SRI LANKA & TAMIL SELF-DETERMINATION
Repost This Article
The announcement that elections to the Northern Provincial Council will be held in September 2013 has raised eyebrows in some quarters and generated criticism in certain others. As one who unfashionably – and riskily—advocated the holding of that election soon after the decisive military victory of 2009, I find myself paradoxically in agreement with the decision not to hold the election right now. This is due to the difference in the situations and prospects of 2009 and 2012. In the immediate post-war period, an election would have placed in office, a politically moderate long standing Tamil ally of the state, not merely this government; someone who has been in alliance with the administrations of three Sri Lankan presidents belonging to both major parties. This was what I termed the Chechen solution of President Putin.
Not having done so, the Sri Lankan state faces today the prospect of the election to office of a party whose moderate ideologues advocate the right of self-determination. The holding of presidential, parliamentary and municipal elections in the North does not automatically render unproblematic the holding of elections to a devolved body at the periphery, such as the provincial council. There is no country on the planet in which a transition from wartime military rule – or military control of any provenance and sort—to civilian governance does not require thinking through and careful management from the perspective of security, especially when such zones are of crucial strategic importance and the party prospectively in power has a stance which is at variance with such strategic and security imperatives.
A recent article in a respected paper in the region made the point that the military-civilian ratios in Kashmir as well as our neighbour’s north-eastern periphery are far less favourable to the military than the corresponding ratio in Sri Lanka’s North. Though there is indeed a case for a lighter military footprint, the pseudo-sophisticated argument of comparative ratios is specious, given that the balance of forces between our gargantuan neighbour and its neighbours across those troubled frontiers is overwhelmingly in favour of our neighbour, while that is manifestly not the case with the Sri Lankan military and its neighbourhood.
The two interlinked postulates of Tamil nationalism are those of ‘Tamil nation’ and ‘self determination’. These are not fiendish concepts; they are, however, dangerously wrong. In 1979, as a dogmatic Leninist aged 22, I adhered to these concepts myself, but that was before thirty years of carnage and human suffering in Sri Lanka had exposed these concepts for the destructive notions they were and had disproved them as hypotheses in the most decisive manner possible. Meanwhile the dramatic change in world history caused by the fall of global socialism had altered the meaning, relevance and relative importance of independence, territorial unity and integrity, national sovereignty and self-determination.
For those on the Left or of Left persuasion, the perspective should be that of Marx and Engels rather than Lenin because the historical moment of the Leninist theory of the right of nations to self determination– that of the post WW1 crisis of imperialism and rise of socialist revolution resulting in the setting up of a system of socialist states– has receded, perhaps never to return. Marx and Engels on the other hand, never conceived of a right of nations to self determination. Instead, they staunchly opposed federalism and assessed every ethno-national cause and struggle on its own merits, from the perspective of the broader needs of the democratic and working class cause in each country as well as the balance of forces on a continental and global scale.
Left perspectives apart, the ideology of self-determination remains very much part of contemporary Tamil nationalist politics, even among its sophisticated urban moderates. Take for instance the interview given to Sulochana Ramaiah Mohan of the Sunday Lakbima, by lawyer-politician MA Sumanthiran, in which he says as follows:
“Self-determination means self-determination, nothing more or nothing less than that. I used the word to mean exactly what it means. The fact that others may have abused that word does not mean that I can’t use it to convey its correct meaning…Self-determination is a term of art (sic) in international law. The UN and the Human Rights charters are based on this foundational principle. All peoples are entitled to it, and the Tamils in Sri Lanka cannot be denied it merely because LTTE also used that claim. Oppressed Peoples are everywhere, and it will not be possible to compare and pronounce that a particular situation is better than the other…As I have indicated earlier, self-determination is the fundamental right of every people. You cannot have harmony among different peoples by denying their fundamental rights.”
(‘Sumanthiran Spinmeister of Past Times?’ interview by Sulochana Ramaiah Mohan, Sunday Lakbima, July 15, 2012)
These remarks must be read together with Mr. Sumanthiran’s earlier, un-contradicted statements on the subject such as the one made less than six months ago. I note that he has not contradicted, for these several months, his February interview in which he 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, Feb 5th 2012)
An excerpt from a transcript of video of Mr. Sumanthiran’s fairly recent speech in Matara quotes him 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.”
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLBOaBDxQrw&feature=player_embedded)
If as Mr. Sumanthiran says, 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 he 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? His phraseology does not unconditionally exclude secession and unequivocally commit to a single united and indivisible Sri Lanka. If he is speaking of a (so-called) right of internal self-determination, what is the firewall between that and external self-determination?
The ‘two nation theory’ adhered to by the Indian Communists in the post-war period, was decisively abandoned after the schism accompanied by the ghastly butchery of the Partition. If the notion of Tamil self determination should be entertained anywhere it is by the Indian state and Constitution because of the existence of Tamil Nadu with 70-80 million Tamils who constitute a collective a far older presence there than on this island. However, the concept is not entertained by India and correctly so. Rejected in India for any part of India, it certainly has no place in Sri Lanka, which has infinitely less geostrategic space.
Sri Lanka’s Tamils, as a national minority, or at most, a minority nationality – not a nation– must not be subject to any discrimination or injustice. Self-determination, however, is a right enjoyed and exercised by the multiethnic Sri Lankan people/nation (or ‘people-nation’ as Gramsci puts it) while sovereignty is the right of the Sri Lankan nation, state and multiethnic citizenry, not a particularistic fraction or parochial segment of any of these.
Can anybody justify “self-determination” from fundamentals, without quoting persons or institutions?
If those persons and institutions available in the discussion we can ask the question from them why and how they justify the concept. As that facility is not available I think the proponents themselves should provides facts, evidence and arguments to justify the proposal, not leaving those institutions or persons to justify the claim/proposal.
Can anybody justify “self-determination” from fundamentals giving facts evidence and arguments in favour of it, in Sri Lankan scenario ?
Thanks!
I am in pursuit of justifying “self-determination”. But, can you define “fundamentals” for “self-determination” without quoting persons or institutions?
If you cannot, it is not justifiable at the fundamental level or at a deeper level.
Superficial truths are not always true.
Thanks!
Yes I can only justify “self-determination” or whatever, “relatively”. There is no “absolute” definition for anything in this world.
Absolutely! I don’t advise you to do impossibles. However, mind your (relative) standards.
Thanks!
Dayan: Would you please enunciate the parameters of “self determination”? If we all know the boundaries of these legally and specifically will it not help dispel fears in the Sinhala south? or will it lead to situations such as in India in recent times when the States overstepped their boundaries and policing powers?
A simple list of YESs and Nos will be do to help understand the delisted powers from the centre to the states and help dispel our suspicions of Tamil racism raising it’s ugly head again.
Thanks.
Do non-lawyers – diplomats for instance – not read the Quebec judgment? Do they not read what Judge Cancado Trindade has to say in the ICJ’s Kosovo opinion? Sheesh.
I don’t think Judge Cancado Trindade is the “Hindu Trinity” that create, maintain and destroy, and responsible decide everything in the universe.
Thanks!
He makes international law in terms of the section 38 of the ICJ Statute, and you don’t. Since the article was regarding Mr. Sumanthiran’s reference to a term of art in international law, I’d think Cancado Trindade gets the nod over Ambassador Jayatilleke’s and your poorly researched, antiquated positions. And no, Karl Marx doesn’t continue to make international law. Sorry.
To get a sense of what real international law scholars are saying about self determination in authoritative judgments of the preeminent international court in the world, see para 184 of Judge Cancado Trindade’s Separate Opinion in the Kosovo Advisory Opinion Case – International Court of Justice 2010
“Recent developments in contemporary international law were to
disclose the dimensions both external and internal of the right of
self-determination of peoples: the former meant the right of every
people to be free from any form of foreign domination, and the latter
referred to the right of every people to choose their destiny in
accordance with their own will, if necessary – in case of systematic
oppression and subjugation – against their own government. This
distinction [fn196] challenges the purely inter-State paradigm of classic
international law. In the current evolution of international law,
international practice (of States and of international organizations)
provides support for the exercise of self-determination by peoples197
under permanent adversity or systematic repression, beyond the
traditional confines of the historical process of decolonization.
Contemporary international law is no longer insensitive to patterns of
systematic oppression and subjugation.”
fn196: Endorsed in expert writing; cf., e.g., A. Cassese,
Self-Determination of Peoples – A Legal Reappraisal, Cambridge,
University Press, 1995, pp. 1-365; P. Thornberry, “The Principle of
Self-Determination”, in The United Nations and the Principles of
International Law…, op. cit. supra n. (192), pp. 175-203; Ch.
Tomuschat, “Self-Determination in a Post-Colonial World”, in Modern
Law of Self-Determination (ed. Ch. Tomuschat), Dordrecht, Nijhoff,
1993, pp. 1-20; A. Rosas, “Internal Self-Determination”, in ibid., pp.
225-251; J. Salmon, “Internal Aspects of the Right to
Self-Determination: Towards a Democratic Legitimacy Principle?”, in
ibid., pp. 253-282.
Mr Anketell, will almost 50% of the Tamil population live outside the North and East if there is “systematic oppression and subjugation”; “permanent adversity or systematic repression”?
In which part of the country do you live? Where did you have your education? Do you not have extended family members living in any of the other provinces?
Good question.
The intellectual quest here is to determine whether the right to self-determination is recognised only in cases of foreign colonial occupation – as Dayan suggests – or whether it extends to people groups within the post-colonial state. The next logical step is to determine if the Tamils are a ‘people’ as defined by international law. My upbringing, education, residence and other questions are utterly irrelevant to these questions. You two have a choice – engage the issue, or let others do the talking and learn. Not every irritant to your mental comfort is relevant to this debate.
You say “You two have a choice – engage the issue, or let others do the talking and learn. Not every irritant to your mental comfort is relevant to this debate”
Take a good look at what you posted.
“…….to the right of every people to choose their destiny in accordance with their own will, if necessary – in case of systematic oppression and subjugation – against their own government….”
The “intellectual” question was engaged and you are avoiding it.
Hence you need to take a hard look at what you write and take your own advice. If you do not know the answers leave the questioning to those who know and learn.
I am not quite sure what aspect of that somewhat dismissive rejoinder to Dayan’s article causes irritation to anyone’s mental comfort.
I believe Dayan’s academic, political and professional credentials are fairly well established internationally.
Certainly it is disturbing to see the possibility of Tamil people being led along a path to further misery with contentous theories. The LTTE misled them by inflated claims of military superiority. The rather disparaging response to Dr. Jayatilleke’s article suggests that now there is an inflated idea of intellectual superiority.
On the other hand, it is certainly not lost on anybody that the references to Kosovo (and ICJ)are a source of encouragement to separatist elements within the diaspora to maintain their support for this cause.
You would have a problem in establishing the borders within which this right to self determination is to be exercised, given that about a million Tamils of Indian origin (about 90% of them) live in the central hills and the very high proportion of Lanka Tamils dispersed throughout the Island.
Could you define any such well defined border that belongs to these distinct people?
A defined territorial border is not a sine qua non for the exercise of self-determination. You need to read.
You say “A defined territorial border is not a sine qua non for the exercise of self-determination. You need to read.”
Would you care to educate the illiterates on how you propose to proceed after the results of that borderless self determination?
Reading is insufficient, you need to understand what is read.
Lte us say that DJ’s arguments are sound but let us examine his concluding statement:
“Sri Lanka’s Tamils, as a national minority, or at most, a minority na
tionality – not a nation– must not be subject to any discrimination or injustice”.
How does he propose doing this?Or does he claim that no discrimination or injustice has been done to them? Or is being done to them as he writes?Or that the continuing injuctice is being defended by various benighted bigots among the Lankan cognoscenti — some of whom are accomodated in the governing pary’s cabinet itself?
Doesn’t he realize, a clever dialectican that he is and a careful student of Marx and Gramsci, that the cry fo separatism and self determination is a REACTION and RESPONSE, not only tha acts of sysatematic discrimination and marginalzation of the Tamils but the villificatioin, scapegoating and specious reconstruction of the history and society of the Tamils by the pseudo-intelligientsia and the verbal thugs in the newspapers, magazines and blogs?Indeed some newspapers seem to have an resident racist on their staff!
Over to you Mr.Yapa too!Can you justify the systematic victimisation and the cultural annihilation of the Tamils from “fundamentals, arguments facts” etc to quote your words?
Dear The Owl of Minerva;
“Over to you Mr.Yapa too!Can you justify the systematic victimisation and the cultural annihilation of the Tamils from “fundamentals, arguments facts” etc to quote your words?”
There is no “systematic victimisation and the cultural annihilation” as such claimed by Tamil politicians or Tamil historians. It is a break down of their aspirations for “privileges” over other communities in this country.
There main demand (separation/self-determination)is assure them four times per capita land ownership over the other communities, and not of any “under-privileges” they undergo in this country.
During the colonial period Tamils were privileged over the other communities under the patronage of colonialists. Anybody can see this status looking at the percentage of government employments they secured, the percentage of university admission, education facilities in their respective area etc. etc.
When the colonials lost their power, naturally Tamils started to loose their privileged grounds which were held under the “power of the rulers”. What Tamils interpret as grievances is this loss of privileges, not any less rights given to them.
However, we accept due to the prolonged war waged by Tamils to hold their privileges made them miserable. However, it is not something intentionally done by Sinhalese or any other community, it is a natural outcome of their unfair state of mind they had to assure a privileged position in society over the other communities, against the local realities.
Thanks!
Democracy is what is required not self determination. The right of all people to live in peace and harmony free of discrimination enjoying equal opportunity, religous, cultural, social and economic rights.
Tamil leaders should make themselves clear on this subject instead of indulging in rhetoric. The future of the country and their people is at stake.
The right of nations to self-determination (from German: Selbstbestimmungsrecht der Völker), or in short form, self-determination is the principle in international law that nations have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no external compulsion or interference. The principle does not state how the decision is to be made, or what the outcome should be, whether it be independence, federation, protection, some form of autonomy or even full assimilation.[1] Neither does it state what the delimitation between nations should be — or even what constitutes a nation. In fact, there are conflicting definitions and legal criteria for determining which groups may legitimately claim the right to self-determination.[2]
By extension the term self-determination has come to mean the free choice of one’s own acts without external compulsion.[3][4]
Ref: wikipedia
When using vague and ambiguous terms in practice it makes chaos. Self-determination is one of the most vague and ambiguous terms being used these days. Before make using something for subtle and very critical issue, we must clear about the the thing we are going to use. Are we clear about the definition of this term? Does the term give a distinct idea to transform it into realities? Is there only one definition of r the term or otherwise are we clear about the meaning which we are going to make use of it to address the issues at our hand?
I think in Sri Lankan context self-determination has worked and working in synonymous with “separation”, while signalling to the outer world a softer and a innocent meaning.
Thanks!
The claim for self-determination does not superposition with or even closely related to the cases where the international law on self determination was originated. Those laws are case based ones, not universal principles.
Especially sociological principles have no such universality. They depend on humans, differences in them, differences in their cultures, environments etc. etc.., Generalization of social science theories to the whole universe is a foolish idea. They should be applied in accordance with the contexts and backgrounds to the ground realities. You cannot find “kokatath thailayas” among sociological theories.
Thanks!
Dayan,
I’m just wondering, why don’t we hold the election in 2013, and just rig the election so that some puppets of ours end up winning?
You supported holding an election in 2009 because that would’ve installed a puppet of ours. You now want to change when the election is held because 2013 won’t let us install a puppet. Changing when the election is held is also a form of rigging. If you are ready to rig the election, why don’t we do it in the traditional way? Let’s hold the election in 2013 and rig it.
Or do you think your form of rigging is less obvious than traditional forms of rigging so that no one would notice? Or do you think even if people do notice, your form of rigging is more defensible than traditional forms of rigging?
I wonder, since you thought Mahinda and Sandanaya were preferrable to Ranil and UNP in terms of security, territorial integrity etc. did you also endorse rigging those elections too? Were you of the opinion that those were necessary evils for the greater good?
As a consequentialist, I think ends do justify the means. But we as humans do our calculations on corrupted hardware, unlike an artificial super-intelligence. So I wonder whether it wouldn’t be advisible for humans to adhere to arbitrary, irrational rules like “thou shalt not screw up democracy even when you have a good reason to screw it”. Since we are running on corrupted hardware, even though it seems we have good reasons, maybe in reality there are better reasons not to do whatever we want to do.
I referred in my earlier message to the specious “history” that is used to justify the victimisation of the Tamils sinve 1956Here is a goood example of this
Mr.Yapa says:
During the colonial period Tamils were privileged over the other communities under the patronage of colonialists. Anybody can see this status looking at the percentage of government employments they secured, the percentage of university admission, education facilities in their respective area etc. etc.
It is no doubt true that all through the early twentieth century the Jaffna Tamils(Not Tamils) were over-represented in the public services and the professions but this was NOT due to the patronage by the British but due to the “accident” of Christian missionaries,particularly the American one, establishing English schools practically every nook and cranny of the peninsula.These educatioinal opporunities enabled the people of Jsaffna(not for example the people of Trincomalee or Batticaloa)to enter the public services and the professions.
Mr.Yapa would do well to study the educational history of the island. He could begin by studying the documents in the department of education and just COUNT the nimber of English schools — both secondary and collegeiate — in the peninsula and compare it to the rest of the island.
If he doesthat he may be provoked to avoid presenting such canards that poison the political life of the country.Even if it is to be used as justification to victimise a NEW generation of Tamils, it is out of date.Thanks to the enlightened policies of variuos governments, schools have been established all over the island and the inequality of educational opportunity has been redressed.
The owl of Minerva,
Yapa is mostly a parrot who repeats everything Prof. Nalin de Silva says, including calling everyone who disagrees with him parrots. However this story is something most middle-class Sinhalese people believe. If this belief is untrue, I think Tamils should actively make that fact known, with statistics.
According to K M de Silva:
“Sri Lanka Tamils who constitute no more than an eighth of the island’s total population (12.5%), had a dominant position in the science-based faculties of the then University of Ceylon at Peradeniya and Colombo. In 1970, for instance, the Tamils gained just over 35 percent of the admissions to the science-based faculties; in Engineering and Medicine it was as high as 40%. The Tamils’ share of places in the engineering and medical faculties has varied from 35% to 25% since 1978-79, to very recent times when it has fallen to around 15%.”
Dear Navin,
Could you please give the reference of KMD Silva’s works from which you extracted the information?
Off the Cuff,
The above was taken from an online source which can be googled easily. A more authoritative source is the following (see pp. 249)
K M de Silva, Affirmative Action Policies: The Sri Lankan Experience.
http://www.ices.lk/publications/esr/articles_jul97/Esr-kmdesilva.PDF
Thank you Navin
Dear The Owl of Minerva
“It is no doubt true that all through the early twentieth century the Jaffna Tamils(Not Tamils) were over-represented in the public services and the professions but this was NOT due to the patronage by the British but due to the “accident” of Christian missionaries,particularly the American one, establishing English schools practically every nook and cranny of the peninsula.These educatioinal opporunities enabled the people of Jsaffna(not for example the people of Trincomalee or Batticaloa)to enter the public services and the professions.”
Well done!
Dear The Owl of Minerva;
What ever the reasons are, you too believe that Tamils were privileged over the other communities under the colonialists.
It is the truth.
Thanks!
Dear Owl of Minerva,
You are right about the schools but that does not completely negate Yapa’s contention. Educating the Tamils from scratch took time. A professional level education takes at least 10 years general schooling, Two years pre university and three years of Uni. Fifteen years in all. Thus it took time for the Jaffna Tamils to move in to the Govt Bureaucracy.
Initially the Brits administrated Lanka from Madras. They did away with Native officials of the Dutch administration, especially the Head men who formed an integral part of that administration. They brought in South Indian officials from the indigenous section of the Civil establishment of Fort St George. They also introduced Aumildars (highest rank) and subordinate officers from South India. This caused resentment and eventually provoked undisguised opposition (History of Sri Lanka by KMD Silva p211).
Lanka was therefore turned from a combined Dutch–Native administration to a British-Indian Tamil administration.
Robert Andrews was one of the Senior officials in that administration. The Native Headmen were antagonised by the withdrawal of Accomodesan, abolition of Rajakariya, Uliyam and capitation taxes and the imposition of new taxes on personal ornaments, coconut trees and taxes on other trees. Land taxes were increased. The undercurrent of resentment resulted in a rebellion in December 1796 it remained alive throughout 1797 and subsided only in 1798 when the Madras government undertook to revoke Andrew’s Taxes and to restore the old tax system.
In the absence of Native officials within the Administrative Bureaucracy, these suppressive and unpopular taxes had to be enforced by the Indian Tamil Officials. This caused antagonism and hate towards the Tamil Indians to take seed. It did not help the already created antagonism when the majority found the Indian Tamils replaced by the local Tamils and a minority controlling their affairs.
Dear OTC
“In the absence of Native officials within the Administrative Bureaucracy, these suppressive and unpopular taxes had to be enforced by the Indian Tamil Officials. This caused antagonism and hate towards the Tamil Indians to take seed. It did not help the already created antagonism when the majority found the Indian Tamils replaced by the local Tamils and a minority controlling their affairs.”
So between 1798 and 1948, when exactly did the local Tamils begin “controlling their (Sinhala) affairs?”
Dear Wijayapala,
The answer is in my post that you responded to.
“It did not help the already created antagonism when the majority found the Indian Tamils replaced by the local Tamils and a minority controlling their affairs“
Control of Lanka by Indian Tamils occurred almost overnight. The transition from Indian Tamil to Lankan Tamil would have taken several decades but happened gradually over a period of time.
OFF THE CUFF:
I don’t understand what your observations have to do with what I said or for that matter Yapa said. I suppose that it is the nature of these blogs: the relevant points get lost with every contributor using it to air their pet peeves vent their frustrations and show of their information and display their psychotic ideations!
The only relevant point here is that due the ample opportunities avaialable in Jaffna a large number its people were able to enter government service and the professions in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century.There was no British patronage involved and further this is no reason to punish the later generations by restricting their rights — unless of course one wants to claim some sort of retribution for ancestral guilt!
My main point — in response to DJ’s essay– was that the nature of Tamil politics is determined by what the government practises and what the Sinhala cognoscenti WRITES– for example Yapa’s comments,mild though they are compared to the rabid racism one finds in other places, some of them comparable to what the Nazi commentators used to say about the Jews!
Dear TOOM
Ok I will try to make you understand.
You wrote “the cry fo separatism and self determination is a REACTION and RESPONSE, not only tha acts of sysatematic discrimination and marginalzation of the Tamils but the villificatioin, scapegoating and specious reconstruction of the history and society of the Tamils by the pseudo-intelligientsia and the verbal thugs in the newspapers, magazines and blogs?Indeed some newspapers seem to have an resident racist on their staff!” Yours of July 21, 2012 • 11:57 pm
You should look for the reaction and response at a much earlier time. This is what I pointed out.
The reaction and response follows the Indian Tamil subjugation of the Lankan population that had the following distribution, Sinhalese 76.4%, Tamils,14.3%, Moor 7.7% (based on 1881 census). And that reaction against Indian Tamil subjugation of Lankan polity caused a Civil War that lasted for over a year.
This Indian Tamil subjugation happened courtesy the British.
Yapa said “During the colonial period Tamils were privileged over the other communities under the patronage of colonialists. Anybody can see this status looking at the percentage of government employments they secured, the percentage of university admission, education facilities in their respective area etc. etc.”
For what ever reason you started a new thread to reply Yapa and stated that “It is no doubt true that all through the early twentieth century the Jaffna Tamils(Not Tamils) were over-represented in the public services and the professions but this was NOT due to the patronage by the British but due to the “accident” of Christian missionaries,particularly the American one”
I did agree with you regarding the missionary schools but that is only a part of the picture.
Though you have accepted what Yapa said about over representation in govt you have given an explanation based on a period that came LONG after the undercurrents against Tamil domination was amply demonstrated by a year long war.
Hence you were overlooking the British Patronage that came much before the Tamil Elites of Jaffna came in to the scene. The patronage that the Indian Tamils received within the administration that disempowered the NATIVE administrators, who up to that point of time, were in charge. In doing so you were taking a narrow view of the scene.
Without a doubt the Indian Tamils were an overbearing lot that kept the Lankan Polity subjugated for several decades. The resentment so generated would be directed at Tamils as a whole.
That the Tamil Elites of Jaffna were an overbearing lot is exemplified by the way they treated the Tamil peasantry that lived in Jaffna such as the Batu Tamils. How they treated the others when backed by govt power does not need much elaboration to be understood either.
You say “I suppose that it is the nature of these blogs: the relevant points get lost with every contributor using it to air their pet peeves vent their frustrations and show of their information and display their psychotic ideations!”
Apparently you are not writing with an open mind. You want to push through what you think is right without giving ear to the counter arguments. It would be wiser to counter what is written lest the barbs boomarang.
You say “The only relevant point here is that due the ample opportunities avaialable in Jaffna a large number its people were able to enter government service and the professions in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century.There was no British patronage involved and further this is no reason to punish the later generations by restricting their rights — unless of course one wants to claim some sort of retribution for ancestral guilt!”
As you can see there are other points that you overlooked which are more relevant.
Remember that the Administrations did not have majority representation for a better part of a century and hence there was no one to present the majority views and their problems to that Administration.
You say “My main point — in response to DJ’s essay– was that the nature of Tamil politics is determined by what the government practises and what the Sinhala cognoscenti WRITES– for example Yapa’s comments,mild though they are compared to the rabid racism one finds in other places, some of them comparable to what the Nazi commentators used to say about the Jews!”
Why do you think that the same does not apply to Sinhala politics?
There is no shortage of rabid Tamil separatists writing to GV and other blogs that ooze racism.
The problem is that there is no collective agreement on how to share the Natural Resources of Lanka. I believe that every citizen is entitled to benefit from an equal per capita share of such resources. Tamil Separatism thinks otherwise. They want over 50% of the Public Resources of the country for their exclusive use even to the exclusion of other Tamils.
Study the 13A you will see why I say that.
Dear TOOM,
Correction
Please delete …… “even to the exclusion of other Tamils. Study the 13A you will see why I say that.”
The error is regretted
Dear OTC
“ The transition from Indian Tamil to Lankan Tamil would have taken several decades but happened gradually over a period of time.”
So in other words, you don’t know exactly when the “Lankan Tamil” became the ruler of the island?
Could you kindly point to a single point of rebellion by the poor oppressed (I’m trying to keep alive our sense of victimisation) native Sinhalese against these “Lankan Tamil” oppressors during the colonial era?
Dear Wijayapala,
You say So in other words, you don’t know exactly when the “Lankan Tamil” became the ruler of the island?”
Did I write this? Could you copy and paste from the 11 posts that I have written on this page to confirm what you say.
We will continue the discussion after you prove your statement.
The Owl of Minerva
I don’t see the founding of a greater number of Christian missionary schools in Jaffna as an accident! It agreed with policy of the Brits to give more opportunities to the Tamils in order to marginalize the Sinhalese. It is possible that the colonial rulers carried out their agenda through the Christian missionaries!
Dear OTC
“You say So in other words, you don’t know exactly when the “Lankan Tamil” became the ruler of the island?”
Did I write this?”
You did not acknowledge that you don’t know exactly when the “Lankan Tamil” became the ruler of the island. You simply did not provide a year or even a span of years to show when this alleged phenomenon took place. That had reinforced my belief that your notion that Sri Lanka had become a Tamil colony (as opposed to a British colony, which is what mainstream historians tell us) is a figment of your imagination.
“And that reaction against Indian Tamil subjugation of Lankan polity caused a Civil War that lasted for over a year.”
Kindly educate us as to which “Civil War” you are referring to. And again, it would very much help if you could avoid vague statements and provide the year(s) in which it took place. Thank you.
Dear sabbe laban
“It agreed with policy of the Brits to give more opportunities to the Tamils in order to marginalize the Sinhalese.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the Jaffna Tamils only received more opportunities under the British after the effects of the American Jesuit education program took place. If the British really had a conspiracy to make the Tamils smarter than us, they simply could have built many schools in Jaffna and none in the South, with no need to bring in the American Jesuits.
My guess (and I realize I am not being factual here) is that the British allowed the Americans to set up shop in Jaffna because it was sufficiently far from everything else that whatever the Americans did would not threaten British rule. It was only later that the educated Jaffna Tamils derived the benefit of the American education system.
As historian Nira Wickramasinghe has pointed out, the theory that the British had a well-calculated divide-and-rule strategy does not hold when you look at their policies in the early 20th century such as universal suffrage, which empowered the Sinhalese, all the way up to the Soulbury Constitution which rejected virtually everything that GG Ponnambalam sought for the Tamils.
Dear Wijayapala,
All you had to do, to confirm what you stated on July 23, 2012 • 4:17 pm, about what I wrote, was to “copy and paste” from my comments in this web page. What was the need of this long explanation?
Apparently you are unable to use my posts on this page, to justify the words that you introduced, for what ever purpose that you had in mind.
Please take more care in the future, not to ADD your own words to modify another person’s comments to suit your line of argument. I have, in the past, brought this tendency of yours to your notice, which ultimately results in you arguing with yourself.
You say “You did not acknowledge that you don’t know exactly when the “Lankan Tamil” became the ruler of the island.”
How can I acknowledge something that I did not write?
You say “You simply did not provide a year or even a span of years to show when this alleged phenomenon took place.”
What phenomenon is that? Please be more specific.
You say “That had reinforced my belief that your notion that Sri Lanka had become a Tamil colony (as opposed to a British colony, which is what mainstream historians tell us) is a figment of your imagination.“
There you go again, superposing and misrepresenting your own thoughts, as those of mine.
You say “Kindly educate us as to which “Civil War” you are referring to.”
Of course, I will oblige with that request, though I posted it before in my very first comment to TOOM on July 22, 2012 • 9:57 pm. Perhaps that escaped your attention.
Initially the Brits administrated Lanka from Madras. They did away with Native officials of the Dutch administration, especially the Head men who formed an integral part of that administration. They brought in South Indian officials from the indigenous section of the Civil establishment of Fort St George. They also introduced Aumildars (highest rank) and subordinate officers from South India. This caused resentment and eventually provoked undisguised opposition
Robert Andrews was one of the Senior officials in that administration. The Native Headmen were antagonised by the withdrawal of Accomodesan, abolition of Rajakariya, Uliyam and capitation taxes and the imposition of new taxes on personal ornaments, coconut trees and taxes on other trees. Land taxes were increased. The undercurrent of resentment resulted in a rebellion in December 1796 it remained alive throughout 1797 and subsided only in 1798 when the Madras government undertook to revoke Andrew’s Taxes and to restore the old tax system.
The above is not a complete extract but a summary of what is written in KMD Silva’s book “History of Sri Lanka” p211 – 213. Please refer the book for the full text.
You write “And again, it would very much help if you could avoid vague statements and provide the year(s) in which it took place. Thank you.“
Perhaps you should pay more attention to the full comment, rather than trying to bite off pieces of it, that takes your fancy.
Generally, KMD Silva is considered a main stream Historian. I hope he meets the high standards, by which you judge, a mainstream Historian.
Best Regards,
OTC
Dear Wijayapala,
Your post to Saban of July 24, 2012 • 8:29 am
You say “If the British really had a conspiracy to make the Tamils smarter than us, they simply could have built many schools in Jaffna and none in the South, with no need to bring in the American Jesuits.”
Denial of the British Colonial Govts desire to proselytise the Lankan population is to have an Ostrich like attitude in the face of evidence that confirms the existence of such a desire even in the enlightened 21st Century UK.
The BHA’s chief executive, Andrew Copson, said: “If the church and the government have their way and their ambitions are realised, the church will become the single largest provider of schools, totally funded by the state. That risks a majority of schools being allowed to discriminate religiously in employment, discriminate religiously in admissions, and teach curricula skewed towards Christianity across the board.
“This is a potentially massive takeover. It is unsurprising that a ‘national’ church to which 80% of the population do not actually see themselves as belonging and whose services are attended on a monthly basis by under 5% of the population should see its only hope for future survival as a state-funded service provider.
The Guardian UK, Thursday 5 January 2012
British Humanist Association is BHA)
Even today in UK, it is a legal requirement in all state schools for pupils to take part in a daily act of worship of a broadly Christian nature.
A limited number of 26 Church of England archbishops and bishops sit in the House. (My note ; this is automatic and reserved for the church) When they retire as bishops their membership of the House ceases and is passed on to the next most senior bishop. The Archbishop of Canterbury is usually given A life peerage on retirement. (www.parliament.uk)
This is the situation in an enlightened 21 st century Britain.
Does it leave any room to speculate on what happened during the British Colonial, State sponsored evangelism in the early 1800s ?
Please note:-
The “House” referred to in my post of July 24, 2012 • 11:39 am
is the House of Lords, UK
The omission is regretted
Dear OTC
“You say “You simply did not provide a year or even a span of years to show when this alleged phenomenon took place.”
What phenomenon is that? Please be more specific.”
The phenomenon of Jaffna Tamils controlling Sri Lanka, which incidentally is mentioned nowhere at all in Prof. K.M. de Silva’s book.
“You say “That had reinforced my belief that your notion that Sri Lanka had become a Tamil colony (as opposed to a British colony, which is what mainstream historians tell us) is a figment of your imagination.“
There you go again, superposing and misrepresenting your own thoughts, as those of mine.”
Then kindly clarify what you mean when you say “Control of Lanka by Indian Tamils occurred almost overnight.” If Sri Lanka was not a Tamil colony, then sorry the Tamils were NOT controlling Sri Lanka!
The uprising (NOT “Civil War”) in the late 18th century was against the South Indian style of administration. It was the British who controlled the maritime parts of Sri Lanka (not the entire island at that point of history), while the South Indians administered them on behalf of the British. The two meanings are quite different, and it is your poor exposition that confused them for the reader.
It was the BRITISH who ruled Sri Lanka, NOT the Tamils, so it is the BRITISH who were responsible for what went right and wrong during that time, again NOT the Tamils.
“Of course, I will oblige with that request, though I posted it before in my very first comment to TOOM on July 22, 2012 • 9:57 pm. Perhaps that escaped your attention.”
Wrong. You used the term “rebellion” in that explanation which is quite a different meaning from “Civil War.” Do you know what the term “Civil War” means?
This brings us back to my earlier question that you dodged, “a single point of rebellion by the…native Sinhalese against these “Lankan Tamil” (again, your term not mine) oppressors during the colonial era?” To make it simpler for you OTC, why did the low-country people rise up almost immediately against the South Indian officials, but not at all against the Jaffna Tamils whom you claim had replaced them? I think this might explain why you don’t seem to be able to answer when did “control” (or administration, as you don’t seem to know the difference) pass into Jaffna Tamil hands. My answer is that it never passed into their hands.
“Generally, KMD Silva is considered a main stream Historian. I hope he meets the high standards, by which you judge, a mainstream Historian.”
For the colonial period he’ll do. To remind you again, nowhere has even he claimed that Sri Lanka was “controlled” (your word) by Tamils. Nor does he claim that “control” (or administration) passed from the South Indians to the Jaffna Tamils. He does not state anywhere that the Jaffna Tamils were the administrators of British Ceylon. Therefore, your scapegoating the Jaffna Tamils for what occurred in the colonial era remains baseless, as it always has been.
Dear Wijayapala,
You say “The phenomenon of Jaffna Tamils controlling Sri Lanka, which incidentally is mentioned nowhere at all in Prof. K.M. de Silva’s book”
Ruling and Controlling are two different things.
You were writing about Ruling.
The Dog barks and Bites and can control unauthorised entry but only it’s Master RULES.
So please dont superpose words of your own, to that of the commentator.
You say “Then kindly clarify what you mean when you say “Control of Lanka by Indian Tamils occurred almost overnight.” If Sri Lanka was not a Tamil colony, then sorry the Tamils were NOT controlling Sri Lanka!”
You need to have more care in interpreting words.
If I own property I can deploy many dogs to CONTROL unauthorised entry.
But the dogs don’t RULE, it is I who RULES.
The Brits RULED and those that they employed Controlled.
When the Brit RULE commenced, the control was done by their Employees, the Indian Tamils.
Hence only a fool would say that Lanka was a Tamil Colony just because the rulers employed Tamils to control what they ruled.
You say “The uprising (NOT “Civil War”) … “
Definition of UPRISING : an act or instance of rising up; especially : a usually localized act of popular violence in defiance usually of an established government. Synonyms: insurgence, insurgency, insurrection, mutiny, outbreak, revolt, revolution, rising, rebellion (Mariam Webster)
James Fearon, a scholar of civil wars at Stanford University, defines a civil war as “a violent conflict within a country fought by organized groups that aim to take power at the center or in a region, or to change government policies”. Ann Hironaka further specifies that one side of a civil war is the state. The intensity at which a civil disturbance becomes a civil war is contested by academics. Some political scientists define a civil war as having more than 1000 casualties, while others further specify that at least 100 must come from each side. The Correlates of War, a dataset widely used by scholars of conflict, classifies civil wars as having over 1000 war-related casualties per year of conflict. (wiki)
However all this hair splitting is besides the point.
The fact is, the war lasted for over an year.
It was wide spread with Raigam, Hevagam, Siyana, Salpity Korales, Jaffna, Baticoloa and Vanni involved and the Kandyans helping them.
The evidence of the magnitude of the armed conflict is seen by the fact that the Brits had to employ ALL their resources to quell it. Even then they could not succeed, until the Brits gave in to the rebels demands.
It was as formidable as the Uva Wellassa uprising.
You say “…in the late 18th century was against the South Indian style of administration. ….”
Sorry to disagree. It was the British style of administration which they practised in South India.
You say “It was the British who controlled the maritime parts of Sri Lanka (not the entire island at that point of history), …”
Yes of course, point taken. I should have qualified my use of the word Lanka. Does not change what I said about the war and the attitudes of the local population.
You say “….. while the South Indians administered them on behalf of the British. The two meanings are quite different, and it is your poor exposition that confused them for the reader”
Sorry if it confused you.
You are just playing on words
Is there any difference in the final result you arrived at with what I stated in my original post (reproduced below)?
Initially the Brits administrated Lanka from Madras. They did away with Native officials of the Dutch administration, especially the Head men who formed an integral part of that administration. They brought in South Indian officials from the indigenous section of the Civil establishment of Fort St George. They also introduced Aumildars (highest rank) and subordinate officers from South India. This caused resentment and eventually provoked undisguised opposition
With your long rigmarole contesting the use of words, you have not succeeded in changing anything that I have stated even though you have omitted salient factors that caused the revolt.
You say “It was the BRITISH who ruled Sri Lanka, NOT the Tamils, so it is the BRITISH who were responsible for what went right and wrong during that time, again NOT the Tamils.”
Responsibility can be placed at the foot of British King and Emperor at the rate you are going. That absolves everyone down the line who was involved in the oppression! Get Real Wije.
The anger was directed at the Indian Tamils who enforced the draconian laws and taxation.
You say “Wrong. You used the term “rebellion” in that explanation which is quite a different meaning from “Civil War.” Do you know what the term “Civil War” means?”
That was my first post on this subject. Before you decided to jump in trying to play on words, was it not your responsibility to read all the posts in that thread?
I have already replied your civil war question.
You say “This brings us back to my earlier question that you dodged “
I am not in the habit of dodging any relevant question and you know it.
You say ““a single point of rebellion by the…native Sinhalese against these “Lankan Tamil” (again, your term not mine) oppressors during the colonial era?” “
I cannot find the phrases “a single point of rebellion by the “, “oppressors during the colonial era” anywhere else on this web page other than in your posts addressed to me.
Are you offended by the use of the Term “Lankan Tamil” for you to dissociate yourself so pointedly from it? Lankan Tamils refer to the native Tamils of Lanka. Indian Tamil refers to those who are natives of India.
How would you differentiate between the two more elegantly?
Wijayapala, frame your question based on what I write not on what you imagine that I write.
Here is something that I wrote,
In the absence of Native officials within the Administrative Bureaucracy, these suppressive and unpopular taxes had to be enforced by the Indian Tamil Officials. This caused antagonism and hate towards the Tamil Indians to take seed.
Are you in agreement with the above which I based on KMD Silva?
You have already agreed to the following by congratulating Toom on July 22, 2012 • 6:30 pm
Quote
Dear The Owl of Minerva
“It is no doubt true that all through the early twentieth century the Jaffna Tamils(Not Tamils) were over-represented in the public services and the professions but this was NOT due to the patronage by the British but due to the “accident” of Christian missionaries,particularly the American one, establishing English schools practically every nook and cranny of the peninsula.These educatioinal opporunities enabled the people of Jsaffna(not for example the people of Trincomalee or Batticaloa)to enter the public services and the professions.”
Well done!
Unquote
You say “For the colonial period he’ll do.
Good so he has passed your quality standards.
You say “To remind you again, nowhere has even he claimed that Sri Lanka was “controlled” (your word) by Tamils. Nor does he claim that “control” (or administration) passed from the South Indians to the Jaffna Tamils. He does not state anywhere that the Jaffna Tamils were the administrators of British Ceylon.”
I have already responded to your play on words.
About the rest we shall see after you answer my question.
You say “Therefore, your scapegoating the Jaffna Tamils for what occurred in the colonial era remains baseless, as it always has been”
I am not afraid to state facts. Stating facts is not scapegoating.
BTW, what did occur during the colonial era?
My dear OTC
Your attempts to play semantics won’t change the fact that you’ve utterly failed to prove your main argument regarding the Tamils’ role during the colonial era. Elsewhere you acknowledged that English not being your first language, so you are not in a very credible position to be lecturing others about their inability to comprehend your rantings.
(Although I applaud your wikipedia research skills, “civil war” generally refers to a conflict between the inhabitants of a country, not between the inhabitants and a colonial invader like the British. The conflict between Kotte, Sitawaka, and Raigama could be considered a civil war, despite the Portuguese backing and later controlling Kotte, because the combatants were primarily inhabitants of the country. The British and their S. Indian minions, on the other hand, were not inhabitants of the country)
“In the absence of Native officials within the Administrative Bureaucracy, these suppressive and unpopular taxes had to be enforced by the Indian Tamil Officials. This caused antagonism and hate towards the Tamil Indians to take seed.
Are you in agreement with the above which I based on KMD Silva?”
Kindly show where Prof. De Silva claimed that Sinhala hostility against the “Tamil Indians” lasted beyond the 18th century as a result of the “Civil War” you earlier referred to (are you backing off from blaming the Tamils writ large?).
“I am not afraid to state facts. Stating facts is not scapegoating.”
Sorry, but you have yet to provide any FACT that the Tamils were “controlling” Sri Lanka during the British era. Your single mention of the short-lived South Indian administration does not even cover the time when the entire island was under foreign rule.
“BTW, what did occur during the colonial era?”
Before I answer your question, you’ll have to provide an answer why there were no similar uprisings against your alleged Jaffna Tamil administration/”control” after the brief episode of S. Indian administration ended. You will also have to tell us when administration of the island passed onto Jaffna Tamil hands. Wikipedia will not help you, nor will Prof. De Silva I’m afraid.
My Dear Wije,
Semantics is what you started this engagement with.
Hence your statement “Your attempts to play semantics won’t change the fact that you’ve utterly failed to prove your main argument regarding the Tamils’ role during the colonial era.”
is explained by the following Sinhala saying “Horata issella Kehelkana Weta Panna wage” (literally, the stolen goods came over the fence before the thief did ).
Whether I can prove what I say will be seen in the future, as this exchange proceeds. Don’t count your chickens before they hatch!
You say “Elsewhere you acknowledged that English not being your first language, so you are not in a very credible position to be lecturing others about their inability to comprehend your rantings. “
If proof is needed about your English skills, what you have stated above is proof enough.
Other than the Burghers not many in Lanka can claim that their first language is English. This includes you and probably about 99% or more others. I made a statement in defence of Yapa and you want to bring it over to this thread to score Brownie Points? Just shows that you did not understand what I wrote. I feel sorry for you.
You have been one of the persons that have been calling Yapa a Racist. Why have you not contested my post in that other thread? Do you think you have scored any points by bringing it over here? The ONLY thing you have proved is your Intellectual Bankruptcy Wije, nothing else.
Dr Rajasingham Narendran has commented on it and here is what he wrote.
Dear ‘Off the Cuff’,
Thanks for your profound and wise comments on Yapa and his thoughts.
BTW, we have University Don’s teaching English at University level whose First Language is not English. For that matter you will find that in a large number of Universities in the Asian region the first language of the English Teaching Staff would not be English. I wonder whether any one of our University Teachers in the English Dept has English as their First Language.
Can you see the stupidity of your statement?
You say “Although I applaud your wikipedia research skills, “civil war” generally refers to a conflict between the inhabitants of a country, not between the inhabitants and a colonial invader like the British.”
Sorry Wije, you should prove that you are a better authority than Ann Hironaka who has published works on the subject and the others I have referred you to. I did not know that you consider yourself better than James Fearon, a scholar of civil wars at Stanford University! Don’t pamper your Ego, this is not the place for it.
In my previous post I requested you to state whether or not you agree with the following
In the absence of Native officials within the Administrative Bureaucracy, these suppressive and unpopular taxes had to be enforced by the Indian Tamil Officials. This caused antagonism and hate towards the Tamil Indians to take seed. Are you in agreement with the above which I based on KMD Silva?
Why are you avoiding to answer it?
You either agree or disagree. It is a simple yes or no.
What is so difficult in accepting or rejecting it?
Are you afraid that your answer would compromise your stand?
You say “Kindly show where Prof. De Silva claimed that Sinhala hostility against the “Tamil Indians” lasted beyond the 18th century as a result of the “Civil War” you earlier referred to (are you backing off from blaming the Tamils writ large?)”
Did he state anywhere that It ended in the 18th century?
If so where? If not, justify your assumption that It ended in the 18th century.
Are you projecting your personal assumptions as Historical Fact?
You say “Sorry, but you have yet to provide any FACT that the Tamils were “controlling” Sri Lanka during the British era. Your single mention of the short-lived South Indian administration does not even cover the time when the entire island was under foreign rule”
Was it short lived?
It was an administration staffed by Tamil Indians not a South Indian Administration.
Don’t try subtle changes to the wording, I have experienced this strategy of yours in the past.
What made you believe that what they practised in the maritime areas were not extended when they took control over the whole Island? Have you got authoritative proof for this second assumption of yours? You are very free with assumptions and short on proof.
I have shown you by the dogs example the difference between Rule and Control.
What is the purpose of an administration other than control?
Everything about an Administration is about control.
You say “Before I answer your question, you’ll have to provide an answer why there were no similar uprisings against your alleged Jaffna Tamil administration/”control” after the brief episode of S. Indian administration ended. You will also have to tell us when administration of the island passed onto Jaffna Tamil hands. Wikipedia will not help you, nor will Prof. De Silva I’m afraid.”
My question that you have refused to answer was based on the following VAGUE statement that you made in your previous post. Hence you need to clarify, for me to give an answer.
Your statement.
Therefore, your scapegoating the Jaffna Tamils for what occurred in the colonial era remains baseless, as it always has been.
Please explain what you were adducing to when you said “…what occurred in the colonial era remains baseless,”
You have quietly slipped in to the above paragraph the phrase “….after the brief episode of S. Indian administration ended”
The British Administration was staffed by Indian Tamils.
How did you come to the conclusion that it was Brief?
Is that your personal opinion or Historical Fact?
If it is Historical Fact please provide references.
As I told you before dont count your chickens before they hatch.
BTW there is a post addressed to you July 24, 2012 • 11:39 am regarding the Brits attitude towards proselytising. Hope you will give your views on that issue as well.
Dear Wijayapala,
I am afraid that those who formed chauvinistic opinions against the Tamils based on the myth that the British favoured the Tamils during their rule would contest their position with vigour! There are those who are born chauvinists who would seek out materials to support their bigotry. There are those who become infected by propaganda; it is this kind that you can influence with facts. However, it will all depend on when the chicken are going to hatch!
Dear Burning Issue,
Glad to see you following the exchange between Wije, Toom, Sabbe Laban and me.
You say “I am afraid that those who formed chauvinistic opinions against the Tamils based on the myth that the British favoured the Tamils during their rule would contest their position with vigour!”
If you think it is a Myth, then as a Tamil yourself, you are duty bound to prove otherwise but please do so with facts.
You say “There are those who are born chauvinists who would seek out materials to support their bigotry.”
How can you seek out material that does not exist?
Are you referring to the exposure of Christian Bigotry that currently exist in UK?
You say “There are those who become infected by propaganda; it is this kind that you can influence with facts”
Not sure what you mean here, could you please explain?
You say “However, it will all depend on when the chicken are going to hatch!”
That depends on how warm you can keep those eggs!
Why don’t you help warm them!!!
My dear OTC,
Sorry but I won’t respond to any part of your post that fails to directly address the topic of the position of the Tamils during British rule of Sri Lanka (and not simply part of the island i.e. pre-1815). I am looking for evidence to back your claim that the Jaffna Tamils had antagonised the Sinhalese by monopolizing the administration- now, if that is not what you are claiming, then kindly state clearly and without ambiguity what you ARE claiming.
“However all this hair splitting is besides the point.”
You’re absolutely correct. I could not express any more eloquently my reaction when reading your posts.
“I am not in the habit of dodging any relevant question and you know it.”
You most certainly are in the habit of dodging questions that you are incapable of coherently answering. That has been my experience whenever I asked you to back your claims about the Jaffna Tamils “controlling” Sri Lanka during the colonial era. THAT is what I know.
“If you think it is a Myth, then as a Tamil yourself, you are duty bound to prove otherwise but please do so with facts.”
I am not a Tamil but that is not stopping me from shredding your myths. It is rather hypocritical of you to expect someone like B_I to come up with facts when you do not do so.
“Sorry Wije, you should prove that you are a better authority than Ann Hironaka who has published works on the subject and the others I have referred you to. I did not know that you consider yourself better than James Fearon, a scholar of civil wars at Stanford University!”
Sorry OTC, but citing a wikipedia quote of Hironaka and Fearon does NOT qualify you as an expert on the topic (since you haven’t read their books). You’ll have to provide an example, either from their writings or elsewhere, of a scholar describing a colonial invasion as a “Civil War.”
“ In the absence of Native officials within the Administrative Bureaucracy, these suppressive and unpopular taxes had to be enforced by the Indian Tamil Officials. This caused antagonism and hate towards the Tamil Indians to take seed. Are you in agreement with the above which I based on KMD Silva?
Why are you avoiding to answer it?
You either agree or disagree. It is a simple yes or no.
What is so difficult in accepting or rejecting it?”
The fact that I asked for evidence regarding antagonism and hate towards Indian Tamils “taking seed” should clearly show that I DISAGREED with that particular statement. NOWHERE does K.M. De Silva (or any other scholar) claim that the rebellion of the late 18th century have any impact whatsoever on communal relations in Sri Lanka. This is a classic example of you taking one thing that a scholar writes (the taxes imposed by Indian officials) and making a completely different claim based on it (that antagonism and hate “took seed” as a result).
(I am fully expecting that you will turn around and claim that your use of the term “taking seed” did not imply anything having an impact on the future of the island)
“It was wide spread with Raigam, Hevagam, Siyana, Salpity Korales, Jaffna, Baticoloa and Vanni involved and the Kandyans helping them.
The fact that Tamil areas were involved in the rebellion utterly shatters the notion that the rebellion had an ethnic angle.
“Did he state anywhere that It ended in the 18th century?
If so where? If not, justify your assumption that It ended in the 18th century.”
As De Silva explains on p. 218-9, the East India Company’s brief control over the maritime provinces ended in 1802 and Ceylon became a crown colony. Madras on the other hand remained under the EIC until the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857. The two colonies were thus administered by two separate entities and the participation of the Madras civil servants in Ceylonese administration came to an end. De Silva makes clear that Gov. North had no love at all for the S. Indian civil servants, making it further implausible that they would be used. It is for that reason that you will not find any mention of South Indians involved in the administration of Ceylon from that time forward.
(For the other readers here, I cannot emphasise enough the historical significance of Ceylon becoming a crown colony at the beginning of the 19th century while India remaining under the EIC. That event, more than anything else, explains the current vast differences between India and Sri Lanka which geographically are neighbors and have cultural similarities. Although the British regime in Ceylon was anything but altruistic, it did not feature anywhere near the corruption and outright larceny that characterised the EIC’s administration in India. The EIC’s long history in India, in contrast to its brief experience in Ceylon, made its legacy last in India long after the EIC itself dissolved. Sri Lanka has “Government Agents” while India to this day calls their counterparts “District Collectors.”)
Now that I’ve debunked your notion that “Tamil Indians” had played an important role in the history of Sri Lankan governance, the burden now falls on you to explain when exactly the Jaffna Tamils took over as you claim.
“BTW there is a post addressed to you July 24, 2012 • 11:39 am regarding the Brits attitude towards proselytising. Hope you will give your views on that issue as well.”
You’ll first have to answer the above bolded question about the role of the Jaffna Tamils.
To Wijayapala,
My Dear Wije, presumptuous of you to assume that you make the rules of engagement. You don’t. I did not challenge you, you challenged me.
I referred to a pre 1815 incident which you challenged, apparently without even reading it properly. From the word go you tried to distort what I wrote in order to move the discussion in the direction that you wanted it to go. To achieve this, you tried all sorts of dirty tricks.
First by fraudulently and deceitfully attempting to introduce your own words and phraseology as those of mine. When challenged to copy and paste from my own comments as proof, you failed miserably to do so.
Then you tried your hand at Semantics about the words Ruler, Rule, Administration, Control, Civil War etc all the while trying to misrepresent what I wrote.
Administration is all about Control. When control is unnecessary administration becomes redundant. Could you give an example of an “Administration” that is not about Control?
Wije, you stooped very low, by bringing in to this thread, what I had written in another thread, in support of Yapa, who was being unjustly labelled as a racist by those who could not break his arguments. Though you could not understand why I wrote what I wrote in that thread Dr Narendran to whom I addressed the post understood the underlying meaning and thanked me for it. Your low attack boomeranged on you and you had to suffer humiliation as a consequence. What you did by bringing in a completely irrelevant subject in to this thread, displayed your anger. That Wije is a Rant.
You say “Sorry but I won’t respond to any part of your post that fails to directly address the topic of the position of the Tamils during British rule of Sri Lanka (and not simply part of the island i.e. pre-1815).”
Too late in the day for that.
You started by questioning a Pre 1815 event.
to Toom,
You said “I would like to add however that if in the fevered imagination of Sinhala nationalists the tax revolt against the British, (which incidentally began in Jaffna) can be re-articulated as a CIVIL WAR between the the Sinhalese and the Tamils,” July 25, 2012 • 11:33 pm
You need to go back to that extensive Library of yours and look for something to justify your claim that the above started in Jaffna.
You also need to quote from my posts that this prolonged (1796/1798) “Tax Revolt” as you label it, lasting over an year, is being Re-articulated as a war between Tamils and Sinhalese (whatever term is used to describe it, be it Tax Revolt / Rebellion / Insurgency / insurrection / War / Civil War etc).
That’s a challenge Toom, hope you will take it up.
You can’t prove that your own imaginings, has any relevance to what I wrote.
Off The Cuff,
I, like Wijayapala, am very keen to hear your justification for how the Tamils persecuted the Sinhalese, ruled them, controlled them or whatever your thesis is. It would be good to hear what exactly your claim is and any supporting evidence in clear and unambiguous terms! As far as I can see, you are indeed alluding to some form of historical persecution by Tamil “elites” or whoever, in the face of which the Sinhalese had no option but to umm…. “react”? In addition, all your writings on this forum seem to be rooted in this one claim, and therefore, justifying the progression of your thought from that initial claim, to why all your energies are devoted to chastising Tamil people on this forum, is a necessary step?
Heaven forbid though, that I introduce words into your mouth and the next 10 posts are entirely on the subtle nuances of your wording!
Hi Gamarala,
How are you my friend?
You wrote “As far as I can see, ….. “
Well not far enough judging by the Myopia that prevented you from identifying the EXCLUSION, even of Tamils, who live OUTSIDE the North an East, in benefiting from Public Funded Land Development within those provinces, even after being directed to the actual clause of the 13A to the Constitution, that caused the injustice.
Is the sudden interest after slithering away and avoiding a reply to my comment is due to a perception of getting even for the loss of face in your previous engagement?
http://groundviews.org/2012/05/29/itaks-plan-of-attack-the-breakout-strategy/#comment-45430
Indeed Off the rails,
An astute observation into my character! As you have correctly judged, I have “slithered away” from your righteous and heroic anger, only to come back and strike during what is apparently your moment of weakness! Caught with your pants down shall we say!
Aah, perfidious Gamarala, filled with the rural cunning that makes him both odious and dangerous. But our hero has a trick up his sleeve! Resurrect an old thread and keep the Gamarala busy replying to inane posts, while the hero himself “slithers away”.
Clever!
I take it you have no arguments on offer then, and most of your ranting has been baseless? Why not admit as much and move onto greener pastures, such as how best to prevent the racist rewrite of history by Sinhala (and Tamil) nationalists, which I expect you will be an “ex-member” of, given your inability to come up with solid evidence of the great “Tamil elite plot” against the Sinhalese people?
Gamarala
“I, like Wijayapala, am very keen to hear your justification for how the Tamils persecuted the Sinhalese, ruled them, controlled them or whatever your thesis is.”
I had thought that OTC had spent the past 3 days perusing KM De Silva and wikipedia looking for a single fact to refute anything I had written about alleged Tamil misdeeds during the colonial era. Specifically for this thread, I showed that there is no evidence that the maladministration of the South Indians in the late 18th century had any long-term impact on communal relations in Sri Lanka. Furthermore, there is no evidence that there was a “passing of the baton” from these South Indians to the Jaffna Tamils, because those Jaffna Tamils who later were in the civil service never acted as an interested bloc the way that the South Indian *foreigners* briefly did.
Given that there was absolutely nothing in OTC’s above belated response that contained an iota of historical information, I see no further reason to respond directly to him. If in the future he brings up the fiction of Jaffna Tamil control again, I encourage you and others like Burning_Issue and The Owl of Minerva to save this link and remind him that he wasn’t able to prove his claims.
My Dear Wijayapala,
You say “I had thought that OTC had spent the past 3 days perusing KM De Silva and wikipedia looking for a single fact to refute anything I had written about alleged Tamil misdeeds during the colonial era.”
Well you thought wrong but given your ego, I wont blame you for thinking so.
You say “I am not a Tamil but that is not stopping me from shredding your myths. It is rather hypocritical of you to expect someone like B_I to come up with facts when you do not do so.”
Someone like BI?
Why what’s wrong with him?
I always thought that he was an intelligent person though he is hung up on the Sinhala Buddhists
Do you consider yourself superior to BI?
I produce facts to prove what I write.
Hence make sure to frame your question based on my comment not on what you imagine it to be. Your questions were not based on what I wrote, that’s why you could not copy and paste from my comments when you were challenged to do so. You will find below, yet another example of your imaginative questioning.
If I am wrong I readily admit it.
BI is a witness to one such case, when He and I, engaged over the Thesawalami.
You wrote “Sorry OTC, but citing a wikipedia quote of Hironaka and Fearon does NOT qualify you as an expert on the topic (since you haven’t read their books). You’ll have to provide an example, either from their writings or elsewhere, of a scholar describing a colonial invasion as a “Civil War.””
Two words from the above stand out. That is “Colonial Invasion”. Now were we discussing a colonial invasion? I was under the impression that we were discussing a Rebellion / an uprising etc that occurred in 1796/1798 but a “Colonial Invasion”? Where did that come from?
Where else but from the imaginative Phraseology of Wijeyapala.
Would you call the 3 decade war with the LTTE a Civil War?
If not why?
If so why?
There are well respected intellectuals / scholars who call it a Civil War. Are they wrong?
You see Wije, though I am not an expert on Civil Wars Ms Hironaka is. That’s why I quoted her. The Internet and search engines has empowered us and now we are able to challenge experts such as you, even though you may not like it.
As I underscored in my previous post, you do not make the rules of engagement.
If I were to challenge what you wrote then the scope of the discussion is set by your post and what you write subsequently.
As a challenger I cannot alter that scope.
It should be the same if you were to challenge me.
For a logical discussion to take place, the intellectual honesty of the participants are of paramount importance. Changing phraseology, misquoting, introducing words, writing something and refusing to elaborate when requested etc have no place in an honest discussion.
Dear GroundViews Moderator,
Please peruse the post of Gamarala at this link
http://groundviews.org/2012/07/21/sri-lanka-tamil-self-determination/#comment-47339
I responded to the above with the following post.
###
Dear OTC,
Received both original comment and your request to reconsider decision to not publish it. Firstly, we value your contribution to the forum across multiple posts and comment threads. However, we felt your last response to ‘Gamarala’ was too taunting and personal, an invitation for reciprocal personal attacks, and consequently, a rapid decline in the quality of the comments overall. We are imperfect in our moderation, but want to see, as often as possible and to the extent possible, a higher standard of debate by those who obviously can do so, if they put their mind to it.
As noted in our guidelines, “The tone we seek in our online discussions is closer to the kind of collegial exchange you’d share with someone from your workplace, group of friends or home. That means focusing on the substance of arguments as opposed to their presenters. It also means avoiding insults and other forms of ad hominem comments. We encourage you to make your case as vigorously as possible without being rude”. We urge you to comply.
Best,
GV Eds.
Dear Off The Cuff,
It appears that you are seriously upset with my response. My apologies. I should be punished for being so cheeky!
Let us dispense with the anger, love thine enemy and what not, and get back to the substance of your argument with Wijayapala, which you have thus far avoided replying to, citing technicalities. I think we can all agree that prolonged, and mostly unnecessary, nitpicking is not the way forward.
You have made an assertion upon which most of your arguments are predicated. Therefore, it would make sense to validate and submit this assertion to scrutiny, as per everyone’s desire for truth, honesty and a harmonious future for Sri Lanka. I believe examining this assertion of yours is of crucial importance, since it appears to have taken such a strong hold of mainstream consciousness (where is its other prominent champion – Yapa?), and subjecting its premises to scrutiny is long overdue. This forum owes a debt of gratitude to both you and Wijayapala for sitting on opposing sides of the divide, and taking on this task.
Should your assertion survive unscathed, it is doubtless a cue that all us sceptics should rethink our world views. Should your assertion fall in the battlefield (of ideas of course), I’m sure you will rethink your own.
In any case, we can all live happily ever after. Taking personal offence, pedantry and nitpicking should not delay this critical discussion any further, and turn this potential fairy tale into the nightmare it is now.
Peace my friend
The Friendly Neighbourhood Gamarala
Dear Gamarala and GV Ed’s,
Thank you for your sentiments.
GV Ed’s
I do understand what you said but I always try to be polite even with my use of sarcasm.
I agree with you that my rejoinder was taunting, in fact it was very taunting though it was based on absolute fact and not written in rude language.
Thank you for publishing my request to reconsider with your observations.
Gamarala,
I did not get upset at your comment but felt let down by GV, in not publishing my rejoinder, which would have given the impression that what you wrote had found it’s mark. That would have been a license to continue in like manner in the future too. I have absolutely no ill will towards anyone.
Wijayapala and I are not always on opposite sides (Religion and the Equality, Unity article found us both on the same side) and I value his knowledge of the Tamil Language and Tamil History that only a few Tamils on GV can match as Thivya found out.
A debate can move only within the scope set by the writer whose post is being challenged by the proponent. The proponent cannot alter that scope arbitrarily and expect the writer to take responsibility for it.
When my posts are challenged, I wont allow the scope to be arbitrarily changed.
Looking forward to a challenging debate.
Out of all the complains that the Sinhala Nationalists project, two stand prominent that are:
1. The Tamils prevent the Sinhala owning properties in Jaffna through the Thesawalami Law.
2. The Jaffna elite Tamils connived with English Colonial Masters and monopolised the Civil Service thus controlling the Sinhala.
Both of the above have been discredited. I should point out especially during the July 1983, it was such myths that played a huge part in whipping up frenzy that resulted in many loss of lives. It is not just a matter of one loses the debate and another winning it; it is far more profound than that. The Sinhala people must see wood from trees in the same way that the Tamils should see futility in demanding a separate state.
Dear All:
The British, like all other colonial powers of yesteryear, had this notion of their cultural superiority. This is what would have happened even if Sri Lanka managed to occupy a foreign territoy, for that matter! The colonials who viewed the natives as “savages” and “barbarians” who have not received the “word of God” and therefore lacked a “spirit”, tried to “civilize” them the way they knew! That is by making them look and behave like the master. The old day colonists achieved this goal wherever they went from Livingtons Africa to Columbus’ America! Only the degree of their of brutality differs from the Spaniards in South Amrica to the British in Sri Lanka. In the latter’s case, for the most part, the British were moderate in brutality(unless, of cause threatened with an armed struggle) and appeared to be shrewd and manipulative.
It is possible in this context, for the British to give more opportunities to the Tamils who were more willing to go along with them, rather than the Sinhalese who staged two major rebellions against them.
By this, the British wanted to show their subjects, “if you tow in the line with us, see the benifits you get!” In this way, they managed to create a class of natives who the subservient to them from their mannerism to the thinking pattern. It is obvious that this ploy worked well with them, and still it does!
There’s no point in denying these, as these things happened a long time ago. It became a struggle between the two elite classes of Tamils and the Sinhalese after the independence, for which they fought on an equal footing. It seems that the Tamil elite and the Sinhalese elite created this communal hatred in order to gain their political power, in the final analysis!
Sorry for the mistakes:
In the first para it should read as, “of course”
In the one before the last para, it should be corrected as, “who were subservient to them”
..unless of course this itself is another error!
My dear OTC
“You say “I had thought that OTC had spent the past 3 days perusing KM De Silva and wikipedia looking for a single fact to refute anything I had written about alleged Tamil misdeeds during the colonial era.”
“Well you thought wrong but given your ego, I wont blame you for thinking so.”
Given the fact that it is not simply I, but TOOM, Gamarala, and Burning_Issue as well who are waiting for your evidence about the Jaffna Tamils “controlling” Sri Lanka in the colonial era, it is abundantly clear that between the two of us, it is not MY ego that has caused you to lose the debate. NOBODY aside from yourself has any interest in the semantics of whether or not the rebellion of the late 18th century was a “Civil War.” And finally, the fact that it was you whom the GV moderator had to remind to desist from making personal attacks (instead of providing facts & evidence) confirms that you are the least qualified to be lecturing on ego.
“I produce facts to prove what I write.”
Except when you write about the Jaffna Tamils “controlling” Sri Lanka, of course.
“If I were to challenge what you wrote then the scope of the discussion is set by your post and what you write subsequently.”
Fair enough. My first post to you in this thread challenged your statement that “local Tamils” (your original term) had assumed control over “majority” (i.e. Sinhala) affairs. **Nowhere in your answer to that post did you claim that I misrepresented your statement, or that I shifted the scope of the discussion.** That is why I am asking you, AGAIN AND AGAIN, where is your evidence that the Jaffna Tamils assumed control over Sri Lanka???
The original non-answer you gave to my question was “The transition from Indian Tamil to Lankan Tamil would have taken several decades but happened gradually over a period of time.” In other words, you didn’t and still do not even know when the fictional phenomenon of the Jaffna Tamils assuming control took place! I later showed that the South Indians ceased to have a controlling role in Sri Lankan colonial administration after Ceylon became a British crown colony independent of the EIC in 1802, to which your silence has been deafening.
Now, my dear OTC, the burden falls on YOU to show at what point after 1802 did the Jaffna Tamils “control” Sri Lanka. The fact that you cannot provide an answer, but keep limping back to irrelevant wikipedia scholarship, more than demonstrates that you have no answer.
“ That is “Colonial Invasion”. Now were we discussing a colonial invasion? I was under the impression that we were discussing a Rebellion / an uprising etc that occurred in 1796/1798 but a “Colonial Invasion”? Where did that come from?”
If you do not consider the British nor their South Indian lackeys to have been “Colonial Invaders,” then your cluelessness of Sri Lankan history is truly irredeemable.
“Would you call the 3 decade war with the LTTE a Civil War?
If so why?”
Before I answer your question, I applaud your continuing efforts to dodge the original question of this thread regarding the alleged control of Jaffna Tamils over Sri Lanka. Since you are apparently totally unable to answer that question, I am not surprised at all that you want to introduce a completely new topic of events taking place decades after European colonialism disappeared in Sri Lanka.
Now, to begin this unrelated diversion of a topic, I classify the recently-ended conflict as “Civil War” because the primary combatants were inhabitants of the same country. Prabakaran and his child-soldiers were all Sri Lankan, fighting against other Sri Lankans. The American Civil War was fought between Americans in the USA. The English Civil War was fought primarily between the English in England, and the Lebanese Civil War was fought mostly between the Lebanese in Lebanon (despite involvement by Israel, Syria, and the Palestinians, the main actors were Lebanese).
I will concede that some conflicts are ambiguous. For example, the Korean War is difficult to classify because it started as a Korean vs Korean fight, but by the end the main combatants were the Americans and the Chinese Communists. Some scholars consider the 1866 Austro-Prussian War to be a sort of German civil war, despite the combatants being separate countries, because they were fighting for domination of the German Confederation. Personally I do not consider any of the JVP rebellions to be real civil wars, even though the combatants were all Sinhala Sri Lankans, because the JVP did not control territory nor fight the SLA directly in the same way that the LTTE did, but I will not oppose anyone who considers them to be civil wars.
But as I explained earlier, “The British and their S. Indian minions…were not inhabitants of the country.” What took place therefore was not a civil war, but a rebellion against a colonial invasion/occupation. If Ms. Hironaka disagrees and can provide a single example of a civil war that doesn’t meet my criterion of combat between inhabitants of the same country, then we can debate that as a separate topic.
Dear wijayapala;
“Given the fact that it is not simply I, but TOOM, Gamarala, and Burning_Issue as well who are waiting for your evidence about the Jaffna Tamils “controlling” Sri Lanka in the colonial era, it is abundantly clear that between the two of us, it is not MY ego that has caused you to lose the debate. NOBODY aside from yourself has any interest in the semantics of whether or not the rebellion of the late 18th century was a “Civil War.””
I think too you are not refrained from hiding behind semantics to compete in the discussion to “defeat” others. Do you say “no”?
Tell me do you think “control” has only one meaning and if so it is only the meaning you assigned to it and nothing else?
Thanks!
Dear Gamarala;
“(where is its other prominent champion – Yapa?),…”
I am still living happily, only thing differently happened was “I became a bit busy”. (going from home around 7.00am and coming back around 8.00pm, due to change of my work place)
No change in any thing else. They all remain the same.
Thanks!
Correction……..
“I think too you are not refrained ….”
should be
“I think you too are not refrained…..”
Thanks!
My Dear Wijayapala,
Thank you for condescending to address me directly despite your pronouncements to Gamarala (July 30, 2012 • 7:21 pm ) not to do so unless I produce more historical information. Well I have not presented any historical information in my post of July 31, 2012 • 12:42 am though you have responded.
I will address the following that further affirms your intellectual dishonesty and brazen Lies. As I said before, honesty of the participants is a sine qua non for a good debate. You are now struggling to justify your lies by spinning a bigger web of lies.
You say “NOBODY aside from yourself has any interest in the semantics of whether or not the rebellion of the late 18th century was a “Civil War.” “
I suppose it was NOBODY who wrote the following in a post time stamped at July 27, 2012 • 2:31 am
“Sorry OTC, but citing a wikipedia quote of Hironaka and Fearon does NOT qualify you as an expert on the topic (since you haven’t read their books). You’ll have to provide an example, either from their writings or elsewhere, of a scholar describing a colonial invasion as a “Civil War.”
Taking a cue from this NOBODY, Toom interjects in this post, time stamped July 24, 2012 • 7:47 am
“QUOTING WIJEYAPALA’S COMMENTS ON A POST BY OFF-THE-CUFF:
“And that reaction against Indian Tamil subjugation of Lankan polity caused a Civil War that lasted for over a year.” Kindly educate us as to which “Civil War” you are referring to.”
So we have TWO NOBODYs asking me about a Civil War and ONE NOBODY asking me to provide an example, either from their writings or elsewhere, of a scholar describing a colonial invasion as a “Civil War.”
Well now the rebellion / insurgency / civil war has also become a “Colonial Invasion”
The invasion was over and done with and British Rule established in the Island before this Rebellion / Civil War / insurgency started. The Rebellion happened against British Rule just like the Indian Rebellion / Mutiny. It cannot be called a “Colonial Invasion”. No MAINSTREAM HISTORIAN have called it that. You can call it a “Colonial INVASION” if you redefine the word “Invasion” in the English Language.
The Portuguese, the Dutch and the Brits all used Natives as soldiers in their armies. Non of those armies were homogeneously foreign. The rebellion was not between two armies but between one army and civilians.
The more you try to SPIN, the more you get trapped in your own Lies.
You say “And finally, the fact that it was you whom the GV moderator had to remind to desist from making personal attacks (instead of providing facts & evidence) confirms that you are the least qualified to be lecturing on ego.”
I think you need to reread what the GV Editors have said before you try to hide behind them.
Gamarala’s Post was a personal and an ad hominem attack on me (http://groundviews.org/2012/07/21/sri-lanka-tamil-self-determination/#comment-47339 ).
This was published.
I had a Right of Reply
The GV Ed’s say “We are imperfect in our moderation,”
I understood what they were trying to say and respected their decision.
My reply was based on a post that I had written to Gamarala which remained unanswered for nearly two months.
You come out now with a holier than thou attitude, without ever knowing what I had written to Gamarala. This is just like the time you took my statement regarding English not being our first language, in defence of Yapa, in a post addressed to Dr Narendran, in another thread and tried to use it against me in this thread. That was Foolhardy. So is you current attempt at using what GV Eds said. I am sorry to say, that these type of remarks point to intellectual bankruptcy on your part.
It’s very late and I will pause for now.
Dear Off The Cuff,
Judging by the contents of your latest post, it appears that this debate is in dire need of a “reboot”. Your post is devoted entirely to the topic of “why you cannot present your evidence due to reason X,Y,Z”, than to the actual task of presenting the evidence, which shows that the debate is at an impasse. That is rather unfortunate, since this debate would have shed a great deal of light on certain foundational claims of the Sinhala nationalist critique.
Therefore, I see three paths that can provide a quick resolution to this problem.
1. Would you like to ignore your interlocutor, Wijayapala, for the moment, and please present to us confused observers
a. What exactly your claim is with regard to Tamil control/rule/hegemony (in clear and unambiguous terms)
b. What supporting evidence you have for the above claim?
This way, Wijayapala cannot be purported to make any misrepresentation of your position. Once these claims are articulated, Wijayapala can provide his response. We can have an impartial third-party arbitrating all responses (that is, making sure that both participants stick to the topic henceforth and no claims of misrepresentation can occur). Perhaps Burning Issue or TOOM can oblige? Or if you believe that they are not impartial observers, Dr. Narendran, Dr. Jayatilleke or the GV moderators themselves can oblige? Of if all of them fail to be impartial, Mr. Yapa can oblige, although arguably, he too has a horse running in this race.
Would these conditions be sufficient for the focused continuation of this debate?
2. Yet another option, is for you to hand the baton over to Mr. Yapa, who will argue the case in a manner similar to the one described above. (That is, assuming Wijayapala and Yapa are agreeable)
3. or alternatively, this debate can be abandoned due to “technical difficulties” (i.e. inability to stick to the topic).
Please let us know which path you would like to tread.
Dear GV Readers and those who participated up to now (Gamarala / BI / Wijayapala / Toom / Sabbe Laban / Yapa )
Gamarala, I have no intention of abandoning the debate as I consider it too important to let it fritter out. It was however getting cluttered. I addressed the clutter, in the hope that it can be left out in the future.
Also please note that I stand for complete equality for Lanka’s citizenry. Digging for the truth is unpalatable at times but it must be done.
If we look at the past eight decades (which is within a generation) there will be people still amongst the living, who experienced or observed several Govt Depts having a high percentage of Tamils within them. The older folk may know that this was the case with their parents. Now I may be asked for proof, which I cannot supply, as the records of Govt, pertaining to those years, are not available on the web or accessible with ease. However those records exist, in the form of Pension Records and Employment records.
The question arises as to how these departments were staffed by the Tamils from Top to bottom figuratively speaking. Was it because the Sinhalese and the other ethnicities had an inferior education or lower intellect?
Both of these are not tenable as even in the year 1747 the Sinhalese were highly educated and were holding the Highest positions in the Civil Service and the armed forces of the Portuguese, as seen from the following.
“Let us remember all the care that the Portuguese bestowed on the education of the natives of Ceylon; the numerous schools and the grand colleges erected by the Catholic Clergy and endowed by the Portuguese Government, which raised civilisation to such a high standard that the Singhalese were considered by the Portuguese as their equals; we see them in the highest positions in the civil service and Singhalese generals commanding European troops,” (Prof Peter Courtnay – History of Ceylon p520)
It was stated before, that the American schools in the Jaffna Peninsular was an accident (please also refer to Sabbe Laban’s post of July 31, 2012 • 11:55 pm ). I believe it was no accident. It fitted perfectly within the Brits policy if Proselytisation. That’s why it was allowed. Then why Jaffna and not the South? The following may give an indication.
“Within 5 years of the arrival of the Dutch 65,000 converts had become Christian, men and women in the Kingdom of Jaffnapatnam (Prof Peter Courtnay – History of Ceylon p405)
Whilst matters were proceeding thus amongst the Hindoos of the north of the island, the progress of the Dutch ministers was not quite so rapid and remarkable in the Buddhist districts of the south and it was found expedient, if not open coercion, at least, some gentle violence to quicken their apprehensions.
With this view, proclamation was publicly made, that no native could aspire to the rank of Mudeliyer, or to be permitted to farm land or hold office under government, who had not first undergone the ceremony of baptism, become a member of the protestant church and subscribe to the doctrines of the helvetic confession of faith. (Prof Peter Courtnay – History of Ceylon p406)
Proselytisation was therefore easier in Jaffna, than in the South, where the Dutch had to use strong arm tactics and even deprive the means of a farming livelihood to the Southerners in order to Proselytise.
Education under the British was in the hands of the Missionaries but it was sustained with State Funds. The British govt therefore carried out their policy of Proselytisation through the church.
The Key to an Education and thus to govt employment was Baptism.
Education was left in the hands of the Church.
The Church was funded by the State.
Please see my post of July 24, 2012 • 11:39 am, for the state of affairs in the 21st century UK, regarding the British Govt policy towards the propagation of the Christian Faith by using schools and the Church.
So how was it that some Govt Depts had a very high preponderance of Tamils within them when the Sinhalese were able to be shoulder to shoulder with the Portuguese in a Portuguese administration?
Was it due to favouritism in recruitment, because the elite within those depts were Tamil or was it Govt Policy to have those depts staffed mainly by Tamils?
OTC
Your last post has certainly put more weight on your argument, and calls into question, the bona-fides of the British policy!
Furthermore, if that is the case, what happened after the independence can be taken as a reversal of this historical injustice, inflicted upon the Sinhalese, by the colonial rulers!
Having said that, I must also say that, the manner in which, this “correction of injustice” effected by the opportunistic Sinhalese politicians like SWRD, feeding on the Sinhala-Buddhist sentiment, amounted to an “over-correction”! Now we see where the 30+ years of mayhem came from!
Dear Sabbe laban,
Over the years many people have explained as to how and why the Tamils were disproportionately employed within the state sector during the British rule. There is no question that there was an issue with English educated people who were suitable for state employment. The Tamils took up that opportunity very well. I myself went to Jaffna St. Johns College where many Jaffna Hindus took pride in being educated. Each class would have 85% Hindus making use of the Christian college education to better themselves. There is no doubt that post independence there should have been a fair mechanism to rectify such disproportionality. But what happened was indefensible!
That said; the question that OTC needs to answer is that, the Jaffna Tamils consciously colluded with the British to control the Sinhalese. This is important, as it has been the prominent basis on which the Sinaha Buddhist chauvinism rests! Did the Tamil consciously collude with the British in order to control the state employment? Does he have proof to support that the Tamils exercised nepotism in order to exclude the Sinhala? Anyone can write with circumstantial nonsense; I can say that the Tamils language is much older than the Sinala language; the Sinhala language is much younger having been developed only after the arrival of Buddhism in Sri Lanka. Hence by definition the Tamils must have been in Sri Lanka much earlier than the Sinhala; I have no way of proving it but I can say this with other supporting aspects. This is the sort of arguments that OTC has resorted to! Wijayapala has asked straight questions and OTC cannot answer.
Dear OTC,
“Now I may be asked for proof, which I cannot supply, as the records of Govt, pertaining to those years, are not available on the web or accessible with ease.”
No need, I take your word for it. It is a well-known fact that the Jaffna Tamils (and Colombo Sinhalese) were overrepresented in the administration. But overrepresentation does not automatically equate to “control.” Despite their overrepresentation, I have never seen any evidence that the Jaffna Tamils in the administration acted communally to perpetuate their advantages (although the Tamil politicians in the early 20th century most certainly did, unsuccessfully). These Jaffna Tamils by no stretch of the imagination can be compared at all to the South Indian collectors who had provoked a popular rebellion.
“It was stated before, that the American schools in the Jaffna Peninsular was an accident (please also refer to Sabbe Laban’s post of July 31, 2012 • 11:55 pm ). I believe it was no accident. It fitted perfectly within the Brits policy if Proselytisation. That’s why it was allowed.”
Interesting but you haven’t considered a very important dimension (although I now understand why you asked me about the British policy on proselytisation, which I had dismissed as irrelevant to the topic).
There was no such thing as “the church” in Sri Lanka; the Christians were divided by sect- even among the Protestants- and they only cooperated with each other when their collective interests were threatened (namely, when C.W.W. Kannangara wanted to introduce free education). The secular British administrators did not want the Anglican Church to monopolise the Christian scene, despite their overall proselytisation policy, because they did not want such an uncontested peer competitor for control. That is why they allowed OTHER Christian missionaries in Sri Lanka such as the American Wesleyans. Simultaneously, the British wanted to keep the Americans as far away from Colombo as possible out of distrust, which is how the latter got sent to Jaffna.
The reason why the Jaffna Tamils accidentally benefited from this arrangement was because the American Wesleyans happened to be far superior educators than the Anglicans could ever hope to be. Whereas the British followed a very strict policy of separating English-medium and Sinhala vernacular schools in southern Sri Lanka, the Americans taught both English and Tamil in their schools. As The Owl of Minerva very clearly pointed out, the American Christians were also much more interested in building schools than the British Christians were. It is an ACCIDENT because the British never planned for that to happen.
As a result, the Jaffna Tamils (and not the Wanni or Eastern Tamils) had a much better chance of knowing English than any other community, and they had the added benefit of knowing their mother tongue as well. The British hired them not out of any preplanned conspiracy, but simply because the Jaffna Tamils had a higher proportion who knew English.
“Education under the British was in the hands of the Missionaries but it was sustained with State Funds. The British govt therefore carried out their policy of Proselytisation through the church.
The Key to an Education and thus to govt employment was Baptism.
Education was left in the hands of the Church.
The Church was funded by the State.”
Wrong, all wrong. 1) The Americans were NOT sustained with State Funds. They had to bring their own. 2) Unlike the Portuguese Catholics, neither the British nor the Americans forced their students to convert (although they had to study the Bible and participate in Christian rituals). That is why there were Hindus and Buddhists who were educated in Christian schools without converting, including both Arumuga Navalar and Anagarika Dharmapala.
“So how was it that some Govt Depts had a very high preponderance of Tamils within them when the Sinhalese were able to be shoulder to shoulder with the Portuguese in a Portuguese administration?”
I didn’t question using K.M. De Silva as a source of colonial history, but I’m afraid that Prof Courtnay flunks the credibility test. His notion that the Portuguese treated the Sinhalese as equals- more or less that the Portuguese had developed civilisation in Sri Lanka- is ridiculous. His use of the term “gentle violence” when describing Dutch coercion against Sinhala Buddhists was truly nauseous.
Deart Saban;
“Having said that, I must also say that, the manner in which, this “correction of injustice” effected by the opportunistic Sinhalese politicians like SWRD, feeding on the Sinhala-Buddhist sentiment, amounted to an “over-correction”! Now we see where the 30+ years of mayhem came from!”
I am sorry that I couldn’t follow the discussion properly. However, I am also sorry to see that you are “under reacting” in the discussion as a moderator or referee by just “announcing” the provisional out comes of the competition, based only on what others contribute. I think you can do more.
On the other hand I don’t think you have enough grounds to announce the above statement so lazily and clumsily without going deep into details by yourself.
I think a referee or a moderator should have a better understanding.
Thanks!
Dear Wijayapala, Saban, Burning Issue, Yapa, Gamarala, Toom,and others who are following this debate and have not contributed yet
As I stated in my previous post Digging for the truth is unpalatable at times but it must be done.
Hence I hope that emotion would be kept out and facts would be used, to make and counter, arguments.
We all agree that Tamils were disproportionate within Govt Bureaucracy.
As I pointed out before, CERTAIN govt depts had an overwhelming number of Tamils in employment. Why? Was it nepotism or Govt Policy to staff those depts with a preponderance of Tamils?
The other possibility is that the govt policy was to recruit Christians and that there were more Tamil Christians than Sinhala Christians. But this does not explain why some govt depts had a preponderance of them.
Burning Issue
You state “There is no doubt that post independence there should have been a fair mechanism to rectify such disproportionality. But what happened was indefensible!”
I am not defending what happened. Both Sinhala and Tamil should have replaced English, not just Sinhala as was done by SWRD. It was an injustice perpetrated on the Tamils though it was corrected later. But let’s not digress from the topic.
BI states “That said; the question that OTC needs to answer is that, the Jaffna Tamils consciously colluded with the British to control the Sinhalese.”
I have given the possibilities above. Let’s not come into hasty conclusions. Please provide your input with supporting evidence.
BI states “Does he have proof to support that the Tamils exercised nepotism in order to exclude the Sinhala? “
That is one question that we are trying to find an answer to. How some govt depts (not all) had a preponderance of Tamils in them from the lower ranks to the Higher ranks have not been explained. There were such depts, Postal being one, Customs another, Justice was yet another and there were a few others. The older people here on GV would remember it and govt records would confirm it.
BI states “I can say that the Tamils language is much older than the Sinala language; the Sinhala language is much younger having been developed only after the arrival of Buddhism in Sri Lanka. Hence by definition the Tamils must have been in Sri Lanka much earlier than the Sinhala; I have no way of proving it but I can say this with other supporting aspects. This is the sort of arguments that OTC has resorted to! Wijayapala has asked straight questions and OTC cannot answer.”
You are wrong about proof of my argument.
But yes, I agree that you can probably say that the Tamils were here before the Sinhalese.
But Sinhalese did not come here (Vijaya and his band were not Sinhala), they developed here, from a gene pool of the Tamils and the Indigenes of this country, who were here before the Tamils. The Sinhalese are mixed with the Indigenes of Lanka, Tamils are not. Proof is the 50+% Tamil Genes in the Sinhala Gene pool and the 75% population of the Sinhalese, contrasted with 12% Tamils.
Sinhalese have indigenous blood, the Tamils don’t
The above is to counter your argument and not to make claim to any special privileges.
Without getting emotionally upset, please present an argument based on facts. Don’t be too hasty to judge Wijayapala’s questions. Let the discussion proceed, as the question is very complex and has no yes or no answer.
Wijayapala,
You say “I’m afraid that Prof Courtnay flunks the credibility test. His notion that the Portuguese treated the Sinhalese as equals- more or less that the Portuguese had developed civilisation in Sri Lanka- is ridiculous. His use of the term “gentle violence” when describing Dutch coercion against Sinhala Buddhists was truly nauseous.”
Yes I agree it is nauseous but apparently it happened.
Prof Courtnay did not originate the term “Gentle Violence” but borrowed it from another, Sir James Emerson Tennent, the Colonial Secretary of Ceylon. (Wikipedia scholarship wije. He he).
Sir J.E. Tennent goes on to state what I have summarised below
Referring to the Dutch proclamation making baptism a requirement for farming and govt employment, he says, that many who had been already baptised by the Portuguese came forward to display their eligibility. Land owners and others who wanted to become Village Headmen or Police Vidanes did like wise. Even the Brahmins of Jaffna and Mannar who did not want to lose out, professed Christianity.
The above proves you wrong about your opinion re the nauseating Dutch proclamation.
Please provide reasons with authoritative references for your rejection of Prof Courtnay as a Historian. Your unsupported opinion alone does not suffice. This includes your unsupported opinions regarding why the Americans accidentally ended up in Jaffna when there was evidence available to the Americans that conversion was easy in Jaffna compared to the South.
You say “There was no such thing as “the church” in Sri Lanka”
I suppose you are referring to the following passage in my post
Education under the British was in the hands of the Missionaries but it was sustained with State Funds. The British govt therefore carried out their policy of Proselytisation through the church.
The Key to an Education and thus to govt employment was Baptism.
Education was left in the hands of the Church.
The Church was funded by the State.
Let’s not get embroiled in semantics again about what I referred to as the church. I was referring to the Christian Church not to any sect of it but the whole of it.
You say “Wrong, all wrong. 1) The Americans were NOT sustained with State Funds. They had to bring their own. 2) Unlike the Portuguese Catholics, neither the British nor the Americans forced their students to convert (although they had to study the Bible and participate in Christian rituals). “
I believe you may be right about the American mission’s funds but everyone else was sustained with State Funds. Not only the Portuguese, the Dutch too, forced religious conversion, by insisting on Baptismal for State employment AND Farming of own Land (the Gentle Violence). This means that the history of conversion spanned a continuous period of 300 years, before the arrival of the Brits.
Your caveat within parentheses is an admission that they were FORCED to study the Bible and FORCED to participate in Christian rituals. They could not attend school if they REFUSED to study the Bible or REFUSED to attend Christian Rituals.
Baptism is a Christian Ritual.
Conversion was practised by the Portuguese and the Dutch as an Official Policy for nearly 300 years in Lanka.
Current British Policy in UK, requires the practise of Christian activity in Public Schools, by Law.
The zeal with which British State evangelism was practised 200+ years ago can be gauged from the evangelism practised by them today, despite the world’s focus on Human Rights.
What evidence is available to show that the Brits did not take advantage of 300 years of proselytisation and did not continue where the Dutch left off? Their current Official Policy, does not support moderation, 200+ years in the past.
You said “and they had the added benefit of knowing their mother tongue as well”
What advantage did that confer? The Sinhalese also knew their mother tongue and the population was 75% Sinhalese. Surely Tamil could not be used to communicate with the 75% population?
Yapa,
It was a post I wrote in support of Sabbe Laban that started this ball rolling.
I think Sabbe will join in when he can.
Each of us have to moderate ourselves by keeping only to light humour even though there is opportunity to be scathingly sarcastic.
Dear OTC
“This includes your unsupported opinions regarding why the Americans accidentally ended up in Jaffna when there was evidence available to the Americans that conversion was easy in Jaffna compared to the South.”
Apparently you are unaware that the Americans did not have the freedom to establish their presence anywhere they wanted in a British colony, particularly given that the Americans had achieved their independence from the UK in the late 18th century and were just finishing another war with the British when the latter annexed Kandy in 1815. In case you still believe that they put aside their differences for the sake of converting the natives:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Ceylon_Mission
“The American Ceylon Mission (ACM) to Jaffna, Sri Lanka started with the arrival in 1813 of missionaries sponsored by the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (ABCFM). The British colonial office in India and Ceylon restricted the Americans to the relatively small Jaffna Peninsula for geopolitical reasons for almost 40 years. The critical period of the impact of the missionaries was from the 1820s to early 20th century. During this time, they engaged in original translations from English to Tamil, printing, and publishing, establishing primary, secondary and tertiary educational institutions and providing health care for residents of the Jaffna Peninsula. These activities resulted in many social changes amongst Sri Lankan Tamils that survive even today. They also led to the attainment of a lopsided literacy level among residents in the relatively small peninsula that is cited by scholars as one of the primary factors contributing to the recently ended civil war.”
If you still insist that easy conversion of Tamil Hindus explains why the Americans went to Jaffna, then why didn’t they establish a similar presence in the Wanni and Batticaloa?
“I believe you may be right about the American mission’s funds but everyone else was sustained with State Funds. Not only the Portuguese, the Dutch too, forced religious conversion”
Unfortunately, that is irrelevant to the topic of whether or not the Jaffna Tamils “controlled” Sri Lanka during the British era, because the British would not have hired Tamils who did not know English (except perhaps as peons) even if they were Christian.
“What evidence is available to show that the Brits did not take advantage of 300 years of proselytisation and did not continue where the Dutch left off?”
Again, your argument is irrelevant given that many of the English-speaking Tamils in the British administration were Hindu. I recommend that you read up on the Saiva revivalism in Jaffna that was sparked by the missionaries’ activities:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arumuga_Navalar#Reformed_school_system
“The school he founded was called Saivaprakasa Vidyasala or School of Siva’s splendor…He developed his teaching methods based on the exposure he had with the Missionaries. He developed the curriculum to be able to teach 20 students at a time and included secular subject matters ***and English***… But the school system he founded in Sri Lanka was replicated and over 100 primary and secondary schools were built based on his teaching methods.”
“What advantage did that confer? The Sinhalese also knew their mother tongue and the population was 75% Sinhalese. Surely Tamil could not be used to communicate with the 75% population?”
That benefit largely accrued to the Tamil politicians who had the benefit of being able to communicate with both the British and with the Tamil masses. The Sinhala elite did not have this advantage, which may explain why those who were illiterate in Sinhala like SWRD Bandaranaike resorted to an extremist Sinhala nationalism to shore their credentials with the Sinhala masses.
“As I pointed out before, CERTAIN govt depts had an overwhelming number of Tamils in employment. Why? Was it nepotism or Govt Policy to staff those depts with a preponderance of Tamils?”
WHICH govt depts had an overwhelming number of Tamils? The answer might point to the third possibility that is was simply a coincidence- the deathknell of conspiracy theory!
“There were such depts, Postal being one, Customs another, Justice was yet another and there were a few others. The older people here on GV would remember it and govt records would confirm it.”
If all the evidence you have is what “older people” have told you, then I’m afraid that is not sufficient unless they can be very specific about what they observed and not simply give generalities. I’ve heard enough yarns from “older people,” especially on grand global Tamil conspiracies, that I would prefer to see the evidence from other sources.
“Sinhalese have indigenous blood, the Tamils don’t”
At the risk of participating in your digression from the topic of Jaffna Tamils controlling Sri Lanka, what is your evidence that the Tamils do not have “indigenous blood?” Elsewhere I had attacked thivya’s notion that Sri Lankan Tamil is a “pure” language by pointing out that it has the “ae” vowel sound found in Sinhala but not in Indian Tamil; this phoneme almost certainly originated in Sri Lanka because it is not part of the Indo-Aryan nor Dravidian languages. If the Sri Lankan Tamils had adopted an “indigenous” phoneme, then what would stop them from having “indigenous blood?”
“Please provide reasons with authoritative references for your rejection of Prof Courtnay as a Historian.”
Because his mere statement that the Portuguese treated the Sinhalese as equals is false. Courtnay’s blatant pro-European bias negates his objectivity as a historian.
Yapa
As a person who “couldn’t follow the discussion properly”, the best option for you is to stay away, unless your finger-tips are addicted to typing whenever you see a lee-pad!
Dear Wijayapala,
Oh so you are using “Wikipedia research skills” (your words) even though you were deriding me for using the Wiki? Your post of August 6, 2012 • 6:04 am depends completely on the Wiki!! Hope you will dispense with your Double Standards at least in the future.
You are rejecting Prof Courtnay without foundation because what he says does not fit in with your argument. The reason you give is the following
“Because his mere statement that the Portuguese treated the Sinhalese as equals is false. Courtnay’s blatant pro-European bias negates his objectivity as a historian.”
It seems to me that your rejection is based on Your mere statement, which is not good enough.
This is what you said earlier about Prof Courtnay on August 4, 2012 • 6:26 am “I’m afraid that Prof Courtnay flunks the credibility test. His notion that the Portuguese treated the Sinhalese as equals- more or less that the Portuguese had developed civilisation in Sri Lanka- is ridiculous. His use of the term “gentle violence” when describing Dutch coercion against Sinhala Buddhists was truly nauseous“
Your counter arguments have no substance. They are just your mere opinion.
Your “Nauseous” comment about Prof Courtnay’s use of the phrase “Gentle Violence” was made without knowing the real author of that comment. After it was revealed that the phrase was coined by the Colonial Secretary and not Prof Courtnay, you have gone silent on that issue.
It seems to me that your ONLY recourse when faced with arguments that does not fit in with your world view is derision.
Back up your opinions with authoritative evidence from Historians who has rejected Prof Courtnay by making a cogent argument as to why he rejects Courtnay. Anyone can make unsupported summary rejections.
You say “In case you still believe that they put aside their differences for the sake of converting the natives: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Ceylon_Mission “
There were THREE missionary bodies operating in the Jaffna Province. Weslyan Methodists (1814), The Americans (1816) and the Church of England (1818) . The Colonial Secretary Sir Emmerson Tennent says that from that time, to his day, a most intimate understanding and a very cordial relationship existed between them. They have had periodical meetings to discuss and plan the future. They had a common plan. The American schools catered for 4000 pupils daily out of which 1000 were female. The Church of England had 600 daily while the Weslyans had 700+ daily attendance. The schools were free and the medium was Tamil.
The old Portuguese and Dutch buildings were assigned by the Brit govt to ALL three denominations for use as schools and churches.
Do you still believe that they did not put aside their differences?
You say “If you still insist that easy conversion of Tamil Hindus explains why the Americans went to Jaffna, then why didn’t they establish a similar presence in the Wanni and Batticaloa?”
What is the relevance?
Was there any indications of easy conversions there?
The success of the Americans when compared to the Church of England and the Weslyan Methodists was that the Americans concentrated all their resources at one point while the others did not. They had only 3 clergymen at the beginning. Four came three years later in 1819. Six more in 1834 but the strength remained at 7 to 11 clergymen for many years.
I agreed with your position of the Funding of the American mission and you respond with the following surprising rejoinder,
“Unfortunately, that is irrelevant to the topic of whether or not the Jaffna Tamils “controlled” Sri Lanka during the British era, because the British would not have hired Tamils who did not know English (except perhaps as peons) even if they were Christian.
If it is irrelevant why did you raise it in the first place?
You wrote “Wrong, all wrong. 1) The Americans were NOT sustained with State Funds. They had to bring their own.”
The question I answered was what you raised not anything else.
So how can it be irrelevant to the subject matter you raised?
I realise that you don’t want me to establish the background of the colonial era.
You say “Again, your argument is irrelevant given that many of the English-speaking Tamils in the British administration were Hindu”
Were they Baptised or compelled to study the Bible or Compelled to attend Christian Ritual before they became educated and obtained govt employment?
You say “That benefit largely accrued to the Tamil politicians who had the benefit of being able to communicate with both the British and with the Tamil masses. The Sinhala elite did not have this advantage, which may explain why those who were illiterate in Sinhala like SWRD Bandaranaike resorted to an extremist Sinhala nationalism to shore their credentials with the Sinhala masses”
Were ALL Tamil politicians able to speak on a political platform in Tamil?
It is true that SWRD stirred the Ethnic pot, rather the language pot. But you must have been doing a Rip Van Winkle while SWRD campaigned, to state that SWRD could not reach the Sinhala masses in the Sinhala Language. He was as good an orator in Sinhala as he was in English.
You ask “WHICH govt depts had an overwhelming number of Tamils?”
You have already accepted that some govt depts had a preponderance of Tamils when you replied my first post. Please do read the posts that you respond to.
You say “If all the evidence you have is what “older people” have told you, then I’m afraid that is not sufficient unless they can be very specific about what they observed and not simply give generalities”
Please go back and re read my post of August 3, 2012 • 4:24 pm
If we look at the past eight decades (which is within a generation) there will be people still amongst the living, who experienced or observed several Govt Depts having a high percentage of Tamils within them. The older folk may know that this was the case with their parents. Now I may be asked for proof, which I cannot supply, as the records of Govt, pertaining to those years, are not available on the web or accessible with ease. However those records exist, in the form of Pension Records and Employment records.
…… and your response of August 4, 2012 • 6:26 am “No need, I take your word for it.”
You ask “what is your evidence that the Tamils do not have “indigenous blood?” “
The absence of it.
You say “Elsewhere I had attacked thivya’s notion that Sri Lankan Tamil is a “pure” language…..”
You are confusing Genetics with Phonetics.
OTC Wrote to Thivya:
http://groundviews.org/2012/07/07/equality-unity-autonomy-democracy/
“Off the Cuff
August 2, 2012 • 11:12 am
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.”
Wijayapala asked OTC the following on this discussion:
“what is your evidence that the Tamils do not have “indigenous blood?””
OTC replied:
“The absence of it.”
Please practice what you preach. I am sure Wijayapala is expecting evidence along the lines of genetic study that supports your statement!
Dear Burning Issue,
There is genetic proof that the Sinhalese have 50+% Tamil genes in them.
This means that the Tamils contributed genetic material to the Sinhalese.
There is no proof in the reverse direction.
A parent contributes genetic material to the child.
The child does not contribute to the Genetic make up of the Parent.
Do you understand now?
The Tamils were the Genetic Parents of the Sinhalese.
Hence the Sinhalese cannot contribute to the Genetic pool of the Tamils.
The Sinhalese have to be thankful for the 50+% genetic material that the Tamils contributed (which makes them a diluted form of Tamils). The balance 40+% genetic material had to come from somewhere since there is no proof that God Siva or any other God had anything to do with it, it could come only from the inhabitants of Lanka, the Indigenes who lived in Lanka before the Tamils arrived.
Is there proof that the Tamils of Lanka share only about 50% of the Gene Pool of the Authentic Tamils, the Tamils of Tamil Nadu? I am not aware that the Tamils of Lanka are a dilution of the Tamils of Tamil Nadu and have not seen such a claim by any Lankan Tamil or any scientific study. Do you have any proof that you are not actually Tamil but a diluted version of that Race like the Sinhalese are?
The absence of such proof is the proof that Lanka Tamils are not a diluted version of the Race called Tamils who inhabit Tamil Nadu. (your inability to comprehend what I said is not my problem is it?).
If you are diluted your claim to the Tamil name is as good as the Sinhalese claim to it.
If you claim to be only 10% diluted then your claim to the Tamil name is much stronger than the Sinhala claim to the Tamil name.
There is a corollary to the above. If you claim to be only 10% diluted, you have only 10% of Lankan Indigenous blood. Whereas the Sinhalese have 40+% Indigenous blood. Who has a better claim as the indigenes of Lanka?
Give you three guesses to come up with the right answer
Dear BI do you think that the above is a Fairy Tale?
If so please explain logically where I have gone wrong.
As I advised before, don’t allow emotion to cloud the issue
There is genetic proof that the Sinhalese have 50+% Tamil genes in them.
This means that the Tamils contributed genetic material to the Sinhalese.
There is no proof in the reverse direction.
I would like to know your source, so I can learn what it really means, contrary to what you think it means.
Chimpanzees have 95% of humans genes. Does that means we should give them some Christian education and sovereign country?
My dear OTC
“Oh so you are using “Wikipedia research skills” (your words) even though you were deriding me for using the Wiki? Your post of August 6, 2012 • 6:04 am depends completely on the Wiki!!”
Calm down and breathe, OTC. Didn’t you earlier write, “Hence I hope that emotion would be kept out and facts would be used, to make and counter, arguments.”?
I didn’t deride you for simply using wikipedia. I derided you because your only source for your definition of “civil war” came from wikipedia, citing scholars whom you never even read. You were not conversant on the topic to hold a discussion outside of the wiki. For example, when I asked you to provide an example of a civil war where the combatants were not inhabitants of the same country, you were unable to reply.
In my case, I provided a wiki link because I knew that you were not familiar with the role of the Americans in building Jaffna’s education system. That much was apparent when you claimed that the Americans went to Jaffna simply because the Jaffna Tamils (but apparently not the Wanni or Eastern Tamils!) were easy to convert. That link was not the sole source of my contextual knowledge; for example the link makes no mention of the War of 1812 (which I did mention) which was raging between the US and UK when the American missionaries arrived. That simple historical fact, which requires no further reference fully explains why the British were reluctant to allow the Americans into Ceylon at all, and why the Americans were confined to Jaffna.
I see that my use of wiki has led to a profound improvement in your argumentation as you have rediscovered how to use facts to make your point. You even corrected me pointing out that the Americans and the Wesleyans had separate missions. I will thus continue to invoke wiki as a learning tool (not ultimate source) to aid you in your quest for knowledge:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Percival
“Peter Percival‘s preference of education over evangelism created friction with other Wesleyan missionaries but it also influenced the educational practices of all those who were trying to improve the literary levels of 19th-century Sri Lankan Tamil society.[5][9][10] These early efforts in education led to the relatively higher literacy levels and resultant monopolization of government jobs by minority Sri Lankan Tamils compared to the rest of the population of Sri Lanka when it gained independence from Britain in 1948.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batticotta_Seminary
“The Batticotta Seminary was an educational institute founded by the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (ABCFM)’s American Ceylon Mission at Vaddukodai, in the Jaffna Peninsula north Sri Lanka in 1823. It was closed in 1855. The reason for such a decision being that it was not successful in the mission of its founding namely, conversion of Hindus to Christianity.”
“The Colonial Secretary Sir Emmerson Tennent says that from that time, to his day, a most intimate understanding and a very cordial relationship existed between them. They have had periodical meetings to discuss and plan the future. They had a common plan.”
The missionaries themselves may have cooperated on the ground, but the fact remains that the British authorities did not allow the Americans to operate outside of Jaffna, regardless of what Tennent claims.
“What is the relevance? Was there any indications of easy conversions there?”
The relevance is that if the Tamils in general were easier to convert, then why didn’t the Americans go to Batticaloa as well? If on the other hand you believe that the Jaffna Tamils were easier to convert than their eastern cousins, what would be your explanation for that difference?
Unfortunately, your cited expert Prof Courtnay was silent on the success of the Dutch in Eastern Province. You said, “Whilst matters were proceeding thus amongst the Hindoos of the north of the island, the progress of the Dutch ministers was not quite so rapid and remarkable in the Buddhist districts of the south.” The implication you made was that RELIGION played the determining role- that the “Hindoos” (sic) were more easy to convert, meaning that the Americans would have had no reason to ignore Batticaloa UNLESS they were not allowed to work there.
“Unfortunately, that is irrelevant to the topic of whether or not the Jaffna Tamils “controlled” Sri Lanka during the British era, because the British would not have hired Tamils who did not know English (except perhaps as peons) even if they were Christian.
If it is irrelevant why did you raise it in the first place?
I didn’t raise the irrelevant issue of Portuguese and Dutch conversions in Sri Lanka. You did. Their forced conversions have nothing to do at all with the Americans’ education efforts in Jaffna.
“You say “Again, your argument is irrelevant given that many of the English-speaking Tamils in the British administration were Hindu”
Were they Baptised or compelled to study the Bible or Compelled to attend Christian Ritual before they became educated and obtained govt employment?
The students who attended Arumugam Navalar’s Saiva schools, which taught English, obviously did not require Baptism or study of the Bible.
In contrast, how many of the non-Christian schools in southern (or eastern) Sri Lanka taught English?
“Were ALL Tamil politicians able to speak on a political platform in Tamil?”
I believe so. If I am mistaken, can you name a Sri Lankan Tamil politician who did not know the Tamil language?
“But you must have been doing a Rip Van Winkle while SWRD campaigned, to state that SWRD could not reach the Sinhala masses in the Sinhala Language. He was as good an orator in Sinhala as he was in English.”
Note that I specifically stated that SWRD was ILLITERATE in Sinhala. “Illiterate” means unable to read or write in a given language. Virtually all of the English-speaking Sinhala elite of that generation, unlike their Tamil counterparts were thus disconnected with their literature and culture.
It is a historical fact that the primary division among Sinhalese in the 20th century was knowledge of the English language. Those who knew English were the elites no matter how clueless they were of Sinhala culture and heritage, while the non-English speakers resented them. That is why the Tamils generally do not understand the appeal of 1956 Sinhala-Only and commonly misinterpret it as solely directed against the Tamils. The abortive 1962 coup essentially pitted the English-speaking champions of the old colonial order against a democratic government that dared to use the vernacular language. This sort of conflict would have been unthinkable to the Tamils whose divisions primarily concerned caste and region.
“However those records exist, in the form of Pension Records and Employment records.”
Then what is stopping you from informing us WHICH departments the Tamils “controlled” (or were at least highly overrepresented in) and how those departments fit into a larger Tamil or British conspiracy?
“You are rejecting Prof Courtnay without foundation because what he says does not fit in with your argument.”
Which argument of mine, relating to the central topic of whether the Jaffna Tamils “controlled” colonial Ceylon during the British era, did Courtnay refute?
“Is there proof that the Tamils of Lanka share only about 50% of the Gene Pool of the Authentic Tamils, the Tamils of Tamil Nadu?”
As much as it pains me to continue participating in this useless discussion of genetics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Sri_Lankan_Tamils
“According to a genetic admixture study by Dr. Gautam K. Kshatriya in 1995, the Sri Lankan Tamil are closely related to the Sinhalese and to a lesser extent, Bengalis and Indian Tamils. Kshatriya found the Sri Lankan Tamils to have a greater contribution from the Sinhalese of Sri Lanka (55.20% +/- 9.47) than Indian Tamils (16.63% +/- 8.73). But Kshatriya also found the Sinhalese had the greatest contribution from South Indian Tamils (69.86% +/- 0.61), followed by Bengalis from the North East India (25.41% +/- 0.51). With both the Sri Lankan Tamils and Sinhalese sharing a common gene pool of 55%. They are farthest from the indigenous Veddahs.[1] This close relationship between the Sri Lankan Tamils and Sinhalese makes sense, as the two populations have been in close proximity to each other historically, linguistically, and culturally for over 2000 years.[1]“
“I would like to know your source, so I can learn what it really means, contrary to what you think it means. Chimpanzees have 95% of humans genes. Does that means we should give them some Christian education and sovereign country?”
While acknowledging your scientific scholarship, I am not interested in knowing your perceptions, be it real or surreal.
The main subject matter of this thread is something else though I responded to a tangential argument raised by one of the participants. If you want to contribute to the main issues you are welcome to do so. But if you intend to have the discussion change course to a discussion of Chimpanzees you may go it alone.
Might I suggest, if the matter is tangential, not writing ten paragraphs about something scientific, which is still not an established scientific fact, without a source?
But the point’s taken. I’m not getting involved.
My dear Wijayapala,
I underlined your double standards. Sorry if that hurt your image. I have no problem with you continuing to use your “Wikipedia Research Skills”. I will continue to keep emotion out in the interest of a rational discussion.
You say “I will thus continue to invoke wiki as a learning tool (not ultimate source) to aid you in your quest for knowledge:”
Hmm ….. so where is that elusive ultimate source?
Surely you can’t claim that Toom is that source!
By the way thank you for your kind intentions of helping me in my quest for knowledge. Does that mean that you have gathered all knowledge that you need to gather and is thus saturated?
I of course will continue to absorb knowledge from whichever quarter it comes from, as my knowledge is still unsaturated, unlike yours.
You can deride me all you want but deriding Prof Peter Courtenay will not help you in discounting what he said. Your unsupported opinion is worthless in discounting him.
Thought you claimed “NOBODY aside from yourself has any interest in the semantics of whether or not the rebellion of the late 18th century was a “Civil War.” now you are again back to a Civil War, the same Civil War that you termed a Colonial Invasion. According to Ms Hironaka in a Civil War, one side is, the govt in power. My responses to all these questions are available in the previous posts. Hence I dont intend to elaborate further.
You say “I see that my use of wiki has led to a profound improvement in your argumentation as you have rediscovered how to use facts to make your point. You even corrected me pointing out that the Americans and the Wesleyans had separate missions.”
You may pat yourself on the back if it helps to raise your argumentation but since you admit that I have corrected your mistake about the American’s, your claim, that I do not know what the American’s did, falls flat.
You say “for example the link makes no mention of the War of 1812 (which I did mention) which was raging between the US and UK when the American missionaries arrived. That simple historical fact, which requires no further reference fully explains why the British were reluctant to allow the Americans into Ceylon at all, and why the Americans were confined to Jaffna”
You see Wije, the above is your opinion.
You are spinning a yarn around a historical fact.
It is your own interpretation, about what the British thought.
Your opinion cannot override what the British Colonial Secretary said.
It is Sir Emmerson Tennant that I quoted.
You say “The missionaries themselves may have cooperated on the ground, but the fact remains that the British authorities did not allow the Americans to operate outside of Jaffna, regardless of what Tennent claims.”
What do you mean by “May” The Colonial Secretary said they did.
And don’t forget, even the buildings were donated to the Americans by the Brit Colonial Govt. Quite an uncharacteristic move, if they wanted them out of Lanka or even Jaffna
Of course the American’s operated within Jaffna.
They had only three Missionaries in the first place.
But to claim that they were NOT ALLOWED, has no basis, other than your own opinion.
You keep forgetting that Emerson Tennant was the Colonial Secretary, who was outranked in govt ONLY by the Governor himself.
You say “The relevance is that if the Tamils in general were easier to convert,……. “
I gave you the statistics are you contesting that?
You ask “…….then why didn’t the Americans go to Batticaloa as well?”
When they had only three missionaries, would they spread out their meagre resources? Had they done that do you think the American’s would have succeeded, as they did?
There were Missionary schools in Batticoloa and Trincomalee and they were run by the Weslyans. According to the British Colonial Secretary, they were both numerous and successful. This calls in to question what Toom said to which you agreed “These educatioinal opporunities enabled the people of Jsaffna(not for example the people of Trincomalee or Batticaloa)to enter the public services and the professions.”
You say “Unfortunately, your cited expert Prof Courtnay was silent on the success of the Dutch in Eastern Province. You said, “Whilst matters were proceeding thus amongst the Hindoos of the north of the island, the progress of the Dutch ministers was not quite so rapid and remarkable in the Buddhist districts of the south.” The implication you made was that RELIGION played the determining role- that the “Hindoos” (sic) were more easy to convert, meaning that the Americans would have had no reason to ignore Batticaloa UNLESS they were not allowed to work there.”
In the first place, it is not I who said what is enclosed within quotes. It was the Colonial Secretary Sir Emmerson Tennant who said it and he was quoted by Prof Courtnay. So the implication was not made by me but by Sir Emmerson Tennant. It is Emmerson Tennant who coined the phrases “Gentle Violence” and “Protestant Conversions”
It is apparent that you have not read Sir Emmerson Tennant. If you had, you would have noted that he spells Hindu as Hindoo.
The meaning you continuously try to adduce to the absence of the Americans outside Jaffna is that they were not allowed to work outside Jaffna though you have no proof of it. You summarily dismiss the possibility that the absence of resources could have made them concentrate on Jaffna, when such evidence is staring in your face.
You say “Unfortunately, that is irrelevant to the topic of whether or not the Jaffna Tamils “controlled” Sri Lanka during the British era, because the British would not have hired Tamils who did not know English (except perhaps as peons) even if they were Christian.”
If there is a Monopoly within the Bureaucracy or even a predominance of any one community, that community has the ability to control the people who are administered, because they take decisions that affect the people.
This is an extract from your wiki quote in your previous post
extract
These early efforts in education led to the relatively higher literacy levels and resultant monopolization of government jobs by minority Sri Lankan Tamils compared to the rest of the population of Sri Lanka.
end extract
The Portuguese hired Sinhalese and Tamils in their administration
The Dutch hired Sinhalese and Tamils in their administration
Did all of them know Portuguese or Dutch?
Some may have and some may haven’t.
The Brits removed the locals who were already in the Dutch administration overnight.
They were replaced by Indian Tamils (Lankan Tamils did not know English at that point of time, as there were no American/Wesleyan/Navalar Schools to educate them).
The above resulted in a war that lasted over one year.
The war subsided only after the Sinhalese and Tamils, who were members of the previous Dutch administration, were reinstated.
How did the Brits carry on an administration which was now staffed by people who did not understand English? Either the Brits had to learn Sinhala and Tamil or they had to teach the native administrators English or had to use translators. Apparently the requirement of English knowledge did not exist then.
The early British Administration was staffed with local administrators that did not know English. However they represented both communities doing administration, in communities where the language of each was understood. Hence the proportion of administrators in Sinhala and Tamil more or less corresponded to the ethnic proportions.
Neither had a Monopoly.
Later we have a Monopoly situation.
How did the Monopoly situation arise?
Was it by design or by accident?
You say “I didn’t raise the irrelevant issue of Portuguese and Dutch conversions in Sri Lanka. You did. Their forced conversions have nothing to do at all with the Americans’ education efforts in Jaffna”
Good attempt at confusing the reader but it was you who exclaimed “Wrong, all wrong. 1) The Americans were NOT sustained with State Funds. They had to bring their own.” I agreed with you and then you said it was irrelevant. Why can’t you make an argument with honesty?
Why is forced conversion an irrelevant issue, if that was the KEY to an English education, which in turn, was the KEY to govt employment?
You have already accepted that in order to get an English schooling from the missionaries the Tamils were COMPELLED to learn the Bible and perform Christian Rituals. They had no option to refuse.
You wrote “The students who attended Arumugam Navalar’s Saiva schools, which taught English, obviously did not require Baptism or study of the Bible.”
True, but my question was different and you have avoided answering it.
Hence I ask again.
Were they Baptised or compelled to study the Bible or Compelled to attend Christian Rituals before they became educated and obtained govt employment?
The missionary schools produced more educated Tamils than Navalar.
The missionary schools of Jaffna, collectively had a DAILY attendance of 5300+ students.
Navalar himself was educated by the Americans. Is there proof that he was exempt from the compulsory practice of Bible studies and attending Christian rituals?
There is proof that he translated the Bible to Tamil which indicates that he studied the Bible.
You ask “In contrast, how many of the non-Christian schools in southern (or eastern) Sri Lanka taught English?”
My purpose is to show British Govt bias and to highlight the discrimination that they employed when providing an English Education in the South. Which resulted in uneven employment within the Administration.
You wrote “I believe so. If I am mistaken, can you name a Sri Lankan Tamil politician who did not know the Tamil language? “
Point taken. Will let you know if I identify any.
You wrote “Note that I specifically stated that SWRD was ILLITERATE in Sinhala. “Illiterate” means unable to read or write in a given language. Virtually all of the English-speaking Sinhala elite of that generation, unlike their Tamil counterparts were thus disconnected with their literature and culture. “
I am afraid I have to agree about the reading and writing part but have to differ with your view that only those two constitute literacy in a language as violating approved patterns of speaking constitutes language illiteracy.
However since politicians communicate with the masses mainly by speaking, I fail to understand your use of SWRD who was an acclaimed speaker in both English and Sinhala who was frequently referred to as a silver tongued orator not withstanding the racial issue he raised.
Since he obviously reached the Sinhala Masses with his oratory, I do not see any validity in your comment.
You wrote “It is a historical fact that the primary division among Sinhalese in the 20th century was knowledge of the English language. Those who knew English were the elites no matter how clueless they were of Sinhala culture and heritage, while the non-English speakers resented them. That is why the Tamils generally do not understand the appeal of 1956 Sinhala-Only and commonly misinterpret it as solely directed against the Tamils. The abortive 1962 coup essentially pitted the English-speaking champions of the old colonial order against a democratic government that dared to use the vernacular language.”
Agreed
You wrote “This sort of conflict would have been unthinkable to the Tamils whose divisions primarily concerned caste and region”
The Tamil polity too had the same problems where the English educated formed the Elites.
You ask “Then what is stopping you from informing us WHICH departments the Tamils “controlled” (or were at least highly overrepresented in) and how those departments fit into a larger Tamil or British conspiracy?”
Please go back and re read my previous posts.
BTW I am not writing about a Tamil-British conspiracy but about a conscious effort by the British Govt to divide the Lankan polity for their own purposes. Hope you understand the difference.
You say “Which argument of mine, relating to the central topic of whether the Jaffna Tamils “controlled” colonial Ceylon during the British era, did Courtnay refute?”
The argument is between you and me, not with you and Prof Courtnay. You rejected him summarily as a historian but could not give supporting evidence other than you own opinion. Your evasive counter question indicates that you cannot support your opinions with authoritative evidence. Since you have failed to undermine Prof Courtnay, what Prof Courtnay stated and what I quoted from his Book, remains unchallenged.
You say “As much as it pains me to continue participating in this useless discussion of genetics: “
If it pains you, leave it to someone else, such as BI or Toom, unless you think they are not capable of contributing to the discussion.
You say “With both the Sri Lankan Tamils and Sinhalese sharing a common gene pool of 55%. They are farthest from the indigenous Veddahs.
Well a very interesting study indeed.
It looks like you have proved that the present day Tamils came to Lanka after the olden day Tamils intermixed with the indigenous Veddah population and developed in to the Sinhalese race. Congratulations Wije, you have solved the “who came first mystery”
Please have a look at the Pie Charts that are available at the link you provided.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Sri_Lankan_Tamils
It shows the following admixture
Lanka Tamils
Sinhalese 55.2%
Bengali 28.17%
South Indian Tamil 16.63%
Sinhalese
South Indian Tamil 70%
Bengali 25%
Veddah 5%
You should have been more careful in interpreting the English.
The subject happens to be Lanka Tamils not the Sinhalese. Hence the word “THEY” which I have emphasised, in the sentence, that you yourself highlighted, refers to the Lankan Tamils and not the Sinhalese.
The Pie Chart that gives a Veddha admixture in the Sinhalese Pie Chart and no Veddah admixture in the Lanka Tamil Pie Chart, puts the issue beyond any attempted obfuscation.
I believe the Readership of GV will have no problem in ascertaining the truth of what I said by simply looking at the Pie Charts at the above link.
My dear OTC,
“Sorry if that hurt your image.”
Actually, I was concerned that it is your image that gets damaged when you lose control of your emotions.
“I believe the Readership of GV will have no problem in ascertaining the truth of what I said”
The problem is that when you deviate from facts and go on endless tirades, the readership loses interest. I’ve followed other conversations of yours, and even where I agree with you I have to admit that I get turned off when you start taking things too personally and accuse people of deceit and treachery. Calm down, and let the readers decide!
Forgive me if I skip over most of your fluff which doesn’t address the topic of the Jaffna Tamils “controlling” the administration of British Ceylon.
“You ask “Then what is stopping you from informing us WHICH departments the Tamils “controlled” (or were at least highly overrepresented in) and how those departments fit into a larger Tamil or British conspiracy?”
Please go back and re read my previous posts.”
Your previous posts don’t cite any of the records you mention.
“BTW I am not writing about a Tamil-British conspiracy but about a conscious effort by the British Govt to divide the Lankan polity for their own purposes.”
Then you haven’t explained how those departments fit into that “conscious effort”/non-conspiracy.
“If there is a Monopoly within the Bureaucracy or even a predominance of any one community, that community has the ***ability*** to control the people who are administered, because they take decisions that affect the people.”
Two points (the 2nd one reaches the heart of the matter):
1) The Tamils did not monopolise the bureaucracy as other communities were represented as well, so any of your language that includes any variation of the term “monopoly” is false. The author of the wiki article similarly was wrong to use that term.
2) Whether or not the Jaffna Tamils had the ABILITY to “control” Sri Lanka or its people, you have yet to provide evidence that they actually DID so. The SLA in 2009 had the ABILITY to massacre 40,000 or even 200,000 Tamil civilians, but the human rights lobbies and the Eelamists have yet to PROVE that the SLA actually killed that many people.
If the Jaffna Tamils as a bloc controlled Sri Lanka to the detriment of the other communities, why would the latter have meekly accepted the situation given that they (and the Jaffna Tamils) had launched a rebellion against South Indian miscreants in the prior century?? There was no need for something extreme as a rebellion; why couldn’t any of the non-Tamil elites have simply raised the issue of the over-representation of the Jaffna Tamils in the civil service in the Legislative or later State Councils?? Did the Jaffna Tamil civil servants act any differently than their non-Tamil counterparts, at all?
“How did the Brits carry on an administration which was now staffed by people who did not understand English?”
The Portuguese, Dutch, and pre-1833 British methods of administration were vastly different from what emerged after the Colebrooke-Cameron Reforms. The Europeans before 1833 ruled indirectly through preexisting village headmen, and it was these headmen who revolted when the South Indians had been introduced.
After 1833, the British established the Ceylon Civil Service which originally was closed to Sri Lankans. It was the Civil Service that demanded competency in English, and because Jaffna had far more schools that taught English than other parts of the country, the Jaffna Tamils reaped disproportionally more benefits. It was an ACCIDENT, with no preconceived design.
Here is another wikipedia link for you. Kindly tell me whether there are any non-Tamils (and non-British) in the list of names; if there are, then you are in no position to claim that the Jaffna Tamils had a “monopoly.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceylon_Civil_Service
“Why is forced conversion an irrelevant issue, if that was the KEY to an English education, which in turn, was the KEY to govt employment?”
Why don’t you first explain to us how forced conversion under the Portuguese and Dutch was relevant, since it was specifically that which I claimed was irrelevant?
I provided a link showing that the Americans closed the Batticotta seminary in Jaffna because of lack of success in converting local Hindus (you ignored that link, which by OTC standards makes you intellectually dishonest, a liar, a fraud etc etc.). If the Americans weren’t able to convert Hindus, but yet they still kept all their schools running, then your entire argument of the Americans focussing on Jaffna for the easy conversions falls flat on its face.
“Why can’t you make an argument with honesty?”
Why can’t you make an argument at all?
“You have already accepted that in order to get an English schooling from the missionaries the Tamils were COMPELLED to learn the Bible and perform Christian Rituals. They had no option to refuse.”
So how was that different for Sinhalese who wanted to learn English?
“My purpose is to show British Govt bias and to highlight the discrimination that they employed when providing an English Education in the South.”
What is your evidence that the British intentionally instituted an inferior system of education in the rest of colonial Ceylon compared to Jaffna?
“When they had only three missionaries, would they spread out their meagre resources?”
How do you know that the Americans did not assign more than three people precisely because the British had confined them to Jaffna? Why didn’t the Americans expand outside of Jaffna in later years, as the Wesleyans had done?
“There were Missionary schools in Batticoloa and Trincomalee and they were run by the Weslyans. According to the British Colonial Secretary, they were both numerous and successful.”
How many schools were there in those places? If they didn’t compare with the number of schools in Jaffna, then I’m afraid that you haven’t made any point at all!
“The meaning you continuously try to adduce to the absence of the Americans outside Jaffna is that they were not allowed to work outside Jaffna though you have no proof of it.”
What is your evidence that the Americans were allowed to work outside Jaffna?
“You summarily dismiss the possibility that the absence of resources could have made them concentrate on Jaffna, when such evidence is staring in your face.”
What is your evidence that the Americans lacked resources?
“The missionary schools produced more educated Tamils than Navalar.
The missionary schools of Jaffna, collectively had a DAILY attendance of 5300+ students.”
If there were 100 Hindu schools in Jaffna each having at least 50 students, then how much more educated Tamils did the missionary schools produce?
And what does any of this have to do with the central argument about whether the Jaffna Tamils (Christian or Hindu) “controlled” colonial Ceylon?
“You say “Which argument of mine, relating to the central topic of whether the Jaffna Tamils “controlled” colonial Ceylon during the British era, did Courtnay refute?”
The argument is between you and me, not with you and Prof Courtnay.”
Then what relevance does Courtnay have to the argument?
“If it pains you”
It pains me because genetics is not very helpful in precisely determining actual groups of people, and the wiki more than demonstrates that. The components of the Sinhalese, according to the wiki, are Bengalis, Indian Tamils, and Veddahs, but none of these three can be said to be “pure” types any more than the Sinhalese and SL Tamils are. The Bengalis, Indian Tamils, and Veddahs are themselves hybrid. See below.
“It looks like you have proved that the present day Tamils came to Lanka after the olden day Tamils intermixed with the indigenous Veddah population and developed in to the Sinhalese race.”
How?
“The Pie Chart that gives a Veddha admixture in the Sinhalese Pie Chart and no Veddah admixture in the Lanka Tamil Pie Chart, puts the issue beyond any attempted obfuscation.”
Sorry, but you are attempting to obfuscate the results. If Kshatriya was not specifically looking for Veddah genes among the Sri Lankan Tamils and simply compared the SL Tamils to the Sinhalese, Indian Tamils, and Bengalis, then of course he would not mention the Veddahs in the pie chart. The fact that “Sinhalese” shows up in the SL Tamil pie chart proves without a shadow of a doubt that Veddah genes are found among the SL Tamils, because the Sinhalese by their very definition have 5% genes!!
(the flaw with the wiki is that it doesn’t explain how Kshatriya distinguished between the Sinhalese on the one hand, who are 95% Indian Tamil & Bengali, and the Indian Tamils and Bengalis on the other hand when analysing the SL Tamils. But no matter, as long as the SL Tamils have some Sinhala in them, then they necessarily have a bit of Veddah as well!)
Correction: because the Sinhalese by their very definition have 5% genes!!
should be: because the Sinhalese by their very definition have 5% Veddah genes!!
My Dear Wijayapala,
You have again confirmed your dishonesty and your inability to engage in a debate with honesty.
Look at the following sentences. The first is what I wrote
I believe the Readership of GV will have no problem in ascertaining the truth of what I said by simply looking at the Pie Charts at the above link.
The second is what you quote from the above
“I believe the Readership of GV will have no problem in ascertaining the truth of what I said”
You have dishonestly truncated my sentence mid way and removed the emphasised text from my comment. Why?
Now you use the TRUNCATED sentence to go on a fishing expedition in an attempt to insinuate that I have deviated from facts, when it is you who cannot produce facts and go on an endless tirade by using your own unsupported opinions in a futile attempt to counter Facts. You have even gone to the extent of summarily rejecting Authors such as The Colonial Secretary Sir E Tennant and Prof Courtnay without being able to produce a supported counter argument.
You deride the use of the Wiki by others but yet cannot write a comment without using it yourself. Some posts you have made relies COMPLETELY on the Wiki.
You make high sounding claims “I will thus continue to invoke wiki as a learning tool (not ultimate source) to aid you in your quest for knowledge:” Yet you expect me to answer your posts that do not have this “Ultimate Source”. Please produce these ELUSIVE Ultimate Sources that you claim you possess.
The real problem that stands in the way of a rational debate is this self opinionated Ego and this tendency of yours to liberally embed these unsupported opinions, in the guise of Facts and prostitute others comments, in many devious ways, within your own comments.
I have acknowledged your expertise in subject areas that your expertise is exhibited such as when you argued about the Tamil Language with Thivya where you were able to produce facts instead of your opinions. Unlike you I was, not “put off” in giving credit when it was due. I did not allow my personal dislike at the way you manipulate and prostitute comments of other contributors when all you had to offer was preconceived opinions. If I accuse anyone of Lying it is when I find them lying even after the factual situation is presented to them with supporting evidence.
Challenge you to prove otherwise.
You say “Forgive me if I skip over most of your fluff which doesn’t address the topic of the Jaffna Tamils “controlling” the administration of British Ceylon”
If there is “fluff” in my responses then the “Fluff” would have originated within your posts as I my comments are a response to yours.
The subject matter that we are dealing with is what pertains to Tooms post and my responses to Toom. It deals with Education, Brits policy of education, Missionaries and proselytisation amongst others. It is much wider than your narrowed down version.
I will be dealing with the rest later.
My dear OTC
“The real problem that stands in the way of a rational debate is this self opinionated Ego and this tendency of yours to liberally embed these unsupported opinions, in the guise of Facts and prostitute others comments, in many devious ways, within your own comments.”
As much as I personally appreciate your taking the time to assess my contributions to GV, once again you have demonstrated that your primary interest here is your emotional reactions to what I write ***and not the actual TOPIC of the discussion***. How else should I or anyone else interpret your motivations when you defer addressing the topic of Jaffna Tamils in the colonial era in favor of addressing me personally????
On the topic of wiki scholarship, I recommend reading the below article and then trying to objectively ascertain whether it applies to your thinking:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
“I have acknowledged your expertise in subject areas that your expertise is exhibited such as when you argued about the Tamil Language with Thivya where you were able to produce facts instead of your opinions.”
But my style of argumentation was no different. The only difference is that here I am arguing with YOU. That explains why in your view I am a magical expert when debunking Thivya’s claims about Sri Lankan history, but “dishonest” when debunking yours, because it is YOUR ego that is on the line!
I most certainly give my opinions but I back them with facts. When my facts are wrong- such as my conflation of the Americans with the Wesleyans- I will acknowledge them, but if my mistakes do not impair my overall argument then I absolutely will stick to my argument.
Most of the time though, I challenge others by asking questions. My last post to you was full of questions. How can one be dishonest by asking questions???? Accusing me of dishonesty is fine by me but will not cover up your inability to answer my questions!
“If there is “fluff” in my responses then the “Fluff” would have originated within your posts as I my comments are a response to yours.”
I definitely acknowledge that my recent posts have contained “fluff” which was the result of my disregarding my own statement that I would ignore anything you write that doesn’t address the topic. I wholly and with no reservations admit that I have only myself to blame for responding to your fluff!
“The subject matter that we are dealing with is what pertains to Tooms post and my responses to Toom. It deals with Education, Brits policy of education, Missionaries and proselytisation amongst others. It is much wider than your narrowed down version.”
You have yet to make the links with these other issues and connect the dots. If anything, your tendency is to get bogged down in these side arguments to the point that you completely forget the main topic. Only July 27th, in my very first paragraph I challenged you to come up with evidence to back your claims. An entire week later, ***after interventions by others than myself asking you to back your claims,*** you responded with:
If we look at the past eight decades (which is within a generation) there will be people still amongst the living, who experienced or observed several Govt Depts having a high percentage of Tamils within them.
More recently you came up with:
If there is a Monopoly within the Bureaucracy or even a predominance of any one community, that community has the ability to control the people who are administered, because they take decisions that affect the people.
The above two paragraphs are the essence of your argument. You arrived at the conclusion that the Jaffna Tamils were controlling Sri Lanka essentially on the fact that they happened to be overrepresented in the administration. You also believe, with no supporting evidence, that there was an intentional design to make the Jaffna Tamils (and not the Wanni or Eastern Tamils) overrepresented.
None of your ancillary arguments- the Portuguese & Dutch, the corrupt EIC S. Indian collectors, Anglo-American relations etc- have proved either that 1) there was an intentional design to put the Jaffna Tamils in charge or 2) that the Jaffna Tamils in the administration (not the politicians) acted in a way to promote their community at the expense of the others. Your arguments have generally been unintentional red herrings:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi
I have spoken with many people who lived and worked in the old colonial administration. All of them told me that the Jaffna Tamils were overrepresented. All of the old Sinhalese among them (and NONE of the Tamils I talked with) also told me that the Jaffna Tamils were the most efficient and productive members of the Ceylon Civil Service (some of them explained that unlike the Sinhalese, the Jaffna Tamils were far from home and thus were not burdened with family obligations). If ANY of them had any resentment or hard feelings toward their Jaffna Tamil colleagues, they did an extraordinary job concealing them from me. One of them (the only one I directly asked) explicitly denied that the Jaffna Tamils in the Civil Service acted as a communal bloc to control it.
Of course it is possible that all of them were wrong and that you OTC know the truth. I don’t think you know the truth, though, because you aren’t doing a very good job arguing that the Jaffna Tamils as a communal bloc controlled Sri Lanka.
My Dear Wijayapala,
When faced with the indefensible you deftly sidestep them.
Not a word in defence of your dishonesty in quoting a truncated version of my sentence with the intention of prostituting the comment.
You have a history of attempting to prostitute the opponents comments by the cunning and surreptitious introduction of words of your own. Your tried to introduce the word “Ruler” (yours of July 23, 2012 • 4:17 pm). I challenged you to copy and paste from my previous posts to prove that I wrote, what you claimed I wrote (mine of July 23, 2012 • 4:55 pm). You failed to produce it.
Not a word in substantiating the charge that you levelled at me stating that I falsely accuse certain posters on GV of lying. There is a poster taking part in this very debate that I have accused of lying after it was proved that he indeed was lying. I have challenged you to prove your accusation, yet not a word from you.
You do throw around accusations intended to slander, but when called to account and challenged to prove your slanderous accusations you simply cannot deliver. Why? Is it because you fabricated them in the first place?
Are you able to make good on this high sounding claim of yours?
You wrote “I see that my use of wiki has led to a profound improvement in your argumentation as you have rediscovered how to use facts to make your point. You even corrected me pointing out that the Americans and the Wesleyans had separate missions. I will thus continue to invoke wiki as a learning tool ( not ultimate source ) to aid you in your quest for knowledge:” (August 8, 2012 • 8:26 am)
I have never objected to anyone using the Wiki but YOU DID.
Yet you cannot write a comment without using them.
Where are these ELUSIVE Ultimate Sources?
That Wije is the type of Hypocrisy that you indulge in.
Can you deliver any substantial argument supported by reference material for your Arbitrary rejection of the writings of The British Colonial Secretary Sir James Emerson Tennent and Prof Courtnay?
Your unsupported opinion is worthless in discounting them.
In the case of your debate on the Tamil Language, you brought out Facts. In the current debate you make extensive use of your worthless pre conceived opinions as a replacement.
In the debate with Thivya you had facts at your fingertips in the current debate you are struggling to produce facts. That is the difference, not the changed opponent.
You say “I most certainly give my opinions but I back them with facts.”
If you can do that, I will welcome it. But the fact of the matter is, you have failed to produce facts and rely solely on your preconceived opinions.
There were Sinhalese commanding the Portuguese army. You rejected that
without a supporting argument. You rejected two Authors without any basis other than your opinion. Pointing to one case where you admit to your error does not absolve you from the guilt of the many you rejected based singularly on your ill informed opinion.
In my previous post I detailed what the subject matter is. I repeat it here for your information.
The subject matter that we are dealing with pertains to Tooms post and my responses to Toom. It deals with Brits policy on education and proselytisation amongst others. It is much wider than your narrowed down version.
The topic under discussion is important but the participants need to be honest. Offhanded rejections, prostitution of comments have no place in it.
The reason that I engaged in this debate is due to the incessant blame that some section of Tamils try to place at the door step of the Sinhalese. The part played by the Jaffna Tamil Elitists who monopolized the Bureaucracy is ignored.
You have tried to paint a picture of a Tamil Bureaucracy that was humane. I shall prove that these Elitists were anything but humane. They would not use water from a common well as it was defiled by the commoner. They robbed the peasantry of their dignity by making them sit on stools while they sat on chairs in the same classroom learning the same subjects. They robbed the peasantry of their right to practice their religion. They were inhuman to fellow Tamils and projecting them as being humane to the other communities is far fetched.
Correction
The sentence
“They were inhuman to fellow Tamils and projecting them as humane being to the other communities is far fetched.”
Should read as
They were inhuman to fellow Tamils and projecting them as being humane to the other communities is far fetched.
Regret the error
My dear OTC
“The reason that I engaged in this debate is due to the incessant blame that some section of Tamils try to place at the door step of the Sinhalese. The part played by the Jaffna Tamil Elitists who monopolized the Bureaucracy is ignored.”
Then as a Sinhala, I can tell you that you have done an incredible disservice to our community by running away and hiding when asked for simple proof to back your accusation that the Jaffna Tamil “Elitists” had monopolised the civil services.
The mere fact that there were non-Tamils in the administration utterly demolishes your claim that the Tamils had “monopolized” the administration. Given your cluelessness, I am forced to cite your favorite wikipedia to show you the meaning of the term “monopoly”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
“A monopoly (from Greek monos ????? (alone or single) + polein ?????? (to sell)) exists when a specific person or enterprise is the ****only**** supplier of a particular commodity.”
The Jaffna Tamil “Elitists” clearly were not the ONLY supplier of the civil services.
The funny thing is that you already knew this! In this post you say:
If there is a Monopoly within the Bureaucracy ***or even a predominance of any one community***, that community has the ability to control the people who are administered, because they take decisions that affect the people.
You knew that the Jaffna Tamils did not have a monopoly, that is why you added “or even a predominance of any one community.” So why are you now dishonestly claiming that the Jaffna Tamils had a monopoly??
“They would not use water from a common well as it was defiled by the commoner. They robbed the peasantry of their dignity by making them sit on stools while they sat on chairs in the same classroom learning the same subjects. They robbed the peasantry of their right to practice their religion. They were inhuman to fellow Tamils and projecting them as being humane to the other communities is far fetched.”
Sorry OTC, but the topic is NOT how the upper-caste Jaffna Tamils treated the lower caste Tamils but how the Jaffna Tamils treated the non-Tamil communities of Sri Lanka. Do you have a problem understanding that very simple and clear distinction??? Whatever you claim about the “Batu Tamils” (where did you get that term from?) says NOTHING about the Sinhalese.
Did the Jaffna Tamils rob the SINHALESE the right to practice Buddhism?? Did Jaffna Vellalas refuse to drink water from a Sinhala Govigama well? Are you so daft as to believe that the Sinhalese would have quietly suffered such humiliation from the Tamils without doing or saying anything at all, given the beating they (and the Sri Lankan Tamils) gave to the South Indian collectors????
“When faced with the indefensible you deftly sidestep them.”
And when you are unable to prove your claim that the Jaffna Tamils had controlled Sri Lanka, you clumsily (and unsuccessfully) attempt to sidestep by introducing unrelated “clutter” (your term)? Is this your way of asking me for sidestepping lessons???
“You have a history of attempting to prostitute the opponents comments by the cunning and surreptitious introduction of words of your own.”
And you have a history of failing to provide any solid evidence to back your claim that the Jaffna Tamils had controlled Sri Lanka during the colonial era. That is a FACT. What you say about me is an opinion, an excuse to hide behind your inability to use facts.
“You do throw around accusations intended to slander, but when called to account and challenged to prove your slanderous accusations you simply cannot deliver. Why?”
You get that impression from my posts because I am primarily interested in the argument, while you are primarily interested in your own wounded ego.
“Can you deliver any substantial argument supported by reference material for your Arbitrary rejection of the writings of The British Colonial Secretary Sir James Emerson Tennent and Prof Courtnay?”
Can you deliver any statement from either Tennent or Courtnay (or anyone else) to show that the Jaffna Tamils had controlled Sri Lanka?
“In the debate with Thivya you had facts at your fingertips in the current debate you are struggling to produce facts.”
If anyone is struggling with facts, it is most certainly you. You have yet to provide a single fact to show that the Jaffna Tamils had controlled Sri Lanka in the colonial era.
“There were Sinhalese commanding the Portuguese army. You rejected that without a supporting argument.”
Here is my supporting argument: Sinhalese commanding Portuguese army has no connection whatsoever with the topic of Jaffna Tamils controlling Sri Lanka during the colonial era.
And secondly (unrelated to the topic of Jaffna Tamils controlling Sri Lanka), the fact that there were a few Sinhalese who rose to high positions under the Portuguese does NOT prove that the Portuguese treated the Sinhalese as equals, as Courtnay claimed. It merely shows that the Europeans privileged a few Sinhala traitors who abandoned their religion and heritage while oppressing the masses who did not.
Tell us OTC, do you agree with Courtnay’s benign assessment of the Portuguese and their relationship with the Sinhalese (Buddhists)? Does Courtnay mention a single atrocity by the Portuguese against the Buddhists, Hindus, and/or Muslims in his history? If so, how does that square with his claim (cited by you) that the Portuguese treated the Sinhalese as equals? Do you honestly believe that any Buddhist with even a shred of knowledge of the Portuguese history in Sri Lanka would accept the claim that the Portuguese treated the Sinhalese or any other brown-skinned person as equals???
Do you also agree with Courtnay that the Portuguese “raised civilisation to such a high standard” in Sri Lanka? Again, do you expect any Sinhala Buddhist in his or her right mind to accept such nonsense, as you apparently have done????
I don’t expect you to answer these questions, because you have a habit of (clumsily) trying to avoid the tough ones. You have gotten so lost in your own rhetoric and babble that you are now defending a colonialist historian who whitewashed the abuses of the Europeans in Sri Lanka. I need no further reason to explain why I cannot take you seriously.
Dear Off The Cuff & Wijayapala,
Thank you for your contributions so far. I’m only intervening because I fear that the debate is once again getting embroiled in ad-hominems and tangents.
Off the Cuff, you accuse Wijayapala of dishonesty and the whole of your previous post deals with that (tangential) topic. The only point at which you flirt with the problem in question is when you mention that “The part played by the Jaffna Tamil Elitists who monopolized the Bureaucracy is ignored.”, which is of course the primary claim that is under discussion.
While I grant you that most debates are rife with fears of being misunderstood and/or being misrepresented, I hope you have sufficient faith that external observers are entirely capable of detecting deceptions or filibustering by either Wijayapala or you. Therefore, I propose that both of you let the audience decide – after all, the best way to prove your point is not by tarring the other or accusing them of dishonesty, which only weakens your own case – but by laying out the facts of the case in a logical progression, thus rendering any “dishonesty” by the other useless.
Off the cuff, since you are presenting a positive affirmation as your argument, admittedly, a greater burden falls on your shoulders than Wijayapala’s in establishing the key evidence for your proposition. Please correct me if I am wrong, but thus far, the key points you have made are indeed as Wijayapala has summarized, namely.
1. Quote: “If we look at the past eight decades (which is within a generation) there will be people still amongst the living, who experienced or observed several Govt Depts having a high percentage of Tamils within them.”
2. Quote: “If there is a Monopoly within the Bureaucracy or even a predominance of any one community, that community has the ability to control the people who are administered, because they take decisions that affect the people.”
3. And an additional key point that you have made (which I believe Wijayapala should address) is (my paraphrased version): Certain departments alone have had a high concentration of Tamil individuals, as opposed to others, which OTC claims is a result of a systematic /concerted effort.
With regard to point 1 – I think both participants have agreed on this point, except for the explanation for why it occurred – with Wijayapala suggesting an educational difference, and OTC suggesting a systematic conspiracy by “Tamil Elites”. Secondly, without concrete figures on what this “high percentage” is, it is difficult for an external observer to gauge the extent of the claimed imbalance. Are we talking about 30% Tamil, 50% Tamil, 80% Tamil??
WRT to point 2 – Having the ability to control people, and actually controlling people are two different issues. What facts can be mustered to buttress this claim?
WRT to point 3 – Is this claim true? Did certain governments alone have a difference? What explains this? Why does OTC claim a systematic conspiracy as the explanation?
As a final parting point, I think we should agree to reject “racial memories” as valid evidence, as such “racial memories” are all too often coloured by the prejudice of its bearers. For example, if OTC’s elders claimed that the Tamil Elites were part of a systematic conspiracy to commandeer government departments, that is no more valid in my opinion than Thivya’s claims of “an incorrigible Sinhala elite having the single minded goal of Tamil genocide”.
Looking forward to a healthy debate.
Gamarala,
“Please correct me if I am wrong, but thus far, the key points you have made are indeed as Wijayapala has summarized, namely.”
There is one more to add:
4. Quote: “I shall prove that these Elitists were anything but humane. They would not use water from a common well as it was defiled by the commoner. They robbed the peasantry of their dignity by making them sit on stools while they sat on chairs in the same classroom learning the same subjects. They robbed the peasantry of their right to practice their religion. They were inhuman to fellow Tamils and projecting them as being humane to the other communities is far fetched.”
In other words, OTC is trying to say that because the Jaffna Tamils practiced casteism among themselves, that is sufficient evidence to prove that they similarly abused non-Tamils in the same way! That is a classic OTC-style red herring- if you cannot find evidence to back your claim, use information that can support an entirely different thesis but is totally irrelevant for the original claim and pretend that it is relevant.
“3. And an additional key point that you have made (which I believe Wijayapala should address) is (my paraphrased version): Certain departments alone have had a high concentration of Tamil individuals, as opposed to others, which OTC claims is a result of a systematic /concerted effort.”
Unfortunately OTC provided such little information and zero facts that there is hardly anything to respond to. Here is the sum total of what he had to say on that topic:
“There were such depts, Postal being one, Customs another, Justice was yet another and there were a few others.”
Let’s be generous to OTC and pretend that he is stating facts. I would ask this question, WHY would the Tamils (and not the other communities) have chosen the postal service, customs, or the judicial system? How does that fit into a larger conspiracy?
For some reason, my post though correctly posted, has appeared here
http://groundviews.org/2012/07/21/sri-lanka-tamil-self-determination/#comment-47783
DID THE BRITISH ACTUALLY FAVOUR TAMILS? Sinhalese who occupied the front pews during Sunday in churches became Buddhists overnight. The lap dogs of the colonial rulers of the past had very quickly become the keepers of a pernicious Sinhala Buddhism.
We often hear the Sinhala racists and the Sinhala Buddhist Chauvinists say the Tamils were favored by the British. And the unsuspecting foreigners picked up that rant and repeated the same. But the Tamils were not favored by the British they were used. Nor did the missionaries. Politically every step of the way the British favored the Sinhalese.
They arbitrarily conjoined two separate nationalities much to the detriment of the Tamils. Locating the capital in Colombo gave the Sinhalese the illusion the Tamil areas are under Sinhala rule. The Sinhalese consider themselves Aryan (invaders) of the island. They also love to propagate that they are light skinned unlike the dark-skinned Tamils. All foreign correspondents of news media were given this skin color information by the Sri Lankan government until Kadiragama and Chandrika Bandaranayake, for own reasons discontinued it.
So Tamils and Sinhalese were divided people, racially, linguistically, culturally, religiously, geographically and in spirit for a very long time until the British put together the two distinct nationalities, as they had done in Africa.
There were demographic, geographic and cultural reasons for the missionaries establishing Christian schools in Northern areas. Density of population was high, most villages were easily accessible and there was no organized religious opposition in the North like that of Bhikkudom in the South.
The missionaries established schools in Colombo though it was already Christianized considerably with the Pereras, Silvas and Fernandos and also with the Burghers but Eastern Tamils did not experience such missionary penetration as the Northern area because the population was small and spread out.
Do not forget the missionaries came to Christianize not to educate cost benefit considerations were also on their mind when outlays of
money for capital projects were concerned. The British might have had very good reason for giving jobs to the Tamils also, in their administration. After all, Their lands were annexed to the other territories and it was only fair that they should have had a share in the administration.
Another reason might have been to integrate the `communities`. (The British considered us communities not races) so we see that THE BRITISH DID NOT FAVOUR THE TAMILS. The missionaries did not build schools in all Tamil areas. The missionaries in building schools to `Christianize` did not to `discriminate` against the Sinhalese. THIS IS AN ABSURD COMPLAINT FROM SINHALA BUDDHISTS.
Tamil Elites were not all Christians Tamil Elite did great service to Sinhala culture and sought the friendship of the Sinhalese. One of them Sir.Ramanathan, risked his life to help Sinhala leaders who acted with malice toward the Tamils even before the turn of the 20th century.
Christian Elites were as common among the Sinhalese as Tamils. There were more colonial boot lickers among the Sinhalese than among Tamils. Many Sinhala elites were by products of the colonial gene pool and that was not the case among the Tamil elites. The descendants of these mixed blooded Sinhala leaders suddenly became the DIRECT DESCENDANTS OF DUTTU GEMUNU that is the logic only Sinhalese can understand. There were more Sinhala elites who were the lap dogs of the British than the Tamils.
STARTING FROM Don Stephen Senanayake (son of Don Spater Senanayake), through Dudley Shelton Senanayake, Sir John Lionel Kotelawala, Neelaperumalge Solomon West Ridgeway Dias Bandaranaike (previously Kalukapuge), Wijeyananda Dahanayake, Sirimavo Banadaranaike (of Mawalatenne Mohattala lineage), Thambi Mudiyansalage Junius Richard Jayawardene, Ranasinghe Premadasa (son of Richard Ranasinghe), Dingiri Banda Wijetunge, Chandrika Banadaranaike Kumaratunge and Mahendra PERCIVAL Rajapakse (Son of GEORGE Rajapakse), among our heads of government from Independence to date, I find only two men who can claim to have been untainted by the `ADAPTATION TO COLONIAL SYNDROME`, in name, religion or way of life.
They are W.Dahanayake and Dingiri Banda Wijetunge. Of the others, some are of mixed race sometimes multiple, most have conveniently adopted western and Christian names, and religion to suit the periods their families have lived through and most have changed their mode of dress and way of life very quickly to FACILITATE POLITICAL SURVIVAL.
Most of these men changed from `BROWN SAHIBS` to `ARYA SINHALA BUDDHIST PATRIOTS` almost overnight. However, all of them including W.Dahanayake and D.B.Wijetunge were standard-bearers for the Sinhala-Buddhist extremist ideology, in its many nuances to some degree or other. If not, they could not have attained power and held onto it.
Mahinda (Mahendra) PERCYPercival) Rajapakse, the current President, has become the current standard-bearer of this Extreme Sinhala Buddhist ideology. Pursuit of power, wealth and the right to exploit the common person and make a fool of him/her has been the only driving force behind these CHAMELEON-like TRANSFORMATIONS.
While one cannot complain against adopting a new name, a new religion or a new way of life among people for whatever reason, what is abhorrent is the ease with which such transformations have taken place in most of these families, defying conscience and logic.
Men and women who occupied the front pews during Sunday services in churches became regular visitors to Buddhist temples and patrons of Buddhism overnight. Men and women, who had western Christian names, eliminated them from their families very quickly and started using names linked to Buddhism and Sinhala history. How much of this change was out of genuine conviction and how much of it is the continuance of a CHARADE OF POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY?
The lap dogs of the colonial rulers of the past, had however very quickly become the keepers of a pernicious Sinhala-Buddhist ideology. Whether these men and women are selected, groomed, brought to power and kept in power, by the purveyors of this pernicious Sinhala-Buddhist ideology or whether these men and women in pursuit of power and wealth use these purveyors of hatred, is difficult to answer.
It is however a Marriage of Convenience that has benefitted both. It has given those ruling, the space to abuse power and given those collaborating with them IN THE NAME OF SINHALA BUDDHISM to exercise a hold on power disproportionate to their strength. Both have successively taken the people for a ride for almost sixty years and DESTROYED SRI LANKA AS A NATION.
http://thivyaaa.blogspot.ca/2012/07/did-british-actually-favour-tamils.html
Source(s)
(EXCERPTS from Sri Lanka is Our Land Too! By Dr. Dr.Rajasingham Narendran- and articles of R.Shanmugalingam aka appu archie. {
Thivya, you have yet to answer my counter-arguments at:
http://groundviews.org/2012/07/07/equality-unity-autonomy-democracy/#comment-46725
http://groundviews.org/2012/07/07/equality-unity-autonomy-democracy/#comment-47063
Self determination (separation of North and East from the rest of the country)goes in line of the agenda of the colonials. It is an extension of the colonists agenda. It can be justified only in a colonist policy.
Giving more privileges to “obedient Tamils” and punishing “rebellion Sinhalese” was an essential part of their policy. Colonists favoured Tamils giving “government sponsored opportunities” in employment, education…. etc. etc. created Tamils a privilege class over the Sinhalese in this country, giving them these intangible resources over the others.
When colonist lost the power there was no way to continue with that “forced favouration” to Tamils by the government and as Sinhalese voiced for their due equal rights. So, inequitable employment opportunities and educational opportunities were corrected. There is no way they can get those privileges though government enforcement as they no more have a government which favours them over the Sinhalese. That is not an achievable and justifiable goal anymore, as Sinhalese too gained in education aftermath of the independent. Now deprived of the privileges in the intangible areas of resources the only way to continue as a privilege class is to have privileges in “tangible resources”, land and sea.
So, now the demand for separation is the formula to prevail further as the privilege class. North and East if given they get four times more per capita land than any other community. Inalienable hiding factor behind the “innocent” demand for “self-determination” is this inequitable distribution of resources favoured to them.
If they need “self-determination” alone to keep their dignity as a separate community why the demand for an inequitable piece of land “N&E” which gives four times the per in those two areas? Why the demand “East” which they had never ruled? Why they don’t demand an equitable piece of and equivalent to their portion of their population? They could have justified in a way if they demand only the Jaffna peninsula, which seems to be more equitable in land resources and also in terms of historical grounds, as Tamils ruled that part of the country for a considerable period of time.
Only theory that explains the this behaviour of Tamils is to their thirst for “inequitable privileges” created by the colonists, in their colonist agenda “to favour those who favoured them”.
Colonists’ agendas are no more probable in colonist-less country, however, still they try to keep the agenda survived with the strings in their hands in England, France, USA and even in the UNO.
This unjustifiable move should be opposed and defeated with all our might. Now the agenda in Sri Lanka must be Sri Lankan, not even a speck of colonists. We must build our nation according to the aspiration/agenda of the Sri Lanka Nation. We must devlop a new vision to the country and for that first do away with unjustifiable alien agendas belonged to the past.
Thanks!
Thanks!
Dear Yapa/The Owl of Minerva,
“…Jaffna Tamils(Not Tamils)…” Correctly said. Elite-tamils, to be precise. Thanks to everyone who pushed all tamils into the same “Elite-tamils” basket.
The point is, some people of this island prepared to pay any price (including the so-called previledge enjoyed by Elite-groups) inorder to make and keep this Island one country. Stil, we are paying a price in a different form.
Do not get me wrong. I have come to a point where I ask myself “Is it worth paying this price to keep this Island one country?”. Thank you.
Dear SomeOne;
Justice should be secured at any cost. Opportunity cost of justice is higher than any other cost. Only justice can keep a society together. I think paying any price for justice is justifiable. Otherwise people will rise against the each other and ultimately destroy the whole society.
Aristotle said, “Justice is the bond that keeps a society together”.
Justice is more valuable than any other thing. It is worth of paying any price to achieve it. That is my idea and understanding.
Thanks!
Dayan’s about turn and ‘long march’ to meeting Nalin De Silva!
‘A nation that oppresses another nation forges its own chains.’ (Karl Marx)
yapa
July 22, 2012 • 8:34 pm
Dear SomeOne;
Justice should be secured at any cost. Opportunity cost of justice is higher than any other cost. Only justice can keep a society together. I think paying any price for justice is justifiable. Otherwise people will rise against the each other and ultimately destroy the whole society.
Aristotle said, “Justice is the bond that keeps a society together”.
Justice is more valuable than any other thing. It is worth of paying any price to achieve it. That is my idea and understanding.
Thanks!
Mr.Yapa would you define “JUSTICE”. Everyone is fighting for “JUSTICE”.
Government is for “JUSTICE”, Opposition is for “JUSTICE”, Sinhalese are for “JUSTICE”, Tamils are for “JUSTICE”, Muslims are for “JUSTICE” and the latest “20.07.2012 non-functioning of Courts” are too for “JUSTICE”.
So hat is “JUSTICE”? One man’s bread is another man’s poison?
Dear Sie.Kathieravealu;
Surely demanding four times per capita land is not justice!
Self-determination is all about that in Sri Lankan context.
Thanks!
Gentlemen,
Any community living anywhere, at some stage of their life look to live with pride and dignity, you may call it “self determination”
There are thousands of Communities all over the World who are aspiring to reach this.
Why should anybody be surprised, and what could be wrong to have these expectations?
In Russian Chechniya the Muslims want to be identified by their own right.
In Indian Kashmir the Kashmir’s want India to recognize their identity.
In Iraq the Sunnis and Shiites are fighting for their different identities.
In Iran besides the struggle of the Sunnis and Shiites they persecuted the Bahai’s.
The Indians who stood against Britain broke up as India and Pakistan.
East Pakistan broke from Pakistan to create, Bangaladesh.
East Timor broke up from Timor and Indonesia.
Recently Sudan has broken up as Sudan and South Sudan.
The Soviet Union broke up, so many Countries in East Europe suffered the same fate.
Therefore please remember Sri Lanka will follow, sooner or later.
No amount of Sinhala rhetoric could replace the humiliation the Tamils went through and are going through.
The problem is with the Politicians, not the Sinhala or Tamil population.
The Sinhala Buddhist Politician who was and is the Master of this land,did a series of changes to the First Constitution.
Who benefitted from all these changes and with all the Amendments?
The Tamils felt they were being targetted and betrayed, because they stood shoulder to shoulder with the Sinhalese before Independence.
That is why the Tamil Politicians of yesteryear clamoured for 50/50
Some of them knew the Sinhala mentality, they wanted to be superior all the time.
The average Sinhala man is one of the finest specimen of human decency, they are easy going, generally not cunning willing to help.
But putting them together the tribal togetherness is awoken.
This is like the average Tamil man he will not jump to help, he has a perfected “clanish” mentality. Will first help only his clan.
If the Sinhala Politicians did not play “gallery” if they had “statesmen” in their mids’t this conflict could have been averted.
Now it is too late, they have accomadated extremist Sinhala Buddhist parties into their Cabinet.
The Sinhala Politician and the majority have no foresight and sadly no intelligence but they have qualities of “machination”
They are very quick to divert and change direction at the drop of a hat.
They cannot bind logic and reasoning.They go by tribal instincts.
The Tamil man is essentially selfish, but is clever and resilient.
He is opportunistic too, otherwise how could HE survive in Colombo with all the harresment meted out to them. They sent their children abroad without sending them to the war front in Jaffna.
The Tamils were divided unfortunately, people like Kadirgamar, Tiruchelvam, Devananda Karuna are typical of opportunism.
They only defended the Governments and did not raise the violation of Human Rights.
You see, we are a confused Nation, now confounded, reversing this to the pre 1948 will be impossible for two reasons.
Several generations have the fear the outrage in their blood, the Sinhalese and Tamils.
Secondly we do not have Sinhala and Tamil politicians who can trust each other.
The onus falls on the Sinhalese because by their majority it is they who have the first responsibility to allay the fears of the minority.
DUE TO ALL THIS THE TRUST HAS BEEN SHATTERED AND PARTING WAYS WILL BE THE ONLY SOLUTION FOR THE WELL BEING OF THE SINGHALESE AND TAMILS
Good observation (even though highly generalised into stereotypes) giving a succinct analysis. Nothing wrong with aspirations at all except when it is designed to deny “freedoms” to “others”.
Please see my comments below for another synthesis.
My view differs from you in one respect in that I thought like you only a few months ago but now believe that “freedom” is a luxury that minorities cannot leave in the hands of the majority because you will wait for ever.
The tragedy in the case of the “Tamil” minority of Sri Lanka is that precisely because of their own chauvinist mind-set, they set out not only to undermine the hegemony of your average sinhala-racist chauvinist but went head to head against the “State” itself. That was foolish, especially when arms were taken up. One does not play the game that state is already a master of.
Instead, the Tamil leaders should have permitted the Tamil-elite to surreptitiously take over the reigns of Sri Lanka by letting their kids write, speak and study “Sinhala” language and culture better than the Sinhala Chauvinist would (they are simply not capable because they have blinkers on), continue their business and even permitting (even by “token”) “Sinhala” directors into their enterprises, insisting on being a part and parcel of the very fabric of Sri Lankan society. The Tamil-elite left to themselves were doing this fine, but the likes of SJV with their extraordinarily egotistic mindset, sought to make cannon-fodder out of not only the poor Tamil in Vanni, but specifically the successful Tamil in Colombo.
BTW, here is an interesting observation of SJV and SWRD as opposed to DS:
Whilst DS was a man of the soil, SWRD and SJV were foreign educated “Westernised” elite. While DS attempted to appease and bring together the local yokels, the other two raised the spectre of racism. It is interesting that those who went to ‘Western” Universities did this.
Does the word “agent” mean anything to you?
It is still not too late any “minority” (I include those with the Sinhala Buddhist label here) in Sri Lanka who feel tread on by the predatory Sinhala Racist Idiot minority to take the steps towards self-determination. self-actualisation and freedom without the need to address the predators at the top.
There appears to be a coy stance by purveyors of the Sinhala racists stance, that the Tamils have no real grievances and that they have not been vilified.
However, the truth is that the racist core which largely provides the core support for the SLFP have traditionally used “Tamils” as a useful target for their frustrations. The historical accident of Jaffna Tamils having opportunities were used to target them.
OTOH, Tamil racism clearly played into the antics of Sinhala Racists to subvert their true grievances (being targets of violence and vilification campaigns and lack of implementation of the Native Languages Act to include the use of Tamil).
The Tamil racist/sectarian stance included:
1) Stand against Universal Suffrage and demand for 50% parliamentary seats to be reserved for “minorities”, leaving the other 50% as a free for all; Ponnambalam actually sparked race riots through racist invective in a deliberate attempt at subverting the growing popularity of the Jaffna Youth League who were a radical secular group representing all “Ceylonese” (1930′s to 1940′s).
2) Foundation of the Tamil Maha Sabah followed by the “Tamil State Party”
3) Claim of “colonisation” against DS Senanayake (to offer Crown allotments to those displaced by irrigation scheme is not discrimination- The British Commissions also found against the “Tamil” grievance of colonisation when it was found that land had been offered to all and the “Jaffna Tamils” refused to take it up (1940′s 1950′s).
4) The insistence (GGP) that Tamil and Sinhala students be segregated according to different mediums (when it was realised that clever, Tamil parents were sending their kids to Sinhala medium schools)- 1960′s
5)Stand against the Social Disabilities Act -1956 (to the extent of sleeping at the Temple gates to prevent entry of low caste hindus- 1968)
6) The invective against the “Standardisation Scheme” (1970′s) which was clearly an “Affirmative Action” a scheme intended to provide opportunities for children from remote areas (whether from Vavunia or Ampara). I having been educated in Colombo would have welcomed such an attempt at levelling the playing field. The Tamil racists used this (very foolishly) for a campaign of pointing fingers at “racial discrimination”. (Yapas of this World are therefore able to use such action to , rightly or wrongly, point to as evidence of Tamils not wanting to give up their elite status- The fact that they go to the extent of saying that Jaffna Tamils were helped to that status no longer matters because the elite Tamils themselves have by now shot themselves in the foot).
It was foolish to attempt to attack the GSL on a basis of Racial Discrimination as GSL had in fact been exemplary in non-discriminatory and accommodating laws.
Instead, the focus should have been on the so-called “Sinhala” politicians who used ‘racist’ politics to wield power. And the “Sinhala” officials who discriminated and the Sinhala idiots who vilified. By firstly invoking a “Tamil” racist political banner and then divorcing themselves from the Governing Process because none of their unreasonable demands could be met even by Dudley Senanayake (actually one- that of segregation may have been conceded by Dudley- I stand to be corrected on this).
How easy it would have been for the elite Tamils (businessmen and civil servants) to bring their children up to be in control of the island. Yet the Tamil politicians let the ball drop and betrayed the elite Tamils. The horrific conclusion of 1983 and JR’s own transformation from visionary to a macabre monster may not have emerged if the Tamil leaders were honest.
How sad…. There are many reasons to weep for the Tamils.
Dear Ravana,
On balance, I would look at your post as a good one. However I think a correction is in order. I too support Affirmative action in Education. However the first attempt at standardisation was Media wise. That was inherently unfair by the Tamils. This was changed and the media wise standardisation was replaced by District wise standardisation.
As it stands today, Tamils as an ethnicity is not disadvantaged in anyway by standardisation. In fact Jaffna is today considered a Educationally disadvantaged district and students from Jaffna will hence enter University with lower marks than those from Colombo or Gampaha etc.
Since students from Jaffna are Tamil, they would have preference over Sinhala students from Gampaha but this is not an ethnic preference it is a District preference, based on the current educational facilities available to students in that district. As Jaffna recovers from the war, it would get reclassified as an advantaged district, which it was before the war.
OTC,
Thanks for the correction. I guess again there is a parallel between the Swabhasa Movement and “Sinhala Only” Act. The stupidity of the “Sinhala” oriented politicians never ceases to amaze me. There may be other inaccurate impressions I have in the above list. However, the overall sense I have is that those who are on that island should firstly consider that the practicality of Governing that island divided entities has been near zero on a historical basis. In a modern context it is certainly a near impossibility.
Secondly, and as a corollary to the above, it should be acknowledged then , that the whole island belongs to all its people. It does not even matter if you are a 1000 generation Sri Lankan or a new arrival. What matters is if a person recognises him or herself as a citizen/resident of the country , then they have the privilege of joint ownership of that piece of dirt.
Thirdly, to either project the superiority of one’s mythical “race”, or to project the “other” as foreign to the land is superfluous in the least. When one denies the validity of genetically based “races” (the only reason that there is as much a 2% genetic distance between the “Human Ape” and the Bonobo is that our ancestors have exterminated any genetic cousins with intermediate distance, either through violence or absorption- methinks) then the only claim for any territoriality is a socio-cultural base. From a socio-cultural perspective whether it is Kerala-Culture, Tamil-Culture or Indigenous-Culture (not mention the fact that the World’s four major -and crazy- religions are only represented in Sri Lanka), Sri Lanka has accommodated to and assimilated these to an extent that it would be difficult for any group other than those who reject that amalgam to claim a distinction.
Let us imagine that the “Tamil” group really is that distinct (culturally) from other Sri Lankans. Then, they must keep in mind that “territory” is not a piece of land (as their Ape-Subconscious tells them). The territory is themselves. Any attempt to claim the Ape-like territory is to fall into the traps of the Alpha_Male Baboon bands which rule this Earth (most of these bands consisting of those who developed a mutation around 70 000 years ago in NorthWest India as an adaptation to the “Nuclear Cloud” which hovered for centuries after the Volcanic Eruption 100 times in energy than Krakatoa enveloped that region-the mutation was- you guessed it – suppression of expression of melanin).
Freedom comes from realising that territory is a state of mind which we can superimpose on our Territorial Lower Brain (which expects a concrete piece of territory- this became necessary when our distant ancestors emerged from the Ocean which has so much space that there is no need for territory. The two dimensional land surface on the other hand requires territoriality). By realising that it is our affiliation with like-minded people (fellow-Apes) which provides “territory” we become free of the Alpha-Male (they are really lizards – not even Apes) control. If you are already a male then you have to overcome the Alpha-Male within. That gives us the multidimensional freedom which was afforded by our fish-like ancestors and our fortunate cousins , the Whales and Dolphins rediscovered millions of years ago (remember, the Whale Brain is larger than the HUman-Brain, only a tiny fraction of which would be used controlling its massive musculature).
The same goes for “Self-Determination”. It is nothing but a State of Mind which each individual has to develop. When like-mided, freedom loving individuals communicate, they from a virtual territory which is essentially impervious to the reptilians.
I presume you carry the label “Sinhala” (let us just assume that for the moment). Why can’t you and I equally be “Tamil”? When we eat Godhambha, Sambar, Vaddai, or when in our youth, we fantasised about the sweet lips of a Tamil Goddess, or we embraced our “Tamil” brother, were we not “Tamil”?
I have to say that I have moved on from that and now tend to identify myself as just an Ape, on a Goldilocks planet in an insignificant Solar System on an outer arm of a Galaxy which is lost amongst billions of such Galaxies, in a so-called Universe which is nothing but a pod of an infinity of such pods in the tree called existence.
So, all this seems so trivial. But this Ape has to keep himself amused somehow!
No any self determination to any communal minded set of people, whole Sri Lanka belongs to all inhabitants in Sri Lanka.
Northern PC election would determine who would administer provincial affairs of that part of SL, nothing less,nothing more.
Ending devastating civil war of 30 years should no way open doors to any body to resurrect separatism again by instigating next generation of innocent youth with false promises such as ‘Self Determination’.
People who claim to represent Ceylon Tamils should be ashamed that they are again trying to play with lives of next generation , courtesy Diaspora Terrorists & their US$.
Never take youth on suicidal path of Chelva instead take them along Thonda way. That’s all what laymen can say, only gods will determine fate in store for next generation of innocent Ceylon Tamils now living in north & unborn, at the hands of selfish politicians who visit north of Sri Lanka only for politics
‘Self determination’ and ‘Traditional Homelands’, mean different things to different people. Both are dirty words to the majority amongst the majority Sinhala community, though they may be exhilarating to some Tamils, who have not borne the brunt of the last war or seen the results.
I am sure Sumanthiran and others in the TNA know this very well. The words have been defined to mean many things over years to the Tamils, by Tamil politicians and Tamil militants (Including the LTTE). They mean only one thing for the Sinhalese- division of the island.
It is time the ‘Tamil grievances’ are articulated in a different manner that is resonates with the majority Sinhala people. The conditions are there for this to happen, provided the TNA changes its tune. This not happening and this gives the GOSL and the Sinhala polity, the excuses and reasons for not dealing with issue in an objective manner. The TNA should drop its confrontational attitude and deal with the current situation with more finesse and diplomacy. Absolute honesty in intentions, words and action are essential. When this happens, the ball will be entirely in the government’s and the Sinhala polity’s court.
I have spelled out what the goals of the Tamils/minorities should be in a new Sri Lanka, elsewhere in my comments in groundviews.com. Until the TNA is seen as having shed the separatist threat and image, PC elections in the north, should not be held. If held earlier, Sri lanka would undoubtedly make its worse political blunder, yet.
Dr.Rajasingham Narendran
Dr. Narendran.
Paragraph 2 of your post says it all – from the point of view of the TNA, its strategy and how it is implemented. Honesty, Finesse and Diplomacy are notably lacking in the TNA’s words and actions. I find it quite surprising really.
Well articulated, Dr. Narendran.
I cannot agree more with Narendran Rajasingham.Every word he has written here is the word of wise statesmanship and responsible and realistic politics.”Politics is the art of the possible” and not the articulation of utopian programs and the uttering of war cries.
But then,who will listen to us?
However I do have resrvations about the holding of elections:Elections may calm the waters and make the elected representative more responsible and realistic.
It is said that ELECTIONS in Sri Lanka are scheduled to be held ONLY IF there is at least a 10% chance of the Party-in-power winning the Election.
So do not be disturbed of a RARE CHANCE of an election for the NPC in the near future.
Wait till 10th of September 2012 to guess a date of the near future.
QUOTING WIJEYAPALA’S COMMENTS ON A POST BY OFF-THE-CUFF:
“And that reaction against Indian Tamil subjugation of Lankan polity caused a Civil War that lasted for over a year.”
Kindly educate us as to which “Civil War” you are referring to. And again, it would very much help if you could avoid vague statements”.
I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW ABOUT THIS WAR TOO.AFTER READING THIS I CHECKED MY BOOKS ON SRI LANKAN HISTORY AND COULD NOT FIND ANY REFERENCE TO IT.IF OFF-THE-CUFF HAS DISCOVERED EVIDENCE FOR THIS IT IS HIS DUTY TO PUBLISH THIS.AFTER ALL A WAR THAT LASTED FOR A YEAR,NO DOUBT WITH CASULATIES, SHOULD NOT SWEPT UNDER THE CARPET.SURELY IT IS NOT A WAR THAT ONLY OFF THE CUFF HAS RECORDED?
AND WHO WHO WON THIS WAR?IS IT COMPARABLE TO THE INDIAN “MUTINY”?
Dear The Owl Of Minerva (TOOM),
Why are you shouting?
As they say, “The Empty Pot makes the Loudest Noise”
Firstly, have the courtesy to post where you originated this thread with your post of July 22, 2012 • 8:17 am. A reply is expected in the relevant thread, not hidden away somewhere else.
My reply post of July 23, 2012 • 11:13 am is still awaiting a reply in that thread. At the time of writing this post, almost 34 hours later, I still don’t see a reply from you.
Who are you trying to hoodwink?
The readers of GV?
Please have the courage to post your comment where a reply from you is expected and not randomly all over the web page.
Secondly, before making an absolute fool of yourself, as you have done now, please check the correct thread.
Thanks for letting us know that you have the most complete collection of books on Sri Lankan History in your Library. Then of course KMD Silva’s History of Sri Lanka must be collecting dust on the Racks. Please dust it off and start reading as apparently you have not read it.
The Owl is said to be wise.
Off the Cuff means writing or speaking without much thought.
I don’t allow myself to be deceived by Pseudonyms.
I hope you do not either.
Best Regards
OTC
Wijeyapala is handling this issue,raised by Off The Cuff very well with sufficient historical detail and intelligent interprataion making it uncessaray to add anything.
I would like to add however that if in the fevered imagination of Sinhala nationalists the tax revolt against the British, (which incidentaly began in Jaffna) can be re-articulated as a CIVIL WAR between the the Sinhalese and the Tamils, there surely cannot be any reconciliation any time soon,despite Narendran’s hopeful view.
Toom,
Yes the man who climbed a Palm tree to drink toddy also had an excuse and said he climbed the tree to cut grass and was climbing down as there was no grass. Is that why you HID your post out of sight in a different thread?
You wrote about the Christian missionary schools in Jaffna. Sabbe Laban disagreed with you. You came up with a rejoinder that a wise man would not make. You asked him to write a doctoral thesis and submit it to the Physics dept. of a certain SL Uni. I asked you which branch of Physics you had in mind as obviously you had an axe to grind with a certain Uni and it’s Physics dept.
Your response was again the same …. go in to hiding.
Please read the following post from me July 24, 2012 • 11:39 am if you have not read it already.
It deals with the CURRENT British outlook on the propagation of the Christian faith in an enlightened 21st Century UK. The British Govt still has Laws that help in disseminating the Christian Faith. Given the current state, the state 200 years ago, would have been intolerable.
It supports Sabbe Laban’s view that “ … It agreed with policy of the Brits to give more opportunities to the Tamils in order to marginalize the Sinhalese. It is possible that the colonial rulers carried out their agenda through the Christian missionaries”
You say “I would like to add however that if in the fevered imagination of Sinhala nationalists the tax revolt against the British, (which incidentaly began in Jaffna) can be re-articulated as a CIVIL WAR between the the Sinhalese and the Tamils”
Well why dont you come right out and discuss this re-articulation?
You need not write a doctoral dissertation an submit to any university as you asked Sabbe Laban a simple comment supporting you view with references would suffice.
Would you rather hide as before and make cowardly remarks?
The crimes are increasing in the country, because the thugs are ruling. The thugs do not live by the law, neither run the country by the law. The country is getting worse everyday. Do you really believe that the thugs would give any thought on Tamils’ self determination?
A government statement released in parliament in May said that of the 1,450 female rape cases reported in 2011, child rape accounted for 1,169, alerting authorities and activists to a rising trend.
Earlier this month, police said in a statement that over 700 complaints of rape or abuse of children were filed in the first half of the year, and that, on average, at least four cases were being reported daily.
sabbe laban Writes, in reply to my comment on education in Jaffna:
“I don’t see the founding of a greater number of Christian missionary schools in Jaffna as an accident! It agreed with policy of the Brits to give more opportunities to the Tamils in order to marginalize the Sinhalese. It is possible that the colonial rulers carried out their agenda through the Christian missionaries!”
Finally.Saba Lanan has solved the puzzle of why the Americam missionaries chose to go to Jaffna!I think Saba Laban should expand on this submit it as a dissertation to the Physics department of a certain universuty in Sri Lanka and they are sure to give him a doctorate. I can suggest contributors to these pages as members of the disserrtation committtee!
Dear Toom,
Brilliant comment.
You have successfully debunked Sabbe Laban’s contention.
Which branch of Physics did you have in mind?
TO OFF THE CUFF:
Re Laban’s ideas:How about the Department of TRANSCENDENTAL PHYSICS? I understand that there is department in a uniiversity in Sri Lanka that specializes in that sort of thing…
The Owl of Minerva
This is my third attempt at replying you, which I thought(wrongly) my right!
Are you unable to counter my argument? As you don’t know me, and I don’t know you, your personal attacks on me are akin to bradishing a sword in the dark!!
Dr Narendran
Are you suggesting that the Tamils go on a ‘Pindapaathe’ to resonate with the Sinhala Buddhists?
Cyril,
Please explain what you mean by ‘Pindapaathe’? I do not recognize the word as spelled in English. At the same time please postulate the path you think the Tamils who live in Sri Lanka should take in dealing with the Sinhala Buddhists, other than what has been done all these long years and left us where we (Tamils) are now.
Dr.Rajasingham Narendran
Dr Narendran
‘Pindapaathe’ is a Sinhala word used in reference to Buddhist monks who go from house to house with a bowl to collect food (Of course, nowadays you hardly see a Buddhist monk going on a ‘Pindapaathe’).
It’s not my prerogative to advise the Tamil people how they should deal with the Sinhala people, their political leaderships and the State. I believe that the Tamil people and their political leadership, through a bitter and bloody war, have acquired the political maturity and acumen to decide on an appropriate course of action in dealing with them in order to win their political rights. Of course, I would not advocate the LTTE path. My desire is that the Tamil, the Sinhala and the Muslim people are able to live with dignity and in harmony with each other in a United Sri Lanka.
Mr.Cyril I agree with your saying “My desire is that the Tamil, the Sinhala and the Muslim people are able to live with dignity and in harmony with each other in a United Sri Lanka”.
It is not difficult IF THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE can understand or become aware of the AGENDA of the “professional politicians”. They want to have ALL the powers to control the “people” and have them as their “slaves”.
Some suggestions that would help to create a UNIQUE SYSTEM OF GOVERNANCE that would ultimately bring in GOOD GOVERNANCE by showing the way out for injustice, discrimination, oppression and corruption born due to and bred by the present system of governance that is mistakenly or mischievously termed as democratic by persons who call themselves political scientists or “pundits”.
Even the demand for devolution needs to be reframed as a demand for “democratization” that brings government closer to all the people, not just minorities, apart from being made far stronger than the 13th Amendment, which has loopholes allowing the Centre to take back the devolved powers. Along with the demand for abolition of the Executive Presidency, and further devolution to smaller units, it would politically empower all the people of Sri Lanka to have more control over their lives, instead of having their lives ruled by a remote power in Colombo that knows little and cares less about their needs.
So, 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 usurped in by the present 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.
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.
This system would help to eradicate injustice, discrimination, corruption and oppression – the four pillars of an evil society – and help to establish the “Rule of Law” and “Rule by ALL” for sustainable peace, tranquility and prosperity and a pleasant harmonious living with dignity and respect for all the inhabitants in the country.
It is high-time we start thinking on establishing a system of governance that would politically empower the people at the grass-root level and NOT jut the 0.1% with power and money to consolidate the power to enrich themselves at the expense of the people at the grass-root level.
Over to you – THE MAJORITY – the oppressed and the poor
Mr.Cyril IF the above system of governance suggested by me is put in practice the cry for “self-determination” and the vociferous cry against “self-determination” would not be heard.
So, it is humbly requested that all those participating in this forum be good enough to give serious consideration to the system suggested by me and voice your views openly.
Dear Cyril,
Thanks for explaining the word. I was under the impression, it sounded ‘Pinna’ as in ‘Pinna paathraya’-begging bowl (Pitchaa paathram, in Tamil). I do not advocate that the Tamils beg for anything from anyone! No one has to beg for what is rightfully theirs.
You say, “I believe that the Tamil people and their political leadership, through a bitter and bloody war, have acquired the political maturity and acumen to decide on an appropriate course of action in dealing with them in order to win their political rights”.
This where I disagree with the TNA. They have not learned the lessons nor benefited from the political maturity and acumen that should have come as a result of the wars, you refer to. They are yet singing an old song that led to the wars and their aftermath. Most Tamils have learned their lessons. Unfortunately, the TNA has not! The TNA is trying to make the Tamils unlearn the valuable lessons they have learned, through peddling dangerous and emotive politics. They exaggerate, distort and lie to an unbelievable extent, to support their claim to be the sole representatives of the Sri Lankan Tamils. It is dangerous game, which will have predictable consequences for the Tamils.
You say, “My desire is that the Tamil, the Sinhala and the Muslim people are able to live with dignity and in harmony with each other in a United Sri Lanka”.
That is what I want too. The Tamils should have equal rights as citizens and the security to live, work and prosper, wherever they wish in the island. This is our constitutional right. We have to demand these rights operate in practice and secure the support of the other peoples in Sri lanka. This is the lesson the wars and their aftermath have taught us. Preceding or along with these, we have get the help to regain our dignity as humans. The war has crippled us and pushed most of us into penury and deprivation. We are experiencing a cultural and social catastrophe. The TNA does not talk about these issues. It has inherited the culture of emotive politics and rable rousing from its predecessors, including the LTTE. This is what it is doing now on grand scale. I object to this, as I am exposed day in and day out to the realities here in the north.
Dr.Rajasingham Narendran
Dear Dr.Rajasingham Narendran/ Cyril;
“You say, “My desire is that the Tamil, the Sinhala and the Muslim people are able to live with dignity and in harmony with each other in a United Sri Lanka”.
That is what I want too. The Tamils should have equal rights as citizens and the security to live, work and prosper, wherever they wish in the island. This is our constitutional right. We have to demand these rights operate in practice and secure the support of the other peoples in Sri lanka.
…………..
This is our constitutional right! All of ours. Even Sinhalese have been deprived of this right by the elite class that rules this country. You should not think that Sinhalese masses have got those rights and only Tamils have not got them. None of the general masses of both communities and also of the other communities like Muslims have achieved them. You can see poor and deprived masses in all the communities and privileged people in all of them as well. This is a common problem for all the general masses of all the communities. Only an elite calls of all the communities are enjoying these rights and privileges. The enemy of the general masses of one community is not the general masses of another community. Sinhala general masses is not the enemy of Tamil general masses, and Tamil general masses is not the enemy of Sinhala general masses. General masses of all the communities are in the same boat I think. So the general masses of all communities have a common goal to achieve, from their common suppressor, the elite class.
I think suppressed classes of all the communities should unite against the common enemy, and not against the equally suppressed in the other communities. I think we all should come to our sense and understand our real and common enemy to fight with, leaving aside fighting among ourselves. For this we should shelve our differences. When we fight for the bone, the astray dogs benefits.
Thanks!
Correction………
“Only an elite [calls] of all the communities are enjoying these rights and privileges.
should be
“Only an elite class of all the communities are enjoying these rights and privileges.”
Thanks!
Dear Yapa,
I agree the weak and the voiceless are exploited, robbed and deprived by the empowered, the brutes and the noisy. This a national problem embracing all communities in Sri Lanka (& many developing countries). The police protect the rich and powerful more than the poor, meek and week. Their urban counterparts have access to far better learning, health and employment opportunities. The list goes on.
However, the Sinhalese have yet advantages that the Tamils as a community do not have, in the same measure. The Tamil disadvantages in a national sense relate to use of Tamil in contacts with officialdom, equal opportunities in employment and security to person and property. Most importantly, they have inadequate say in the affairs of the state and managing their own affairs in a communal sense. Security is a serious concern, as the past has taught the Tamils to be wary of the state law enforcement services and the Sinhala politicians- a once bitten, twice shy syndrome. What the Tamils think is good for their community, should be decided by them and not the other communities, to the greatest extent possible, without threatening national security and the nation’s integrity. This would/should apply to other communities too.
Things may be improving, but yet are far from what they should be.
Dr.Rajasingham Narendran
Dear Cyril,
I came across the following statement made by the TNA in the period leading to the ‘Two thousand Four’ (I am experiencing a problem typing number two on my computer)General Elections, in today’s Island:
” The TNA declared: “Accepting the LTTE’s leadership as the national leadership of ‘Tamil Eelam’ Tamils and the Liberation Tigers as the sole and authentic representative of the Tamil people, let us devote our full cooperation for the ideals of the Liberation Tigers’ struggle with honesty and steadfastness. Let us endeavour determinedly, collectively as one group, one nation, one country, transcending race and religious differences, under the leadership of the LTTE, for a life of liberty, honour and justice for the Tamil people”.”
Has the TNA really changed or is it seeking its clearly stated objectives through other more devious means? The only element that is
overtly missing now is the LTTE as an overwhelming presence, but its shadow is yet there and its surrogate is the TNA. Have the last war and its devastating aftermath made any difference to the TNA?
Dr.Rajasingham Narendran.
Dear Yapa,
Sorry for belate response.
“….I think paying any price for justice is justifiable…”
What kind of justice are you talking of? Sadam Hussain had a justice system, Pirapakaran had a justice system and they maintained their justice system at any price, too. What I am saying is that we must put the word “Justice” in a context before we talk about justice.
I am sorry to say that the current regime’s justice system is indifferent from the justice system of the two which I mentioned above.
regimes.
You said “…Surely demanding four times per capita land is not justice!…” Then, will you accept the separation of Jaffna peninsula which is about 12 % of the land mass of Whole Island and larger than the area of Singapore?
When Brits were in this Island We all were taking party and Brits were giving party. It is not the case now. In other words, there is no one to give and no one to take, either. We need to understand this fact.
Thanks..
Dear SomeOne,
You said “Then, will you accept the separation of Jaffna peninsula which is about 12 % of the land mass of Whole Island and larger than the area of Singapore?”
I would unhesitatingly support Complete autonomy, as a province of Sri Lanka. This includes Land and Police powers as well.
Separation as a separate country would be a very high security risk due to the overwhelming presence of Tamils in India and the rest of the world. It would be very easy for a separate country to issue citizenship to anyone it desires. Israel has an open invitation for the Jews to become citizens of that country.
Shlomo Guberman, Deputy Attorney-General (Legislation) (Retired) writes
Quote
On July 5, 1950, the Knesset unanimously adopted the Law of Return, 1950. Section 1 of the Law reads as follows:
Every Jew has the right to immigrate to the country.
This was no innovation. The State of Israel was established for the very purpose of repatriating the Jewish people from the Diaspora, to enable the “Ingathering of the Exiles”, to give every Jew anywhere in the world the option to return to the land of his fathers.
Unquote
Dear Dr. RN
Yes the Island article not only states the LTTE/TNA pact mentioned by you but also states of both electoral and secret pacts, as well as conspiracies. This article says such pacts are common in politics.
SL Politicians are famous for breaking pacts. Also Karuna, Pilleiyan, KP, Doulas also broke their pacts with LTTE.
Even MR entered a pact with LTTE and prevented the Tamils from voting the first time he got elected as the President only to defeat terrorism..
Dear Sri Lankan,
Please read DBS,Jeyaraj’s article on the anniversary of the Indo-Sri Lankan agreement (www.dbsjeyaraj.com). It clearly threads many events together to pinpoint the foolishness of the so-called Tamil leadership, political and militant. The Tamils had no leaders then and do not have any now. This is our tragedy. The Sinhalese cannot be blamed for our stupidity and historical short sightedness. We the Tamils are suffering from a suicidal syndrome and keep on voting for the same ‘Pied pipers’!
Dr.Rajasingham Narendran
Dear “Off the Cuff”
“….Separation as a separate country would be a very high security risk due to the overwhelming presence of Tamils in India and the rest of the world….”
Could you explain the kind of the risk you or anyone else faces due to this separation?
I look at it in a different angle. We are getting rid of some headache by separating them.
If you have this kind of fear in your mind it will chase you and catch you. It is a matter of time. Not IF, WHEN.
Thanks.
“I look at it in a different angle. We are getting rid of some headache by separating them.”
I doubt that you will.
As a single country the Island will be governed by a single constitution.
That will ensure that everything that a minority wants will be achievable with dignity while ensuring security.
Remember that the Muslims would also want devolution.
Excellant debat,if contiunitue will be better for Tamil Nation Liberation.
Unlike Dayan, Sumanthiran’s logic is flawless… sadly, however, Sumanthiran has chosen to follow in the footsteps of a long line of Tamil speaking leaders who chose politics of ethnicity, over class. Don’t they realise that the ethnic political game has prescribed winners and losers? Sri Lanka doesn’t have an Ethnic issue – ethnic lines are only drawn for superficial political gain, as they always have been. They may not realsie it, or admit it, but Dayan and Sumanthiran are from the same team – the winning class. The LTTE and the JVP drew their strength from the poor and the under privileged.
Imagine the possibilities if brilliant minds like Sumanthiran chose not to play the ethnic political game, instead used their talents to look for real change?
Dear Off the cuff
“..I doubt that you will…”
Then, probably, you caught “the tiger by its tail”. Good luck!!
I recall a saying..”Kotti waligaya allagaththa waage”. Read this in good spirit..
“….As a single country the Island will be governed by a single constitution. That will ensure that everything that a minority wants will be achievable with dignity while ensuring security….”
Heaven sake, it is NOT happening.
First of all, we must define the term “minority”. In my view, it is not correct to think democracy in terms of “minority “and “majority”. It is a divisive mentality. A constitution must/should be able to protect fundamental rights of each and every individual. If a constitution cannot protect basic human right what is the point in having one.
The system what we are having is NOT working. It was brought in and forced on by someone else. We are talking about democracy but we don’t mean it and, further, we are not ready for it. In fact, we are living in medieval period and full filling our forefather’s dreams.
If we are to change the way we think north central province must be made capital territory and all provinces must be made independent states around it. This division will create competition between provinces and it will drive the development of the country.
We need a complete overhaul of our system and it should be radical in nature. People will like a ruthless justice system as long as it preserve the fundamental rights of individual (NEITHER minority’s NOR majority’s). Thanks
Mr.Someone you said
“First of all, we must define the term “minority”. In my view, it is not correct to think democracy in terms of “minority “and “majority”. It is a divisive mentality. A constitution must/should be able to protect fundamental rights of each and every individual. If a constitution cannot protect basic human right what is the point in having one.
The system what we are having is NOT working. It was brought in and forced on by someone else. We are talking about democracy but we don’t mean it and, further, we are not ready for it. In fact, we are living in medieval period and full filling our forefather’s dreams.
We need a complete overhaul of our system and it should be radical in nature. People will like a ruthless justice system as long as it preserve the fundamental rights of individual (NEITHER minority’s NOR majority’s). Thanks”
I agree that we need a COMPLETE overhaul of the system of GOVERNANCE. Please read my suggestions in this regard published elsewhere in this forum.
Please comment on those suggestions.
Please see my suggestions published on July 26th, 2012 – 3.44
Dear SomeOne,
Did not see your comment till now. Sorry for the late reply.
Dividing the country on Ethnic lines will not solve problems. Rather it has the potential to create much more vexed problems. Lanka is multi ethnic and it is inconceivable to divide this small land in to separate entities which are fully independent of each other.
Majorities and minorities are a reality that cannot be escaped from. It will be there whether we like it or not. This does not mean that the individuals rights are different depending on which community one belongs to. The individuals rights must be equal in all respects.
If it is not happening we must make it happen.
It is true that the system we are having is not working as expected but it’s the best we got and we must make the most of it.
Japan is a country that kept moving her capital and it has worked for Japan. Nigeria too changed its capital from Lagos to Abuja. Nigeria is very corrupt and corruption in Lanka pales to insignificance compared to them. Lanka too moved her capital but it has not given similar dividends though minor development did occur.
What we need is a clear separation of powers between the Executive and Judiciary. The Executive should not be able to influence the Judiciary as it is possible now.
I agree with you that we need radical changes. I believe that it has to start with the Constitution which is the Supreme law of the country
To the attention of Groundviews:
First of all thank you for giving me this opportunity to express my views. Although, I keep an eye on the sites guide line while I write my comments my perceptions may me different from that of readers and the readers may view my comments as an offensive one. Therefore, it is much appreciated if you could give me your feedback on my comments, whenever possible. Also, I wish to have healthy discussion and share my views and ideas with you. Thank you
What is being discussed. Does not seem to be
SRI LANKA & TAMIL SELF-DETERMINATION.
Dear Sie.Kathieravealu,
We can make any suggestions. What is the use of it?. Our assumption is that the people holding the power have the heart, will, and courage to implement it. We lost all good governance including administrative and political system which kept the “checks and balances” once we had in the past, forever. It is sad to see that we were unable to capitalize on the legacy British people left behind. For instant, we are unable to sell tea by giving current name of this country. I believe that we are in a hole which we dug in.
We are capable of bringing back our past glory. We have done that before and we can do it again. Probably, you and I will not be here in this world to witness that glory. This kind of discussions should play pivotal roles in finding a just solution. We must talk to people with diverse ideas and views. It could take generations and there is no way around it.
Talking of “Sri Lanka & Tamil nationalism” it is more appropriate to call this “Sri Lanka and Jaffna Tamil nationalism”. Jaffna Tamils and Tamils elsewhere are united through the principle of “enemy’s enemy”. Once the common enemy disappears from the picture it doesn’t take long for the differences to come to surface. Thank you
Mr.SomeOne you did try to say something useful on
August 12, 2012 • 7:34 am but then it was not very clear.
I was expecting some comments on my suggestions but your comment seems to be on my initiative to make a suggestion.
My suggestions need not take generations to be implemented. It is only a matter of time and ability to make the people aware of the HUGE benefits that would accrue to the PEOPLE IF my suggestions were to be implemented.
I am quite aware that it is not possible with the present set of politicians on either side in Parliament – government/opposition, Sihalese/Tamils, Majority/Minority, Capitalists/Communists and so on and so forth.
But then IF ONE STATESMAN emerges he/she might be be able to do it in the next election. TNA can help to bring about the required change by vehemently opposing that STATESMAN.
I am yet to see the glimpse of a STATESMAN in the horison.
Dear OTC,
In connection with what you have written to Mr.Someone, Please see my suggestions published on July 26th, 2012 – 3.44
Dear All,
This debate started when the following statement was contested
“It is no doubt true that all through the early twentieth century the Jaffna Tamils(Not Tamils) were over-represented in the public services and the professions but this was NOT due to the patronage by the British but due to the “accident” of Christian missionaries, particularly the American one, establishing English schools practically every nook and cranny of the peninsula.These educatioinal opporunities enabled the people of Jsaffna(not for example the people of Trincomalee or Batticaloa)to enter the public services and the professions.”
Hence the opposition based its argument on
1. That the preponderance of Jaffna Tamils within Govt Bureaucracy was not due to Patronage by the British
2. It was due to an “Accident” in Education and not due to govt policy
3. That this “Accident” was the establishment of Missionary schools by the Americans
4. That such Missionary schools were unavailable to the people of Batticoloa and Trincomalee
This calls in to question
1. The Policy of the British Govt towards Education
2. The Policy of the British Govt towards Prosyletisation
3. Was the American schools being restricted to Jaffna by the British?
4. Was the American’s locating them selves in Jaffna an accident?
5. Did the Americans make a calculated decision to establish in Jaffna due to favourable prospect of conversion?
6. Was there any missionary schools in Batticoloa and Trincomalee contrary to the claims made?
I have attempted to examine the above and hence my repeated assertion that it was much wider than what Wijayapala was trying to restrict it to.
That all through the early twentieth century specifically “Jaffna Tamils” were over-represented in the public services and the professions has been accepted by all. The opposition has pointedly excluded the rest of the Tamils.
The above is an observation but no proof is possible unless govt records can be accessed. It will be proved by the employment and pension records of govt, which exists, though inaccessible to us, in the debate.
The preponderance of Jaffna Tamils in certain depts is also such an observation and the proof lies in govt records.
I have already proved that item 6 above, was a false claim by Toom and Wijayapala as both Trinco and Batti had missionary schools. I have provided evidence from the officer in the British Colonial Govt, that is second only to the Governor in Rank, that the several missionaries were acting on a common plan and has been doing so for several years (30 years if my memory is correct).
I have shown what the Policy of the British govt towards Proselytism is, even in the present day, in spite of the focus on Human Rights from which her policy on religious conversion in the middle ages can be judged.
I have addressed this claim of an “accident” and that the American’s were forced in to Jaffna by the British.
I will address other subject matter as it comes up.
Dear Gamarala,
You said “Off the Cuff, you accuse Wijayapala of dishonesty and the whole of your previous post deals with that (tangential) topic. The only point at which you flirt with the problem in question is when you mention that “The part played by the Jaffna Tamil Elitists who monopolized the Bureaucracy is ignored.”, which is of course the primary claim that is under discussion.”
While completely appreciating your diplomacy, I beg to differ due to the following reason.
I have not just accused him of dishonesty, I have proved the dishonesty with specific examples to which he has no counter.
Wijeyapala has accused me of falsely labelling some commentators on GV of Lying. I have challenged him to prove what he said since one of the people I have accused of lying is a participant in this debate. Wijeyapala has failed to prove his accusation.
I have not seen any retraction of the statements though they have been proven wrong.
I have also accused him of employing devious methods of prostituting my comments.
I have also not seen any “Ultimate Sources” other than the Wiki, the use of which by us, he was deriding.
For a healthy debate the participants need to be intellectually honest and be ready to admit any mistakes made. If the intent is solely “one-upmanship” then the debate would not be productive. This is why I point to such dishonesty in the hope that such dishonesty ceases.
I am not a Historian nor do I love history in the books published since these are the “opinions” or “views” of the particular writer or “Historian” as you might call.
As regards the topic of “English” education in the country in the early days, I do believe that these are due to te “religious sentiments” and the “need” of the people of the area that existed at thattime.
Each person would give his/her reason for same and these might or might not be true. It is “guessing”.