document that you had to submit to a King with such power, would you dare to deceive him?
        Get Real Thivya.

        The passages you selected from Quaros and this report to the King of Portugal states the following

        Report to King of Portugal states

        At the extreme point of Jaffna Patam, there are several islands which, though small in extent, compose a considerable part of that kingdom.
        End extract

        It follows from the above that a considerable Area of Jaffnapatnam consisted of the total areas of the above individual islands. A 10% area would be too small to be tabled as a considerable area. A 25% area would qualify to that term.

        Hence if the Sum of areas of the islands were 20% of the area of Jaffnapatnam, the Jaffna Kingdom would be five times the total area the small islands.

        This indicates that the Jaffna Kingdom was small.

        Quaros as per Thivya
        This modest Kingdom is not confined to the little district of Jafanapatao, because to it are also added the neighbouring lands, and those of the Vani, “

        A modest kingdom means a small kingdom.

        Hence even if it includes some parts of the Vanni (on the Western seaboard), it could not have encompassed the whole of the present day Vanni as there was no Tamil Kingdom in the East. Vide Dr Pradeep Jeganathan and Dutch records. The Moors expelled by the Portuguese were settled in the East by the King of Kandy (in Kalmunai and Kattankudy). This indicates the authority of the Kandy King over the East, during the Portuguese period.

        Strangely, though History is sited, the boundaries that are claimed are Arbitrary and based on the Colonial period.

        The expanded Historical Tamil Homeland is a Land Grab in disguise, perpetrated on the Citizens of Lanka by a minority amongst the Tamils, whose interest is power and nothing else.

        Your post July 16, 2012 • 8:41 pm

        You said Hendaramana is the name used by Sinhalese for a Tamil King.
        My question was why the Portuguese chose the Sinhala name in preference to the Tamil one.
        It is a simple and logical question based on your reply.
        Why do you have to go berserk?

        You say “The Sinhalese want to claim the ownership of Jaffna Kingdom based on names”

        Please stop your histrionics no one has made such a claim. The point of this discussion is not to deny what you had, but to deny your claim to what you did not have.

        You say “The PROVINCE of Jaffna Patam is not to be regarded in the same point of view as the Southern provinces. It is a Kingdom of ITSELF, having inhabitants of DIFFERENT NATION, NOT being under the authority of the Princess of Kandy, but wholly subject to the Dutch Company.”

        Of course, no one denies it. What is denied is your claim to the whole of the present day Vanni and the whole of the East.

        Yours of July 16, 2012 • 8:53 pm

        You say “Whatever makes you happy? But the fact is the Kandiyan Royal Family was Tamil blooded Telugu origin and their mother Toungue is TAMIL and the official langage was Tamil in the Kandiyan Kingdom. For example, the famous Tamil Nadu politician and a strong supporter of the LTTE, Vaiko, and his ancestors were Tamil blooded Nayake dynasty. I don’t think he would like to hear that he is not a Tamil. “

        You are like a fish out of water.

        Please re read my posts.
        That Tamil speaking persons from the Telegu royal family was invited to rule in Lanka has already been stated by me. So why are you asking irrelevant questions?

        Yours of July 17, 2012 • 1:50 am

        Full of irrelevancies. Prove your claim to Territory.

        Yours of July 17, 2012 • 9:53 am
        Already replied.

        Yours of July 17, 2012 • 10:35 am
        Link already posted with download instructions

        Yours of July 17, 2012 • 11:28 am

        You say “Since you did not comment on the three ‘extracts’ I posted from “History of Ceylon presented to the king of Portugal in 1685 by Joao Ribero, Joachim Le Grande” I have print screened those pages. Please see the link below and comment. “

        Keeping track of your multitude posts is a herculean task. Try to post a single reply instead of butchering your reply to pieces. At least once it has been posted in different threads.

        Hope you will comply with my request to clearly indicate where your extracts start and end. Filtering your own comments from the quotes is difficult as it is.

      • thivya

        //This is submitted at the request of Thivya//

        Off The Guff,

        Thank you. The question here is the Veddas were living in Northern Vanni region, were they trading with the Portuguese and Dutch or the Tamil Vanniyars? I know the Veddas were and are living in Sri Lanka. Please comment on the three extracts I print screened and posted on my blog.

        http://thivyaaa.blogspot.ca/2012/07/history-of-ceylon-presented-to-king-of.html

      • thivya

        //You cannot establish an expanded homeland other than Jaffnapatnam.
        Firstly, History as the subject implies, is a record of the Past.
        It is not written in real time in the present.//

        Off The Guff,

        The reference you gave clearly proves that the islands were part of the Jaffna Kingdom but you still say Jaffna Kingdom was limited to Jaffnapatnam only. Nobody knows about the educational backgrounds of these captains who wrote all these letters or reports and we can’t just rely on their reports to accept or deny the boundaries of Jaffna kingdom. The Tamil’s homeland claim is not just based on Jaffna kingdom but those contiguous territories where Tamil kings and Tamil chieftains ruled, Tamils formed the majority and lived many centuries.

        For example, the Albanian Muslims started to settle in the Serbian province of Kosovo in the latter part of the Ottoman Empire, less than 300 years after; the world accepted their claim of Homeland in Kosovo and recognized the independence of Kosovo.

        We Tamils are living in the North- East from the dawn of history. No matter how the Sinhala racists twist the history, we have lived in the North- East of Sri Lanka for much longer than the Albanian Muslims in Kosovo. So, regardless of what the Sinhalese say here, we Tamils have a homeland claim in Sri Lanka.

        What is sauce for the Albanian goose must be sauce for the Tamil gander as well, right? 🙂

        By the way you did not comment on the following extract on Page 19. I also posted the print screen of that on my blog.

        EXTRACT FROM PAGE 19.

        “Trincomalee is an elevation near the bay dos Arcos, and there the coast extends further northward 36 leagues till we arrive at Point Pedro, a little further onward it turns east to west 24 leagues, which brings us to Mannar, and in the INTERMEDAITE SPACE LIES THE KINGDOM OF JAFFNA PATAM with all its Forts. ”…..

      • Off the Cuff

        Dear Thivya,

        Kindly read and try to understand what has been written, without making a fool of yourself. Your attempts at spreading misinformation has been check mated by many contributors here.

        You have even failed to substantiate Tamil History with Wijayapala, who I know is a Sinhalese who has in depth knowledge about Tamil affairs. This has been acknowledged by even Krish from India and I believe will not be contested even by Burning Issue that has come out in your support. Apparently you do not posses his depth of knowledge.

        Please argue the points presented without incoherently flip flopping like a fish out of water in it’s death throes. I thank you for being the catalyst for this discussion.

        You say ” The reference you gave clearly proves that the islands were part of the Jaffna Kingdom but you still say Jaffna Kingdom was limited to Jaffnapatnam only.”

        Here is what I wrote

        Report to King of Portugal states
        At the extreme point of Jaffna Patnam, there are several islands which, though small in extent, compose a considerable part of that kingdom.
        End extract
        It follows from the above that a considerable Area of Jaffnapatnam consisted of the total areas of the above individual islands. A 10% area would be too small to be tabled as a considerable area. A 25% area would qualify to that term.
        Hence if the Sum of areas of the islands were 20% of the area of Jaffnapatnam, the Jaffna Kingdom would be five times the total area the small islands.
        This indicates that the Jaffna Kingdom was small.
        End extract

        I have based my argument, about the smallness of the Jaffna Kingdom on the very existence of the Islands as part of that kingdom. What has happened to you Thivya, has this unexpected deluge of evidence, exposing the Lies perpetrated by Eelam separatists, to rob the Lankan population of land, robbed you of your sanity too?


        The East never had a Tamil Kingdom that pre-dates the Sinhalese.
        The Jaffna Kingdom was only a few magnitudes bigger than the combined area of those Islands.

        This then will negate your claim, to the whole of the present day Vanni.

        You say “Nobody knows about the educational backgrounds of these captains who wrote all these letters or reports and we can’t just rely on their reports to accept or deny the boundaries of Jaffna kingdom. The Tamil’s homeland claim is not just based on Jaffna kingdom but those contiguous territories where Tamil kings and Tamil chieftains ruled, Tamils formed the majority and lived many centuries.”

        Try as you might Thivya you have been checkmated by the History related in this book. Now you have had a relapse of the malady that afflicted you when the Mahawansa was discovered. It makes us laugh to see you squirming and wiggling and trying to discredit the writers of the book the same way the separatists tried discrediting Priest Mahanama.

        You say “For example, the Albanian Muslims started to settle in the Serbian province of Kosovo in the latter part of the Ottoman Empire, less than 300 years after; the world accepted their claim of Homeland in Kosovo and recognized the independence of Kosovo.
        We Tamils are living in the North- East from the dawn of history. No matter how the Sinhala racists twist the history, we have lived in the North- East of Sri Lanka for much longer than the Albanian Muslims in Kosovo. So, regardless of what the Sinhalese say here, we Tamils have a homeland claim in Sri Lanka.”

        It is not the Sinhalese that say these but the Portuguese.
        Who unfortunately, successfully buried the Eelam Separatist’s claim.

        You say “What is sauce for the Albanian goose must be sauce for the Tamil gander as well, right? “

        Ha ha haa, yes it proves one thing, but not what you have dreamt.

        You ask “By the way you did not comment on the following extract on Page 19. I also posted the print screen of that on my blog.”

        Your blog is not part of this discussion. Post what you have to say on GV so it will be seen by all reading and participating here. I gave you the pdf link to the book so you should have no difficulty.

        You say “EXTRACT FROM PAGE 19.
        “Trincomalee is an elevation near the bay dos Arcos, and there the coast extends further northward 36 leagues till we arrive at Point Pedro, a little further onward it turns east to west 24 leagues, which brings us to Mannar, and in the INTERMEDAITE SPACE LIES THE KINGDOM OF JAFFNA PATAM with all its Forts. ”…..

        The beginning is on p 18 not 19.
        It is a description of the Portuguese Fortresses of Lanka. It begins with Colombo then Kalutara then Galle then to Trinco followed by Point Pedro and thence to Manar.

        Haste makes waste Thivya, the intervening space is between Point Pedro and Manar.

        The book is now in the hands of all who are interested. You claimed to have read all of it. Quoting out of context and or misquoting to find a chink that will help you creep out of the cage you built for yourself, proves only your exasperation.

        Bad luck that it does not prove your homeland claim.

      • thivya

        [the intervening space is between Point Pedro and Manar.]

        Off The Guff,

        My point is the Jaffna kingdom is NOT limited to the Peninsula. Your initial argument was Jaffna Kingdom is limited to the Peninsula alone. Now you are going on and on about describing how small the kingdom would be in comparison to the islands etc, etc. That is irrelevant here. When it helps to further your agenda you take the Portuguese words like the bible, but if we point out from the same book, you are trying to give explanations about what their idea of “considerable area” was. 🙂

        The reference you gave us show that Islands were part of the Jaffna kingdom and the island of Mannar was also part of the Jaffan kingdom, that is the reason King Sankili slaughtered his subjects in Mannar who converted to Christianity. If it was not part of his kingdom, he wouldn’t have dared to cross the border and slaughter citizens of another country. Remember he did not go to the Kotte Kingdom and slaughter the citizens of Kotte who converted to Christianity en masse.

        Your argument was that the Veddas were living near Jaffna Pattanam, Trincomalee and further. I pointed out that the issue here was the veddas were ruling the Vanni areas. Were they the ‘wannias’ who were dealing/Trading with Portuguese and Dutch or the Tamil Vanniyar caste people? I know the Veddas were/are still living in Sri Lanka. I guess you didn’t see that. Please reply.

      • Krish

        Dear Wijayapala

        Few observations as a response to your post (which was addressing Thivya’s arguments):

        1. You are right about the Tamil equivalent of lion, although in some places I have seen “vengai” used (wrongly I guess as I actually refers to tiger). In Tamil the 2 words for lion that I have seen are “singam” and “simham” and both are of Sanskrit origins.

        2. Regarding “Arasan”, you are right. I probably derived this way. “Raja” -> “Raja(n)” -> “Rasan” -> “Arasan”. Tamil uses other words like “vendhan”, “mannan” etc for kings that are of Tamil origins than “arasan” itself.

        3. Again, you are right on “Theva” vs “Kadavul”. There are several other words like “Iraivan”, “Aandavan” for God in Tamil for instance.

        4. You have conceded on “Mutasiva”, but isn’t “S(h)iva” Sanskrit in origin? 😉

        5. And there is more to “Kumaran” than what you say. “Kumara” or “Kumar” in Sanskrit also means “Son”. For example, prince in Sanskrit would be “Raj Kumar” (king’s son). And “Kumaryaa” or “Kumari” means daughter. Typically, in ceremonies for kids in Brahmin households (“Kumar” and “Kumari”) are commonly used to refer kids. It is also quite interesting that “Kumaran” is used in Tamil to refer “Murugan” in Tamil literature (I am guessing including Sangam literature). So, I am really not sure if “Kumaran” existed in Tamil independent of Sanskrit influence, I do not know.

        Regarding “pure Tamil, I guess it probably existed in a more “Sanskrit-free” form long before Brahmins and others came to today’s Tamil Nadu but it is hard to prove. And a limited one with no words for lion or snow or mongoose. In any case, what is nice is about the language itself is, the addition of several scientific words in the recent past that were translated from English names. And what I find interesting is companies like Microsoft are involved in creating Tamil equivalents for commonly used computer jargons like “save”, “file”, “disc” etc etc. But, with so many languages around it is hard to practically have a pure language. Even English uses words like “guru” and “mantra” in place of “teacher” and “saying” respectively. So… 😉

      • yapa

        Dear thivya;

        “We Tamils are living in the North- East from the dawn of history. No matter how the Sinhala racists twist the history, we have lived in the North- East of Sri Lanka for much longer than the Albanian Muslims in Kosovo. So, regardless of what the Sinhalese say here, we Tamils have a homeland claim in Sri Lanka.”

        How pathetic thivya? Eventually you were reduced just to a claim.

        Is that all Eelam propagandists ultimately can do?

        Thanks!

      • [How pathetic thivya? Eventually you were reduced just to a claim.]

        Yapa,

        What is wrong with this guy, it seems like he doesn’t know that you must claim something before fighting for it. We claimed our homeland and fought for it for more than 30 years and lost because of the
        in-fighting’s among the Tamils and treachery of some external forces, not because of the bravery of Sinhala Veera Soorayas. The fact that we lost in the battle field does not mean we gave up on our homeland claim and remember we did not sign any peace treaty either.

        Oops, I apologize, too many typos with Off The Cuff’s name. 🙂

      • Off the Cuff

        Dear Thivya,

        You say “My point is the Jaffna kingdom is NOT limited to the Peninsula”

        That is a useless point if that kingdom does not encompass the East and it does not. Eminent Tamil scholars have also said so.

        You say “Your initial argument was Jaffna Kingdom is limited to the Peninsula alone. Now you are going on and on about describing how small the kingdom would be in comparison to the islands etc, etc. That is irrelevant here.”

        The initial argument was about the pseudo borders of the separatists Eelamist about their so called Historical Tamil Homeland and the claimed extent of that kingdom.

        Unlike those who have been brain washed their entire life by terrorist separatist propaganda I have no trouble in changing my views after weighing the evidence presented.

        If the Tamil Kingdom is small, the Historic Tamil Homeland becomes small. Hence establishing the size of that Kingdom is of primary relevance.

        You say “When it helps to further your agenda you take the Portuguese words like the bible, but if we point out from the same book, you are trying to give explanations about what their idea of “considerable area” was”

        I have no agenda other than eliciting the truth based on facts.
        I made a factual observation and you are clueless on how to counter it.

        BTW you seem to have an inbuilt mechanism that prevents the understanding of the written language. I did not try to show how small the Jaffna kingdom is, in comparison to the islands but rather developed an argument (not an explanation) based on the evidence that the total area of the islands, formed a considerable part of the Kingdom. The word considerable means a substantial part, else the word used would have been insignificant or similar.

        Just because you don’t have a counter, you cannot get away by labelling it as irrelevant.

        You say “that is the reason King Sankili slaughtered his subjects in Mannar who converted to Christianity. If it was not part of his kingdom, he wouldn’t have dared to cross the border and slaughter citizens of another country. Remember he did not go to the Kotte Kingdom and slaughter the citizens of Kotte who converted to Christianity en masse”

        Though you have not provided evidence that Mannar was under the Jaffna kingdom, my research shows that it is indeed so. Hence I concede that Mannar was under the Jaffna Kingdom just before the Portuguese took it. His raid in to Mannar was also his downfall and the reason he lost Jaffna eventually.

        I also found the following in the wiki
        Since 5th Century BC, present day Mannar District was part of Rajarata until 13th Century AD
        Rajarata (Raja = king, rata = country, or preferably land, thus the Land of Kings) is the name given to the region of Sri Lanka from which monarchs ruled the country from approximately the 5th Century BCE to the early 13th Century CE. It is centered around the ancient cities of Anuradhapura and Polonnaruwa in the North Central Province of Sri Lanka. Uttaradesa is the northern portion of Rajarata which includes the Jaffna peninsula.
        End extract

        What do you have to say, as that damages your historical claim.

        You say “Your argument was that the Veddas were living near Jaffna Pattanam, Trincomalee and further. I pointed out that the issue here was the veddas were ruling the Vanni areas. Were they the ‘wannias’ who were dealing/Trading with Portuguese and Dutch or the Tamil Vanniyar caste people? I know the Veddas were/are still living in Sri Lanka. I guess you didn’t see that. Please reply. “

        Please provide link to my post or copy and paste from it.

      • sabbe laban

        Off the Cuff

        Hats off to Off the Cuff for his intellectual honesty!

        As the things stand now, we can conclude that the ancient Jaffna kingdom included the penninsula, the islands and the land strip upto Mannar, though it’s not clear where its Eastern boundary lay.

        This may well disappoint the extremists of both sides who keep asking for the exact pound of flesh!

      • Keynes!

        Krish,

        “Even English uses words like “guru” and “mantra” in place of “teacher” and “saying” respectively. So… ;)”

        So everything is Indian. Watch … http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojAn69LHCfs

      • thivya

        Off The Cuff,

        Please make up your mind. First you said:

        “The boundary of Jaffna Kingdom is very clearly stated and it is confined to the Jaffna Peninsular.”
        “I set out to establish that and that has been established.”

        I think you have failed to establish that, because you just conceded that the Islands and Mannar were part of the Jaffna kingdom. I think, if I didn’t show up here you might have annexed all more than seven precious Tamil islands and Mannar to the Sinhala homeland.:)

        Now you are telling me, if the Jaffna Kingdom does not encompass the East it is useless. Did you notice that you keep changing the goal post?

        //I also found the following in the wiki. What do you have to say, as that damages your historical claim.//

        Maybe some Sinhalese like you updated it. You know that anyone can update Wiki, right? 🙂

        //Please provide link to my post or copy and paste from it.//

        [[Page 15

        Extract
        The Kingdom of Kandy stretches from Adam’s Peak to Trincomalie and to the country of the Veddhas which is near Jaffnapatnam. ………….. Although Jaffnapatnam is in the same island, it is not reconed as belonging to it, as it is inhabited by the Malabars whom the Singalese despise exceedingly………….. But between Trincomalie and Jaffnapatnam there is a peculiar race called the Veddhas …….
        End Extract//]]

        You posted the above. Do you still think the Veddas were living near Jaffanpatnam. Vanni was the country of Veddhas and the Tamil Vanniyars were the Veddhas?

        //That is a useless point if that kingdom does not encompass the East and it does not. Eminent Tamil scholars have also said so.//
        The Jaffna kingdom was once the most powerful in the Island. For example Ibn Batuts’s records shows the Arya chakravarthis were more powerful king in the country**.

        After the fall of the Jaffna Kingdom, the only reamining Kandiyan kingdom might have claimed the entire island as theirs. That won’t change the Tamil’s ownership of where they lived. The Tamil chieftains in Vanni fought against all three colonial powers until 1803. If Vanni was under Kandiyan kingdom, why did the Kandiyan king not help the Vanni Cheiftain Kulasekaran Pandara Vannian or defend the ‘land of the Kandiyan Kingdom’ from the Dutch and British, why did he fight alone and die? Don’t tell me Pandara Vanniyan was a Sinhala, leave that task to Ellawela. Pandaravanniyan’s descendats are still living in Vanni, he only died 200 years ago and there are temples and enough literary evidence in Tamil about Pandara Vanniyan.

        **”He is called Airy Chacarouaty, and he is a powerful king upon the sea. I saw in one day, while I was on the Coromandel Coast, a hundred of his ships, both small and great, which has just arrived ”

        IBN BATUTA IN THE MALDIVES AND CEYLON – Page 39

        You can read that in google but the link is too long to post here.

        [[Ibn Battuta reached Ceylon during the first week of September 1344 near Puttalam (Batthalah). Puttalam was under rule of the Jaffna Kings, the Arya Chakravrthys, at that time. Ibn Battuta described Chilaw (Bender Selawat) as the first little town after leaving ‘Menar Mendely a fine town, situated at the extremity of the Jaffna King’s territory…’. Ibn Battuta has also recorded that pearl fishing was in progress at Puttalam and the king gave him some pearls. That explains the reason for the king’s presence in Puttalam. The pearls were one of the main revenue earners for the king’s coffers. Ibn Battuta also found that the Jaffna King had a powerful navy. When Ibn Battuta identified himself as the brother-in-law and friend of the ‘Sultan of Coromondal’ (the Madurai Sultan) he was well received by the Jaffna King, who conversed with him in Persian. In addition to the protection of pearl fishing, deterring any possible Islamic invasion from India might have been the reasons for the powerful navy maintained by the Jaffna King.]]

      • thivya

        [BTW do you know any Tamils by the name of Hendaramana or Singha or Kumara?]

        We the Eelam Tamils, not only in this forum, but also elsewhere should be ashamed of this. This shows many of us do not pay attention to our own history while the Sinhalese are being fed by the twisted history of the Mahavamsa from their early age and growing up thinking the Tamils are invaders and their enemies. Many learned gentleman of Jaffna origin in this forum failed to counter this lie.

        Ever since ‘Off The Guff’ said HENDERAMANA SINGHE was the son of Jaffna King Periyapillai, a Tamil, it has puzzled me. I contacted someone who knows the history very well and I asked him about this. I asked if at least King Peryapillai had any Sinhala wives, It was common for the kings to have many wives in those days.

        He said this is the perfect example of how a wrong pronunciation of a native name by foreigners can play in the hands of the Sinhala nationalists. The King Periyapillai’s son’s name was NOT Hendaramana Singhe, his name was ETHIRMANNA SINGHAM, still a common name among the Jaffna Tamils. The Singham title to the names is a unique character of the Jaffna Vellalas.

      • Off the Cuff

        Dear Thivya,

        Sri Lanka is one country. The purpose of my post is to break your argument as I believe in equitable equality of all her citizens. She is owned equally by ALL her citizens irrespective of Ethnicity. My post to Anpu of July 9, 2012 • 11:38 pm to which you were referred.

        So dont worry about my mind, worry about yours and provide references to what you say, other than sangam.org, tamilnet and other separatist web sites including yours. We are not interested in your speculations and opinions (might have been etc) but on factual arguments, backed by references, so that we can verify that the “Facts” that you provide GV, is not sourced from Arudpragasam (as you did before), a like minded separatist like you.

        You say “Do you still think the Veddas were living near Jaffanpatnam. Vanni was the country of Veddhas”

        The evidence from the Portuguese, points to the former and anyone has access to the Portuguese reference that I provided. The latter should be rephrased as follows. The Veddhas lived in the Vanni.

        You say “and the Tamil Vanniyars were the Veddhas?“

        An imbecile might interpret as such.

        GV can accommodate an url of any length. Hence don’t give crap excuses to refrain from providing them and prove the extent of your Historic Tamil Kingdom that can predate those of others.

        My goal is demolishing the cunning fraudulent historic homeland claims of Tamil separatists.

        Now please explain why
        1. Quaros called the Tamil Kingdom a MODEST kingdom.
        2. The Portuguese stated that the Area covered by the Islands formed a CONSIDERABLE part of the Tamil Kingdom.

        You say “Maybe some Sinhalese like you updated it. You know that anyone can update Wiki, right? “

        Hence we can safely take it for granted that everything the Wiki states about Eelam is rubbish!

        Your post of July 18, 2012 • 11:11 pm to yapa,

        You say We claimed our homeland and fought for it for more than 30 years and lost because of the in-fighting’s among the Tamils and treachery of some external forces, not because of the bravery of Sinhala Veera Soorayas. The fact that we lost in the battle field does not mean we gave up on our homeland claim and remember we did not sign any peace treaty either.”

        Don’t delude yourself. You lost due to ONE reason and that was not due to infighting but as you say it was due to treachery. Treachery to the Eelam cause.

        You did not fight for Eelam.
        Your children did not fight either.
        All of you stayed in safety and comfort away from the fight.
        Your children had a childhood and a good Education.

        You deserted the fight and pushed the Children of the Vanni to die for a cause that they did not want. Hence you of all people, cannot talk of Bravery, because you were a member of a band of cowards that deserted this so called fight.

        It was fought by proxy, by the poor Tamil children of the Vanni, as young as 9 years old.

        Hence please do not Brag about your Valour and Bravery you had nothing of the sort. What you had was cowardice and rather than bragging you should be ashamed of what you are complicit in.

        Here is the proof
        Parish priest of the St Agnes Church Mankulam Fr James Paththinadan
        Velaudan – resident of Mulativu, Father of Niruba
        Niruba a 15 year old Tamil female child
        Madavaraja – President Vallipunam Regional Development Society
        Sinnayya Sivaneshan a Tamil youth
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpPBJr4Pq5A&list=UUHLitxsriMl-jcpvUYtV2Xw&index=0&feature=plcp

        Javier Aguilar – UNICEF minute 3:26 onwards (from the BBC Hard talk program) says 8000 children were saved (some as young as 9 years). He says that number is just the tip of the iceberg. During the last 6 months LTTE forced at least 200 children a month.
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gXbFPoDWSI

        If 8000 who are living and cared for, is just the tip of the iceberg, how many were forced to fight and Die?

        Double, Triple or Quadruple?
        Is this something you can brag about?
        Do you realise what you have done to the Future Generation of Lankan Tamils?

      • thivya

        ///Sri Lanka is one country. The purpose of my post is to break your argument as I believe in equitable equality of all her citizens. She is owned equally by ALL her citizens irrespective of Ethnicity. //

        Off The Cuff,

        Sri Lanka is one country with many linguistic and religious minorities. There are many countries with many different ethnic minorities who are accommodated in the constitution and made to feel like they all belong to that country. In Sri Lanka the majority people want to keep the country a Sinhala Buddhist theocracy, while giving pep talks like this when they fail to make the minorities feel they are invaders and aliens to Sri Lanka, by using the twisted history or some outdated colonial archives updated by a Dutch soldier. 🙂

        If OffThecuff is really interested in ‘Equality and justice’, what is the need for him to prove that the Jaffna Kingdom is limited to the Jaffna peninsula, using a few lines that may or may not have been scribbled by some Dutch soldier centuries ago? And we all know how vigorously he fought here to prove that. If a guy believes in “Equitable Equality” for all Sri Lankans, I don’t know why he had this urge to prove that Tamils had a small kingdom and so only deserved a small share. I don’t see any reason for a peace loving humanitarian like Offthecuff to waste all his time on proving the Tamil kingdom was so small. It is about time the Tamils stop falling for the Sinhala pep talks, the Tamils have been victims of these pep talks from the days of Sir. Ramanathan.

        //The evidence from the Portuguese, points to the former and anyone has access to the Portuguese reference that I provided. The latter should be rephrased as follows. The Veddhas lived in the Vanni.”//

        NO Tamil argued that the East was part of the Jaffna kingdom when it was captured by the Portuguese. The Tamils homeland claim is not based on Jaffna kingdom alone that is just the imagination of Sinhala nationalists. Our land claim is based on the contiguous territory the Tamils have been living for centuries, where Tamil kings and Tamil chieftains ruled, and still form a majority even after decades of state sponsored Sinhala colonization.

        Did you see the note at the bootom of the page. It says:
        Extract:

        -“Ribero appears to confound the Vedda with the Wanniahs, a distinct caste still existing in the district of Batticaloa, who have traditions about their queens and still show teh remains of abridge built for their use. A rare copper TAMUL coin was recently found at this spot. I should weary my reader were I to detail many other things which he told us about the Veddas.” (end)-

        We can safely say it was not the Veddas living in Vanni and that he got mixed up with Veddas and Wanniahs.The so called country of the Veddas mentioned by Ribero in that record was the country of Wanniahs, and everyone knows they were Tamils of Vanniyar caste.

        //GV can accommodate an url of any length. //

        I gave you the book name, page number and excerpt; you could easily google and find it. If you want I can post the print screen in my blog. I don’t like my reply to look cluttered, that’s why I didn’t post that long link. If you want to discuss with me what IBN BATUTA said about the Arya Chakravarthis and Jaffna kingdom, I will post it again.

        //1. Quaros called the Tamil Kingdom a MODEST kingdom.//

        The word ‘modest’, as an adjective can also mean a decent size, not so big but not too small. You have a habit of picking and choosing whatever suits your agenda. You outright rejected Quaros statements about the boundaries of Jaffna kingdom but you are hanging on to the ‘modest’ part. In that case do you agree with what he said about the boundaries of Jaffna Kingdom? No, right, because it will prove that you are wrong. This is typical of Sinhala nationalists; they love to pick and choose Mahavamasa stories to grab the Tamil homeland.

        //2. The Portuguese stated that the Area covered by the Islands formed a CONSIDERABLE part of the Tamil Kingdom.//

        Ribero’s record says a considerable ‘part’ of the Kingdom, not considerable ‘size’ of the Kingdom, there is a difference. Considerable part can also mean an important part of the kingdom. The word considerable can also mean distinguished, important, influential, notable, noteworthy, renowned, significant, and venerable.

        Your argument was that Jaffna Kingdom was limited to the Jaffna peninsula alone. The Jaffna Peninsula is 365 square miles(wihout the island of mannar) and all 13 islands are 71 square miles. Just 19% cannot be called considerable, therefore it is obvious that Ribero must have used the word considerable in the meaning of IMPORTANT or influential not in terms of the land mass.

        //If 8000 who are living and cared for, is just the tip of the iceberg, how many were forced to fight and Die?//

        After numerous race riots, killings, lootings, abandoned agreements, 60 years of Sinhala racism and 35 years of non violent protests, the Tamil youth took arms to defend their homeland from the Sinhala aggressors. Now this guy puts all the blame on Tamils.

        This is not sad but outright duplicity. The same Sinhalese who justified every killing , maiming, and even rape of the Tamils, and are still refusing to let the UN deliver justice to the victims are crying for Tamil and giving pep talks. I do not want to say more.

        1.) Are you willing to let the independent observers and journalists see the real condition of the Tamil political prisoners and to verify whether they are really cared for or just being tortured?

        2.) Why is the army involved in rehabilitation, don’t you think civilian administration should be in charge of rehabilitation.

        3.) It is so sweet of you to cry for the Tamil children are you willing to join the Human Rights activists around the globe and ask for justice to the innocent Tamil men, women and children who were massacred in Vanni.

        Good Bye…

      • Off the Cuff

        Dear Thivya,

        Your post of July 20, 2012 • 11:45 am refers.

        You say “Sri Lanka is one country with many linguistic and religious minorities”

        More correctly it is a multi ethnic, multi religious, multi lingual country. If the reason you dropped the ethnic plurality is to annex the Moors then I would say you are dishonest if not I would let it pass as a genuine oversight.

        You say “There are many countries with many different ethnic minorities who are accommodated in the constitution and made to feel like they all belong to that country”

        Please name them.
        Is Canada amongst your list?

        You say “In Sri Lanka the majority people want to keep the country a Sinhala Buddhist theocracy”

        You need to brush up your English. A Theocracy is when a Religious Head is also the Constitutional Head. Lanka does not have such a Head but look around, you will find some closer to you.

        You say “while giving pep talks like this when they fail to make the minorities feel they are invaders and aliens to Sri Lanka, by using the twisted history ….. “

        Did I give you a pep talk?
        I thought I contested your BRAGGING and the attempted passing of the buck from you, to the Eastern commanders of the LTTE, for the ignominious defeat in the war.

        Was the TRUTH, too bitter for your ego to handle?

        History that contradicts you is twisted. But then not even all the pro Eelamists who contributed here came out in your support. Even those who were cheering you from the sidelines stayed away from the debate even after being invited to do so by me.

        You say “…..or some outdated colonial archives updated by a Dutch soldier. “

        Outdated History?
        You mean it does not conform to the manufactured history of the recent past?

        Ha ha haa so you prefer Quaroz to a document submitted to the Portuguese King? You have now appointed yourself as the judge as well?

        You say “If OffThecuff is really interested in ‘Equality and justice’, what is the need for him to prove that the Jaffna Kingdom is limited to the Jaffna peninsula, using a few lines that may or may not have been scribbled by some Dutch soldier centuries ago?”

        The need is to destroy your attempt at robbing about 90% of Lanka’s population of what is rightfully theirs by manufacturing a false history. Equality and Justice cannot prevail if one party is intent on robbing the others. Have you lost your senses to forget the claims you made so soon?

        You say “And we all know how vigorously he fought here to prove that. If a guy believes in “Equitable Equality” for all Sri Lankans, I don’t know why he had this urge to prove that Tamils had a small kingdom and so only deserved a small share.”

        Back again to the Language issue that prevents you from understanding what we write. You had a small kingdom, but you don’t deserve to be deprived of a just share, due to the historical kingdom being small.

        You and everyone else, deserves an EQUAL share regardless of Ethnicity.

        Do you also subscribe to that view?
        Your arguments do not show that you do.

        Can you make an unambiguous declaration of your policy with reasons?
        Why don’t you declare your policy as I have done many times on this site.

        You seem to think that the methods of deception that you practised on the West would also find such success with the Natives of Lanka. I am sorry that I could not live up to that expectation of yours.

        You say “I don’t see any reason for a peace loving humanitarian like Offthecuff to waste all his time on proving the Tamil kingdom was so small.”

        That is the problem common to all separatists who try their hand at Land Grabbing by propagating lies. They cannot see beyond their noses. Please let us know why you have been performing acrobatics to prove that the Tamil Kingdom was Large when we have conceded your right to equitable equality.

        You say “It is about time the Tamils stop falling for the Sinhala pep talks, the Tamils have been victims of these pep talks from the days of Sir. Ramanathan.”

        What is this pep talk that you are griping about?
        Could you give examples from the comments here on GV?

        Well I believe that you would rather have the gullible swallow your propaganda and sacrifice themselves, their children and their future so that a minority of power hungry racist within the Tamil community could watch the fun from far away sitting in the lap of luxury.

        You say “NO Tamil argued that the East was part of the Jaffna kingdom when it was captured by the Portuguese. The Tamils homeland claim is not based on Jaffna kingdom alone that is just the imagination of Sinhala nationalists. Our land claim is based on the contiguous territory the Tamils have been living for centuries, where Tamil kings and Tamil chieftains ruled, and still form a majority even after decades of state sponsored Sinhala colonization”

        Thivya don’t you see the contradiction even in the above text?
        How can this contiguous territory be RULED by Tamil Kings and Chieftains without it forming a Tamil Kingdom? In English where a King Rules is called his Kingdom. Is it any different in your English?

        Apparently you are finding it difficult to establish that kingdom in the East with that Capital “NO” of yours!!! How silly can you get?

        You say “Did you see the note at the bootom of the page. It says: “

        You brought this type of argument before and I destroyed it.
        Please check back.

        The ORIGINAL of this book presented to the King of Portugal in 1685 was in Portuguese. What we read in English today, is a translation from the French by George Lee, Post Master General of Ceylon and dedicated to G. V. Torington, Governor General of Ceylon.
        The postscripts are the opinions of the translator, who is the PMG of the British Colonial Administration, written as an explanatory note, over a Century Later.

        You say “Ribero’s record says a considerable ‘part’ of the Kingdom, not considerable ‘size’ of the Kingdom, there is a difference. Considerable part can also mean an important part of the kingdom. The word considerable can also mean distinguished, important, influential, notable, noteworthy, renowned, significant, and venerable. ”

        In 1685, Ribero wrote, “At the extreme point of Jaffnapatam, there are several islands which, though small in extent, COMPOSE A CONSIDERABLE PART OF THAT KINGDOM “

        If you want to quote something quote the relevant part.
        Please do not indulge in Deceit.
        That seems to be second nature to you.
        You may succeed in fooling like minded separatists but you cannot fool the intelligent reader.

        What does “small in extent” mean?
        You realise your folly and now and you are trying to change the context as well?

        Isn’t the spectacle you have provided, so far, on GV insufficient, without you making a bigger fool of yourself by attempting to murder even the English Language, in a vain attempt to perpetrate your FRAUD.

        Small in extent means an AREA Thivya.

        You say ”Your argument was that Jaffna Kingdom was limited to the Jaffna peninsula alone. The Jaffna Peninsula is 365 square miles(wihout the island of mannar) and all 13 islands are 71 square miles”

        My argument is that History does not support the Land Grab under the guise of an EXPANDED Traditional Historical Homeland. To that end I have brought out references that you or any other separatist that claims the above, failed to refute.

        You have failed to prove your case.
        I have succeeded in exposing your expansionist lies.

        You say “I gave you the book name, page number and excerpt; you could easily google and find it.“

        Yes you did the same with the Quaroz quote too.
        We thought that you were well read and quoting from the Original but you were quoting from Sangam but disguised as a direct reference.

        Hence please give direct references.

        You say “Just 19% cannot be called considerable,”

        Thank you for doing the Arithmetic and confirming what I stated on July 17, 2012 • 8:35 pm

        Since you cannot remember it, here is a relevant extract.

        It follows from the above that a considerable Area of Jaffnapatnam consisted of the total areas of the above individual islands. A 10% area would be too small to be labelled as a considerable area. A 25% area would qualify to that term. Hence if the Sum of areas of the islands were 20% of the area of Jaffnapatnam, the Jaffna Kingdom would be five times the total area the small islands.
        This indicates that the Jaffna Kingdom was small.
        End Extract.

        Logic Thivya, does not seem to be your strong point.

        Judging from your convolutions, I believe I have checkmated your Egoistic Bragging about the war. I hope you would think twice before trying to glorify the war and placing blame for the ignominious loss elsewhere other than within the Racist Separatist sections of the Tamil Diaspora that fanned hatred, financed and sacrificed the people of the Vanni for a lost cause even when victory was unattainable. UNICEF stated that during the Last Six Months alone the terrorists forcibly recruited 200 children a month. I hope that you realise that the Tamil People of the Vanni should not be made the sacrificial Lambs ever again on the Altar of Tamil Eelam.

        You say “1.) Are you willing to let the independent observers and journalists see the real condition of the Tamil political prisoners….”

        May be you should take a little rest and allow your hysterical mind some rest to recuperate.

        You heard the words of Javier Aguilar – UNICEF. There was no dubbing by me. He accused the LTTE of over 90% of all child abductions and using them as cannon fodder. He stated that the 8000 under the care of the government and who are alive today, was just the Tip of the Iceberg of children used in the war by the Separatists. An iceberg has 90% of the ice, out of sight, under water, only 10% is visible. The interviewer happened to be from BBC Hardtalk.

        You say “…… and to verify whether they are really cared for or just being tortured?”

        Oh why don’t you. Please contact the Tamil girl who was interviewed by the BBC interviewer. Despite the lop sided leading questions, that Seacrest put to her in Hardtalk, the reply the young Tamil girl gave was telling. Listen to her again, she wants an education, she wants a life which people like you were instrumental in denying her.

        If you want more confirmation you could contact the Parish priest of the St Agnes Church Mankulam Fr James Paththinadan or Velaudan the father of Niruba the 15 year old Tamil girl from Mulativu or Niruba herself or Madavaraja – President Vallipunam Regional Development Society or Sinnayya Sivaneshan who were featured at the other link I provided.

        Better still, why don’t you come over to Lanka and work with KP, the successor of Prabhakaran, who is doing some work to help the Vanni Tamils and to absolve his soul, from what he did to them? That would help you to absolve your own soul while allaying your suspicions.

        Do you have the commitment to leave your comfortable lifestyle, your spouse and your children and sacrifice your wealth, time and energy on behalf of the Vanni Tamils, that people like you, robbed?

        Hence the Children used in war was not just the responsibility of the Terrorists but also the responsibility of Separatists supporters of that war. People like you Thivya. You have no cause to Brag about the war. You should be ashamed of it.

        You say “2.) Why is the army involved in rehabilitation, don’t you think civilian administration should be in charge of rehabilitation. “

        Because it is also a security issue and they are doing a damn good job of it. Listen to UNICEF’s Aguilar’s reply, to BBC’s interviewer Seacrest’s leading questions.

        You say “3.) It is so sweet of you to cry for the Tamil children are you willing to join the Human Rights activists around the globe and ask for justice to the innocent Tamil men, women and children who were massacred in Vanni.”

        It is not I who should be crying Thivya, as I was not involved in inciting people with lop sided war propaganda or Funding the War or looking the other way when the Vanni Tamils were used as a Human Shield and their children used as Cannon Fodder.

        The Blood of those people who died and suffered as a consequence, is on you not me.

        Here is a brief extract from an article written by Meena Nallainathan to the Ryerson Review of Journalism “Canada’s Watchdog on the Watch Dog’s”. You may know her as she is a Tamil from Canada herself.

        Staring Down the Tigers

        The Sri Lankan civil war is playing out in Toronto’s Tamil media — and one local writer has the broken bones to prove it. Profiles in journalistic courage
        Meena Nallainathan

        Ckrhushchev’s mission is to show how the pro-Tiger press obscures the truth. ………… In that 2006 column under the pseudonym, for example, he wrote about gratuitous killings committed during the Sri Lankan ceasefire. He said that the Tigers simply would not stop killing; that the leadership didn’t want them to lose their desire to kill, so they dusted off a list of traitors from old, opposing Tamil political factions. According to Ckrhushchev, the Tigers didn’t want the international community to know this, and so the term “unidentified gunmen” began appearing in the Tiger press. For people in the diaspora, it was a coded message: “Unidentified gunmen” meant the Tigers did the killing; it also identified the victim as a traitor.

        Ckrhushchev is particularly keen on showing how the Tiger press bombards its readers with a potent message: the Tamils are victims. The currency of war for the Tigers is the suffering of Tamils. Riots against Tamils occurred between 1956 and 1983. Stories of Sinhalese mobs butchering Tamils, burning Tamil homes and businesses, raping women and burning others alive have been repeated as a mantra. But at the time of the 1983 riots, many Sinhalese actually protected their Tamil neighbours. Today, there are Sinhalese and Tamil human rights activists working together in Sri Lanka.

        Ponnambalam tells me about the day he was riding in the car with a friend, listening to a political talk show on CTBC, a local Tamil radio station. He called in and, once on-air, delivered an extemporaneous 10- minute lecture. “I identified myself,” he says. “No point in hiding it because everybody knows the voice.” He acknowledges the many Tiger supporters in Canada, but goes on to say that none support the cause to the extent that they will urge their children to become suicide bombers or fighters.
        http://rrj.ca/m4074/

        Did you support the cause to that extent Thivya?
        I doubt that you did and I doubt that you ever would.

      • thivya

        OffThecuff,

        There is no point in arguing with a Sinhala racist who wants to grab the Tamil’s homeland using outdated records. The fact remains that the Tamils are still a majority in the North East even after the decades of State sponsored Sinhala colonization. The current scheme of settling the Sinhalese in Tamil areas, with the help of foreign aid received to help the Tamil IDP’s, will make the Tamils a minority in their historic habitat. The Tamils cannot stop this land grabbing scheme by arguing with some Sinhala racists on Grounds views, instead of wasting our time here with Sinhalese like you, we are better off concentrating and educating the Westerners who respect and understand the feelings of minorities.

        For example, the Province of Quebec in Canada is larger in terms of area than the most populous province, Ontario. But the federal government would never dare to settle the English people or anyone without the approval of the Quebec people. That’s why at least the majority of French Canadians are not afraid of losing their identity, language and culture in their own province. But the Sri Lankan Tamils have this fear, and they can see what happened in the East and how dramatically the Sinhalese took over Trincomalee and Amparai, and how Tamils became minorities in their own villages over night. This is the Sinhala version of ethnic cleansing, if India followed this scheme and settled the millions of Hindus in the Kashmir Valley they could have solved the Kashmir problem decades ago. But India had leaders like Nehru, who believed in ethnic harmony and respect the minority rights.

        In every country, whether it is apartheid in South Africa or the civil rights struggle in America, people from majority, joined the minority people in their struggle and even sacrificed their lives for it. But in Sri Lanka, the Tamils are dealing with an unwilling majority who will vote for the party that is more against the Tamils and will deny the Tamil’s rights. That has always been the criteria for the Sinhalese electing a party to govern, that is their voting pattern. Unfortunately The Tamils are dealing with that kind of mean-sprited majority, that is the reason the 35 years of non violent protests of Tamils did not succeed in Sri Lanka, and the Tamil youth took arms to resist the Sinhala army’s atrocities in their own homes and villages.

        Many Tamils are afraid to say it openly- but the truth is- the LTTE with all its faults, defended the Tamil homeland from the Sinhala colonization and the Tamils are beginning to miss them. The end of the LTTE made the Sinhalese feel like the Tamil’s historic habitat in the North East was up for grabs, and the 2500 year old dream of the Sinhalese is finally materializing.

        The Tamils are NOT against the free movement of all people in Sri Lanka, from Paruthithurai to Thenthurai. But we are against State-sponsored colonization, cunningly planned to make the Tamils a minority in their historic habitat thus reducing their representation in Parliament.

        The Tamils in the south are not government-sponsored settlers. They moved there due to the lack of job opportunities in the North-East and the successive Sinhala government’s step-motherly treatment of Tamil areas in allocating the development funds received from the UN and other countries.

        The Tamils, who moved to the south to escape carpet bombings and the food and medicine embargoes of the Sinhala regime, will go back to their traditional habitat in the North East if the Sinhala thugs in uniform vacate their homes and end their illegal occupation of the Tamil’s historic habitat in Sri Lanka.

        The free movement does not mean you can trample upon the culture and tradition of Tamils and loot and encraoch their temples. The occupying Sinhala army is building Buddhist Temples where no Buddhists live to change the landscape and erase the cultural leftovers of Tamils. The known anti Tamil racists are being appointed to be in charge of Archeology in the North East to find ‘new evidence’ to make up new stories without any outside verification. Based on his ‘findings’, the Hindu Temples are being encroached by racist monks and Buddha statues are being planted in the Hindu Temple’s lands. The Hindu temples are in ruin while the Buddhist structures are springing up everywhere, why is that?

        The Eelam Tamil Saivaism is an integral part of the culture and traditions of the Sri Lankan Tamils. The Sinhalese know that very well, that is the reason they are building Buddhist structures all over the Tamil homeland to mark the conquest of Eelam Tamils. The Indian Hindus who cry for the destruction of even a tiny Hindu Temple in Pakistan and Bangladesh are not paying any attention to the destruction of Hindu Temples in the Tamil homeland. They don`t even realize that their tax money is given to Srilanka by the Indian government, in the form of grants and loans, for the development of the war affected North East is being used to destroy the Hindu Temples and the Hindu character of the Tamil homeland – the Sivabhumi.

        The Anurasapauram is the cultural capital of the Sinhala Buddhists; similarly Jaffna is the cultural capital of the Eelam Tamils. There is no Tamil influx in Anuradhapura like the Sinhalese in Jaffna. The Sinhalese dismantled and destroyed Anurasapuram Kathiresan Temple, once venerated by Swamy Vivekananada himself, for being situated near the Buddhist places of worship. The sinhalese did not allow it in Anurasapuram, then why should the Tamil’s allow the Buddhists temples in Jaffna. The Tamils in Colombo were not settled by the Sinhala government or with the help of the Sinhala army, and they have been living there even before the arrival of colonialists.

        The capital is full of ethnic minorities in every country in the world but it is not an excuse to colonize the historic, ethnic regions with the majority community to marginalize the minorities in their own homes and villages. That is called ethnic cleansing, if that is wrong in Bosnia and Kosovo, it is wrong in the North East too.

      • wijayapala

        Dear thivya

        Many Tamils are afraid to say it openly- but the truth is- the LTTE with all its faults, defended the Tamil homeland from the Sinhala colonization and the Tamils are beginning to miss them.

        Two points to make:

        1) State-sponsored Sinhala settlement began as a response to Tamil separatism. Before the late 1970s, there was no communal basis to state-sponsored settlement. The UNP govt of the 1950s used state resources to resettled thousands of Tamils from the overcrowded Jaffna islands into the underpopulated Wanni. You will not find that bit of history on sangam.org.

        2) Aforementioned state-sponsored Sinhala settlement was generally a failure, again unbeknownst to the Eelamists. Read “Relocation Failures in Sri Lanka” by Robert Muggah to find out why.

      • Off the Cuff

        Dear Thivya,

        You have turned yourself to be the laughing stock amongst your peers. Even the die-hard separatist have given up supporting you, You have no facts to counter the factual arguments and evidence put before you. You are now reduced to appealing to emotion.

        You say “There is no point in arguing with a Sinhala racist who wants to grab the Tamil’s homeland using outdated records.

        A racist who welcomes the Tamils to have an equal share of Lanka’s resources?

        Ha ha haa that’s a good one.

        You say “The fact remains that the Tamils are still a majority in the North East even after the decades of State sponsored Sinhala colonization.”

        The fact is there is a Tamil majority where they actually lived in the North and East.
        Your problem was in proving that they were also a majority where they did not live.

        You see about 85% of Lanka was covered by Forest. The population was sparse. The number of Tamils much smaller. Making it impossible to prove that the Historic habitation of the Tamils covered your Eelam map. The map that you carry on your website.

        The Truth Thivya, has a habit of coming to the surface like a “Kaduru Fruit” (which is lighter than water). Your lies could not submerge it.

        The State develops river basins with State funds and Loans. The Financial burden is carried by all citizens as a per capita burden. This is reflected in the direct and indirect taxes each citizen pays without exception (even paupers do pay indirect tax). Hence what ever benefits that are derived, should also benefit the citizens on a per capita basis. This is the meaning of Equitable distribution. This why Equality should also be equitable. No ethnic group should expect to be subsidised by any other (other than the destitute).

        Gal Oya development required 10% of the Export Tea earnings.
        Up to 1989 the Mahavelli used up over 200% of annual export earnings from Tea.
        By today, 23 years later, it would have used up over 300% of the gross National earnings of Lanka! Compelling reasons for State Lands to be considered a National Resource, to be used for the benefit of all. Instead of sharing, you have been arguing to make the other communities pay for development and you to reap the sole benefits.

        Have you forgotten that Land offered to the Tamils were refused by them?

        You say “But The current scheme of settling the Sinhalese in Tamil areas, with the help of foreign aid received to help the Tamil IDP’s, will make the Tamils a minority in their historic habitat.”

        You have been struggling to establish that EXTENDED Tamil area to no avail. There are no Tamil Areas, Sinhala Areas, Muslim Areas etc in Lanka.

        Now you are making further UNSUBSTANTIATED accusations. This time you have accused India and other donor countries and the UN of sleeping and allowing their donated funds to be used elsewhere.

        You say “The Tamils cannot stop this land grabbing scheme by arguing with some Sinhala racists on Grounds views,”

        Oops the Land Grab is the “Exclusive Tamil Homeland Theory”.
        That is done by the Tamil separatists.

        You say “ instead of wasting our time here with Sinhalese like you, we are better off concentrating and educating the Westerners who respect and understand the feelings of minorities.”

        You mean Hoodwinking Westerners would be easy because they do not have sufficient Historical knowledge of Lanka that can see through your Lies?

        Your Lies stood exposed here on GV.
        It will be the same, when the Cloak of Lies you cover yourself with, is removed and the true nature of the Land Grab stands exposed.

        You say “For example, the Province of Quebec in Canada is larger in terms of area than the most populous province, Ontario. But the federal government would never dare to settle the English people or anyone without the approval of the Quebec people.”

        Does that apply to the First Nation people as well?
        They owned the Land before the immigrants arrived.

        I believe what I have said is sufficient to prove that the separatist are dishonest and power hungry. They do not care about the Tamils who live in Lanka and are prepared to sacrifice them just to achieve that power.

        There was not a SINGLE organised protest to put pressure on Prabhakaran and his murderous gang to stop using children as cannon fodder let alone use the Tamils as a Human Shield. The LTTE appears to have forcibly recruited at least 50,000 children and used them as cannon fodder. 8000 of them are now alive and cared for by the SL Govt. The rest would be dead. And you are shedding Crocodile Tears.

        Prove that you care.
        Prove it with the same fervour that you shamelessly supported the war.
        Prove it by spending money, just as you spent money for the war that robbed these Tamil people of their Livelihood.
        Prove it by providing them everything that you robbed them of.

        In the least, provide them with the means to earn a respectable livelihood. You owe it to the Vanni Tamils, who lived under the Jack boot of that megalomaniac Prabha who you supported unconditionally.

        That Thivya is a pep talk and you can take it or leave it.

        What you do will prove who you really are.

      • Keynes!

        Off the Cuff,

        “Prabhakaran and his murderous gang to stop using children as cannon fodder let alone use the Tamils as a Human Shield.”

        1. The LTTE did use child soldiers. However, what credible evidence do you have of the LTTE using civilians as a human shield?

        2. The UNSG’s Panel of Experts Report states the following:

        “With respect to the credible allegations of the LTTE’s refusal to allow civilians to leave the combat zone, the Panel believes that these actions did not, in law, amount to the use of human shields insofar as it did not find credible evidence of the LTTE deliberately moving civilians towards military targets to protect the latter from attacks as is required by the customary definition of that war crime”

        What is your take on what is stated by the Panel of Experts?

      • Off the Cuff

        Keynes,

        Good question. Appreciate it.

        You state
        1. The LTTE did use child soldiers. However, what credible evidence do you have of the LTTE using civilians as a human shield?
        2. The UNSG’s Panel of Experts Report states the following:
        “With respect to the credible allegations of the LTTE’s refusal to allow civilians to leave the combat zone, the Panel believes that these actions did not, in law, amount to the use of human shields insofar as it did not find credible evidence of the LTTE deliberately moving civilians towards military targets to protect the latter from attacks as is required by the customary definition of that war crime”
        What is your take on what is stated by the Panel of Experts?

        1. Photographic evidence, taken by the Times of London, when they flew over the NFZ with Ban Ki Moon.
        2. Those photographs show LTTE Gun placements, Ammunition Dumps etc amongst the Civilians inside the NFZ.
        3. Live Video evidence of the LTTE Gunmen preventing the exodus from the LTTE held area to the SLA area seeking safety amongst the SLA.
        4. Statement by Anna Marie Loose of Medicine Sans Frontiers confirming the shooting of Tamils in the back and Amputation of limbs for attempting to escape from the LTTE clutches seeking safety in Govt held areas.

        There may be more if one researches the subject.

        The Guns within the NFZ was a deliberate attempt at shielding those guns by using Humans.

        The evidence of 3 is proof of forcibly retaining Humans amongst the LTTE Combatants who were at war with the SLA

        Ms Loose’s statement is also independent evidence of attempts made by the LTTE to use Humans as a shield by retaining them in a war area by force.

        Other than item 3, all others are from sources unconnected to the SL Govt.

        Item 3 was seen live by the Diplomatic Corps in Colombo.

        A telling indictment of the so called expertise of the UNSG’s “Expert” Panel.

      • Off the Cuff

        Keynes!

        Sorry I hit the submit button too soon.

        The UNSG’s Experts say,

        “Panel believes that these actions did not, in law, amount to the use of human shields insofar as it did not find credible evidence of the LTTE deliberately moving civilians towards military targets to protect the latter from attacks as is required by the customary definition of that war crime”

        This is absolute nonsense as it subverts the Spirit of the Law, by the use of semantics.

        The experts may not have heard of relative movement.

        You could move object A, towards object B which is kept stationary or move object B, while keeping object A stationary.

        The End Result is the same. Object A ends up with object B.

        With the twisted Logic used by the UNSG’s Panel, though Human shields exist in reality, it does not exist in the eyes of the Law, as long as the Humans are not moved and the Military Targets that needs to be shielded and protected by the Humans, are moved amongst them.

        Such pronouncements is a License to use Human Shields with impunity.

        What can one say about the Expertise of the UNSG’s Experts?

      • Keynes!

        Off the Cuff,

        Can you give a link to the statement issued by Anna Marie Loose of Medicine Sans Frontiers?

        Thanks.

      • Off the Cuff

        Keynes!

        Though I posted my reply correctly it had gone in to a different thread. Probably a glitch in WordPress software.
        http://groundviews.org/2012/07/07/equality-unity-autonomy-democracy/#comment-47256

        The link is http://www.sbs.com.au/dateline/story/transcript/id/600020/n/Hunting-the-Tigers

        Courtesy Anpu who has been kind enough to supply it (I did not have the link though I remembered what she said).

        Please read Thivya’s and Anpu’s comments at the above thread.

        I hope at least this time it will appear in the correct thread.

    • thivya

      [Are you saying that only Saivites are Tamils? ]

      wijayapala,

      I was talking about the social and religious set up during the Jaffna kingdom, at that period, almost all the Tamils were Saivites. If I think the only Saivites are Tamils why should I worry about the forced conversion of the Catholic Tamils in Chilaw and Puttalam areas. No Eelam Tamils think only Saivaites are Tamils, our Tamilness has no caste or religious boundaries. Only anti Tamil Sinhala polemicists like Mahindapala are still whining about caste issues in the Tamil society, hoping to divide the Tamils while the Sinhala Sanga is divvied along the caste line. The Low caste Sinhala Karava people still can’t even dream of becoming the prelate of Dalada Maligawa. Trust me, our people who died in Vanni in the Sinhala war against Tamils died as Tamils not as Hindus or Christians.

      [Before you get over-excited by conspiracy theories (don’t worry, we have similar conspiracy theories about the Tamils trying to take over the island)]

      The Tamils of Chilaw and Puttalam areas were forced to assimilate by the calculated cultural genocide committed by the Sinhala regime by closing down the Tamil medium schools in the Negombo and Chilaw areas. If you have any doubt ask DBSJ, he will give you the proof as he is one of the Sri Lanka’s renowned journalists.

      • wijayapala

        Dear thivya

        You failed to answer quite a number of my questions, which I found astonishing given your apparent interest in history. Or was I mistaken?

        I asked specifically your reaction to Sinhalese becoming Tamil. Was that also a “calculated cultural genocide” on the part of Jaffna Vellalas? Were you silent on that question out of pure shame that this evil Tamil conspiracy had been exposed?

        I also asked you how the Tamils are culturally homogenous. As you were unable to answer that question, shall we conclude that you believe that the Tamils and Sinhalese are actually culturally heterogenous with many overlapping areas? That would be a rather dangerous view for a Tamil nationalist such as yourself to have, as it would quite undermine your argument of the Tamils having an exclusive “nation.”

        The Tamils of Chilaw and Puttalam areas were forced to assimilate by the calculated cultural genocide committed by the Sinhala regime by closing down the Tamil medium schools in the Negombo and Chilaw areas. If you have any doubt ask DBSJ, he will give you the proof as he is one of the Sri Lanka’s renowned journalists.

        Sorry Thivya, but you’ll have to provide more evidence that there was an actual plan to commit “cultural genocide” by the “Sinhala regime,” which incidentally was NOT Catholic. If you have any familiarity with the period of history between independence and the late 1960s, you would know that the distrust between Buddhists and Catholics rivalled, if not exceeded that between the Tamils and Sinhalese.

        Could you kindly direct us to an article that DBSJ had written on this topic? I am familiar with how he tried to warn everyone that the LTTE was leading the Tamils into disaster, but nobody paid attention to him. Were you one of the few who heeded his words?

        The most important contribution that the Portuguese did to the
        Sinhala Buddhist nation was the elimination of an important social
        distance indicator between coastal Tamils and Sinhalese in converting
        both to Catholic faith.

        But you have provided two links about the ancient Tamils’ ties to Buddhism. If there really were Tamil Buddhists, as I myself believe there were, then how could conversion eliminate a social distance indicator that did not exist?

        Kathirkamam, the holiest of holy shrines of Sri Lankan Tamils predates the arrival of Buddhism in Sri Lanka. The Sinhalese hijacked Kathirkamam and got rid of the Tamil character of the Temple and Sinhalized it now. There are ancient Hindu remains all over the country, and Hinduism predates Buddhism in Sri Lanka.

        What is the evidence that Kataragama predates Buddhism, or that it was a Tamil shrine? Where is Kataragama mentioned in Tamil literature the same way that Murugan Arupadai in Tamil Nadu is?

        In that case don’t you think the Tamils have a better claim for the entire country than the Sinhala people who came in a dingy boat with their bandit prince (see Mahavamsa).

        Going on the same topic of Tamil literature, why did Tamil chroniclers in Jaffna and Batticaloa make this Sinhala “bandit prince” so important that they incorporated him into their writings?? Why does Yalapanavaipavamalai go to the extent of claiming that Vijaya was a Saivite? Why do both YVM and Mattakkalappuppurvaccaritiram tie the histories of their respective regions to a distant relative of Vijaya (Kalinga Magha aka Ukkirasinghan) to demonstrate the legitimacy of the ruling classes?

        Where is the evidence that Digavapi belongs to Sinhala Buddhists?

        I don’t claim that Dighavapi “belongs” to the Sinhalese, but the site was mentioned in Sinhala literature.

        I was talking about the social and religious set up during the Jaffna kingdom, at that period, almost all the Tamils were Saivites.

        I find it rather strange that you chose to answer the least important of my questions. It makes no sense to say that the Jaffna king died a Tamil when being a Saivite or Catholic made no difference.

      • yapa

        Dear thivya;

        Thank you for the reply.

        Please answer the following two questions which I had asked earlier very specifically, substantiating your position with facts and evidence as well.

        1. The descendents of those early Tamils are Sinhalese not present day Tamils. Present day Tamils living in Sri Lanka are not descendents of those Tamils.

        Do you accept my position or not? If not please substantiate your position.

        2. Do you think inheritance goes along the line of lineage or along (discrete)race connections?

        Thanks!

      • yapa

        Dear wijayapala;

        Excellently argued.

        Thanks!

    • thivya

      [The descendents of those early Tamils are Sinhalese not present day Tamils. Present day Tamils living in Sri Lanka are not descendents of those Tamils.]

      Yapa,

      I think no matter how you try to hide your Sinhala chauvinism it shows its ugly head. Please explain or give any proof why the present day Tamils cannot be the descendants of those ancient Tamils who ruled Sri Lanka. Mahavansa says, the Naga price Duttu Gemunu had to defeat 32 Tamil chieftains in and around the Anurasapuram principality alone before reaching Ellalan, the Tamil king who ruled the longest period than anyone in the history of Sri Lanka.

      Why can’t the present day Tamils be descendants of those Tamil people of Anurasapuram,who moved to the coastal areas to join their brethren, after the introduction of Buddhism to get away from the zealous Buddhist monks and Kings to keep their traditional Siva worship. All five Siva Temples: Thiruketheeswarm, Thirukoneswaram, Thodeswaram, Munneswaram and Naguleswaram are much older than any Buddhist monument in Sri Lanka. Even Dr S. Paranavitana, the not so neutral Sinhala archeologist, who spent most of his time validating Mahvansa stories than doing actual archeological research, went even further and stated:

      “Thus the vast majority of the people who today speak Sinhalese or Tamil must ultimately be descended from those autochthonous people of whom we know next to nothing.”

      I don’t understand your logic about how the Sinhala Karava, Durava, Salagama people who came to Sri Lanka piggy backed on Portuguese, and those so called Kandiyan High caste Sinhala Bandaras whose gene pool was generously contributed by Tamil kings and palace officials (via Yakadadolis), can claim to be the direct descendants of the Naga Prince Duttu Gemunu, but we the Tamils of Sri Lanka who never mixed, or compromised our ancestors original religion and language who have been living in Sri Lanka from time immemorial cannot be the descendants of Ellalan?

      Unless you prove that you are a direct descendant of Prince Vijaya, the Tamils of Sri Lanka have more organic connections to Sri Lanka than the mixed blooded Sinhalese. I will let you ponder this.

      Read the opinion of a Sinhala academic, Kumari Jaywardane.

      “After that initial incursion by Vijaya and his men, waves of immigrants came mostly from South India and became assimilated as Sinhalese. The low-country castes of the Karava, Salagama, and Durawe, came from South India mostly after 1505.

      According to Kumari Jayawardena the Portuguese rulers encouraged their men to marry local females, so that many who today bear PORTUGUESE NAMES are partly of Portuguese descent.

      “What those facts mean is that most of the TAMILS ARE MORE INDEGIGENOUS to the Sri Lankan soil, have a MORE AUTHENTIC ORGANIC CONNECTION with it, than a substantial proportion of the Sinhalese.”

      What I am saying is this, we, the Eelam Tamils, the indigenous people of the island of Eelam are ready to accept all those people who came after 1505 as a Sri Lankans, even though their ancestors came to Sri Lanka as cinnamon peelers, slaves, mercenaries and mixed with colonial masters, assimilated with the early Sinhala settlers etc. etc. We Tamils have no qualm about that.

      What infuriates us the most is, the Waduges, Nalin De Silvas, Pereras, Pieris and others with Portuguese last names have the nerve to tell us, the Eelam Tamils, the descendants of Jaffna kingdom who have roots in Sri Lanka from the dawn of history, that we can’t claim homeland in Sri Lanka. The funny part is, there are so many ‘True Sinhala’ patriots who are still unable to get rid of their Portuguese Family names even after 500 years. 🙂

      • yapa

        (please post this here, not above) -Thanks!

        Dear thivya;

        Thank you for the reply.

        Please answer the following two questions which I had asked earlier very specifically, substantiating your position with facts and evidence as well.

        1. The descendents of those early Tamils are Sinhalese not present day Tamils. Present day Tamils living in Sri Lanka are not descendents of those Tamils.

        Do you accept my position or not? If not please substantiate your position.

        2. Do you think inheritance goes along the line of lineage or along (discrete)race connections?

        Thanks!

    • thivya

      Admin,

      Please delete the previous reply. That was just a part of the answer.
      Thanks
      Thivya.

      //Can you provide examples of Tamil names with Hendaramana or Singha or Kumara in the present day? I am not asking about Tamilised names such as Kumaran or Singham.]//

      Off the Cuff,

      This is the problem with Sinhalese, they try to interpret the history of Tamils in Sri Lanka with no or limited knowledge in Tamil and come up with all kinds of nonsense. That is NOT Singha but it is SINGAI, a Tamil word. The kingdom in Vallipuram, Jaffna was called Singai Nagar, The descendants of Arya Chakravarti married into Kalinga Magha family and created a dynasty of Singai-Aryans and ruled from Vallipuram and renamed it as Singai Nagar. Here the word Aryan denotes Noble in Tamil. None of the kings of Jaffna came from North India, I don’t want you to get mixed up with that. That’s why the Jaffna Kings had the title SINGAI – ARYAN not Singa Aryan.

      Hendaramana is what the Sinhalese called the last king of Ceylon, we have so many different names for the Kings of Sri Lanka. For example. Theva Nampiya Theesan is the son of Muta Sivan. the Tamils call the king who accepted Buddhism in Sri Lanka Theva Nampiya Theesan,( a Tamil name), so do you agree that he is a Tamil King?

      Theva = God in Tamil

      Nampiya (regular Tamil word) = believed

      Theesan = King or man of righteousness in Tamil

      Deva Nampiya Theesan = The King who believed in Truth(God)

      Muta = Elder

      King Muta Siva (you can’t get any more Tamil than this, because the word MUTA is still heavily used in Jaffna Tamil to refer elders or eldest Son)

      Can you provide example of Sinhala name THEVA NAMPIYA THEESAN?

      Kumara can also be a prefix in Tamil language, there are many names starting with Kumara but the Tamil word Kumaran got corrupted as kumara in Sanskrit ola writings and inscriptions. For example a Tamil poet would write the name of the last king of Jaffna as Sankili Kumaran, and it will become Kumara(dropping the n) in Sanskrit inscription for the same king. If you know the History of Tamils, you will know that the Tamil kings fostered Tamil and Sanskrit. Just like the Europeans used Latin for academic purposes instead of their own common language, the Tamils also used Sanskrit for inscriptions and historic records; this could be to prevent the academic issues reaching the commoners.

      P.S: I have a family, job and other commitments; if I don’t reply right away, please do not think you are right. 🙂

      • Off the Cuff

        Dear Thivya,

        I saw your July 16, 2012 • 6:00 am with the following request to GV

        Dear Editor,
        Please allow this post instead of the other one for the same question posted by ‘Off the cuff’.I apologize for the inconvenience.
        Thank you
        Thivya

        The current post July 15, 2012 • 10:37 pm is older but also has a similar request to GV.

        Admin,
        Please delete the previous reply. That was just a part of the answer.
        Thanks
        Thivya.

        I have replied your NEWER post (dated July 16) at this link
        http://groundviews.org/2012/07/07/equality-unity-autonomy-democracy/#comment-46781

        If you have not already seen a still earlier post of mine (of July 16, 2012 • 12:32 am ) that details the actual boundary of the Jaffna Kingdom as reported to the King of Portugal it is available here.

        http://groundviews.org/2012/07/07/equality-unity-autonomy-democracy/#comment-46764

        Ravana, Burning Issue, Wijayapala, Yapa and any others following the discussion please check the above link for continuity of argument.

        Thanks
        OTC

      • Bharath

        Dear Thivya,

        I understand your grievances and support you. But, please follow some logic while answering others.

        Devanam priya dasa is a sanskrit word which becomes Devanampiyadasa. You are inventing Theva nampiya theesan into this. Remember, such ridiculous arguments and theories would discredit your valid arguments as well.

    • Ravana

      Thiviya,
      You accuse OTC of picking ad choosing what the “Suddha” has said. You should look in the mirror.

      If you are honest you would admit that De Querez’s volumes are full of references to “Chinagalaz” and never mentions “Tamil” anywhere. There may be some reference to “Malabar” but not much. Even when describing the final battle for Jaffna he describes the “Chingalaz” as the opponents.

      Even the Englishman Robert Knox who at the times of the Dutch escaped the King of Senkadagala, while going through the Vanni describes the Vanniyar as having allegiance to the King of Kandy. It is only after crossing the lagoon that he seeks refuge with the Dutch and metions the presence of “Malabars”.

      There is no point in quoting the Buddhist heritage of either South India or Jaffna in order to justify an imaginary “Tamil” Kingdom. It never ever, existed not even in South India. Not until Bishop Caldecott invented the Dravidian race and the “We Tamil” movement was born.

      So, stop going on about Tamil, Tamil, Tamil when referring to the past beyond the mid- 19th century. There was no nation , no identity prior to that. There was a nation of Sinhale to which belonged all its people at one point or another and they spoke two prominent languages.

      • Burning_Issue

        Dear Ravana,

        “So, stop going on about Tamil, Tamil, Tamil when referring to the past beyond the mid- 19th century. There was no nation , no identity prior to that. There was a nation of Sinhale to which belonged all its people at one point or another and they spoke two prominent languages.”

        It is because the Sinhala started to go on about Sinhala, Sinhala, Sinhala, the likes of Thiviya are compelled to go on about Tamil, Tamil, Tamil!

        If there is a nation for the Sinhalese in Sri Lanka, there will always be a nation for the Tamils as well! If a Tamil were to challenge the ilk of OTC and Yapa, he or she is deemed as a nationalist, it is a pity! Those who expect to forcefully assimilate the Tamils into the mainstream Sinhala in Sri Lanka, will find the country remain a failed one. You can try and discredit the Tamil history in Sri Lanka and overplay the Sinhala nation, it will not bring about reconciliation but will aid the Sinhala Buddhist Chauvinists in their quest of subjugating the minorities!

      • wijayapala

        Dear B_I

        You can try and discredit the Tamil history in Sri Lanka and overplay the Sinhala nation

        I am very interested in Tamil history in Sri Lanka, but thivya is not responding to what I say. Does thivya prefer the company of OTC and yapa over me?

      • Burning_Issue

        Dear Wijayapala,

        “I am very interested in Tamil history in Sri Lanka, but thivya is not responding to what I say. Does thivya prefer the company of OTC and yapa over me?”

        You are one who knows Sri Lanka history very well; you never disputed that Tamils as a people existed in Sri Lanka throughout the known history. While I understand the need to discredit separatism, I have issues with conflating Sinhala Chauvinism with nation building. The debate that Thiviya has been having with OTC and Yapa is to do with the Tamil homeland concept. Under the current circumstances, if one were to tell me that I, as a Tamil, do not have a claim to N&E, I would feel I am stateless! This is because; I am not wanted as a true citizen of the nation as a whole with my right to my language! This is why Thiviya is vigorously sticking to her side of the debate.

        Dr.Rajasingham Narendran wrote on this Thread to Yapa:
        July 16, 2012 • 1:55 pm

        “I do not subscribe to the ‘Traditional Homelands ’concept. However, I feel that while every citizen in Sri Lanka has to be treated equally in every way, the linguistic, cultural and religious rights of the people have to be accepted and respected. This would mean also accepting the visible manifestations of these characteristics in areas where a particular people predominate. Every citizen should also have the right to live wherever he/she wishes in the Island and continue to be what he/she is or what he/she wants to be, without hindrance to other people and interference from other people. This includes the right to work and own property.”

        I concur with everything that he outlined. If this were to be established, do you believe the likes of Thiviya would waste time debating with OTC and YAPA?

      • yapa

        Dear Burning_Issue;

        ““I do not subscribe to the ‘Traditional Homelands ’concept. However, I feel that while every citizen in Sri Lanka has to be treated equally in every way, the linguistic, cultural and religious rights of the people have to be accepted and respected. This would mean also accepting the visible manifestations of these characteristics in areas where a particular people predominate. Every citizen should also have the right to live wherever he/she wishes in the Island and continue to be what he/she is or what he/she wants to be, without hindrance to other people and interference from other people. This includes the right to work and own property.””

        I 100% agree with the above statement of Dr.Rajasingham Narendran.

        You say,

        “If this were to be established, do you believe the likes of Thiviya would waste time debating with OTC and YAPA?”

        I don’t think anybody should waste their time to establish this. It is our view as well. Only problem we have is the disproportionate, unequal demand for the resources of this country.

        If this demand alone is shelved, no issue will be remained in this country to resolve. I think this is the root cause of the problem.

        Don’t you think so,dear Burning_Issue?

        Thanks!

      • yapa

        Dear wijayapala;

        “Does thivya prefer the company of OTC and yapa over me?”

        I think two of us are fair skinned than you. Thivya seems to prefer “Suddhas”. Ha! Ha!!

        Thanks!

      • Off the Cuff

        Dear Burning Issue,

        Glad to see that you have been following the debate we are having with Thivya. I didn’t know she was a female till you pointed that out. Thank you.

        You say “The debate that Thiviya has been having with OTC and Yapa is to do with the Tamil homeland concept. Under the current circumstances, if one were to tell me that I, as a Tamil, do not have a claim to N&E,”

        On the contrary I recognise that ANY Tamil citizen of Lanka has a claim over ALL of Lanka not just the North and East that you are curtailing it to. To say any different, is being a RACIST. Likewise ANY TAMIL who does not reciprocate the above towards the other ethnicities inhabiting this island, is also a RACIST. If you are a citizen of Lanka and has not relinquished it, I recognise your right to the whole Island.

        What I don’t accept is the purported special rights some Tamils claim, quoting manufactured History. Equality is a two way street. No ethnicity has special rights over the other. No ethnic has an exclusive right to Public Resources of Lanka. No ethnic can claim part of Lanka as their Exclusive Homeland.

        No one has that right to quote history and make such a claim as our ancestors are all immigrants. If you think otherwise join the debate in support of Thivya and prove that you have a claim that the other’s do not have. So far Thivya could not.

        Staying on the sidelines and keeping silent is your prerogative but making snide remarks while staying out of the debate is COWARDICE.

        If you want to quote History to make an Exclusive Claim on the East, you will have to Manufacture it. Please contradict the observations made by Dr Pradeep Jeganathan that I quoted and linked to, higher up on this thread. You can’t call him either a Sinhala Chauvanist or a Sinhala Buddhist as he is neither a Sinhalese nor a Buddhist (I believe) Please make sure that you make factual claims and provide references when doing so.

        I have exchanged my opinions with Dr.Rajasingham Narendran, who I consider to be a moderate. He understands my position very well.

        I support devolution including Police and Land Powers but not based on purported Historic boundaries (which the exclusive homeland theorists base on the arbitrary boundaries of the Brits) but based on equitable distribution of Land and other Public Resources.

        So come on and join the discussion with the likes of OCT and Yapa and Ravana (you have excluded Wijayapala, whose knowledge of Tamil affairs I greatly respect) and prove your case. Give support to Lady Thivya.

      • yapa

        Dear Burning_Issue;

        “The debate that Thiviya has been having with OTC and Yapa is to do with the Tamil homeland concept. Under the current circumstances, if one were to tell me that I, as a Tamil, do not have a claim to N&E, I would feel I am stateless! This is because; I am not wanted as a true citizen of the nation as a whole with my right to my language! This is why Thiviya is vigorously sticking to her side of the debate.”

        No one has denied your claim to N&E. What has been objected/denied is the claim of “exclusive rights” to N&E by the Tamils. To the unjustifiable and evil theory of “exclusive Tamil homeland” of N&E.

        So, I think you will have no reason to loose your hopes that you have a state. You have the whole Sri Lanka as your state, instead of N&E of it.

        Thanks!

      • wijayapala

        Dear B_I

        On the contrary I recognise that ANY Tamil citizen of Lanka has a claim over ALL of Lanka not just the North and East that you are curtailing it to.

        I 100% support this statement by OTC. You nor any other Tamil (even thivya) should not be limited to N-E. Historically there were Tamils living all over the island. There are Tamil inscriptions in Matale and Galle.

        K. Indrapala has pointed out that the medieval Jaffna kings did not see themselves as ruling just Jaffna or even the N-E, but they believed they were the legitimate rulers of the entire island. You B_I should adopt that mindset. If you were to contest Presidential elections, I would vote for you anytime over MR or any of the other clowns in politics these days! I am sure many Sinhalese here in Groundviews would do the same.

      • Ravana

        Dear Burning Issue,
        How are you mate?
        Well I agree that Tamil-speaking owners of Sri Lanka are highly frustrated. And I am with them. But Thiviya and others should avoid making arguments which they will clearly lose. I agree entirely about the SRI (Sinhala Racist Idiot) Lankans. Yes, Yapa is one of them (if you have followed his past arguments) but OTC is definitely not. When Tamils assert racist theories it makes it very hard for people like OTC to not oppose them thus Yapa does not have to say anything controversial.

        WRT Sinhala Racism, I find it annoying but very petty, stupid and irrelevant in the World at large. The vast majority of intelligent and well-educated Sinhala-speakers (as few as they may be) appear to not associate themselves in this nonsense.

        Tamil racism scares the hell out of me. This is because it is the intelligent and well educated Tamil-speakers who espouse these theories. Furthermore, Tamil-speakers matter in the World Scene and particularly in South Asia. Tamil-Dravidianist racism is extremely dangerous to India’s security as a major player in the region. As imperfect as India is it is important for South Asian people to have a Super State that represents their interests in the World. Even though well educated and somewhat intelligent, there appears to be an abiding stupidity among Tamil elite who do not appear to see the fact that Tamils can wield incredible power if they chose a peaceful and non-racist path and put their false-pride aside.

        As for me I have made a painful decision in the past 2-3 years when I saw the true colour of Sri Lankans (the racist, mysogynistic lot who commit crimes against other humans at will and will use sectarian flags to wave in the faces of their fellow citizens and harass and kill and rape tourists…. and those who stand by and watch all this happening). I decided to not have property in Sri Lanka or to live there with my family. I could not expose them to the potential dangers that the island presents.

        There are still those like Fonseka who rail against this and I admire them. For, they have incredible courage and I would be ready to assist them in the hour of their need.

      • wijayapala

        Dear Ravana

        I agree entirely about the SRI (Sinhala Racist Idiot) Lankans.

        But you do not see that Fonseka is a greater “SRI” than even all the Rajapakshas put together.

      • yapa

        Dear Ravana;

        ” I agree entirely about the SRI (Sinhala Racist Idiot) Lankans. Yes, Yapa is one of them (if you have followed his past arguments)….”

        Ha! Ha!!, I think you write with a preconceived mind.

        Thanks!

      • Krish

        Dear Ravana – Just happened to read your post on Tamil racisim. It will be a long discussion to begin with as to how this whole Dravidianism came into being. Wijayapala and I had some good exchange on this and here is the thread if you are interested!

        http://groundviews.org/2012/03/14/the-geopolitical-matrix-of-sri-lankas-conflict/

        BTW, things have been changing drastically in Tamil Nadu in the last one year or so. There is this party (or movement as of now) called “Naam Tamilar” (meaning “We Tamils”) that seems to be a pro-Tamil (pro-LTTE unfortunately) that rejects Dravidianism very aggressively. My personal opinion is “Dravidianism is a concept that was effectively exploited by non-Tamil South Indians to rule Tamil Nadu”. And Dravidian secession movement (for a separate country) was abandoned in 1962 when Indo-China war broke out. Today, the same DMK (which advocated separation) has the second most share of ministers in the Central Government after Congress Party. Besides, Tamil Nadu has the most ministers of any state in the current Indian Governemtn. So, this logic of India’s security being threatened by Dravidianism is just going a little far, although I have no idea about the kind of guys waving flags at Mahinda during his visits to London. You may be right on that though.

    • wijayapala

      Dear thivya,

      Sadly, again your answer to my post was unsatisfactory. I’d like to remind you that I’m not simply writing to educate you, but anyone else who is happening to follow the thread. You really are not doing a very good job defending your views, and I am concerned that your inability to refute my points will dissolve your credibility among the readers here.

      Are you feeling a little embarrassed that a Sinhala has to teach you about Sri Lankan Tamil history?

      We are not discussing the Aryan or Dravidian origin of words here.

      Then why are you making a big deal about the supposed “Tamil” origins of Sinhala names?

      The word Singai is a more Tamilized word than the word Singha.

      Why did a Tamil dynasty feel the need to identify with the exact same totem animal as the other inhabitants of the island? The YVM offers a clue: the Arya Chakravarties felt a strong need to identify with the lineage of Vijaya, the mythical first Sinhala king (in Sri Lanka).

      Based on your reply, I think you are not familiar with Tamil etymology. So I think it is such a waste of time for me to discuss this with you and I didn’t come here to discuss Tamil etymology with anyone.

      Alas, if you cannot discuss Tamil etymology then you cannot substantiate a great deal of what you claim. For example, your claim that Devanampiya Tissa was a Tamil falls completely flat because you cannot provide a single Tamil document where his name was even mentioned. If anything I have said about Tamil etymology is incorrect, then you have a golden opportunity to disprove me as a fraud for everyone to see. I suspect that it is you whose knowledge of Tamil etymology is lacking, and you realise that the more we discuss the topic the more your ignorance of it will be exposed.

      It seems like you think more highly of Sanskrit than Tamil, for your information Sanskrit heavily borrowed from Tamil.

      Could you please provide examples? I am aware that Sanskrit has a Dravidian sub-stratum, but this influence is mostly limited to grammar and not vocabulary. Sanskrit has influenced Tamil far more than Tamil has influenced Sanskrit. I am not saying this because I think more highly of Sanskrit- a language I do not even know- but because it is the truth.

      • thivya

        wijayapala,

        I will eventually reply to you either here or on my blog. I will reply on my own terms and when I want to answer. I have seen many people like you on internet forums. I know how to educate myself and reply to the issues I care the most or am passionate about; I do not need your help. I have a great deal of interest in Tami Etymology and I am amazed by it. 🙂

        I am not here to impress anyone, I think the mythical Sinhala Mahavmsa stories and uncorroborated archeological expeditions done by non neutral Sinhala archaeologists’ and academics who have an axe to grind against Tamils should not be used to deny the rightful share of Tamils in Sri Lanka. The Sinhalese have been using archeology to deny the Tamils rights in Sri Lanka by appointing people like Ellawela, (well known anti Tamil hater) to be in charge of Archeology in the North -East. Now they are digging up colonial archives to make us, the Eeelam Tamils, aliens in our own country. That will infuriate any Tamil who believes North-East is his or her ancestral homeland.

      • rajivmw

        I must thank Thivya, OTC and Wijeyapala for a most interesting debate. My conclusions, based on what has been discussed so far, are as follows:

        There was a separate kingdom centred in the Jaffna peninsular. This is not disputed by any party.

        As far as the colonial powers were concerned, the Kandy Kingdom held sovereignty over the eastern coastline. There seems to be no evidence that the last Jaffna Kingdom held any sway over this region, even though there might have been a Tamil-speaking majority.

        The Vanni region seems to have been dominated by powerful local chieftains whose allegiances were ambiguous, at least as far as the European chroniclers were concerned. The Veddhas also seem to have been a pretty conspicuous presence in the area.

        What’s interesting to me is that all the kingdoms, including Jaffna, claimed the whole island as their realm. This would indicate that borders as we know know them today did not exist at the time, and that the Vanni’s status was really subject to the changing whims and fancies of the chieftains.

        It also follows that the ultimate aspiration of each and all of the kingdoms was to unite the island as a single entity. Would it be presumptuous of me to also conclude then that in the pre-colonial era, just as borders were vague and fluid, so were ethnic identities?

      • Nithyananthan

        Dear thivya, Greetings to you!

        We follow your exchanges of amazing volleys with keen interest. Yet, your rebuke of this kind to Mr. wije makes us believing that he doesn’t deserve a tone of criticism with such fury. He is also a nationalist as we are – but neither at all a racist nor an anti-Tamil xenophobic Sinhalese chauvinist. Are we anti-Sinhalese racists? Not that we have got to agree with all what he says, sometimes his arguments are irritating and do not call any response. Let’s take the essence / the intent of his arguments. Yet, he is being observed by many as a passionate peace-lover, a defender of Tamils’ civil/political rights -above average Sinhalese moderate gentlemen who is not a twister – but is consistent in his beliefs and an advocate of Tamil/Sinhalese unity – in his unique style. He is competent in Tamil language – well read and informed of the natural and political history and geography of South Asian subcontinent. Therefore, please engage with him on selected wavelength. How many wijes are there? We have one and only wije. Thanks, Nithy!

      • Off the Cuff

        Dear Nithyananthan,

        Greetings to you.
        I agree with you about Wijayapala’s knowledge of Tamil affairs.
        I doubt that Thivya can answer the questions that Wijey has posed.
        If you read her post of July 18, 2012 • 8:07 am
        You will see that she has admitted her ignorance.

        She says “I will eventually reply to you either here or on my blog. I will reply on my own terms and when I want to answer. I have seen many people like you on internet forums. I know how to educate myself and reply to the issues I care the most or am passionate about“

        This is probably the first time she met a Sinhala, more educated than her, in Tamil History and Literature.

        For all her fire, she has withdrawn with the tail between her legs and has more or less admitted defeat.

        However I do not agree with the following observation of yours of what Thivya writes.

        You say “We follow your exchanges of amazing volleys with keen interest”

        Her volleys have turned out to be a lot of noise without substance.
        What we call in Sinhala a “Pus Wedi”, a salvo of blanks.
        She needs help

        Why don’t you join and contribute?

        OTC

      • Burning_Issue

        Dear Thiviya,

        Sri Lankan history is troublesome; throughout its history peoples of all types migrated, settled, de-migrated and the demography has been changing none stop. However, there were some watershed events took place such as arrival of Buddhism and prominent invasions of Chola that shaped the nation that we see today. I am neither a historian nor one who is well read along the lines of Wijayapala. I heavily rely on the Internet and abrasive selective reading of relevant materials. So, I am not qualified to judge anything of substance.

        However, I do know that unlike the Buddhists Clergy, their Hindu counterparts never kept records. The Portuguese had destroyed many places of worships both Buddhist and Hindu and as a result, we would never know the antiquity of those buildings. There is no way anyone can tell me with authority that the Tamils have not lived in Sri Lanka in numbers throughout its history. If anyone tries that, he or she will be a damn fool. Unless, there is an independent systemic Archeological investigation into Sri Lankan history, we would never know in terms how peoples of land come into being.

        Tamil Home Land Theory

        There are many Sinhala Buddhist Chauvinists, who hate the minorities let alone the Tamils. I would categories none of those with whom you have been debating as such including Yapa. We must also recognize that there are many Tamils who are racists and chauvinists. However, I would not categories all Tamils Separatists as racists or Chauvinist. My immediate family members are pro separation but I know for sure they are not racists. Likewise, almost all Sinhala are against dividing the country and all cannot be racists. The conundrum that they face is how to discredit separatism without being portrayed as anti-Tamil, chauvinist or racists. The resolve OTC manifests in disproving you in terms of the ancient boundaries of the Jaffna Kingdom shows that he wishes to destroy the concept of the Tamil Homeland Theory as being fictitious. This does not mean he is anti-Tamil. As you can see from his post to me; he would like the Tamils to regard Sri Lanka as their home and do not restrict them within Tamil Homeland. Without being prejudice to the Tamil Home Land, I must admit, in the grand scale of things, the Tamil Homeland sounds inappropriate and born out of insecurity. This argument will have no winners and losers. This does not negate the fact that the Tamils traditionally principally inhabited within the North and East. This does not mean that the Tamils did not inhabit in rest of the Island.

        At some point in the past, I vigorously objected to state sponsored Buddhist statues being erected within the North and East. I still do. I am not an anti-Buddhist; I would like to see many Buddhist places worships established within Tamil dominated areas. On balance, there are countless Hindu temples located within the Sinhala dominated areas; some are derelict and abandoned. My point of objection was to do with state sponsored hegemonic aggression. I found it difficult to articulate this point of view without being portrayed as anti-Sinhala or anti-Buddhists. It is the same conundrum that the anti-separatist Sinhala face articulating their point of view.

        I wish, the likes of OTC, Yapa, and others show as much vigor in defending human rights, equality and right to languages. I feel that there is not much appetite among the learned Sinhala to push for ground breaking good measures. I believe that, if the GOSL were to get its act together and instill good governance, the Tamil mind-set would begin to change. There will be no platform for the Diaspora to stand on. The TNA would need to re-think. It is all very well attacking the Tamil Home Land Concept but I believe it will be counterproductive unless there is good governance to go with it.

        Wijayapala’s vision is a unitary state with absolute equality; peoples are trilingual and no discrimination. No one can fault his aspiration; if it is achievable I will second that. However, I am pessimistic that such a vision can be realized; the peoples are not ready for it. I would say that if you can engage with Wijayapala constrictively you have a lot to gain, and he would readily admit his shortcomings.

      • thivya

        [OTG said on 16 July 2012:// “However I do admire your intelligence, though you are fighting a lost cause.”// ]

        All that talks from a guy who said that “he admires my intelligence”. It again shows that the Sinhalese cannot be trusted. They are not honest when it comes to Tamils in politics or even on internet forums. They never abided by the agreements they signed with Tamils and they do not stick with their statements on internet forums either. It shows we can’t take this OTF guy seriously, I never did. 🙂

        I already said that I am not here to impress anyone and am not looking for kudos either. It might be OTG’s way of pushing me to participate in a match with Wijapaypala. Sorry, it won’t work with me and I don’t have time. I am not here to prove my intelligence; I came here because the issue of Jaffna Kingdom is an emotional issue for Eelam Tamils.

        “…???????? ?????????? ????;
        ???????? ??????? ???????? ????.

        …and so we do not wonder at the great
        and still less do we despise the small”

        – Tamil Poem in Purananuru, circa 500 B.C –

      • Off the Cuff

        Dear Thivya,

        Yours of July 18, 2012 • 10:44 pm

        I was under the impression that you were well versed in history of the Tamils and the Church. My views about your intelligence have changed after I discovered that you are quoting from Sangam.org and NOT directly from Queroz. To be specific, from something written by Arudpragasam. at the following link.
        http://www.sangam.org/BOOKS/Book-Arudpragasam/Chapter-2.htm

        You have quoted word for word from sangam.org.
        No wonder you did not provide a link to the Queroz quote.

        I now suspect that most of what you write is culled from sangam.org and similar separatist web sites. That could be a reason for backing off.

        You admitted that you do not possess the education to answer Wijayapala (you said you will reply after educating yourself).

        You have also declared very arrogantly as follows

        “I will eventually reply to you either here or on my blog. I will reply on my own terms and when I want to answer .”

        That though arrogant is wise.
        Wise because you have understood engaging with Wijayapala about Tamil words, history etc would strip you of any semblance of respectability, that you may have built up, from the Separatist audience of yours.

      • yapa

        Dear Thvya;

        Lost your hopes?

        Understood that Off the Cuff is more intelligent than you? Understood that Tamil homeland is a dangerous myth?

        I think Tamils separatists have sown “counter productive seeds”. Now the plants are coming up. You will see the fruits soon.

        Thanks!

      • thivya

        Wijayapala,

        I have posted the Tamil roots of the words Theva, Raja and Singam on my blog. It is very hard to post here without typing in Tamil. I think if you know Tamil it will be easy for you to understand the Tamil roots of the so called Sanskrit words such as Raja, Theva and Singam. Long before me, there were many Tamils who were proud of their language that must have met Sinhalese like you who value Sanskrit more than Tamil. Thanks to those Tamil haters, I did not have to spend too much typing all that out. 🙂

        The Sinhalese have a problem admitting that they have borrowed language, art, architecture, dance and words from Tamils. That has something to do with the inherent hatred for Tamils and the Mahavamsa poison the Buddhist monks fed them in their childhoods in the Sri Lankan Buddhist temples. It seems the Sinhalese think borrowing from Sanskrit is great but admitting the fact that the Sinhala language is borrowed from Tamil is a kind of insult. That’s why they argue that many Tamil words in Sinhala are of Sanskrit or Pali origin. The Sinhala racism does not allow them to appreciate the antiquity and the greatness of the Tamil language.

        http://thivyaaa.blogspot.ca/2012/07/the-tamil-roots-of-so-called-sanskrit.html

      • wijayapala

        Dear thivya

        The Sinhalese have a problem admitting that they have borrowed language, art, architecture, dance and words from Tamils.

        I do not have that problem, so your words do not apply to me. Do you have a problem admitting that the Tamils also have borrowed many things from other cultures, including the Sinhalese?

        My perspective that it is impossible to really know about Sinhala history without a knowledge of the Tamils who lived alongside the Sinhalese, and vice versa. So I would be the last person to encourage marginalising the Tamil contribution to Sri Lanka. However, I draw the line between fact and ethnonationalistic/racist fiction.

        That has something to do with the inherent hatred for Tamils and the Mahavamsa poison the Buddhist monks fed them in their childhoods in the Sri Lankan Buddhist temples.

        Actually the problem is less an anti-Tamil stance on the part of Sinhala historians and archeologists and more of an ignorance of Tamil things. For example, many of them do not know that the story of the cow and the bell in the Mahavamsa is part of Chola legend in Tamil Nadu. Anyone who is familiar with that fact would see how the ancient Tamils and Sinhalese had interacted closely- as opposed to having separate and exclusive “nations”- at the time when the Mahavamsa was written.

        One reason why the Sinhalese are so ignorant of Sri Lankan Tamil history, aside from their lack of proficiency in Tamil language, is that there have been precious few Tamil historians who have taken a holistic approach to history. The Tamil historians often exhibit their own “Sinhalaphobia” and try to present a version of history where the Sinhalese are totally missing. This could be the result of their own ignorance of the Sinhala language, but I suspect that in their zeal to debunk the claims of Sinhala nationalist historians, they have adopted the same exclusive or selective approach of ignoring key findings. The latter is the impression I get when reading the work of Prof. Sittampalam or A. Vellupillai.

        If you want to debunk Sinhala nationalist history, you’ll have to show how it has misinterpreted or cherry-picked the evidence, instead of misinterpreting/cherry-picking the evidence yourself! Otherwise you really are no different than the Sinhala scholars whom you claim to oppose.

        It seems the Sinhalese think borrowing from Sanskrit is great

        You are unfamiliar with the Sinhala “Hela Hawula” movement. Kindly google it and afterwards we can talk.

        That’s why they argue that many Tamil words in Sinhala are of Sanskrit or Pali origin. The Sinhala racism does not allow them to appreciate the antiquity and the greatness of the Tamil language.

        I am not arguing that many Sinhala words have a Sanskrit origin because I hate the Tamil language. I am making that argument because I have not come across a single scholar anywhere ***competent in both Sanskrit and Tamil*** who has claimed that Sanskrit words had a Tamil origin. The impact of this would completely overturn the understanding of INDIAN historical linguistics.

        I originally learned Tamil from a (non-Brahmin) Indian, and it was that Indian who told me that about 20% of Tamil words come from Sanskrit.

        Thank you for giving the link to your blog, but it doesn’t list any sources at all except for another link to an online archive that mentions “D. Ravi” as the author. Who is D. Ravi? Also, I did not understand the explanations you gave why “deva” and “raja” are originally Tamil/Dravidian words. Would you mind explaining it to me here?

        I think if you know Tamil it will be easy for you to understand the Tamil roots of the so called Sanskrit words such as Raja, Theva and Singam.

        I admit that Tamil is not my first or even second language and that I have much more to learn, but why would knowing Tamil make it easy to understand the Tamil roots of Sanskrit words **given that I do not know Sanskrit??? Shouldn’t someone knowledgeable in both languages be the best qualified to make that judgment? In any case, Tamil has changed a great deal over the millennia; shouldn’t we get the views of someone proficient in Old Tamil?

      • wijayapala

        Dear Nithy & B_I

        Thank you for your kind words. I do not deserve friends like you.

      • Krish

        Dear Thivya

        One can understand and empathize with the plight of Tamil folks in the last 60 years or so. Even with LTTE gone, things haven’t quite come back to normal yet. In that sense, I have a soft corner for you!

        And I read your blog and the source of it from archive.org by D.Ravi. It seemed to be an attempt to somehow prove that Sanskrit (and by extension most other Indian languages) borrowed words from Tamil. It is totally a poor and dishonest distortion of linguistic and etymology of Tamil words. A very biased and completely wrong article that would be Goebbelsian in it’s aim. In any case, here are my reasons:

        1. Tamil literature/works use Sanskrit words at varying percentages depending upon which era you are looking at. Old age Sangam literature or Avvaiyaar’s writings will have very little Sanskrit in them, whereas literature/works from Bhakti movement times will have more Sanskrit. Thirukkural will be somewhere in between. With passage of time, naturally Sanskrit moved more South in the Indian context. Even debates during Jain periods (and partially Buddhist) and later Bhakti movements in South India happened to be in Sanskrit. This included many saints from Chola, Pandya and Pallava kingdoms. And you should learn more about the works of Ramanuja and Vedanta Maha Desikan who are basically Tamils but have amazing works in Sanskrit. In any case, Sanskrit maintained and died with it’s purity, whereas Tamil while maintaining it’s longevity took a lot of words from Sanskrit. You should take time to go to some good Universities in Tamil Nadu and research works regarding this, particularly Madras University. There have been many discussions on these and partly, the attempts by scholars in TN was to revive (or enhance the purity of) Tamil itself. One should appreciate Karunanidhi for that.

        2. You are quoting “Theivam”, “Theivattaan” etc etc from different Tamil works. Conversely, I can show words like “Deva”, “Daivatham”, “Devaya”, “Devatha”, “Devi” from Sanskrit works like Purusha Sukhtam, Vishnu Suktam, Thaithriya Upanishad, Maha Narayanam and then Vishnu Sahasranaamam (a part of Mahabharatha) simply to prove that “Deva” is of Sanskrit origin. By the way, your name, if said/written correctly would be “Divya” or “Dhivya”, but not “Thivya”. That is partially due to phonetical incompleteness of Tamil.

        3. Your (or D.Ravi’s logic) of starting from “Thee” (fire) for God is hilarious. It is one thing to derive but completely another to be propoganda leaning. There are about 50 Tamil words that start with “Thee”. Did they all start from fire? For example, “Theevu”, “Theendaamai”, “Theeviravaadhi”, “Theerar” for starters.

        4. “Raja” is an interesting word that originated from Sanskrit that went into not just Tamil but as far as Urdu (which is a Persian offshoot of Hindi). Are you going to claim that Urdu and Persian copied from Tamil? If so, when did they copy it exactly?

        Finally, just a word of thought Thivya, especially for you!
        a) Katradhu kaiman alavu, kalladhadhu ulagalavu.
        b) Nirai kudam thalumbaadhu! Kuraikudam kooththaadum.

      • thivya

        Mr. Wijayapala,

        ///I am making that argument because I have not come across a single scholar anywhere ***competent in both Sanskrit and Tamil*** who has claimed that Sanskrit words had a Tamil origin. The impact of this would completely overturn the understanding of INDIAN historical linguistics.///

        I am sorry to be too blunt, if you don’t even know that simple fact why did you even venture into this topic. There has been a huge debate going on for decades in the Tamil academic circle that Sanskrit was craeted from Tamil. From Tamil scholars like Thevaneya paavanar to Maraimalaiyadikal and other Tamil scholars around the globe have proved that Sanskrit borrowed more words from Tamil than Tamil ever borrowed from Sanskrit. There are some scholars that argue that Sanskrit was created from Tamil for academic purposes. They say that almost all Sanskrit words can be etymologically proven to have Tamil roots.

        [Tamil roots of Sanskrit words **given that I do not know Sanskrit??? Shouldn’t someone knowledgeable in both languages be the best qualified to make that judgment?]

        Even a simple google search would have given you the statement of eminent Tamil and Sanskrit scholar Professor Hart, of California Berklely University. Although some of the Tamil scholars do not agree with some of his statements regarding Tamil, they agree with most parts.

        STATEMENT ON THE STATUS OF TAMIL AS A CLASSICAL LANGUAGE

        http://tamil.berkeley.edu/Old%20Files%20from%20previous/Tamil%20Chair/TamilClassicalLanguage/TamilClassicalLgeLtr.html

        I have been a Professor of Tamil at the University of California, Berkeley, since 1975 and am currently holder of the Tamil Chair at that institution. My degree, which I received in 1970, is in Sanskrit, from Harvard, and my first employment was as a Sanskrit professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, in 1969. Besides Tamil and Sanskrit, I know the classical languages of Latin and Greek and have read extensively in their literatures in the original. I am also well-acquainted with comparative linguistics and the literatures of modern Europe (I know Russian, German, and French and have read extensively in those languages) as well as the literatures of modern India, which, with the exception of Tamil and some Malayalam, I have read in translation. I have spent much time discussing Telugu literature and its tradition with V. Narayanarao, one of the greatest living Telugu scholars, and so I know that tradition especially well. As a long-standing member of a South Asian Studies department, I have also been exposed to the richness of both Hindi literature, and I have read in detail about Mahadevi Varma, Tulsi, and Kabir.

        I have spent many years — most of my life (since 1963) — studying Sanskrit. I have read in the original all of Kalidasa, Magha, and parts of Bharavi and Sri Harsa. I have also read in the original the fifth book of the Rig Veda as well as many other sections, many of the Upanisads, most of the Mahabharata, the Kathasaritsagara, Adi Sankara’s works, and many other works in Sanskrit.

        I say this not because I wish to show my erudition, but rather to establish my fitness for judging whether a literature is classical. Let me state unequivocally that, by any criteria one may choose, Tamil is one of the great classical literatures and traditions of the world.

        The reasons for this are many; let me consider them one by one.

        First, Tamil is of considerable antiquity. It predates the literatures of other modern Indian languages by more than a thousand years. Its oldest work, the Tolkappiyam,, contains parts that, judging from the earliest Tamil inscriptions, date back to about 200 BCE. The greatest works of ancient Tamil, the Sangam anthologies and the Pattuppattu, date to the first two centuries of the current era. They are the first great secular body of poetry written in India, predating Kalidasa’s works by two hundred years.

        Second, Tamil constitutes the only literary tradition indigenous to India that is not derived from Sanskrit. Indeed, its literature arose before the influence of Sanskrit in the South became strong and so is qualitatively different from anything we have in Sanskrit or other Indian languages. It has its own poetic theory, its own grammatical tradition, its own esthetics, and, above all, a large body of literature that is quite unique. It shows a sort of Indian sensibility that is quite different from anything in Sanskrit or other Indian languages, and it contains its own extremely rich and vast intellectual tradition.

        Third, the quality of classical Tamil literature is such that it is fit to stand beside the great literatures of Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, Chinese, Persian and Arabic. The subtlety and profundity of its works, their varied scope (Tamil is the only premodern Indian literature to treat the subaltern extensively), and their universality qualify Tamil to stand as one of the great classical traditions and literatures of the world. Everyone knows the Tirukkural, one of the world’s greatest works on ethics; but this is merely one of a myriad of major and extremely varied works that comprise the Tamil classical tradition. There is not a facet of human existence that is not explored and illuminated by this great literature.

        Finally, Tamil is one of the primary independent sources of modern Indian culture and tradition. I have written extensively on the influence of a Southern tradition on the Sanskrit poetic tradition. But equally important, the great sacred works of Tamil Hinduism, beginning with the Sangam Anthologies, have undergirded the development of modern Hinduism. Their ideas were taken into the Bhagavata Purana and other texts (in Telugu and Kannada as well as Sanskrit), whence they spread all over India. Tamil has its own works that are considered to be as sacred as the Vedas and that are recited alongside Vedic mantras in the great Vaisnava temples of South India (such as Tirupati). And just as Sanskrit is the source of the modern Indo-Aryan languages, classical Tamil is the source language of modern Tamil and Malayalam. As Sanskrit is the most conservative and least changed of the Indo-Aryan languages, Tamil is the most conservative of the Dravidian languages, the touchstone that linguists must consult to understand the nature and development of Dravidian.

        In trying to discern why Tamil has not been recognized as a classical language, I can see only a political reason: there is a fear that if Tamil is selected as a classical language, other Indian languages may claim similar status. This is an unnecessary worry. I am well aware of the richness of the modern Indian languages — I know that they are among the most fecund and productive languages on earth, each having begotten a modern (and often medieval) literature that can stand with any of the major literatures of the world. Yet none of them is a classical language. Like English and the other modern languages of Europe (with the exception of Greek), they rose on preexisting traditions rather late and developed in the second millennium. The fact that Greek is universally recognized as a classical language in Europe does not lead the French or the English to claim classical status for their languages.

        To qualify as a classical tradition, a language must fit several criteria: it should be ancient, it should be an independent tradition that arose mostly on its own not as an offshoot of another tradition, and it must have a large and extremely rich body of ancient literature. Unlike the other modern languages of India, Tamil meets each of these requirements. It is extremely old (as old as Latin and older than Arabic); it arose as an entirely independent tradition, with almost no influence from Sanskrit or other languages; and its ancient literature is indescribably vast and rich.

        It seems strange to me that I should have to write an essay such as this claiming that Tamil is a classical literature — it is akin to claiming that India is a great country or Hinduism is one of the world’s great religions. The status of Tamil as one of the great classical languages of the world is something that is patently obvious to anyone who knows the subject. To deny that Tamil is a classical language is to deny a vital and central part of the greatness and richness of Indian culture.

        (Signed:)
        George L. Hart
        Professor of Tamil
        Chair in Tamil Studies

        [From a posting in 1997 by George Hart, Professor of Tamil, University of California, Berkeley on Tamil, Brahmins, & Sanskrit:

        2. Sanskrit has borrowed quite as much from Dravidian as Dravidian has from Sanskrit. Tamil has borrowed more words from Sanskrit than Sanskrit has from Dravidian. It is a trivial thing for a language to borrow vocabulary. But when it uses another language’s syntax to form the way it expresses things, and uses another language’s phonology for its sounds, that is really profound influence. The fact is, Sanskrit HAS been influenced in this way by Dravidian. Of course, some Dravidian languages have also borrowed Sanskrit sounds (bh, etc.) But none of the four Dravidian languages I have read has borrowed anything from Sanskrit syntax that I can identify. Much of the syntax of Sanskrit is Dravidian, and it has a large Dravidian vocabulary. Its system of phonetics is profoundly influenced by Dravidian — Indo-Aryan is the only IE family with retroflexes.

        http://tamilsanskrit.blogspot.ca/

      • thivya

        ///One can understand and empathize with the plight of Tamil folks in the last 60 years or so. Even with LTTE gone, things haven’t quite come back to normal yet.In that sense, I have a soft corner for you!///

        Krish,

        It sounds patronizing to me and it is unrelated to the topic. Usually the TN Tamils identify with our struggle that is understandable. But when a non Tamil Indian says he empathizes with us, the Eealam Tamils, we panic and think what is he up to now? 🙂

        // I read your blog and the source of it from archive.org by D.Ravi. It seemed to be an attempt to somehow prove that Sanskrit (and by extension most other Indian languages) borrowed words from Tamil.//

        I believe he is one of the well known Etymologists and I know some others as well. Why don’t you challenge him and prove he is wrong. Here is a link to his blog, please post your rebuttal there. I would also like to see his response.

        http://ravivararo.blogspot.ca/

        [ In any case, Sanskrit maintained and died with it’s purity, whereas Tamil while maintaining its longevity took a lot of words from Sanskrit. ]

        Sanskrit is dead. There is no argument about that, but it has also borrowed many words from Dravidian languages, mainly from Tamil. That is the point here. The Tamils don’t hate Sanskrit. Actually Tamil kings fostered Sanskrit and supported Sanskrit scholars and the ordinary Tamils are the reason the dead Sanskrit is still in use, even in Eelam Tamil temples. The problem started only when some anti Tamil Sanskritists in Tami Nadu started to undermine Tamil and elevate Sanskrit at the cost of the Tamil language in Tamil Nadu.

        // There have been many discussions on these and partly, the attempts by scholars in TN was to revive (or enhance the purity of) Tamil itself. One should appreciate Karunanidhi for that.//

        Sri Lankan Tamil- spoken and written- has always been purer than TN Tamil, because we did not have invasions and influences from other races and languages like the TN Tamils had. The derivative, mixed language called Sinhala could not influence Tamil. The present Tamil language is almost free from Sanskrit words, and the credit should go to Tamil scholars like Maraimalayadikal, Thevaneyapawanar, Pavalareru Perunchithiranar and others.

        ///“Deva” is of Sanskrit origin. By the way, your name, if said/written correctly would be “Divya” or “Dhivya”, but not “Thivya”. That is partially due to phonetical incompleteness of Tamil.///

        Ok, tell us the root word in Sanskrit for the word Deva. Again, pleas give all your reasons here, I just have an interest in Tamil etymology, I never said that I am an expert in it. But I know some Tamil etymologists and I will ask them to reply you.

        The root word of thee (fire) is thEy.

        Tamil root word: ‘thEy’ (=to rub against) Friction of stones cause fire.

        thEy > thEv > thEvu > thEvan >thEvi (fem.gen).

        Thivya is derived from the Tamil word THE(IVAM) > thee = fire – it means GOD, DIVINE, RARE. SACRED etc.

        Deva/deiva/theivam> thEy is the root for these the Tamil word thee (fire), it is clearly known that we were all nature worshippers, and fire was one of the most sacred (scared too) item of worship, not just in Indian context but elsewhere too. So is it likely that the fire worship resulted in the words deva/deiva/theivam.

        //There are about 50 Tamil words that start with “Thee”. Did they all start from fire? For example, “Theevu”, “Theendaamai”, “Theeviravaadhi”, “Theerar” for starters.//

        These words have nothing to do with Thee – Fire

        Theevu from the Tamil word THIPPAI- Mound, elevated ground

        Theendamai from the Tamil word THEETTU

        Theettu – polluting or something not ritually pure.

        Theeviravadhi from Theeya(theemai) + veeram = bad bravery

        Theerar from Theer (solving problems) or determination > Person who has a determination is a Theerar.

        If you want to know the roots of these words, I need to ask some etymologits, I think we can continue this discussion in Ravi’s blog.

        // “Raja” is an interesting word that originated from Sanskrit that went into not just Tamil//

        Please prove it, and give the Sanskrit root word of Raja and its meaning.

        Ravi says:

        Raja is the Tamil root word IR> Irumai means in Tamil Greatness, Largensess, emeinence and possession of wealth.

        //Finally, just a word of thought Thivya, especially for you!//

        This is also unnecessary sarcasm. The reason I posted the print screen was to show the source and show that these were not written by me. Whenever the Indians, especially the people from a particular clan in Tamil Nadu come to a Sri Lankan forum, they side with the Sinhalese and backstab the Tamils. I have noticed this often in other forums also. Somehow I have the feeling you are also from the same clan, that was just my observation. 🙂

      • thivya

        Mr.Krish,

        The word Poojai or Puja is a TAMIL WORD BORROWED by Sanskrit.

        Jarl Charpentier’s 1927 paper in Indian Antiquary connects the meaning and etymology of pooja with ‘smearing,’ the smearing of images etc with things like red powders etc. The origin of the word Puja lies in the Dravidian Languages. Two possible Tamil roots have been suggested: Poosai “to smear with something” and Poosei “to do with flowers”.

        TAMIL ROOTS OF PUJA OR POOJAI :

        Manfred Mayrhofer, an Austrian Indo-Europeanist who specialized in Indo-Iranian languages. He is noted for his etymological dictionary of Sanskrit, suggests the derivation of pUjA from Dravidian (Tamil) ‘pUsu’ (to smear).

        “If puujaa originally refers to worship, the Dravidian etymology from the root puucu ‘to smear’ is quite acceptable. We must remember that among the oldest objects of worship in South Asia are the sacred trees, and smearing the tree trunks with red-coloured powders and oils was an integral part of the early tree cult (cf. e.g. J. Auboyer, Daily life in ancient India, 1961, page 154).

        I hope at least now you will agree that Sanskrit is dead but it did not die with its purity, it has also borrowed words from Tamil and other Dravidian languages.

        For further info please see my blog:

        http://thivyaaa.blogspot.ca/2012/07/the-word-pooja-or-puja-is-tamil-word.html

  • The Unknown Citizen

    Dayan,

    I think you may have had some reason to believe in Karunaratne’s statement. I’m also sure you’re not writing this with your “ambassador’s hat” on. But you probably should have tried to find that speech first. Aachcharaya has given us the link to the entire speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLBOaBDxQrw&feature=player_embedded

    having listened to it, here’s all it has:

    At 3.20 onwards:
    “…there is a great and ancient people called Sinhalese in this island, they have a very ancient history, they have their own language. They have adopted an ancient and glorious religion. They have their own traditions. I respect all of that very much. But unfortunately I don’t belong to that great people. I belong to another people called Tamils. We also have a great tradition. We also have a great language. Our history is also at least as ancient as that of the Sinhalese. But we are a different people.”

    at 8.40 onwards
    “So I want to know that when the Tamil National Alliance says that we are for the right to self determination of the peoples of this country, that in no way negates the right to self determination of the other peoples of this country.”

    at 9.45
    “The fact that a people are entitled to the right to self determination does not necessarily mean that they must exist as a separate country. In many countries there are many different peoples, they live together as one country. But recognizing each others’ status as a distinct people.”

    at 35. 33
    “Now if I am told that I can’t sing the national anthem in Tamil, I will not sing the national anthem. And that is what the government wants. The government does not want the Tamil people of this country to sing the National Anthem.” (this is in the context of the government’s attitude to the LLRC recommendation re the national anthem).

    Nowhere else does something remotely approaching what you write about has been said. Now unless you have evidence of another speech given, or of something more said later, I think you should make the necessary changes.

    • yapa

      (Please post this here not above)

      ““Now if I am told that I can’t sing the national anthem in Tamil, I will not sing the national anthem. And that is what the government wants. The government does not want the Tamil people of this country to sing the National Anthem.””

      I also heard that Tamils in USA, Canada, UK, Norway, France and Switzerland are preparing the Tamil versions of the national anthems of the respective countries so that they will sing the national anthems of those countries.

      What can we call these, if we don’t call them “Vigadam” (nonsense)?

      Thanks!

  • The Unknown Citizen

    My apologies, a few typos:

    8.40 should read: “So I want you to know that when the Tamil National Alliance says that we are for the right to self determination of the Tamil people of this country, that in no way negates the right to self determination of the other peoples of this country.”

  • M A Sumanthiran

    The link provided is the correct one. This has been available on the web for sometime. I wish Ambassador Jayatilleke had first listened to my speech before writing his article, which has been published in at least two Sunday Newspapers in Sri Lanka yesterday! Sumanthiran

    • Buring_Issue

      Dear MA Sumanthiran,

      DR Jayatileke is confused; he deviated from his political ideals for the sake of high political positions! His only rational is to safeguard the Sri Lankan Sovereignty! He stirred up trouble by writing an article about MR Sampanthan’s speech. He is in the business of buying time for the MR regime to fully implement their plans of changing the demography of the N&E.

      One thing I would like to ask you; if we Tamils are serious about a United Sri Lanka and building a just nation with equality, we should demonstrate to the Sinhala that we are not for Separation. To this end, we need to unambiguously show that we have rejected the Vaddukkodai Resolution. Do you agree?

      • Nithyananthan

        No, Mr. B_I; your suggestion is not that easy – not necessarily we got to reject it. It is suicidal. This is what these entire lot of half and full doctorates are expecting and indirectly demanding. They are braying in a sense that no peace talk or solution is needed at this point of time since LTTE is defeated and the war is won – but not realizing that SJVC is still alive. What happened to B/C & D/C accords? At last in 1971-72 as the last resort, SJVC scaled-down from Parity to mere SIX Point Concessions. What happened! If international agreements are dishonorably hoodwinked this suggestion is nothing for them. Tamils are not prepared to taste the same rotten cake / bait anymore. If conditions evolve and it necessitate it could be shelved – reserving the right to retrieve – until a permanent solution is found. Thanks, Nithy!

      • Burning_Issue

        Dear Nithyananthan,

        With all due respect to you, I disagree with you on this. The Tamil polity must project a coherent message in terms of composition of the Sri Lankan state; whether it will be a United, Unitary or separate states. The Vaddukoddai Resolution was formulated during the time when the Tamils were emotionally confused; no consideration was given to the politics of the Indian Sub-Continent! I do not believe that even the Architects of that convention believed in that resolution.

        Only way a solution for the Tamils can be realised when there is a paradigm shift within the Sinhala masses. I am convinced that a vast majority of the Sinhala people would like to see a form of solution implemented for the Tamils. This sense of feeling would not snowball unless there is a clear trust in the Tamil polity. You may think that I am naïve that the Sinhala will never give anything. The issue is that, if this is the thought process of the TNA hierarchy, we have no platform. The notion that the IC will eventually come to a realisation that Colombo will not heed to any form of solution within United Sri Lanka is a flawed one. I believe that the MR regime is not interested in giving anything to the Tamils; they, instead mobilising the Sinhala Buddhist Chauvinists in the hope of staying in power. We Tamils are playing in MR’s hands. We must strengthen the opposition by clearly commit to a solution within one country; be it United or Unitary!

      • wijayapala

        Dear Nithy,

        Greetings! B_I has a very good understanding of the Sinhala fears and how the politicians exploit them. Whenever the “moderate” Tamils like Sampanthan or Sumanthiran start talking vague language when asked about separatism, it is very easy to convince the Sinhalese that devolution is one step towards separatism and that the Tamils should be given nothing. If the Tamils want devolution, they will have to show how it benefits everyone through better governance and stop talking about Tamil homelands and ancient long-dead kingdoms.

      • Ravana

        Good Luck BI,
        Hope you succeed. It requires such an unintuitive perspective. And you seem to have it.

        Suppress Tamil racism -> Join the “Sinhala” who will beat the Sinhala racism to a pulp -> help Sri Lanka take its due place in an economic/cultural integration with Southern India -> Protect the Interests of Inida -> Derive the benefits of an empowered India

        instead of,

        Rage against meaningless Sinhala Racism (which actually seeks to disown you of the joint claim to a motherland) -> motivated by rage, invent a completely fictitious history of a separate nation -> Wage a racist war which exacerbates instead of suppress the Sinhala racism (there was no “Sinhala” race until the 19th century but there was a “Sihale”, the island/nation) ->exacerbate Tamil-Dravidianist racism in South India -> Reach a stalemate in which you hope for Indian/Western intervention -> Find the West undermining Indian authority in the region, making India an observer in the power play -> South Asian reaction against Dravidianism -> Anyone with a “Tamil” name becomes untrusted by the East and toys of the West. -> Don’t come running to India when you are the objects of racial vilification in the West

        The choice I hope is clear to other Tamils.

    • We have sent Amb. Jayatilleka your comment in the hope he responds. He is usually a keen follower of comments on this site, esp. on articles he has penned.

    • Dr Dayan Jayatilleka

      Dear Mr Sumanthiran,

      I have not yet watched the video but find no reason to doubt the veracity of it. Therefore this is a preliminary rejoinder.

      However, I do find it curious — and rather revealing–that you sent in this clarification in response to my critique rather than as a correction of Dr Wickremabahu’s earlier report of it, which purported to be a direct quote rather than a paraphrase as it was placed within inverts. Indeed I wonder if this clarification would have ever been undertaken if not for my critique.

      If anyone has to undertake a correction it is Dr Wickremabahu, in the first instance.

      Your contradiction must surely be read together with your earlier, un-contradicted statements on the subject such as the one made less than six months ago. I note that you have not contradicted, for these several months, your February interview which I critiqued on this website (‘13 Something & the TNA’s M.I.A Move’), in which you said the following to Namini Wijedasa:

      “…You have to ask the Tamil people whether they want to stay in the country or be separate. Everywhere it’s like that…A distinct people in international law have certain rights called self-determination. The right to self determination international law now says must be exercised internally in the first instance. But if that is consistently denied, then according to the Canadian Supreme Court judgment on Quebec, they might even become entitled to a unilateral secession. So, if Sri Lanka should remain as one country, and we think it should remain as one country, then to preserve it as one country you must grant that right to self-determination and have it exercised in an arrangement within one country. That must be given, that must be recognized. It’s not at the wish of the majority that it’s given. That is as a matter of right in international law…” (‘Sunday Lakbimanews’ & DBSJeyaraj.com, Feb 5th 2012)

      I ask you now: do you still stand by those views and if not, which part of that statement do you wish to contradict, reject or withdraw even at this late stage?

      If you do not wish to withdraw those views then I’m afraid my critique stands– because it is a critique of your stated, on the record perspective on the subject rather than one limited to a single speech.

      That said, and if The Unknown Citizen’s excerpts from the video are accurate, then my critique stands in large measure. Why so? You are quoted as saying :

      “…there is a great and ancient people called Sinhalese in this island, they have a very ancient history, they have their own language. They have adopted an ancient and glorious religion. They have their own traditions. I respect all of that very much. But unfortunately I don’t belong to that great people. I belong to another people called Tamils. We also have a great tradition. We also have a great language. Our history is also at least as ancient as that of the Sinhalese. But we are a different people…

      “So I want you to know that when the Tamil National Alliance says that we are for the right to self determination of the Tamil people of this country, that in no way negates the right to self determination of the other peoples of this country…”

      “The fact that a people are entitled to the right to self determination does not necessarily mean that they must exist as a separate country. In many countries there are many different peoples, they live together as one country. But recognizing each others’ status as a distinct people.”

      If as you say, the right of self determination does not necessarily mean that they must exist as a separate country, what does it mean?

      If it means the right to autonomy or some measure of self-governance within a united state, why not call it that?

      If as you rightly say, the right of self determination DOES NOT NECESSARILY mean a separate country, does it ALSO MEAN, i.e. does it extend to and include, the right to form a separate country? Your phraseology DOES NOT UNCONDITIONALLY EXCLUDE secession and UNEQUIVOCALLY COMMIT to a single united and indivisible Sri Lanka.

      If you are speaking of a (so-called) right of internal self-determination, what is the firewall between that and external self-determination?

      • kadphises

        Dispite our disagreements with Dyan we must concede that he has steadfastly stuck by his formula for devolution. The 13th amendment. i.e. A 1/3 of the land but with no police, land or fiscal powers.

        Myself and Off the Cuff have argued for a slightly different formula. The land devided proportionately according to ethnic ratio, but with Police, land and fiscal powers.

        Mahinda and his nationalist allies will give nothing if they can help it.

        The Vadukuddai Resolution demands to secede completely with 1/3 of the land.

        So whats keeping the TNA from stating their position unequivocally? Surely, they must have some fair and workable formula in mind after all these years of negotiating? Is it a big secret that they cannot define it clearly? I am sure many progressive Sinhalese are waiting for this signal. If it looks fair and equitable, I have no doubt they will support it. I certainly would.

        So Aacharya and Hon. Sumanthiran, over to you..

      • Off the Cuff

        So would I.

      • Raj Swamipillai

        Will the deal MA Sumanthiran please stand up and respond unambigiously?

        Dayan clearly was compelled to respond (and always does) whether we like him or not… so will GV kindly pass on the post to Sumanthiran and request his response like you did to Dayan?

    • yapa

      Dear Hon: MP Sumanthiran;

      We agree with the kind of federalism found in the USA and Canada as justifiable. Can you please explain how this fact justifies a federal system Tamils asking for in Sri Lanka?

      Thanks!

    • yapa

      Dear Hon; MP Sunanthiran;

      You are trying to justify self determination as a universal principle by saying not only Tamils but also other communities have the right for self determination.

      But tell me the solution if the other communities do not like to exercise that so called right? You think they should agree with the Tamil people’s will unwillingly? If so, why Tamil people cannot agree with the will of the majority (unwillingly or willingly)?

      Also could you please prove the justifiability of “self determination” concept without just Quoting UN to justify it.

      I don’t think mentioned in a UN document alone is a reason to justify something as a universally true principle applicable to everywhere for ever.

      Can you tell how it is justifiably applicable specifically for Sri Lankan scenario, rather than applying a vague general principle to justify a specific case.

      Thanks!

  • Dan Herath

    Dayan is saying all these against this background:

    No war, no peace: the denial of minority rights and justice in Sri Lanka, Report by Minority Rights Group International, 19 January 2011: ‘’…. The UN Independent Expert on Minority Issues should be granted an invitation by the government to visit the country in order to report to the United Nations Human Rights Council on the situation of minorities in Sri Lanka.’’

    ”But that truth cannot excuse human rights violations that currently afflict the nation as a whole; or for that matter obscure the looming threat of the cultural and political colonisation of the north by the Sinhala Buddhist majority” – Biased and Prejudiced Collection on Sri Lanka, *Gananath Obeyesekere, Economic & Political Weekly, VOL 47 No. 04, 28 January-03 February 2012 (*a Sinhalese Emeritus Professor of Anthropology, Princeton University)

    Eight Commissions and seven Committees appointed in the last six years whose reports the President has been refusing to publish, http://www.scribd.com/doc/85007346/A-List-of-Commissions-of-Inquiry-and-Committees-Appointed-by-the-Government-of-Sri-Lanka-2006-%E2%80%93-2012

  • Dan Herath

    What more should the Tamils do? They’ve been juggling to their best for decades with the Bandaranaikes, Senanayakes,…… and now with the Rajapakses:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzGj2hYoymo&feature=youtube_gdata

  • Minority

    If the Tamils can win over a significant section of Sinhala opinion, then they can win equal rights and ‘equal respect’.

    Putting the onus on Tamils to win over Sinhala Opinion? Wonder how thay can do this? Good one.

  • As a Consequentialist, I view “rights” as moral heuristics – a sort of convenient rule of thumb which is usually right, but not always. Rights don’t mean anything on a metaphysical level. But, after careful consequentialist reasoning, you can develop a rule of thumb that is correct most of the times.

    It seems to me that simply saying Tamils have all the rights Sinhalese have because we are all equal, and therefore they shouldn’t have any special rights, is not adequate. The fact of the matter is, Tamils in this country have definitely suffered more than the Sinhalese, and even now are treated like second class citizens. No rational and honest person can deny this fact. If you are a Sinhalese who is not sure, ask yourself, do you like to turn Tamil right now. The answer I believe is straightforward.

    Utilitarianism requires us to try to maximize the sum of happiness across the population. It seems to me, giving Tamils certain special rights, that we do not give to Muslims or Sinhalese, is not such a bad idea. The Sinhalese would suffer a decrease in utility. But Tamils would gain a much larger increase in utility.

    For example, say the total population is 100. 70 of them are Sinhalese and 30 of them Tamil. Giving the Special-Right-A to Tamils may decrease the utility of Sinhalese by, say, 1 utility per person. But it would increase the utility of Tamils by 10 utility per person. So there will be an increase in the sum of utility across the population
    (the increase in total utility = 10*30-1*70=230 utility). If you are not sure, replace Sinhalese with well-fed Americans, Tamils with starving Africans and Special-Right-A with a giant candy bars.

    This is very easy in theory, but not in the real world. I’m not exactly sure as to what special rights we should give the Tamils that we don’t give to Muslims. All I can say is, having a Tamil nation as our neighbour, with their own armed forces, would seriously decrease the my utility as a Sinhalese. But other than such extreme cases, I believe we should be open to giving Tamils certain rights that we don’t give to Muslims.

    • Ward
    • Keynes!

      Sharanga,

      If Jeremy Bentham were to read this utility piece of yours, he may have aslo seen his other pet project, the Panopticon, come to fruition.

      • I’m afraid I don’t see the connection here. Would you care to explain?

      • Keynes!

        No.

    • yapa

      Dear sharanga;

      something seem to be drastically wrong. You were totally against wealth distribution, your memory totally erased?

      “As for me, no, I don’t my wealth to be taken by the government (perhaps in the form of taxes) and given to the poor. Why? For the same reason I don’t want to share my Grade Point Average (GPA) with anyone else. It’s mine.”

      http://groundviews.org/2012/06/18/the-price-of-inequality/

      Please see the consequent discussions of the “Consequentialist” in the above thread as well.

      Thanks!

      • Yapa,

        Obviously you are not familiar with modern forms of utilitarianism (and no, consequentialism is not a system of morality. It’s a template to make one). I’m two-level utilitarian when it comes to using utilitarianism as a decision making procedure, preference utilitarian when it comes to using utilitarianism as a way of deciding right and wrong, and coherent extrapolated volition utilitarian when it comes to making an artificial intelligence.

        But you don’t have to go that far. Even Bentham talked about first order and second order evils. I can see many both first and second order evils regarding wealth redistrbution by a government, while I see no first order evils in giving Tamils special rights, even though I can think of few minor second order evils. Clear? But then you are the guy who thought the theory of relativity disproves objective reality, as if it wasn’t truly a classical theory.

      • Off the Cuff

        Dear Yapa,

        I believe that refuting the unjustified claims of a historical homeland and countering the attempt at creating a world opinion favourable to secession and understanding TNA views via Sumanthiran are too valuable to be allowed to be sidetracked by extraneous issues.

        This is the reason I desisted from joining the previous discussions as they tended to veer away from the main theme of the thread. I hope you will agree with me and do likewise.

        Best Regards

      • yapa

        Dear sharanga;

        You are trying to hide behind “big sounding words” to cover up your inability. I should not know everything in this world, to assess the justifiability of things.

        You are still fooling yourself just on a claim that there is an objective reality even after it was clearly disproved. A claim is not a proof. Only outdated fools believe that there is an objective reality. If you claim so just prove it, repeating it again and again is not a proof. Goebbels’ theory won’t work in philosophy or science. Whether relativity is a classical theory or not is not a reason to say there is an objective reality. Yanne koheda, malle pol!

        Thanks!

      • yapa

        Dear sharanga;

        You are contradicting your earlier stance that wealth should not be distributed, with your new opinion on the basis of your so called utilitarianism and consequentialism.

        Do you say no?

        Please give a direct answer, not parroting unnecessary terminology.

        Thanks!

      • yapa

        Dear Off the Cuff;

        I totally agree with you. Still I feel a weed should be uprooted when it is tender. Fake heroes should be disclosed. While addressing the main theme, fake heroes should be cut to their real size as well. These parrots should be taught that they know to repeat words but do not know their meanings. “Parrot malady” should be eradicated too.

        Thanks!

      • Yapa,

        1)
        You are contradicting your earlier stance that wealth should not be distributed, with your new opinion on the basis of your so called utilitarianism and consequentialism.

        If you really think this was my position, you have an inability decipher meaning from text. Don’t you remember the following comment I made on Price of Inequality thread in response to Georgethebushpig, June 28, 2012 • 7:52 am:

        As to your second question, I have only one idea and that is not applicable right now. See, the problem is, power corrupts. Absolute power, corrupts absolutely. This has to do with our evolutionary past. The idea behind limiting government power is to limit the corruption.

        So the only fool-proof way to do this would be to make an artificial super intelligence, which would justify the redistibution through utilitarian morals, and redistribute with impeccable mathematical precision. I know this far fetched. But not impossible.

        My problem never was wealth redistribution. My problem was wealth redistribution by an imperfect agent like the government, which would soon get corrupted and start to seize sugar factories of opposition party members.

        2) I was determined not to post links to my own blog here. But in this case, I don’t want to get involved in a long debate with someone like you who doesn’t understand anything about philosophy. So read:

        http://brainoil.wordpress.com/2012/07/13/on-morality/

        3) “You are still fooling yourself just on a claim that there is an objective reality even after it was clearly disproved.”

        You seriously thought that the Theory of Relativity disproves objective reality, as if any of the observations that relativity talks about are mind-dependent. As if the equations of relativity themselves are mind-dependent. As if the very existence of the moon is dependent upon our own minds. I cannot even begin to describe the folly of these claims of yours.

        Your master Prof. Nalin de Silva doesn’t make a lot of sense. But at least he understand Physics. So do me a favour. Please go and ask him whether the theory of relativity is or is not a classical theory. He would tell you that it is a classical theory. Then ask him, if it is a classical theory, how it disproves objective reality. His answer to this would be in the form of an advice to you. He would say, psychology is better suited for you than maths and physics.

        From my interactions with you, I know five things about you,
        1) You don’t know enough about epistemology to identify it when you have fallen into a Mind Projection Fallacy.
        2) You don’t know enough about normative ethics to know how modern utilitarianism works
        3) You don’t know enough about philosophy to know what objective reality means. You seriously thought the theory of relativity points to a mind-dependent universe
        4) You have absolutely no idea how Quantum Mechanics work. You seriously thought the many-world-interpretation leads to a subjective reality, instead of an objective reality, as if the universal wavefunction itself was subjective.
        5) You are easily hurt. So when you’ve lost a debate, you act like a child, like saying that your opponent has a GPA less than that of a donkey.

        So, I wish not to engage in a debate with you, and will not reply to you in this thread unless you say something spectacularly stupid.

        Bye

      • yapa

        Dear sharanga;

        (1) – (5) above and

        “So, I wish not to engage in a debate with you, and will not reply to you in this thread unless you say something spectacularly stupid.”

        Found and escape goat to run away, Bravo Ulysses!

        Thanks!

      • yapa

        Dear sharanga;

        “Your master Prof. Nalin de Silva doesn’t make a lot of sense. But at least he understand Physics. So do me a favour. Please go and ask him whether the theory of relativity is or is not a classical theory. He would tell you that it is a classical theory. Then ask him, if it is a classical theory, how it disproves objective reality.”

        Why Prof. Nalin De Silva, are you unable to do it?

        Thanks!

      • sabbe laban

        sharanga

        In the exchange I had with you in the discussion, “Sons of One Religion”, it was my contention that our reality is ‘frame dependent’. I also understand, what you mean when you say that space-time in not mind-dependent! Yet, it is frame dependent, isn’t it? You too were of the opinion that “reality A exists with regards to an observer in the frame of reference X” and “reality B exists with regards to an observer in the frame of reference Y”. And also you said, the question, “what is the true reality?” is a meaningless question.

        Now you seem to be talking about such a “true reality” with regards to the ‘many world interpretation’ of quantum mechanics, don’t you?

      • yapa

        Dear sharanga;

        “If you really think this was my position, you have an inability decipher meaning from text. Don’t you remember the following comment I made on Price of Inequality thread in response to Georgethebushpig, June 28,”

        Can you remember the response of Georgethebushpig as well to you?

        Here it is for your reference.

        ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

        “Dear Sharanga,

        Given your understanding of the world and your analytical skills I volunteer Yapa to help you out in that exam of yours! Man, with Nutters in Arms like you guys we are all in Dire Straits!

        I was in agreement with you in the argument that evolution is not teleological but then you made the fatal Social-Darwinist error of trying to justify wealth attribution on the grounds of “survival of the fittest”.

        These were the same arguments that the colonial project used and remain hale and hearty to-date in the monopoly-capitalist project (Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” being the corollary to “survival of the fittest”). The idea that evolution has favored some with more superior genes and therefore they are entitled to favored status. That sub-optimal outcomes of evolution have to just put up or shut up. The logical extension of this thinking leads to “what is mine is mine” but ironically also to “what is yours is also mine” (because of the superior nature of the fittest); hence the post-colonial terminology of the “Commonwealth”.

        If we are to use biology as a guide to social organisation it is better that we look to symbiosis and mutualism. These associations are actually a lot more prevalent in nature than the survival of the fittest kind. It is these forms of cooperation that create resilient ecosystems (mycorrhiza/plant), and to extend it to people, resilient societies. In conclusion you gotta give to get. So shut up and pay your taxes you deadbeat!”

        Thanks!

      • sabbe laban,

        You have confused too many concepts with each other that now it’s pretty much impossible to have a coherent discussions on it. But let me try.

        You denied objective reality. What is normally meant in philosophy by “Objective Reality” is that reality is not mind-depended. That the reality is out there. The opposite of this is “subjective reality”, the kind of reality that all sorts of idealists, from Kant to Berkely to Bohr to Deepak Chopra believe. You were pointing to the theory of relativity to prove your point that objective reality doesn’t exist. I showed you that “The Theory of Relativity” does not postulate a mind-dependent reality. The reality is out there. The moon exist even if you don’t exist. Einstein himself asked a reporter “do you really believe that the moon does not exist when you are not looking at it.” Theory of relativity not only not deny objective reality, it takes it for granted. Everything that happens, happens even if there is no conscious observer to observe them.

        Then you went on to talk about Quantum Mechanics. You thought Quantum Mechanics denies objective reality. This is not technically true. The maths of QM does not have any variable for a conscious observer. It doesn’t even clearly define what constitutes an observation. But certain old-school interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, such as the popular “Copenhagen Interpretation”, certainly denies objective reality. According to the Copenhagen Interpretation, and other consciousness-causes-collapse interpretations, the act of observation/the act of knowing itself, is the cause of the collapse of the wave function. Therefore, reality is dependent upon the mind.

        But I told you, Copenhagen Interpretation is an old-school interpretation, created before Alan Turing theorized the Turing Machine, created before the quantum mathematical concept “decoherence” was developed. I’m not going to go deep into how those new developments affect these old-school interpretations. Suffice to say that even though these old-school interpretations are capable of explaining experimental results, they are not exactly compatible with knowledge we have gathered through other branches of science and mathematics. For example, if you believe Copenhagen Interpretation, since the act of observation is not clearly defined, you would never be able to make a formal theory out of it. (I don’t even want to go into the mistake of Copenhagen people of not realizing that their own brains are made of particles, and thinking that consciousness was ontologically basic.)

        The many-word-interpretation points to an objective reality (a mind-independent reality). Whether you are alive or not, whether any conscious being is alive or not, the universal wave function is there, and it will continue to branch off into an infinite number of decoherence blobs even if no conscious being is alive. Further, it is possible to make a formal theory out of QM with this interpretation.

        But then I learnt, you use the term “Objective Reality” in a completely non-normative way. I mean, I’m not a big fan of arguing by definition. But in this case, I hope you had warned me that what you mean by objective reality is something completely different from what most of us mean by it.

        For you, it isn’t enough for the reality to be mind-independent to be called objective, it also needs to be frame-independent. For you, what you observe is dependent on from which frame you are looking at it, then that means the reality is not objective, even though it is entirely mind-independent. If that’s what you mean by objective reality, then you are right. Things change depending where you are. (I’m using you/observer just for the purposes of explanation. Things change depending on the frame even if the observer is not there since reality is mind-independent). It’s just that what you mean by Objective Reality is not what’s normally meant by it.

        Okay, now we got that clear, let me answer your question:
        Now you seem to be talking about such a “true reality” with regards to the ‘many world interpretation’ of quantum mechanics, don’t you?

        Sabbe Laban,
        Only a proposition/belief/model can be either true or false. Not the reality itself. Reality is simply real. Not true or false. Consider the following statement.

        Earth is true.

        This is completely meaningless. How can earth be true or false? It’s simply there. On the other hand, consider the following statement:

        I believe earth exists.

        This statement is either true or false. Either the exists or it doesn’t.

        Asking Which reality is true is akin to asking is earth true? It is a meaningless question. Reality is real. Reality is not true, nor is it false. On the other hand if you say, “From Frame-A it looks like Event-X happens but from Frame-B it looks like Event-Z happen”, this statement is either true or false.

        Truth is the correspondence between our beliefs/models/propositions with the reality. If I say the theory of relativity is true, then what I mean is I think the relativity model has a strong correspondence with the reality. I never said universe is true. Universe is simply real.

        Many-world-interpretation is a model to look at the world. If I say that it is true, what I mean is that I think it has a strong correspondence with reality. I never said anything about reality being true. Reality is merely real. Configurations spaces that QM talks about are merely real. The decoherence blobs (worlds) that I talk about are merely real. They are not true or false.

        So again, it makes sense to say that special theory of relativity is true. But it doesn’t make any sense to say reality is true.
        —–

        I don’t expect to further engage in this debate. I don’t think this is the right thread to debate these stuff. Maybe Groundviews should open independent threads for randoms discussions like this.

      • yapa

        Dear sharanga;

        What we have said is

        1. Reality is not objective when mind is there.

        2. It is not objective even if mind is not there.

        We have not qualified our universe of the discussion to parrot only what others had already taught us. We were exploring new knowledge with the modern development of science as well. Most of the concepts of Modern Science have not yet trickled down to philosophy, and hardly discussed. I think only a few of the philosophers even in the modern day can discuss the findings of modern science. You are only discussing the ideas discussed only by the the philosopher who had no knowledge of modern science but but discussed the ideas with “old and traditional definitions”.

        You may refer to the general dictionary definition of “objectivity”, not qualifying its meaning to the subject areas you prefer.

        Thanks!

      • Dear yapa,

        Remind me to argue with you whenever I want to lose all hope in mankind.

        Here, I just renamed what realists and idealists alike have been calling “objective reality” for 2500 years as “orange reality”.

        Let me rename what realists and idealists alike have been calling “subjective reality” for 2500 years as “intel ivy bridge i7 reality”.

        So now the two thousand year old battle between realists and idealists is the battle between orange reality and intel ivy bridge i7 reality.

        The battle between objective and subjective reality is now a battle between Yapa and his imaginary friend.

        Bye!

      • yapa

        Dear sharanga;

        It was proven again that my idea that only outdated fools believe in objective reality is right.

        In the debate about reality was not confined only to realists and idealists as you believe. It is true that realists believed that there is only a material reality (which is objective). This is only an axiom for their ideology, but was never proved right.

        There were many others who did not believe this idea including idealists, but realists couldn’t prove them as wrong as well. There were some schools which believed in combination of them and also there were schools that believe that there is no reality at all.

        So you cannot reduce the debate about reality only to realist and idealists, and there is no justifiable reason to believe that only the realist’s view was correct.

        However, with the rise of the Classical Science(Newtonian Science) in Europe, the view point of the realists was substantiated by the its theories. Newtonian Mechanics was so sure that any event of the future or the past can be predicted based on a set of data of the present. So, Newtonian Science taught about a predictable/deterministic universe (reality)in other words of an objective reality, that does not depend on anything and cannot be changed by any internal or external forces. It was an inbuilt distinctively definite system that has no more than a single path for its journey. That is material universe is objective.

        In this scenario the only way to deny the objectivity of the reality (universe) was to deny the material reality (universe), that was what idealists did. If somebody accepted the material reality and denied the existence of mind, there was no way to refuse the objectivity of the reality.

        But then if somebody can show that material reality can change, can have different alternatives, can have different versions, even without the help of existence of mind.

        This what the science did in the advent of the 20th century. It showed that particle is not just a particle but there could be an alternative for that as a wave. “Wave-Particle Duality” was the beginning of the end of the objectivity of the “material reality”. If a “particle” cannot be identified distinctly as a particle what objective reality is there for matter? Always even matter is not matter, then how come material reality be objective.

        Situation worsened with the introduction of the Theory of Relativity by Einstein in 1905. According to Relativity no parameters of the material reality can be distinctly defined. No definite magnitude to any of those. There is no meaning for the statement “my mass is 75 kilograms”. My height could be 10 metres. Your car may be running at 500000km per hour. You cannot definitely say the computer you are using is at rest or not. You can create gravity by accelerating. Law of Conservation of Energy is no more valid. So what is objectivity in the material world? At least can there be something called objectivity?

        Things can only be defined with reference to a frame only. That is everything is RELATIVE. That is the crux of the theory of relativity. I think “RELATIVE” and “OBJECTIVE” are opposite terms.

        Hence I think you understand that if you accept “RELATIVITY” of reality (material reality)as proposed by the Theory of Relativity, I don’t think you can accept “OBJECTIVITY” of reality.

        Do you now understand the meaning of my statement that “only outdated fools can say there is an objective reality”? Those who don’t know about modern development of Science, but rely on discarded science and on outdated worldviews and self assertive (especially Newtonian worldview)are outdated fools.

        It is unnecessary to tell you about the notions of Quantum Mechanics such as Randomness, Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, Chaos Theory etc. etc., I think you have already accepted that Quantum Mechanics contradicts the idea of objective reality. So, to believe in objective reality do you refuse, Quantum Mechanics?

        Ignorance is bliss! Most ignorant are the bravest!

        Ignorance is not a good tool to deny things.

        When you limit the debate about realty just to old day realists and idealists, YES!, YOU ARE RIGHT, there is an objective reality. The world has gone a long way passing where you are still sleeping, dear Rip Van Winkle.

        You repeat only what you were taught by your masters. Parrots can only repeat words, they can never learn a single additional word.

        You said to me,

        “Remind me to argue with you whenever I want to lose all hope in mankind.”

        I think you have now lost the hope of yourself as well. When you lost hope of yourself I think what you have to do is not to argue with me. Do the appropriate. In Japanese culture it is called “hara kiri”.

        Thanks!

      • yapa

        “But then if somebody can show that material reality can change, can have different alternatives, can have different versions, even without the help of existence of mind.”

        Should be

        “But then if somebody can show that material reality can change, can have different alternatives, can have different versions, even without the help of existence of mind, the objective reality itself becomes an invalid concept.”

        Thanks!

      • yapa

        Just as the realists could not refute the idea of idealists, idealists too could not disprove the notion of the realists that there is an objective reality.

        It was by realists themselves (modern realists: modern scientists)disproved the idea of old realists.

        The idea of objective reality was born among the ancient realists and died in the hand of modern realists with their mighty blows.

        But still there are people who worship stone gods. They are outdated religions, just as the Newtonian worldview.

        Objective reality is dead. We killed him.

        “Objective Reality is dead. He remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become objective realities simply to appear worthy of it?
        —Yapa (and Saban)

        Thanks!

      • Yapa,

        I feel no obligation to address any of the things you said in your comments. You lost all respect I had for you when you said reality is not objective even if mind does not exist. But this is a good opportunity to make a point regarding quantum mechanics.

        Early quantum physicists, brilliant though they were, were completely confused by the experimental results they got. Particles acting like particles on weekdays acted like waves on weekends. To worsen the matter, it seemed that whenever you look at an experiment, its results changed. Early quantum physicists, as I said earlier, were brilliant, but confused.

        So they started talking meaningless things like “wave-particles duality”, as if particles took a break on weekends and became waves. They talked about such nonsense like half-mirrors obeying different rules at different times. But they made an even huge mistake. What was that mistake?

        Alk scientific knowledge up to that point showed thatmind was something complex, created by smaller, simple non-mental things. But the quantum physicists made the mistake of thinking that it was something fundamental; something ontologically basic. So they concluded that the reason experimental results change when we observe them was because the act of knowing itself changed the experiments. They thought that our consciousness was responsible for collapsing the wave function and deciding which reality is real.

        These physicists were brilliant, so it might be unfair to put them in the same category as those who think QM proves Buddhism. But they were quantum mystics. Never mind that the act of observation is not clearly defined. Never mind the fact their own brains are made of particles. Consciousness was fundamental, and the act of knowing changed reality.

        This has something to do with our evolution. It is easier to imagine a thunder god causing thindering that simple physical laws doing it, even though an intelligent agent would take much more computer space than few equations that explains thundering. It is easier to imagine your friend as an individual rather than a set of sub-atomic particles. Similarly, it was easier to imagine the act of knowing causes the wave function to collapsr rather than thinking that particles in the brain create new configuration spaces.

        Anyway, many world interpretation is realist, local, and deterministic. Please read up on modern science before you talk about out-dated concepts like wave-particle duality. Particles don’t act like waves on weekends. QM should be learnt on its own terms (amplitude flows between configuration spaced). Until then, bye!

      • Yapa,

        Things can only be defined with reference to a frame only. That is everything is RELATIVE. That is the crux of the theory of relativity. I think “RELATIVE” and “OBJECTIVE” are opposite terms.

        Couldn’t help noticing. Actually, the opposite of RELATIVE is ABSOLUTE, not OBJECTIVE. The opposite of OBJECTIVE is SUBJECTIVE.

        This is philosophy 101. One semester of philosophy would do you a lot of good.

      • yapa

        Dear sharanga;

        Then you refuse Quantum Mechanics to accept “Objective Reality”?

        Bravo, the modern Physicist!

        Thanks!

      • Yapa,

        It’s simply a matter of your ability to comprehend. I said the many world interpretation (which is a quantum mechanical interpretation by the way. It seems that you think it is not. There are about nine different interpretations that I’m familiar of. There are others as well) is realist, local, and deterministic. Further it postulates an objective reality. The universal wavefunction (amplitude distribution) is objectively real. Many world interpretation and its variants have been steadily gaining ground, even though copanhagen interpretation is probably the most taught and acceptef interpretation (these are interpretations, not theories). As I said, Copanhagen interpretation explains the experimental results. It’s just that it isn’t really compatible with knowledge we’ve gathered through other branches of science, computer theory, and philosophy.

        Anyway, I’ve given my best shot. If even after all that you think I reject quantum mechanics, I better start teaching decoherence to first graders.

      • yapa

        Dear sharanga;

        Bye, for the moment.

        Thanks!

      • yapa

        Dear Saban;

        Do you now believe the philosophical doctrine of Buddha that “there exists nothing that can be considered/called as “atta”?

        Thanks!

      • sabbe laban

        Yapa

        Yes, including what Buddha himself told!

      • yapa

        Dear Saban;

        What have you heard about Sammuthi Sathyaya” and “Paramartha Sathyaya” in Buddhism?

        Is there any connection to the notion proposed by the theory of relativity regarding the nature of reality?

        Thanks!

      • sabbe laban

        Yapa

        I don’t know whether this the right forum to discuss such religious concepts!

        Anyway, what I understand is a “sammuthi sathya” is the acceptance of something based on the conventional wisdom. An example would be Buddha’s usage of the word “I”. Though in deeper analysis he rejected the concept of “I”, it was still used by him in day to day references.

        Yet, I don’t see any relationship of it with the theory of relativity except when taken very loosely.

        In spite of sharanga’s protests, the QM gives a better equivalent of multiple-realities!

        Did Buddha say that his “Way to Liberation” is one such reality? Or did he say that it is the One and Only reality?

        • Readers are requested to stick to the issues outlined in the original post. Subsequent off-topic meanderings will not be published.

  • Ward

    Food for thought(equivalent to multivitamins for our body):
    http://www.transcend.org/#about
    By peace we mean the capacity to transform conflicts with empathy, without violence, and creatively — a never-ending process;
    By transforming conflicts we mean enabling the parties to go ahead in a self-reliant, acceptable and sustainable manner;
    By without violence we mean that this process should avoid any cultural violence that justifies direct or structural violence;
    By with empathy we mean the ability also to understand the conflict the way the parties understand the conflict themselves;
    By creatively we mean channeling conflict energy toward new realities, accommodating the parties and meeting basic human needs.

  • CSE

    Dr. Jayatilleke’s critique most probably takes into account statements emanating from the rest of the TNA, like Messrs Sambandan, Sreetharan Premachandran, et.al. To use a an American Indian phrase; ‘TNA speak with forked tongue’ or so it seems.

    Someone in this forum suggests that the Tamils to win over Sinhala opinion. The TNA seems to be merely trying to confuse all opinions.

  • Ward

    Dr Jayatilleke,

    Will you please explain the following to the President and his cabinet?

    The Fatal Flaw in the Sri Lanka Constitution, Dharshan Weerasekera, 9 July 2012, http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/07/09/the-fatal-flaw-in-the-sri-lanka-constitution/0/

  • I suggest that Dr Jayatillake give some constructive advice to his government how the Sandinista government in Nicaragua set about resolving the conflict with the indigenous people on the Atlantic Coast. He could educate Rajapaksa Bros and that would be more useful than telling Mr Sumanthiran, who is on the other side of the fence, what he should or should not say. What is needed in Sri Lanka is for the government to take meaningful steps in agreement with the ITAK/TNA to re-constitute the Sri Lankan State guaranteeing a measure of autonomy acceptable to the Tamil people of the NE region. The Rajapaksas can learn a lesson from the Sandinistas how the government-led constitutional reforms in consultation with the indigenous people and their leaderships brought about peace on the Atlantic Coast.

  • Are there any archeological or verifiable historical evidence to suggest that Tamils have been here before the Sinhalese? Archeology is not an exact science it gives us a reasonably accurate picture of the past. I know nothing about archeology. But there are archeological sites all over Sri Lanka that are quite definitely the works of ancient Sinhalese people. Are there any such Tamil archeological sites more than 1,500 years old? If there are, I’m not aware of them.

    Besides, the Sinhala language is spoken only in Sri Lanka, suggesting that it developed within Sri Lanka. How long does it take for a language like Sinhala to develop? By comparison, Tamils speak almost the same language that Indians speak.

    • Dr.Rajasingham Narendran

      Sharanga,

      What you know on the subject you are commenting, is obviously very limited. In the age of the internet and the search engines such as
      google, this is inexcusable. Please spend some time researching on Google. You will then realize that Sinhala is not as unique as many claim, although it evolved within Sri Lanka. It has borrowed extensively from many South Indian languages, including Tamil, with which it shares many features. Please compare the Sinhala script with the Telugu script for starters and then delve deaper. It has also borrowed extensively from Pali and Sanskrit You will then understand how Tamil and Sinhala evolved from Brahmi and became distinct languages over time. Sinhala is a pickle (Achcharu), as many languages are. This does not diminish its beauty or its taste, but is testimony to its abilty take in, absorb and grow. I have seen Sinhala grow tremendously as a language in my life time- a fact to be admired.

      Further, Tamils have been in Lanka for as long as or longer than the Sinhalese and Hindus have been in Lanka for much longer than the Buddhists. remember South India is only 30 miles away from our northern coast and a shallow ocean seperates us. Further, India and Sri Lanka were at one time parts of the same land mass- Lemuria. Tamil- Hindus have become Sinhala-Budhists and Sinhala- Buddhists have become Tamil- Hindus, over time. It is also a fact that more Tamil- Hindus have become Sinhala-Buddhists over time, as opposed to the other way around. Sinhalese and Tamils have also extensively inter-married at a time when they were less different than they are now. Even today, the differences are quite narrow. Ours is a shared history and a shared heritage. This something we should celebrate and be proud.

      For better or for worse, we also share a large proportion of the genes that define us as peoples of this land. We are one people, who have been unfortunately estranged by circumstances! Please do not play the old, insipid and worn out partisan tune again, without learning more on the subject.

      Dr.Rajasingham Narendran

      • yapa

        Dear Dr.Rajasingham Narendran

        “For better or for worse, we also share a large proportion of the genes that define us as peoples of this land. We are one people, who have been unfortunately estranged by circumstances! Please do not play the old, insipid and worn out partisan tune again, without learning more on the subject.”

        Totally agreed with the above statement.

        Our opposition is to the opposite view of this, that is secession or separatism. I don’t think anybody who believes in “one people” concept can support separatism. Separatism is an enemy of this concept. We consider Tamils as enemies only when they oppose this concept. Otherwise as you said “We are one people”. We would like to give up available differences to become that “one people”. We have no opposition to this “one people concept”.

        But if they want to say we are two different people to gain undue advantages based on fabricated theories and by deception or by force, then we too have to take the matter as “We are not one people”. That is the natural response.

        Thanks!

      • yapa

        We would like to shelve our differences to become one people, but not to become two peoples.

        Thanks!

      • yapa

        Dear Dr.Rajasingham Narendran;

        “Further, Tamils have been in Lanka for as long as or longer than the Sinhalese and Hindus have been in Lanka for much longer than the Buddhists.”

        True, but do you say those Tamils are the ancestors of the present day Tamils living in Sri Lanka (to claim that they have been living in this country for much longer than Sinhalese)?

        Aren’t those Tamil the ancestors of present day Sinhalese? Can you show an uninterrupted line of lineage between present day Tamils to those ancient Tamils? Just because there were some Tamils as the ancestors of Sinhalese, can you say Tamils have been living here much longer than Sinhalese and on that basis claim the lands of this country as their homeland? If that logic is true, don’t you think present day Tamils in Tamilnadu too can claim lands in Sri Lanka on the basis that ancestors of “their race” had lived in Sri Lanka in the past? In that line of argument do you think Brits, Spaniards, Portuguese and French living today in Britain, Spain,Portugal and France can claim lands in USA, Canada and Australia.

        One of my aunts lived in the USA and died about 20 years back. Do you think I can claim lands in California?

        Do you think inheritance goes along the line of lineage or along a (discrete)race connections?

        Thanks!

        Thanks!

      • yapa

        Dear Dr.Rajasingham Narendran;

        “What you know on the subject you are commenting, is obviously very limited. In the age of the internet and the search engines such as
        google, this is inexcusable. Please spend some time researching on Google. You will then realize that Sinhala is not as unique as many claim, although it evolved within Sri Lanka. It has borrowed extensively from many South Indian languages, including Tamil, with which it shares many features. Please compare the Sinhala script with the Telugu script for starters and then delve deaper. It has also borrowed extensively from Pali and Sanskrit You will then understand how Tamil and Sinhala evolved from Brahmi and became distinct languages over time. Sinhala is a pickle (Achcharu), as many languages are. This does not diminish its beauty or its taste, but is testimony to its abilty take in, absorb and grow. I have seen Sinhala grow tremendously as a language in my life time- a fact to be admired.”

        I don’t think you can find any language evolved from a clean slate and which is not an “Achcharu”.However, it does not deny the fact that Sinlala is a unique language that is found only in Sri Lanka.

        It is also true that similarities found in Telugu script and Sinhala script, however this fact too does not deny the fact that the Sinhala is a unique language developed in Sri Lanka. Can a Telugu understand a Sinhalese speaking?

        But a person in Tamilnadu can understand when a Sri Lankan Tamil speak in “Sri Lankan Tamil”. If Tamils have been living in Sri Lanka much longer than Sinhalese, why a different language was not evolved among Sri lankan Tamils so that Indian Tamils cannot understand, like Sinhala language evolved not to understood by Telugus despite their Similar roots yo pointed out?

        Can you please specifically explain this issue?

        Thanks!

      • Dr. Narendran,

        This is a very simple question and you can do better than simply telling me to Google. I hope you would agree that Sinhalese language, even though it certainly has borrowed a lot from Indian languages, is a lot different from any language spoken in India, when you compare it with how similar the language of Sri Lankan Tamils and the language some Indians speak. Since I’m not a professional linguist or a historian, I’m simply asking the professionals to explain why.

        Further, I also asked whether there are any Tamil archaeological sites in Sri Lanka that are more than 1,500 years old.

        Surely you can do better than telling me to Google them.

        P.S. These questions are hardly irrelevant. With all these claims about historical habitats, kingdoms and empires, these are very relevant questions.

      • Off the Cuff

        Dear Dr Rajasingham Narendran,

        “Ours is a shared history and a shared heritage. This something we should celebrate and be proud. For better or for worse, we also share a large proportion of the genes that define us as peoples of this land. We are one people, who have been unfortunately estranged by circumstances”

        You are mirroring my own views.
        Agree with you without reservation.

  • ordinary lankan

    I disagree with Dr DJ on most things but one –

    Can we solve this problem?

    YES WE CAN
    YES WE WILL

  • Raj Swamipillai

    demographics change for whatever reason and we as individuals should show love to one another and live together, its not easy sometimes but let’s try, and move things forward progressively…

    MA Sumanthiran, please outline your personal and your party’s aims unambigiously and/or respond to DJ’s preliminary rejoinder, else you too are stifling progress in a game of smoke and mirrors. If not, then I request that we all do the following:

    with all this talk of historical habitats, empires etc, why not set the status quo even further back? send the singhalams back to bangladesh (or wherever they come from!) and the tamils to tamil nadu and give SL back to the ambalangoda man and/or veddas or whoever the hell was there before?

    also lets send back the whites in the americas back to whereever they came from and while at it, anyone whom has ever emigrated in history. we should all research our traditional homelands as far back as history can take us, and return to those lands. that seems to be the way a lot of people want to go staking their rights based on claims to ancient habitats, with their heads buried in the past.

    Thank you, much love, and goodnight.

    • yapa

      Dear Raj Swamipillai;

      My three salutes to you, Sir!

      Thanks!

    • Off the Cuff

      Raj Swamipillai ,

      The racist minority has been vocal while the moderate majority have been silent.

      It is time that the moderates assert themselves and bury the racists and their ideology.

      Strength to you to stand for Equitable Justice & Equality.

      Well said Mr Raj.

  • Wallflower

    The inhabitants of this land have played far too long into the hands of gun-runners and licensed gun-runners resulting in a brain drain which has not been estimated and a colossal waste of money that should have been spent for the well-being of each and every one of us living in this fair isle. I am quite certain that if we can stop playing politics there isn’t much of a problem to be sorted out. Those who advocate separatism should bear well in mind that if it does come to pass, the chapter of Border skirmishes to all out war will begin.

  • Dr.Rajasingham Narendran

    Yapa,

    Thanks for your responses. While agreeing with the general thrust of my comments, you have raised questions regarding three general areas.

    1. Whether the preasent day Tamils are direct descendents of the original Tamils?

    I think the mainstream Tamils and Sinhalese descended from a common stock that may be called Proto-Tamil or Proto-Sinhalese, as per our preferences. They may have been made up of the Naga, Yaksha, Veddah and other peoples inhabiting this island, at a time on the margins of guesable history. Subsequent migrations from South India, have complemented this base. The Brides and their companions Vijaya imported from Madurai may have further complemented this base. Further, more recent, though already centuries old, migrations from South India, have added to both the Sinhala and Tamil populations. The Arabs,Malays, Europeans and the Black soldiers from Africa, have also planted their seeds fairly far and wide. Most of us claim to be Sinhalese or Tamils only on the basis of the languages our recent ancestors spoke and we speak now. This will apply to the related cultures too. We are a mixed lot and a nation made up of immigrants, coming originally out of Africa and there after, near by lands. This is the story of all people in this world. There is nothing unique about this. We are also continuously evolving, mixing and becoming more different.

    2. Sinhala is unique because it evolved and is spoken only within Sri Lanka and Sri Lankan Tamil is not unique because it is similar though not identical to the Tamil spoken in South India:

    Please remember Sri Lankan is even now an island within a swimming distance from the coast of South India. Thus, we were and are within the ambit of peninsular India, though an independent country for long periods in our history. At a time when there were no national boundaries as we know now, the movement of people, languages, culture and trade across the Adam’s bridge was free. Being a larger land mass, India influenced us in many more ways than Lanka has influenced India.

    In this context what is so different about the evolution of Sinhalese, comapared to the evolution of Tamil, Malayalam, Telugu, Kannada and many other languages. Even the Tamil spoken in various parts of Tamil Nadu differ widely across regions. The Tamil spoken near the Kerala border is more classical, where as the common lngua franca of Chennai is heavily influenced by Telugu.

    Further, the arrival of Buddhism to Sri Lanka was a huge impetus to the development of Sinhala as a distinct and well developed language. The Sinhala-Buddhist link yet contributes to the development of the Sinhala language.

    The Tamil spoken by the so-called Sri Lankan Tamils is also distinct and quite classical. The Saivite savant, Kirupananthavariar had said several times that the Tamil spoken in Sri Lanka is the most original/classical and the most melodious. This raises the question whether Sri Lanka can lay claim to be the home-base of classical Tamil. Sri lanka in this context is home to two ancient, beautiful, classical and well developed languages!

    The Tamil spoken in Tamil Nadu had taken a different evolutionary path. However, it is beginning to be adversely affect the Tamil spoken and written in Sri Lanka due to the overwhelming/smothering influence of South Indian Tamils films and TV.

    I take this opportunity to remind readers that Sri Lankan Tamils traditionally had many innate defence mechanisms established to protect their language and culture from undue and unwanted influences from Tamil South India, which extended to a very visceral distrust of the so-called north- South India.

    3. Tamils and Tamil Nadu:

    The Tamils in Sri Lanka have been driven towards India and Tamil Nadu by the circumstances here in the post-independence era. Although India was, is and will be the fountain head of not only the cultures, but also other influences on its closest neigbour -Sri Lanka, the anti-Indianess that both the Sinahlese and Sri Lankan Tamils had evolved over time, kept us a distinct entity. The foolish and short sighted policies of succesive Sri lankan governments is driving the Tamils here into the embrace of India and Tamil Nadu, much against their innate instincts.

    My comments in 2, would also be part of the answer to this issue.

    Dr.Rajasingham Narendran

    • yapa

      Dear Dr.Rajasingham Narendran;

      Agreed with the all above you said. But I think you have not addressed the central issues in the discussion and also I have raised. The issues we need answers I would specifically mentioned below.

      1. Most of the present day Tamils claim that their civilization in Sri Lanka is more or equally old as of Sinhalese. Honarable MP Sumanthiran’s speech/claim too is based on this presumption.
      Is there any evidence with regard to this claim: that is, was there a parallel and ancient civilization of Tamils in this country as that of Sinhalese.

      2. They claim North and East as their “traditional homeland” solely belong to them which has no claim for Sinhalese on the argument 1. above. Many Tamils claim Sinhalese settling there as “colonizing” their homeland.

      Do you consider North and East as the “Traditional Homeland of Tamils”? Is there any justifiable evidence to establish this claim?

      3. Why Sri Lankan Tamil language did not evolve distinctively different from Indian Tamil language just as Sinhala evolved distinctly from their root languages. It is true that there are differences in Indian Tamils and Sri Lankan Tamil languages. Do you think this difference commensurate with the time period they claimed to be separately evolved in Sri Lanka?

      Will you please answer these questions specifically and tell us that whether honarable MP Sumanthiran’s speech is reasonable and justifiable?

      Don’t you think the demands of many Tamils go beyond equality of this country towards their favour?

      We are ready to accept the equal status of Tamils in this country. But not more status as they aspire.

      Thanks!

  • Sie.Kathieravealu

    Ravana
    July 8, 2012 • 3:24 pm

    “One solution for Sri Lanka is to go for a “13 +” solution in terms of devolution of powers not only to the Provinces but going much further to providing administrative devolution to water catchment based units (scientifically argued) and to make the primary unit of devolution, the village. India cannot possibly turn its nose up at the “Panchayat type system”

    Why not consider a different system that empowers the people of this country to directly participate in the governance of the country.

    It is high-time we start to RETHINK in terms of a solution that would address the ASPIRATIONS ALL THE PEOPLE in the country, not just the aspirations of the Tamils, in a just and meaningful way.

    The best political solution or system of governance to address the problems faced by various sections of the Sri Lankan society – particularly the poor, the politically weak and the various categories of “minorities” who do not carry any “political weight” – would be to DILUTE the powers of all elected representatives of the people by separating the various powers of the Parliament and by horizontally empowering different sets of people’s representatives elected on different area basis to administer the different sets of the separated powers at different locations.

    It has to be “sharing power” HORIZONTALLY where each and every set of representatives would be in the SAME LEVEL as equals and in par and NOT VERTICALLY, where one set of representatives would be above (more powerful than) the other.

    Since all political and other powers flow from the sovereignty of the people, it is proposed herein that these powers be not given to any ONE set of representatives but distributed among different sets of people’s representatives (groups) elected on different area basis (village and villages grouped) to perform the different, defined and distinct functions of one and the same institution – the Parliament – like the organs of our body – heart, lungs, kidneys, eyes, nose, ear etc. – performing different and distinct functions to enable us to sustain normal life.

    In these suggestions the powers of Parliament have been so separated and distributed among different sets of people’s representatives in different areas so as to dilute the powers of an individual representative or that of a set of representatives in any area. (Dilution is better than Devolution)

    So it boils down to the basic truth that SEPARATION IS THE ONLY SOLUTION. Do not misunderstand, I mean SEPARATE/DIVIDE the POWERS OF THE PRESENT PARLIAMENT and the slogan to divide the country will not arise.

    • Ravana

      Hi,
      The comment that my made was intended for what the “State” should do (if they are clever). It is not my personal preference.

      My personal preference would be to give the maximum amount of “freedom” down to the individual level. The village is a good start towards that in which the current pyramid of power is turned completely upside down.

      Furthermore, there are individuals who have the intellect and capacity to bypass the constraints of the state anyway (They are perhaps no more than 10% any society- the 80% merely want the 10% predators to rule over them). In a place like Sri Lanka, the thieves have such a stranglehold on the state (which is always predatory and tyrannical, whether in SL or elsewhere) that freedom seeking individuals have no space.

      Attempting go down the track of separation as Mr. Sumithran appears to aspire is not the way that these individuals who value maximum freedom should go. For, Tamil Racists State is certainly no better place for such freedoms. Even the cynical state controlled by “Sinhala” and “Tamil” thieves is better than that!

      • Happy Heathen

        Ravana
        July 16, 2012 • 1:48 pm

        I see you are slowly warming up to be an Anarchist.

        Gandhi’s concept of ‘Swaraj’ has similar components. (well he was an anarchist in a way)

        Albeit it’s inherently Utopian (i.e. unpractical) nature, I see Anarchism as a positive political theory.

  • Dr.Rajasingham Narendran

    Dear Mr.Yapa,

    I answer your specific queries below:

    Q 1.Most of the present day Tamils claim that their civilization in Sri Lanka is more or equally old as of Sinhalese. Honarable MP Sumanthiran’s speech/claim too is based on this presumption.
    Is there any evidence with regard to this claim: that is, was there a parallel and ancient civilization of Tamils in this country as that of Sinhalese.

    Answer: I quote below some sentences from the book, ‘EARLY SETTLEMENTS IN JAFFNA : An Archaeological Survey ‘ by Ponnampalam Ragupathy,1987:

    *The Pennsylvania University Museum team which carried out excavations at Kantarodai in 1970, reported for the first time the probabilities of a Megalithic phase there, though no burials were unearthed in that expedition.

    *Four more sites, found with pottery belonging to this early phase were brought to light during the present survey. Two of them, Anaikotai and Kalpumi, were found in the rescue excavations as Megalithic burial sites, which imply that there were permanent Megalithic settlements in the Peninsula.

    *In Jaffna, Brahmi assignable to 3rd century B.C, was found both Kantarodai and Annaikotai. At Anaikotai, the Brahmi script occurs along with what could be assumed to a previous system of writing. It is difficult for us say whether was a pre-alphabetic phase in Jaffna which could be assigned as protohistoric, but with great caution we suggest that a narrow period of two centuries can be termed as proto-historic. This is in view of the lower C14 dates for the Megal;ithic phase of Kantarodai which go beyond 3rd century B.C. It is reasonable to conclude that the Megalithic culture arrived in Jaffna in the pre-historic times, caused the emergence of rudimentary settlements and continued into the early historic times by urbanization.

    * Without mentioning absolute dates, Vimala Begley assigned the earliest date to Kantharodai to 4th century B.C. Fortunately, now there are absolute dates available for the Megalithic phase of Jaffna which almost confirm our views or even push back the date. The C!4 dates recently received for the Pennsylvania University excavation samples from Kantarodai range around 500B.C. The dates of the two samples out of fifteen, even go back to the seconds millennium B.B., but we are sceptical about them.

    What I would conclude from my other explorations into the subject of the antiquity of habitations in the north , is that very we archaeological studies have been carried out to explore a fuller story. The Maathottam area in Manner- a port of much antiquity- is yet carried out in a meaningful way. The north may hold a treasure trove of history, if systematic and well funded studies are carried out. The question as to who the original inhabitants were, could also be answered better then. The government should seeks funding such research as a matter of urgency.

    According to M.D Raghavan’s studies ( Tamil Culture in Ceylon: A General Introduction, the Tamils are an ancient people of Sri Lanka, on the basis of multi-faceted evidence going beyond history and archaeology ( I have summarized his book in a recent blog in dbsjeyaraj.com). If we are both in essence an ancient people, is it worthwhile for us to pursue who was more ancient? Could we ever find an answer?
    2. They claim North and East as their “traditional homeland” solely belong to them which has no claim for Sinhalese on the argument 1. above. Many Tamils claim Sinhalese settling there as “colonizing” their homeland.

    Q2.Do you consider North and East as the “Traditional Homeland of Tamils”? Is there any justifiable evidence to establish this claim?

    Answer: I do not subscribe to the ‘Traditional Homelands ’concept. However, I feel that while every citizen in Sri Lanka has to be treated equally in every way, the linguistic, cultural and religious rights of the people have to be accepted and respected. This would mean also accepting the visible manifestations of these characteristics in areas where a particular people predominate. Every citizen should also have the right to live wherever he/she wishes in the Island and continue to be what he/she is or what he/she wants to be, without hindrance to other people and interference from other people. This includes the right to work and own property.

    Q3.Why Sri Lankan Tamil language did not evolve distinctively different from Indian Tamil language just as Sinhala evolved distinctly from their root languages. It is true that there are differences in Indian Tamils and Sri Lankan Tamil languages. Do you think this difference commensurate with the time period they claimed to be separately evolved in Sri Lanka?

    Answer: Probably, there was no need to. The Tamils in Sri Lanka have struck with classical Tamil in large measure, where as the spoken Tamil in India has gone in a different direction. Since I know more of Tamil than Sinhalese, I will boldly venture to say that there is much more in Tamil -language, literature and drama- than we care to know now and if we re-discover what we are in the process of losing, we will be a richer people. Unfortunately, our politicians are not concern about such vital matters. Risking of sounding jingoistic, Tamil is a very advanced language and there is very little room for it to develop further. Unfortunately, it is a language in retreat, especially in Tamil Nadu. It is us Sri Lankan Tamils who have to save this treasure, bequeathed to us by our ancestors. Subramanya Bharathy, the most eminent Tamil poet of the independence struggle era in India lamented, “Mella Thamil inni Saahum! ( Tamil will start dying slowly)”. This is already happening due to Tamil Nadu cinema. TV, Media and politicians. Tamils in Tamil Nadu cannot speak Tamil now without mixing English words. This is a status symbol! Sri lankan Tamils yet mostly speak unmixed Tamil. A blessing indeed!

    Q4. Tell us that whether honourable MP Sumanthiran’s speech is reasonable and justifiable?
    Answer: I think Mr.Sumanthiran is speaking more and more like a typical TNA politician. This transformation is probably a necessity for his political survival. His position as a lawyer cum politician gives him the needed background to quibble. Lawyer-Politicians have been the curse of the Tamils and probably the Sinhalese as well! He often publicizes the wrong information fed to him, without adequate investigation. I have pointed this out on several occasions.

    Q5. Don’t you think the demands of many Tamils go beyond equality of this country towards their favour?

    Answer: I do not think the word ‘Many’ you use in this context, has any meaning. No one will know what the silent ‘Many’ think! The ’Voice’ you hear as that of the Tamils, is the ‘Noise’ of a very vocal and destructive minority. This is my perception based on my interactions with the people in the north and east. The concerns of the ‘Most’, as I see it is about their next meal, shelter, livelihood, health care, social assistance, security, education and breakdown of societal and cultural norms. This is the reason I have been insisting that ‘Good Governance’is what the Tamils need immediately.

    Q6. We are ready to accept the equal status of Tamils in this country. But not more status as they aspire.

    Answer: If this equality in status is given in thought, word and deed, there will not be Tamil problem. The equality you accept should also extend to security of person and property. Tamils and other minorities, as identifiable groups or as individuals should never again be singled out for attack’s. If this can be assured, the likes of the TNA will have no justification for their existence or their agenda.
    Thanks!
    Dr.Rajasingham Narendran

    • Burning_Issue

      Yapa wrote on this thread:

      July 14, 2012 • 6:52 am

      ““Now if I am told that I can’t sing the national anthem in Tamil, I will not sing the national anthem. And that is what the government wants. The government does not want the Tamil people of this country to sing the National Anthem.”

      I also heard that Tamils in USA, Canada, UK, Norway, France and Switzerland are preparing the Tamil versions of the national anthems of the respective countries so that they will sing the national anthems of those countries.
      What can we call these, if we don’t call them “Vigadam” (nonsense)?
      Thanks!””

      To me this is intellectual bankruptcy to a high degree! Yapa is not prepared to accept that the Tamils have right to sing the national anthem in Tamil.

      Then he said this to Dr.Rajasingham Narendran:
      http://groundviews.org/2012/07/07/equality-unity-autonomy-democracy/
      July 14, 2012 • 5:59 pm

      “We are ready to accept the equal status of Tamils in this country. But not more status as they aspire.”

      You are ready to accept the equal status of the Tamils if they prepared to assimilate and accept Sinhala as the language!

      Dr.Rajasingham Narendran:

      “If this equality in status is given in thought, word and deed, there will not be Tamil problem. The equality you accept should also extend to security of person and property. Tamils and other minorities, as identifiable groups or as individuals should never again be singled out for attack’s. If this can be assured, the likes of the TNA will have no justification for their existence or their agenda.”

      The type of equality that DR Narendran envisages is a world apart from what Yapa advocates!

      • yapa

        Dear Burning_Issue;

        It is not that I don’t accept the Tamil version of National anthem. Really I accept it.

        What I wanted to show was that their grievance about the national anthem was not a genuine one. Why they are prepared to sing it in foreign languages in foreign countries without any hassle, but do it only in here.

        I feel it is used as a tool in their general discontent towards this country.

        Other than how can we understand this double standards in two different places about the same issue?

        I think they should love this country than foreign countries. At least why they don’t give this country an equal status to the foreign countries?

        I think for reconciliation a positive attitude towards the others is necessary. At east they should give up the negative attitude.

        I have no issue for Tamils singing the national anthem in Tamil language.

        You say,

        “You are ready to accept the equal status of the Tamils if they prepared to assimilate and accept Sinhala as the language!”

        Not at all. What I expect them is to accept only their due share, but not an proportionate share of the resources in this country as they have been demanding. I think you know that as per their popular demand, per capita land endowment of this country for a Tamil person is four times of any other person in this country. Do you think opposing this injustice is wrong.

        I never ask Tamils to assimilate, I appreciate the vibrant colour Tamils add to the rain bow of multi ethnicity of this country. But Still my opinion is justice (equality) supersedes the cultural beauty/richness. No cultural beauty/richness is a reason to deny the justice. I think justice is the central issue.

        “The type of equality that DR Narendran envisages is a world apart from what Yapa advocates!”

        Not at all. I agree more than 90% with the ideas of Dr.Rajasingham Narendran.

        Thanks!

      • yapa

        Correction…….

        “What I expect them is to accept only their due share, but not an [proportionate] share of the resources…”

        should be

        “What I expect them is to accept only their due share, but not an [disproportionate] share of the resources…..”

        Thanks!

    • Dr.Rajasingham Narendran

      Dear Mr.Yapa,

      Here is the answer to the query I missed answering:

      Query: #2. They claim North and East as their “traditional homeland” solely belong to them which has no claim for Sinhalese on the argument 1. above. Many Tamils claim Sinhalese settling there as “colonizing” their homeland.

      Answer: The objection is to state-assisted or state-encouraged settlement of Sinhalese in the north and east. Such schemes have changed the demographics of some areas in the north and east, at a time when communal relationships were beginning to slide down a precipice. The Tamils have a ‘beseiged mindset’because of their post-independence experiences. They were attacked and made homeless in areas they considered areas of traditional habitation and in which they had lived safely for centuries before the colonization schemes.

      Tamils yet feel the north and east are their last refuge within Sri Lanka. They should realize that the last and preceding Eelam wars have demonstrated even the north and east are not safe havens, if the wars they start for whatever reasons, are taken back to them. Their safety is within a united Sri Lanka that respects and safeguards their rights as humans and citizens.

      It is for the Sinhala people and the government to prove beyond doubt that they no longer have malafide intentions of changing current demographic realities. I also feel that the movement of people between different provinces in Sri Lanka, should be decided largely by individuals. However, in the case of large tracts of land being opened for development through massive irrigation schemes, a formula must be evolved to ensure that demographic realities are taken in to account, considering the state of communal relations in Sri Lanka and the ‘beseiged mindset’of the Tamils. The fact that Tamils have reasons to fear must be understood and sympathized with. It is not a bogey. It is genuine.

      The north should have more of Sinhalese and Muslims, while not distorting the majority Tamil status as it exists now.The north cannot continue to insisit that it has to be mono-ethnic within a united Sri Lanka. The east, has the right balance and this should continue to be so. The Sinhala areas like Moneragala, with low population densities should also be open for Tamils and Muslims to move in.

      This issue will cease to be a problem, the day the Tamils are made to feel they are full fledged citizens of Sri Lanka, equal to every one else in everything. This is the easiest course to take, but is likely to be the most difficult to deliver, because of the way we deal with such matters in this little island of ours!

      Dr.Rajasingham Narendran

  • Keynes!

    I think this country belongs to Akbar Brothers.

  • thivya

    [As the things stand now, we can conclude that the ancient Jaffna kingdom included the penninsula, the islands and the land strip upto Mannar, though it’s not clear where its Eastern boundary lay.]

    It is not over yet.:) Lately the Jaffna Kingdom has expanded from the Peninsula to the other Islands and now Mannar, but we haven’t finished discussing whether the so called Wanniyas living in the North and East, who were not only trading with, but fought against the Portuguese, Dutch and the British, were Tamils or Sinhalese.

    • Off the Cuff

      Dear Thivya,

      Except for a minor problem with a 17 century Dutch record that states they built a Fort at Elephant Pass to protect the Dutch held Jaffna Kingdom from the Kandyan King’s territory.

  • Happy Heathen

    thivya
    July 19, 2012 • 9:14 am

    I would like to humbly advice you to refrain from making sweeping comments on issues that you seems to have absolutely no knowledge of….

    “The Sinhalese have a problem admitting that they have borrowed language, art, architecture, dance and words from Tamils.”

    With regards to architecture the Sinhalese have borrowed not only from Tamils, but from Moors, Dutch, Chinese, Portuguese, English, North Indians……that’s the beauty and strength of it.

    I am yet to experience a single architect in Sri Lanka who denies this fact.

    Valentine Gunasekara being a Catholic was greatly inspired by Varana Buddhist Temple for his seminal church designs
    (Imagining Modernity. The Architecture of Valentine Gunasekara – Anoma Pieris)
    Chelvadurai Anjalendran prefers the simplicity of Buddhist Temples to the garish embellishments of Hindu Temples. (Anjalendran: Architect of Sri Lanka – David Robson)(FYI, Anjalendran’s maternal grandfather was C Suntheralingam who was a pioneer in separatism. However, Anajalendran considers himself to be a Sri Lankan first and a Tamil second)

    There are no pure-architecture in this globalized world (apart from few isolated communities). Even the great Corbusier was inspired by humble Japanese Architecture.

    Stick to what you know and leave the rest to experts.

  • thivya

    It is not over yet.:) Lately the Jaffna Kingdom has expanded from the Peninsula to the other Islands and now Mannar, but we haven’t finished discussing whether the so called Wanniyas living in the North and East, who were not only trading with, but fought against the Portuguese, Dutch and the British, were Tamils or Sinhalese.

    • Off the Cuff

      Dear Thivya,

      Why the multiple posts?
      Hoping that repeating a lie would make it true?

      You have a minor problem with a 17 century Dutch record that states they built a Fort at Elephant Pass to protect the Dutch held Jaffna Kingdom from the Kandyan King’s territory.

  • yapa

    Dear thivya;

    Can you tell me why the Tamils lived in Jaffna those days were called as “Malabars” by the colonial writers, while Sinhalese were called as “Natives”?

    Can you also tell me why Sri Lanka was known as “Snhaladweepa” long long ago in the history?

    Thanks!

    • Dr.Rajasingham Narendran

      Yapa,

      The impressions of the ‘White man’ confronting a diffrent people and cultures cannot be the basis on which we can understand our history.

      Sinhala and Tamil cultures share much in common with those of the Malabaris- the present day Keralites. Much of the present day Kerala, was the old Sera/Chera Kingdom,which was essentially Tamil. The intonation of the Tamil in Jaffna is very similar to that of Malayalam.

      Further the Portuguese and the Dutch first came to contact with the Malabaris and hence they cannot be blamed for mis -identifying the Jaffna Tamils. The British of course referred to us all as ‘Natives’, in a very derogatory sense!

      The Sinhalese were of course the majority in Sri lanka for a very long time. As much as we identify the UK with the English and fail to recognize the Scots and the Welsh, Sri Lanka was ideentified with the Sinhalese. Even Subramanya Bharathy the great poet of India’s independence struggle era, refered to this island as ‘Sinhala Theevu’.
      However, it is also important to remember that in much earlier times the Island was referred to as Lanka and Eelam.

      It is also a fact that Dr.Ananda Coomarasamy, the one and only Philosopher Lanka has produced in modern times, has been referred to as a ‘Cingalese’ by many of his contemporaries.

      Dr.Rajasingham Narendran

      • Nithyananthan

        Wonderful! Excellent response with good example, Dr. R. Narendran! Thanks, Nithy!

      • Bharath

        Dr.Narendran,

        I fully agree with you. I should commend you for your clarity.

      • yapa

        Dear Dr.Rajasingham Narendran;

        I accept that we cannot totally deny on “white man’s” account to understand our history. However, it is not a reason to conclude any account of “white man” cannot be trusted. I don’t think “white man” who ruled India and Sri Lanka for several centuries would not be able to differentiate Jaffna Tamils from Indian Tamils, if there was a notable difference among them. I think the reason was they had more common features than differences between them, not that “white man” always misunderstands for several hundred years, who wrote vivid reports and accounts on this country and the region.

        I also cannot accept your statement that “Sinhala and Tamil cultures share much in common with those of the Malabaris- the present day Keralites.”

        Unlike Tamils, Sinhalese do not have much cultural similarities with Keralites. No similarity in language, not in religion, not in their food or food patterns, rituals,literature………., I don’t think. They may genetically closer than culturally, though in this case too Tamils are more closer to them. I don’t think Brits referred to Tamils as natives. Many “white man” considered Malabars as not indigenious inhabitant of this country, but as came from the opposite coast of Coramandel, in India as invaders not even as migrants.

        Thanks!

      • yapa

        orrection…..

        “I accept that we cannot totally deny on …..”

        here the last word should be “rely” not “deny”.

        Thanks!

    • Burning_Issue

      “Can you tell me why the Tamils lived in Jaffna those days were called as “Malabars” by the colonial writers, while Sinhalese were called as “Natives”?”

      Because they were none the wiser! If the Sinhalese were the Natives, where does it leave the Vaddas?

      Take note Yapa, The Tamils are as much Sri Lankans as the Sinhalese. This should be the basis on which a nation should be built.

      • yapa

        Dear Burning_Issue;

        “Take note Yapa, The Tamils are as much Sri Lankans as the Sinhalese. This should be the basis on which a nation should be built.”

        In terms of the yardstick of the history, it is not so.

        Historical similarity or the historical superiority propagated by the Tamil propagandists over the other communities was the root cause of the communal disharmony of the country.

        If it is in terms of the yardstick of the history, Tamils (present day) are not similar to Sinhalese, not even to Muslims. Ancestors of the present day Muslims living in this country settled down here earlier than the ancestors of the present day Tamils in this country.

        You should not try to change “facts”. Accept facts as facts, but it is not a reason to deny the equal rights of all the people living in this country.

        Call spade a spade, not a butterfly or a pumpkin.

        Thanks!

      • wijayapala

        Dear yapa,

        Historical similarity or the historical superiority propagated by the Tamil propagandists over the other communities was the root cause of the communal disharmony of the country.

        I disagree with your statement for one key reason: the Tamils generally living at that point in time (and even today, to an extent) were not very history-conscious and therefore did not have a sense of superiority based on their sense of history.

        We the Sinhalese on the other hand have had a stronger sense of history, but our misinterpretation of it combined with our ignorance of everything non-Sinhala has brought great misery to Sri Lanka. I argue that it is Sinhala ignorance that is the root cause of communal disharmony.

        They believed there was a Tamil homeland in North and East that has no any claim by any other communities of this country. No any other community than Tamil propagandists claim an exclusive part of this coutry, though they have more right for that. In this discussion all of you hacve seen how those claims were myths without any basis. I think most of the LTTE fighters were motivated using these fabricated lie and they sacrificed their lives for this myth.

        The Tamil homeland idea only became popular among the Tamils when Sinhala-Only was implemented. Sinhala-Only was supported because many Sinhalese believed that they should have the most rights while the other communities should follow along behind us.

        However much the LTTE fighters were fighting for the wrong cause, they believed that they would be safe from Sinhala racism in a separate Tamil country.

        If it is in terms of the yardstick of the history, Tamils (present day) are not similar to Sinhalese, not even to Muslims. Ancestors of the present day Muslims living in this country settled down here earlier than the ancestors of the present day Tamils in this country.

        What is your evidence for this? Given that the ancestors of present day Muslims most likely came from southern India (much like our own genetic ancestors), why would they have come to Sri Lanka earlier than the ancestors of the Tamils?

        Also tell me why many Tamil posters here support the thivya,

        Like who?

        Lie is evil and it is evil for everybody. You cannot build good things on an evil foundation.

        Part of the problem is that thivya would entirely agree with you. She believes that we (you + me) are the liars.

      • yapa

        Dear wijayapala;

        “I disagree with your statement for one key reason: the Tamils generally living at that point in time (and even today, to an extent) were not very history-conscious and therefore did not have a sense of superiority based on their sense of history.

        Can you prove your premise of the above argument is true, to show that your disagreement with me is justifiable?

        “We the Sinhalese on the other hand have had a stronger sense of history, but our misinterpretation of it combined with our ignorance of everything non-Sinhala has brought great misery to Sri Lanka. I argue that it is Sinhala ignorance that is the root cause of communal disharmony.”

        Dear wijayapala, do you belong to that category of Sinhalese? (Ha! Ha!!)

        “The Tamil homeland idea only became popular among the Tamils when Sinhala-Only was implemented. Sinhala-Only was supported because many Sinhalese believed that they should have the most rights while the other communities should follow along behind us.”

        “Sinhala-Only” is the “Big-Bang for you wijayapala?

        “However much the LTTE fighters were fighting for the wrong cause, they believed that they would be safe from Sinhala racism in a separate Tamil country.”

        There belief proved to be wrong dear wijayapala. Beliefs sometimes could be wrong.

        “What is your evidence for this? Given that the ancestors of present day Muslims most likely came from southern India (much like our own genetic ancestors), why would they have come to Sri Lanka earlier than the ancestors of the Tamils?”

        Please read history. I think Muslims migration starts in here around 1100 AD, while Tamis settlements start with Aryachakrawarthi’s invation.

        ““Also tell me why many Tamil posters here support the thivya,”

        Like who?”

        Like our genius and unbiased engineer friend Nithy.

        ““Lie is evil and it is evil for everybody. You cannot build good things on an evil foundation.”

        Part of the problem is that thivya would entirely agree with you. She believes that we (you + me) are the liars.”

        You saw the difference between the lies of ours and lies of thivya in the discussion. Accept one of those lies as per your choice. Ha! Ha!!

        Thanks, dear wijayapala.

      • Keynes!

        Yapa,

        “I think Muslims migration starts in here around 1100 AD, while Tamis settlements start with Aryachakrawarthi’s invation.”

        The Cholas ruled a large part of the island before 1100 CE. What are your thoughts on this?

      • yapa

        I think you have not followed my total argument about the ethnic groups in Sri Lanka.

        Present day Tamils are not the descendents of those Cholas. Sinhalese are the descendents of those “Tamils”. Can you answer the following question I asked from thivya and Dr.Rajasingham Narendran?

        “Do you think inheritance goes along the line of lineage or along (discrete)race connections?”

        Thanks!

      • Keynes!

        Yapa,

        1. “Present day Tamils are not the descendents of those Cholas. Sinhalese are the descendents of those “Tamils””

        Please substantiate and explain this claim.

        2. “Can you answer the following question I asked from thivya and Dr.Rajasingham Narendran? “Do you think inheritance goes along the line of lineage or along (discrete)race connections?””

        No. I do not have sufficient understanding of the subject.

    • Bharath

      Yapa,

      Tamils were called as Malabars because that was in usage at that time. They were calling Tamils in Tamilnadu as Malabars and used the same word for Tamils of Jaffna as well.

      The rigid caste system must have ensured that the tamils of India are segregated from the tamils of srilanka. This is just my assumption, may be Wijepala or Narendhran might know it better.

      There must have been influx from Tamilnadu in large numbers in the olden days into Srilanka. These might have occurred due to internal disturbances, invasions, drought and other natural calamities. North being close might have received a large number of these immigrants.

      But this might have happened in the south as well. South too would have received immigrants from time immemorial. They might have been from varied places in India – Vanga to Pandya.

      • wijayapala

        Dear Bharath

        The rigid caste system must have ensured that the tamils of India are segregated from the tamils of srilanka.

        I did not understand- how would caste system separate the Indian Tamils from Sri Lankan Tamils? Both places have Vellala and Karaiyar (and other) castes, although to a certain extent yes the caste systems in both places are somewhat different.

      • Bharath

        Dear Wijayapala,

        I think you do not understand the caste system (of India). Caste system ensures that the aliens/outsiders don’t get integrated immediately into the society, even if they are of similar status. That’s why there are layers within each caste.

        Not all kshatriyas could get themselves included into Rajput caste. Even within Rajputs, distinct clans remained without getting merged for more than thousand years. Huns remain even now a distinct clan among the Rajputs contrary to the popular myth that Huns got assimilated into mainstream Indian society.

        I am not aware if there are gradations/clans within Vellalas. But, I surmise that this would be the case there as well.

    • wijayapala

      Dear yapa

      Can you tell me why the Tamils lived in Jaffna those days were called as “Malabars” by the colonial writers, while Sinhalese were called as “Natives”?

      To add to B_I and Dr Narendran, let me ask you a question. Why did Hugh Cleghorn (of the famous Cleghorn Minute which all the Eelamists revere) claim that the Sinhalese had originated from Thailand?

      • yapa

        Dear wijayapala;

        I think you know the differnce between unbiased and biased opinions.
        You know the difference when blowing your own trupet.

        Thanks!

      • Keynes!

        Robert Knox states that the Chingulays told him that they were from China. This is staetd in A Historical Relation of the Island of Ceylon.

  • yapa

    Dear Dr.Rajasingham Narendran/Burning_Issue/Bharath;

    I have no problem accepting all the people living in this country as people with equal rights. However, this fact does not give anybody a license to distort the history of Sri Lanka.

    In a discussion with Burning_Issue some times ago I told that the reconciliation and everything in this country should be based on reality. The need for reconciliation should not be a reason to distort the history as well, though it is the need of the hour. We really know the present day mistrust among the communities of this country was a result of the distortion of the history of this country by Tamil historians and propagandists like thivya to gain undue advantages for one community. Many Tamils were of the view that Tamils lving present day in the country have a more right to the country on the basis of that fabricated lie by the propagandists. They believed there was a Tamil homeland in North and East that has no any claim by any other communities of this country. No any other community than Tamil propagandists claim an exclusive part of this coutry, though they have more right for that. In this discussion all of you hacve seen how those claims were myths without any basis. I think most of the LTTE fighters were motivated using these fabricated lie and they sacrificed their lives for this myth.

    We should identify the root cause of the problem and make sure that it would not happen again, not to repeat the history again. So, we cannot push garbage under the carpet and say the room is clean. I think the main cause of the problem was the misinterpretation of the history. So, the root cause should be irradiated so that the effect would not conceived again in this country. The history of this country should be straightened accordance with the facts and not with the myths or aspiration of one or another community. This should be done objectively, but not to console anybody. I think everybody should be ready to accept the truth, on that basis only a long lasting peace can be achieved, not by reciting lalabais.

    All the evil factors should be irradiated without any compassion. Evil is not only evil for Sinhalese it is evil for Tamils, Muslims, Malays and Burgers as well. Lie is evil and it is evil for everybody. You cannot build good things on an evil foundation.

    Thanks!

    • Bharath

      Dear Yapa,

      I understand and accept your points about the need to bring out/project true history.

      However, there is no need to link it with reconciliation. Reconciliation should take place independent of all this. What I mean reconciliation is the following:

      1. Understanding that Tamils have suffered more in this conflict and thus need consolation, special attention and specific intervention.

      2. Ensure that they don’t feel intimidated by an Army which almost entirely consists of the majority community.

      3. Ensuring that the Institutions in the country follow rule of law, are not biased and do not dance to the tunes of the rulers.

      4. Accepting that Tamils have had genuine grievances. Brushing under the carpet their grievances or sloganeering that there is no majority or minority would only increase their pain.

      5. Understanding that a Nation can be built only by accommodating the aspirations of all. A Nation can never be strong when a third of its population feel intimidated by the majority.

      6. Understanding that by accommodating/ allowing the individual characteristics to exist, the country gets strengthened and doesn’t get weakened.

      7. Understanding that Tamils have contributed to the welfare of the Nation since time immemorial and that they are not always the ‘invaders’ or ‘destroyers’ of Sinhala-buddhist culture.

      My dear Japa, I have been a right wing guy myself over the years. Feeling annoyed about the accommodating nature of Indian polity. But over the years I have become wiser, seeing in close quarter how a Nation gets strengthened when you allow space for the ‘others’. India is closer to Lanka than any other country. Lankan problems also to some extent are similar to the problems faced by us during the initial years of our independence. But Lanka never had leaders like Gandhi or Nehru or Patel, who thought beyond the frontiers of their race & religion.

  • yapa

    (Please post here not above.)

    Dear Dr.Rajasingham Narendran/Burning_Issue;

    Can you also tell me why Aryachakrawarthies kingdom was called “Jaffna Kingdom”, if even the western province of the country was under it as thivya claims?

    Why the king of Kotte was considered as the emperor?

    Also tell me why many Tamil posters here support the thivya, who is lying without any heed for truth? Do they still want to be live in that advantageous evil dream?

    Thanks!

  • Sam Alexander

    MP Sumanthiran said “I wish Ambassador Jayatilleke had first listened to my speech before writing his article, which has been published in at least two Sunday Newspapers in Sri Lanka yesterday”.

    Do we need any other proof that how ignorant and arrognt Dr.Dayan could be? How could anyone with a reasonable mind (let alone his experience in the international arena) would form a reply to some one’s speech without listening/reading to his speech.

    A person of Dr.Dayan’s calibre should not rely on thrid party information.

  • wijayapala

    Dear rajivmw

    What’s interesting to me is that all the kingdoms, including Jaffna, claimed the whole island as their realm. This would indicate that borders as we know know them today did not exist at the time, and that the Vanni’s status was really subject to the changing whims and fancies of the chieftains.
    It also follows that the ultimate aspiration of each and all of the kingdoms was to unite the island as a single entity. Would it be presumptuous of me to also conclude then that in the pre-colonial era, just as borders were vague and fluid, so were ethnic identities?

    Not at all, I would argue that you have a greater understanding of identities in those times than most of us. I think you have more or less summarised my own impression of precolonial Sri Lanka. Perhaps the bolded part of what you said has shaped my own political beliefs. I don’t have anything more to add or change.

  • Dr.Rajasingham Narendran

    Dear Yapa,

    The results of our discussing and debating the pre-history of Jaffna and Sri lanka, with the rudimentory information available, will be akin to the efforts of the five blind men who set out identify an elephant! None of the blind men identified the elephant! The ‘White man’s’ stories and impressions, have only helped confuse and confound us further. If we who are living in this day and age, unable to comprehend contemporary realities and understand each other, how could the alien ‘Whiteman’ who considered us heathens have done so? Even the limitations of Chinese and Arab travellers like Fa Hien and Ibn Batuta, in this regards, should be recognized.

    From my studies on the subject I think only M.D Raghavan has managed to formulate a larger and probably somewhat reasonably believable picture by assembling information from a multitude of disciplines. Time may prove that his picture is closer to what would have been possible. Future archaeological studies in Jaffna, Vanni, the east and other areas of Sri lanka may unearth more facts. Gananath Obeysekera, Leslie Gunawardene, Deriniyagala and Sudharshan Seneviratne have tried to approach the subject in a more holistic manner and have hence outlined a scenario similar to M.D.Raghavan. It is sad that very few archaeological studies have been done in these areas.

    Let us relegate our pre-history to where it belongs- the past, the museums, the text books, the libraries and the archives. Let those who study the past do so, in an unbiased and objective manner, independent of political/communal considerations. Let the recent past be only a lesson for our future.

    We have to find solutions to our so-called national problem based on current post-war realities. It is the here, the now and the future that matter. The solutions should be based on equal and unabridged citizenship rights; group rights to language, culture and religion; security of person and property; equal opportunities; meritocracy;social support mechanisms for the poor and downtrodden; sustainable development; meaningful democracy; revision of the constitution;rule of law; rebuilding national institutions; good governance; regeneration of societal values; reform of our political culture; and reform of our education system. I am sure we can all agree on these principles and even expand on them. However, it is more important to form a national consensus on what needs to be done.

    Let us all also be aware that we are once again on a slippery slope towards another national tragedy. Let us all mind our thoughts, words and deeds, to forclose such a tragedy. We will all be the losers, if history repeats.

    Dr.Rajasingham Narendran

    • yapa

      Dear Dr.Rajasingham Narendran;

      “We have to find solutions to our so-called national problem based on current post-war realities. It is the here, the now and the future that matter. The solutions should be based on equal and unabridged citizenship rights; group rights to language, culture and religion; security of person and property; equal opportunities; meritocracy;social support mechanisms for the poor and downtrodden; sustainable development; meaningful democracy; revision of the constitution;rule of law; rebuilding national institutions; good governance; regeneration of societal values; reform of our political culture; and reform of our education system. I am sure we can all agree on these principles and even expand on them. However, it is more important to form a national consensus on what needs to be done”

      I almost totally agree with your above statement. My deviation is that justice should be kept above them all. I think current realities recognises this fact. Even in early days this fact had been identified as important to keep a society in peace and harmony. Aristottle said “justice is the thing that keeps a society to gether, if justice is denied revolt is the result”. So, the causes for injustice should be irraducated if we are aspiring for a harmonious siciety.

      Justice should be based on the reality based on the available facts, otherwise the harmony can be postphoned forever by anybody by claiming that the current reality is not the reality as there could be undiscovered facts. I think in the Sri Lankan scenario, this is more wrong than right. Almost all the facts so far found indicate that the the claim of undiscovered facts is a excuse, which surely is a battle between abandonly available facts and conjecture, if the reality is postphoned for the future. If the debate is postphoed and we do not accept the current realities based on the available facts (expecting some personal advantages, one could postphone it forever, as the reasons for conjecture would never be ended.

      However, even without concluding the above debate it is not difficult to decide who represents the justuce and who represents the injustice looking at the claims of the both parties. I don’t think it is not difficult to identify who represents which side. No one would say claiming four times of land per capita of this country over other communities is justifiable. We are figting against this injustice and the ideologies that support this injustice. We have no any other grudge against Tamils.

      They are equal citizens for us, unless they demand more.

      I think no justifiable person can talk in support of a exclusive Tamil Homeland in North and East. It is clearly injustice.

      Thanks!

      • Anpu

        “They are equal citizens for us, unless they demand more.”

        Some one passed on these figures (please see below. Is the govt treating the Tamils as equal?????

        1. The Ratio of Military/civilian is 01: 10 [for every military 10 civilians] [99% of the people in the North are Tamil speaking Hindus & Christians

        whereas the military is 100% Sinhalese speaking Buddhists

        2. The Governors of North & East are retired Army Generals – [Governors are not elected by the people, the President appoints them] this gives the military opportunity to neglect Human Rights and to terrorize, torture, kidnap, rape the unprotected Tamil Civilians.

        3. The DRACONIAN Prevention of Terrorism Act [PTA] is still in force. As there is no more terrorist threat there is no need for such cruel law.

        This DRACONIAN PTA gives impunity to the armed forces and to get away from any crime they commit. [Until this DRACONIAN law is in force there is no hope for peace and justice in the North.

        4. According government statistics only 2% of Tamils in the Police Force: Tamil speaking [Hindus/Muslims/Christians] 26% of the total population in Sri Lanka.

        5. Sinhalese constituting 74% of the Total population holding 95% of jobs in public service [Government jobs]

        6. 98% Sinhalese are in the Armed Forces – constituting 74% of the total population. [Every aspect of daily life is deeply intrusive and humiliating, and that anyone who challenges it risks deadly retributions from the armed forces.

      • yapa

        Was it same before Tamils started the campaign to break the country? Isn’t that foul attempt the reason for this change? Isn’t it changing after ending the war? Can you pose a special case to justify the general situation?

        Further, I am not sure the statistics you provided are true.

        I don’t see any honesty in your attempt.

        Thanks!

  • Bharath

    If the affairs of the country are managed by Wijapalas and Narendrans, I don’t think that there would be any more civil strife or violence.

    Let us pray that this tribe increases manifold!

  • Nithyananthan

    Dear Mr. Krish, Greetings to you!

    Making Reference to your post dated 18th inst; your attention is drawn to the following for your perusal – at your leisure. Please make note the varying sense of usage of ‘Tamil & Tamils’.

    It is devastating / flabbergasting realization to experience that intentionally or unintentionally – perhaps innocently the Tamil is being raped and bastardized; and thus a slur is also propagated that Tamil is stingy and habitual of borrowing from others – chiefly from Sanskrit and never reciprocating / lending in return. It won’t be surprising, in time to come, if it is claimed that the half dead Sanskrit was the father and husband of empty dowry-less Tamil and by their matrimony the Thol’Kappyar’s Grammar and other literature were brought / came into being.

    Apart from what you have read in-order to learn and increase your knowledge and awareness, if you interested only, I am obliged to recommend reading the anatomical works on Tamil, its literature and etymology by the greats like Dr. Uvae Swaminatha Iyer, Dr. Ki’Va Jagan’nathan, Dr. Men’nachi Sundarampillai, Raja’gopala’achariyar (Rajaji) Author of Viya’sar Virun’hu, Kalki KrishnaMoorthy and Ki’Aa’Pae Visvanatham – the unrivaled peerless Tamil scholars, literary luminaries and etymologists – all of your clan, of the recent past and of Indian origin; and Ganesh Iyer, Swami Vipula’nanthar, Fr. Gnanaprakasar and Thamotharampillai of Ceylon Tamil Origin. Hopefully, it should be good enough for you if you could just go through the preface, the forward and acknowledgement of each book – without having to sift the whole through the cover to cover – to precipitate your opinion.

    I have nothing against Sanskrit. I am a staunch believer of the fact that ‘not only the one in my lawn but the Jasmine in the next door also is beautiful and smells good’. We have to / should learn a lot to appreciate and cherish the beauty and uniqueness of Individuality and respect it. Thanks – Regretfully, Nithy!

    • Krish

      Dear Nithyananthan

      Thanks for your response.

      First of all, if I had said anything in an offending way about you or Tamil as a language, I apologize. I am sure it was an oversight and an innocent act. Having said that, I went back and checked to see if I had said anything that way (as to make you feel that Tamil is being raped/butchered). It didn’t appear so from my post that you are referring to. Can you get into the specifics of where exactly I am wrong, Nithyananthan? Besides I don’t know what you mean by “your clan” in your post.

      The varying levels of usage of Sanskrit in Tamil is from my post dated 20th July (not 17th July). My argument was, with passage of time, Tamil started using more Sanskrit words. During Sangam times (even probably upto “Kadai changam”), Tamil did not use much of Sanskrit words. However, in the last 2000 (or 2500) years lot of Sanskrit words got into Tamil with the arrival of religions like Saivism, Jainism, Vaishnvism and even Buddhism. If you take a Sangam work (“Paththu paatu” or “Ettu thogai” or anything) and compare it with works of say, “Appar” or “Sundarar” or “Manickavaasagar”, you would realize that the latter works have more Sanskrit in them. Same thing applies to the works of “Alwars” and ther “Naalayira Divyaprabandam”. The development of “Grandham” and “Manipravalam” as off-shoot languages of Tamil (with Sanskrit mixed) would indicate that.

      The casual usage of words like “Udaaranam” in place of “Eduththukaattu” (for example), “Poojai” in place of “vazhipaadu” etc etc would perhaps be good examples. Wijayapala got it correct on “Deva” (“Theivam”) instead of “Kadavul” or “Iraivan” or “Aandavan”. He is also right on “Singam”. “Singam” in Tamil is a borrowed word from Sanskrit unlike “Puli”. Can any Tamil scholar provide the right words in Tamil for “Jaguar”, “Panther”, “Cougar”, “Leopard” and “Cheetah”? Or the correct Tamil words for “Snow”, “drissle”, “flurry”, “fog”, “mist”? It is mostly “Chirutththai” for those cats and “pani” for these precipitations. Sometimes Tamil creates new words (like “kanippori” for computer) and historically borrowed words from Sanskrit. And I personally feel that pure Tamil is possible in spoken form even today despite all these. Very seriously so.

      From your list, I have read some works of Kalki Krishnamurthy and Rajaji. Not Ki_Va_Viswanathan or Ki_Aa_Pe_Jagannathan. And please note that I have read a lot of other contemporaries like Sujatha, Jayakaanthan, Vaali, Vairamuthu and a handful of others. I am open to reading more if you suggest.

      Last point! Very applicable to many Srilankan Tamils (likes of Thivya for example) from what I understand. Their understanding of Sanskrit is very poor. Somehow, they think that every word in Tamil is from Tamil and go to any length to justify it. I personally feel that it is essential to learn other older languages like Sanskrit and then debate. Sorry if I am very offending though.

      best wishes
      Krish

    • thivya

      Thank you Mr. Nithyananthan. While all these Tamils are lurking in this forum, muzzled by Sinhalese like OffTheCuff and Yapa, you have the guts to speak up for Tamil.

      • Off the Cuff

        Dear Thivya,

        Well well well, Nithy scratches you back and you return the favour.
        Hilarious.

        Please read my post of July 18, 2012 • 7:19 pm where I invited Nithy to join the discussion about your attempted Land Grab, under the Traditional Homeland guise.

        http://groundviews.org/2012/07/07/equality-unity-autonomy-democracy/#comment-46879

        The Muzzle that you write about is the Lies that you try to propagate.
        Even these Die Hard Separatist Tamils have lost hope and retired.
        Anpu who made the claim, has not been heard of again. So are the others.

        We have not muzzled anyone here, as we dont control GV Editorial Policy (may be that’s why you are shy to discuss on GV and keep inviting people to your own blog – you are the Editor there and you can cut, chop, pick and chose what to publish—ha ha haa)

        The LIES are the MUZZLE.

        Why don’t you ask Nithy why he did not come out supporting you, when you were trying to defend this “Traditional Historical Homeland Land Grab” and why he is supporting you when you write defending the Tamil Language?

        I believe it is because he had the intelligence to realise that your expansionist Lies could not be supported.

      • yapa

        Dear Off the Cuff;

        Real name of the concept came up only now, “Traditional Historical Homeland Land Grab” Ha! Ha!!

        Thanks!

    • wijayapala

      Dear Nithy

      It is devastating / flabbergasting realization to experience that intentionally or unintentionally – perhaps innocently the Tamil is being raped and bastardized; and thus a slur is also propagated that Tamil is stingy and habitual of borrowing from others – chiefly from Sanskrit and never reciprocating / lending in return.

      Where is Tamil being raped and bastardized?

      Thivya cited Prof Hart who said, “It is a trivial thing for a language to borrow vocabulary. But when it uses another language’s syntax to form the way it expresses things, and uses another language’s phonology for its sounds, that is really profound influence.” So then you should not be upset about Tamil borrowing words from Sanskrit.

      • thivya

        [I am making that argument because I have not come across a single scholar anywhere ***competent in both Sanskrit and Tamil*** who has claimed that Sanskrit words had a Tamil origin. The impact of this would completely overturn the understanding of INDIAN historical linguistics.]

        Mr.Wijapapala,

        Here is the proof. The experts are saying this Sanskrit word, Puja, had a Tamil origin. Like this, there are so many words in Sanskrit borrowed from Tamils. I never said I am in an expert in linguistic studies. But this example proves that you don’t know what you are talking about either. Now you know that Sanskrit words had a Tamil origin. I hope it won’t overturn the understanding of INDIAN historical linguistics. 🙂

        http://www.thivyaaa.blogspot.ca/2012/07/the-word-pooja-or-puja-is-tamil-word.html

        • Readers are encouraged to deal with substance of original article. Groundviews will increasingly not publish comments and comment threads that are largely peripheral to the substance of the original submission.

  • Krish

    But when a non Tamil Indian says he empathizes with us, the Eealam Tamils, we panic and think what is he up to now?

    Whenever the Indians, especially the people from a particular clan in Tamil Nadu come to a Sri Lankan forum, they side with the Sinhalese and backstab the Tamils. I have noticed this often in other forums also. Somehow I have the feeling you are also from the same clan, that was just my observation.

    Thivya, interesting quotes from you. How about trying to honestly debate instead of calling me this or that or from a certain clan. Even my empathy for Srilankan Tamils is construed as “backstabbing Tamils”. Why such dishonesty Thivya? And why such blatant propoganda?

    The problem with you and D.Ravi is, anytime anyone proves that a Tamil word is of Sanskrit origin, you would say it is the other way around. With such propoganda extremes, what is anyone supposed to argue with you?

    Again, the usage of “Theivam” in various Tamil texts isn’t proof that it is a Tamil word. I have read a number of Tamil texts (in Tamil script obviously) in which “Theivam” is used. I have also seen “Deva” used in those Sanskrit works I mentioned earlier. Have you even heard of those of Sanskrit works? How many Sanskrit works have you read and that too in Sanskrit/Devanagiri script? Can you read/write/understand Sanskrit/Devanagiri? If yes, we will debate this. Otherwise, you start learning some Sanskrit and then let’s continue. If you insist that what you do not know doesn’t exist (as you do now), then it is pointless to discuss/debate.

    You are giving me the meanings of words that start with “Thee”, not the origins. You just keep going around. For example, why exactly is “Theetu” a Tamil word? How different is this “Theetu” from the other “Theetu” (meaning sharpening of knife)?

    You are completely wrong on Maraimalaiadigal. Here’s why!

    1. Maraimalaiadigal learnt Sanskrit before he even started the idea of pure-Tamil movement. And like me, he believed that speaking a Sanskrit-free Tamil is entirely possible.
    2. He never claimed Sanskrit words as Tamil words. Rather, he changed his Sanskrit name “Vedachalam” to “Maraimalaiadigal”. Even his mentor/boss SuryaNarayanaSatry changed his name to “Parithimaarkalaignar”.

    I have been a big follower of his grandson Nambi Aarooraan’s (now deceased) wife Saradha Nambi Aarooran. As I suggested before, Madras University has a wealth of information on such works (not just Maraimalaiadigal).

    Just a note of agreement:
    1. Sanskrit is a dead language from a spoken standpoint, although continues to be used all over India in temples. Most North Indian lanauges trace to Sanskrit as a common anscestor and even Telugu uses a lot of Sanskrit.
    2. SL Tamil is far more purer than it’s TN equivalent. If Tamil can survive, it might be because of SL Tamils. Indian Tamils have destroyed their language themselves (forget for a moment how neighbouring South Indian languages have influenced it).

    best wishes
    Krish

    • wijayapala

      Dear thivya,

      I am sorry to be too blunt, if you don’t even know that simple fact why did you even venture into this topic. There has been a huge debate going on for decades in the Tamil academic circle that Sanskrit was craeted from Tamil.

      Know which fact? And why isn’t this “huge debate” going on in the wider Indian subcontinent academic circle, given its incredible impact on the entire region???

      There are some scholars that argue that Sanskrit was created from Tamil for academic purposes.

      Who?

      Even a simple google search would have given you the statement of eminent Tamil and Sanskrit scholar Professor Hart, of California Berklely University.

      Thank you for the cut-and-paste. Hart’s first statement was on the topic of Tamil being a classical language and Tamil literature more or less developing independently of Sanskrit, which I have never disputed.

      In his second statement he says, “Tamil has borrowed more words from Sanskrit than Sanskrit has from Dravidian.” I would first ask whether you agree with Hart’s statement. I would then direct you to the fact that Hart clearly differentiates between Tamil, a fully-developed language, and “Dravidian” which is/was not a real language but rather 1) a family of languages which Tamil belongs to or 2) the tentative name we have given the proto-language that was used before Tamil appeared.

      Earlier I had stated “I am aware that Sanskrit has a Dravidian sub-stratum, but this influence is mostly limited to grammar and not vocabulary,” so I do not see how Hart’s statement contradicts my thinking. I did not mention Dravidian’s impact on Sanskrit phonology, so on that single area I correct myself. Hart actually says that it is a trivial thing to borrow vocabulary, so why are you (and D. Ravi, and unfortunately my dear friend Nithy) making such a big deal trying to claim that Sanskrit words are really Tamil????

      I believe he is one of the well known Etymologists and I know some others as well.

      Could you point to any of D. Ravi’s research in a peer-reviewed journal? What evidence do we have that he is not just some other internet blogger like you or me? The fact that he has written in his blog “Brahmins’ lies about Indra and Vishnu” give the impression that he is not a serious scholar and has an axe to grind.

      Sri Lankan Tamil- spoken and written- has always been purer than TN Tamil, because we did not have invasions and influences from other races and languages like the TN Tamils had.

      Sri Lankan Tamils unfortunately believe that their dialect is superior largely because their exposure to Indian Tamil is limited to Chennai and TN movies, but in places further south such as Trichy or Madurai the dialect is as standard as it can get.

      The derivative, mixed language called Sinhala could not influence Tamil.

      How do you know this? Do you have any knowledge of the Sinhala language? If not, then what qualifies you as an expert of Sinhala?

      I can disprove you on 2 areas, that Sri Lankan Tamil (unlike Indian Tamil) has indeed been influenced by Sinhala:

      1) Sri Lankan Tamil has a unique usage of verbs that has never been used in Tamil Nadu but is somewhat used in Sinhala. S. Suseendirajah refers to this as the Pronominal Verb Form, where an adjectival participle (which otherwise modifies a noun to produce a noun phrase) modifies a pronoun to create a verb. This Sri Lankan Tamil verb form is used to show habit if the present tense is used, or emphasis for the past tense.

      To give an example: neRRu naan kozhumbukkup poonanaan = Yesterday I went to Colombo. Why is the “naan” placed at the end of the sentence?

      Sinhala has a similar usage to show emphasis: bas ekin yanne mama = I go by bus. In both sentences, the word for “I” (naan/mama) is found at the end of the sentence to put the emphasis there. As far as I know, the subject never comes at the end of a subject-predicate sentence in Indian Tamil. Krish can correct me if I’m wrong.

      2) Why does Sri Lankan Tamil sometimes pronounce (and spell in English) “a” as “e?” In TN they say “Jayaraj” but in SL we say “Jeyaraj,” or “Dharmaratnam” becomes “Dharmeratnam.” The only explanation I can find is that Sri Lankan Tamil was influenced either by Sinhala or the pre-Sinhala indigenous language which was not spoken in TN. In Sinhala we have a unique way of saying “a” which is not found anywhere in India as far as I know. It sounds like the “a” in “cat” or “hammer.”

      These two items are not vocabulary but syntax and phonology, which according to Prof. Hart shows that Sinhala had a deep impact on Sri Lankan Tamil! 😉

      Whenever the Indians, especially the people from a particular clan in Tamil Nadu come to a Sri Lankan forum

      Why not come out like D. Ravi and say that you do not like Brahmins? Why hide behind phrases like “particular clan?”

    • wijayapala

      Thivya, given that the moderator does not appear to encourage discussing linguistics here, why not answer my original points where I debunked your argument of “calculated cultural genocide?”

      http://groundviews.org/2012/07/07/equality-unity-autonomy-democracy/#comment-46725

  • Dr.Rajasingham Narendran

    Dear Yapa,
    http://groundviews.org/2012/07/07/equality-unity-autonomy-democracy/
    Please read the following link for Sinhala-Kedralite/ Malayali/Malabari
    interactions through history. Please also search Google on ‘Sinhala-Keralite cultural affinities’.

    http://himalmag.com/component/content/article/1675-fading-history.html

    The Redda-hatta, Kandyan dancing, Idiyappa, Pittu and Arppa are somethings the Sinhalese share with the Keralites. Tamils of course also share the same food items, in addition to the lilt in their intonation of Tamil and many classical Tamil words.

    I know many of the questions you raise, are also the questions of many Sinhalese. The Sinhala scholars should come forward to answer these questions through the popular media. Prof. Dharmadasa, formerly of Peradeniya University, is one I know who has objectivity and scholarship to do so.

    Sinhalese and Sinhala share many things with Southern India and the sooner this is acknowledged, the better it would be for reconciliation within Sri Lanka.

    Let us establish what is common between us and acknowledge it as a base to come together as a people. The differences too should be accepted and respected in this process.

    Dr.Rajasingham Narendran

    • yapa

      Dear Dr.Rajasingham Narendran;

      Though there may be little differences with your views, I think I can totally agree with you in the case of reconciliation and the other related matters. I think the main problem remains from the side of the Sinhalese against this is the suspicion they have about the Tamil people, mainly based on the experiences of the recent history. I don’t think a single Sinhalese subconscious mind approves the division of the country. Unlike westerners, I think eastern people love their country more than many personal things, that is how they are. Unlike westerners, they have been associated with this country for a long time and for them country and self are not two different things. The theories that sprang in individualistic western societies cannot convince the subconscious minds of the people of these countries to accept as realities. Self-determination is such a concept, and a group of people whose minds were shaped with the old heroic stories of people sacrificing their lives for the country will never accept such theories. They are alien to our realities. Our history is full of stories of the heroes gave their lives for the country. Naturally anybody who indicates secession of this country Sinhalese will consider as a traitor, and never as a friend.

      Though there are people like you who had understand this reality, there are many still want to break this country. All the breaking attempts of this country have come from the Tamil community, not from any others. So, Sinhalese people have a bitter suspicion about the Tamil community. Even if the majority of Tamil people understand and give up the demand, even a few voice for separation, I think Sinhala insecurity comes up and suspicion emerges. Here the serious case is the main party representing the Tamils is still advocating for separation. So, the Sinhalese subconscious mindset says that the majority of Tamils are for the separation. So, the majority of Sinhalese oppose the whole Tamil community. How come a reconciliation possible? We feel Tamils do not want reconciliation in a single country and we do not want reconciliation other than in a single country. These are two directly opposite views that will never agree. MP Sumanthiran or the whole TNA or the whole world will never convince Sinhalese secession as justifiable. I think precondition for reconciliation would be to show voice/commitment against the secession from the majority Tamils. I think a political moment against the secession should come from the Tamil community that could be accepted by Sinhalese.

      A donkey with two heads will never have a conflict free journey. We must form a common objective for all the communities. If a community is stick to a conflicting idea with the main stream there won’t be any reconciliation though how much we want it.

      I accept there are many similarities. But the weight of the similarities is much less than the weight of a single difference, idea of secession. I think other differences are trivial things.

      Thanks!

      • Keynes!

        Yapa,

        “All the breaking attempts of this country have come from the Tamil community, not from any others.”

        Am I to conclude then that the Kandyans are Tamils?

    • Off the Cuff

      Dear Dr Rajasingham Narendran,

      Genetically Tamils and Sinhalese share a 50%+ genome
      Historically both communities are Indian
      Culturally we both share the same New Year
      Religiously there are only a few Buddhist temples that do not have idols of Hindu Gods.
      I have heard that Tamil language has enriched the Sinhala Language.
      In Lanka there are no two communities that have more in common than Tamils and Sinhalese
      So why can’t we share what Lanka possesses equally and equitably?

      Unfortunately there is a communication gap as generally neither community can understand each other’s Language. I am happy to see that this is being addressed, as Tamil is now taught to Sinhala students and vice versa. In a few years time that gap will be no more and most Sinhala and Tamil 10 year olds would be able to communicate.

      Many here try to label Yapa as a racist (I know that you are not one of them). It’s not because he is a racist but because those who point fingers cannot break Yapa’s arguments.
      Calling him a racist is the easy way out of that argument.

      This is Yapa’s main argument

      quote
      What I expect them is to accept only their due share, but not an proportionate share of the resources in this country as they have been demanding. I think you know that as per their popular demand, per capita land endowment of this country for a Tamil person is four times of any other person in this country. Do you think opposing this injustice is wrong.
      I never ask Tamils to assimilate, I appreciate the vibrant colour Tamils add to the rain bow of multi ethnicity of this country. But Still my opinion is justice (equality) supersedes the cultural beauty/richness. No cultural beauty/richness is a reason to deny the justice. I think justice is the central issue. …I agree more than 90% with the ideas of Dr.Rajasingham Narendran.
      Unquote
      (Yapa’s post of July 16, 2012 • 7:48 pm)

      What is racist about it?
      Has anyone challenged Yapa successfully on this?

      Our first language is not English. We have our short comings in expressing ourselves. I think the message that he attempts to deliver, is more important than how he delivers it.

      You say “Let us establish what is common between us and acknowledge it as a base to come together as a people. The differences too should be accepted and respected in this process”

      That is the objectivity we need but what most of our leaders lack.

  • Dr.Rajasingham Narendran

    Dear Mr.Yapa,

    You have been very honest and direct in giving expression to the view point of many Sinhalese. You are one among the multitude of Sinhalese who think that this island should be the home for all her citizens and all citizens should be treated equally. I also infer from your ‘direct from the heart’ comments that you acknowledge that Tamils have grievances that need to be addressed within a united Sri Lanka. You also feel, as many Sinhalese do that any solution that smells/ smacks of the possibilities of leading to ‘Eelam’, should be rejected outright, suppressed and if needed, militarily defeated. I will empathize and endorse these positions outright, as a Sri Lankan.

    However, as a Tamil, I have to point out some facts. Tamils consider Sri Lanka their home too and have strong emotional links to her, wherever they may live. All though a million or more Tamils have left Sri Lankan shores, multiplied and prospered, they yet feel that they have been forced out of their land by the circumstances prevailing here. They have not forsaken their land, as many immigrants do. Those Tamils who yet want to migrate for mainly economic reason, will do so to earn money, but not in order to forsake their land. ‘Thirai Kadal Odiyum, Thiraviyam Thedu’ ( Even sail the seas to earn wealth)has been the ethos of the Tamils from ancient times. What they earned they invested in their lands of birth. In recent times the Tamils who worked in Malaya did so and many in the Diaspora now,continue to do so. The Diaspora Tamils yet spend several hours a day reading about and discussing Sri Lanka. This shows they are interested in Sri Lanka. They have been victims of vile propagandists, because of this passion.

    The other point I have to make is that the separation many Tamils sought and feel disappointed in not being achieved, are because they want a stake in at least some parts of the island. An island which had in many ways made them aliens in their own land and in many violent ways, deprived them the rights of equal citizenship and denied them the security to live, work and prosper in the areas outside the north and east, has not alienated them from the parts, where they have lived for thousands of years. Dbsjeyaraj.com has published many blogs on the anniversary of events of July’1983, which reinforced the demand for an independent Eelam. When the Tamils were denied the right to live safely in all parts of the island and were told by the powerful and vocal in the nations political and educational hierarchy that they were aliens in the land of their birth, they had no alternative but to stake a claim to at least a part of their beloved island. This should understood by the Sinhala polity.

    It takes two tango! If the Sinhala polity wishes that there should be no threat to the island’s political integrity, they should make the Tamils and other minorities comfortable all over the island, to the extent the Sinhalese are in the homes, villages, towns and provinces, they live. The Tamils should reciprocate by welcoming and making comfortable the Sinhalese and Muslims who wish to live amongst them in the north and east. Equality and security are the two elements that need attention immediately.

    The Tamils too love Sri Lanka either in whole or in parts, should be acknowledged by the Sinhalese. Both the Sinhalese and Tamils share the love for this island, as they are both to a very large extent its ancient peoples. It is a primordial urge that is shared. One community has no more claims than the other to the island. One community should not deny the rights of the rights of the other to the whole island. What the Tamils would like most is to be an integral part of this beautiful isle. If this is denied in any way in the future, the ideas of separation will linger and create problems. The Tamils too should stake a claim for this equality and security, as the fundamental issues that need to be resolved.

    Dear ‘Off the Cuff’,

    Thanks for your profound and wise comments on Yapa and his thoughts.

    Dr.Rajasingham Narendran

  • Off the Cuff

    Keynes!

    It was on an Australian Broadcasting Corp program (probably Foreign Correspondent). If I remember correctly, it was after Lasantha Wickramatunge’s death. I can remember the interviewer interviewing Lasantha’s Brother (probably Fredrica J as well), Gotabhaya the defence sec, a Tamil Editor of a Jaffna paper(Uthayan?), IDP’s in a camp and Ms Anna Marie Loose who was also at the same camp. The program was largely critical of the SL gov. What Ms Anna Marie said, occupied just a few seconds in a prog of 30 mnts or so but you should be able to identify it easily in the transcript that is attached to the video (on a dif tab). The interviewer’s last name was probably Campbell but cannot remember for certain. I believe this was published on Ground Views and I commented on it then and gave the actual time line ID for the statement.

    This would probably help you in locating the ABC program.

    • thivya

      //It was on an Australian Broadcasting Corp program (probably Foreign Correspondent). If I remember correctly, it was after Lasantha Wickramatunge’s death.//

      It is frightening that I agree with OffTheCuff, and it is true and I have seen the transcript of two lines said by Anna Marie Loos from MFS-Medicins Sans Frontieres in an SBS Dateline Television program. As usual, OTC is parading around those two lines in this forum for more than three years and ignoring everything else said about the Sinhala army’s atrocities against the innocent Tamils in Vanni.

      There are many reports from Human Rights Watch and others describing the atrocities committed by the both sides. The question is whether OTC only agrees with Ms. Loos statement or with other’s statements about the Sinhala army’s war crimes as well. I just want to make sure because the Sinhalese have the habit of pick and choose whatever suits their anti Tamil agenda regardless of Mahavamsa or War crimes reports.

      Ms.Loos statement is also disputed by many Tamils who escaped to the West from the Sinhala concentration camps by paying thousands of dollars to the Sinhala guards. The escaped Tamils say the Tamil Paramilitaries and Sinhala army heavily infiltrated the LTTE in the last days of the battle, mingled with the civilians disguised as tigers, and attacked the Tamil civilians to turn them against the LTTE. It was part of the strategy to fool the international community. Although the Sinhalese like to propagate that they are lighter skinned than the dark skinned Tamils, an unsuspecting foreigner, like Anna Marie Loos, can’t tell the difference between a Sinhala Kavum face and a Demala Curry face.

      This is one of the reasons; there should be an international independent investigation to find out what has really happened in Vanni. There are millions of Tamils around the globe who still revere the LTTE, and need to know the truth. If the Sinhala army did not commit any crimes against Tamils and only the LTTE killed them, this is a good chance for Sinhalese to show the innocent face of the Sinhala army and draw the Tamils to their side. That’s why I wanted to know if OTC is willing to join the other humanitarians and human right activists in asking for an independent International Investigation to clear the tarnished image of mother Lanka.

      • Anpu

        Correct name of MSF staff is Annemarie Loof (not Anna Marie Loos)

      • Anpu

        Transcript of what OTC and Thivya refering ??http://www.sbs.com.au/dateline/story/transcript/id/600020/n/Hunting-the-Tigers
        According to the above link MSF staff name is ANNA MARIE LOOS.

        According to http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/news/article.cfm?id=3542&cat=field-news MSF staff name is Annemarie Loof.

      • Off the Cuff

        Dear Anpu,

        Thank you, It’s appreciated.
        Loos was the name used by Amos.
        I too came across a Ms Loof but did not make the connection between the two names.

        Thivya,

        First let me thank you for agreeing with me about Loos (Loof as Anpu says).

        You say “That’s why I wanted to know if OTC is willing to join the other humanitarians and human right activists in asking for an independent International Investigation to clear the tarnished image of mother Lanka”

        I have no problem with that and have said so for several years.
        A few things have to be set in place before that.

        This is about investigating a country, hence each country big or small should be treated equally.

        A system or Regime of investigation and the International Law that governs such an investigation and prosecution of any charges should be established first and ALL countries should submit to this Regime and Law without exception. Sri Lanka cannot be SINGLED out. You may or may not be aware that the USA does not submit even to the ICJ.

        If these conditions, which ensures Justice and Equality, are met, I have no problem with ANY investigation and rather would welcome it as it will make a better world for all of us to live in.

        I think you should listen to Dr DJ’s speech which was delivered at the UNHRC and is available on the UN website.

      • Keynes!

        Thivya,

        “The escaped Tamils say the Tamil Paramilitaries and Sinhala army heavily infiltrated the LTTE in the last days of the battle, mingled with the civilians disguised as tigers, and attacked the Tamil civilians to turn them against the LTTE. It was part of the strategy to fool the international community.”

        Can you back this up with evidence? Please give some links.

  • Ramesh

    Somhow, I get the feeling that DR. Dayan wants all Sinhala racism to be directed towards Sumanthiran??

  • //Can you back this up with evidence? Please give some links.amil word borrowed by Sanskrit. //

    There is ample evidence, links and reports from many UN, US and human rights organizations to show how effectively the Sinhala regime used Tamil paramilitaries and deep penetrating units(DPU) in the Sinhala army to infiltrate the LTTE and kill many civilians as well LTTE leaders in Tamil regions. The UN, US and the human rights organizations accused the Sinhala regime of using Tamil children in the war through Paramilitaries. You can easily google it and find them.

    The talk of the Tamil Diaspora circle is that the Sinhala armed forces and paramilitaries, disguised as civilians, infiltrated the LTTE and attacked the Tamils in Vanni during the last phase of the war. I think if there is an Independent international investigation with witness protection, many people who escaped from the Sinhala concentration camps will testify. But I have no links to show and don’t think the Tamil organizations or the human rights groups who have this information will reveal anything now and risk lives of the witnesses and their families living in Sri Lanka. However there are HRW reports showing how the Sri Lankan government used paramilitaries to terrorize the Tamils in the concentration camps during the after math of the war.

    The Jews were not able to prove the gas chambers and other atrocities when Hitler was ruling Germany. The world even joined him and participated in the Olympic Games in Berlin. The hapless, conquered Tamils know what happened to their loved ones in Vanni but cannot do anything about it and go against a powerful Sinhala regime with propagandists like Offthecuff and other diplomats.

    • Off the Cuff

      Dear Thivya,

      You wrote “but cannot do anything about it and go against a powerful Sinhala regime with propagandists like Offthecuff and other diplomats. “

      I use facts in my comments not Fairy tales.
      That’s why you find it difficult to counter them by spinning Fairy Tales.

      Propagandists use Fairy Tales
      Try being truthful for a change.