You make a good point. The remedy may be to insist on making the constitution secular. I understand that the language issue has already been resolved at constitutional level. I am also aware that there are many more issues within both 1972 and 1978 constitutions which undermine basic rights of citizens as a whole. The constitution is worth repealing for these reasons. I do not believe that going back to a constitution imposed by a patronising coloniser (as “well meaning” it might have been) is the answer. Ceylon was a Dominion even after “Independence”. Australia has been a Commonwealth even without it.

I can appreciate that being in minority Sri Lankan group and being overseas makes it difficult to do something about it. Also, what benefit does the SLHC bring either Sri Lankan Australians or Sri Lanka? It is just a straw man.

It would be interesting to read Dr. Roberts writing on Australian Identity. Most of us probably identify more as Australian than Sri Lankan.

Thanks Ravana for that well researched explanation on ethnicity. I do accept your point and I am also of the view that all races and ethnic identities are bunk.

But with regards to been identified as “Sri-Lankan”, would mean that one accepts the 1972 Constitution and values/principles contained within it (as it is this constitution that defined Sri-Lanka & Sri-Lankan). Futhermore, as this is the same constitution that first defined the principle of protecting and promoting one particular group’s values over and above Universal values, it would be morally unacceptable to a rational person of modern day thinking. For example, such a person would not be able to join the defence forces of SL, as this would mean that one would be required to take an oath to defend a Constitution which one knows is against the Universal values one holds. Thus this would make many people not be able to consciously ‘belong’ to and make them second-class citizens within that nation.

Therefore one must reject this Constitution as long these biased clauses are contained within it. That would also mean the rejection of the identity “Sri-Lankan”. Isn’t that the problem Sri-Lanka faces today? Is that not why Tamils and others (by the way I am not a Tamil) cannot completely accept the “Unitary State”. A unitary state defined differently may be very acceptable to all groups, e.g. India.

In the context of Australian Bureau of Statistics requirements, this information is to plan for how Federal funds are to be allocated to best benefit the many Nationalities that are within Australia. Thus Sri -Lankan would be one group (represented by Sri-Lanka High Commissioner in Canberra). There are others who feel that their interests are not represented by the SLHC for reason I mentioned above. The best available alternative for these others are, to be identified as Ceylonese (at least under the Ceylon constitution, every group had equality in re-cognition/rights and acceptable universal values). When the Australian Bureau of Statistics, publishes it’s census report, the group of people who identified as ‘Ceylonese’ would be a separate group distinct from ‘Sri-Lankan’. This would lead to a more accurate allocation of Federal funds to the best benefit of these groups within Australia.

There was an interesting lecture by Sir V S Naipaul tracing his Napalese ancestry prior to hisforefathers moving to Trinidad by the indentured labour route. Time for such pursuits is a luxury that is not available to rest of us.

Does it matter whether our ancestors came as Tobacco farmers to Jaffna in Dutch raign or lost our belongings to be consigned to Dalit caste in the Sankili period or came to the island as soldiers or various trades in the bygone days.

I personally favour President Mahinda Rajapakse’s reasoning and accept to be called a Sri Lankan.

Or if I may be a bit decorative – a plural, inclusive, modern state. Sounds catchy but perhaps the author could suggest how this racial hegemonic control could be overcome. One look at the national flag with the lion holding a sword is enough to prove the point.

Thanks george the man

That was a gross error –a brainstorm on my part.. YES it shoudl be mishra lankika and that is whatit wa sin my Frontline article in the sens that i s used Sankara lanakika. I willask GV to correct this error.

Interesting take on “Sinhala” not being an ethnicity. That would be true prior to 1815 when “Sinhale” was the name of the nation which had emerged about a millennium prior as the people identified with the state. As Roberts himself outlines in his book on Kandian Kingdom and identity, even ordinary folk poetry alluded to such an identity in broad sections of the community by the middle ages. They would not have considered themselves an “ethnic group” although they readily identified “others” (see Roberts).

However, something paradoxical happened with the British conquest of the whole island (meaning that the “state” as identified by the royal person was taken into British custody). Curiously, the British who signed the treaty with the nobility of Sihale (the Board of Directors if you like) called the island Sihale by another name (we all know how all Europeans had called the island the same name as the recognised emperor did; ceialo, Ceylom, Zeylan, Ceylon are all corruption of Sihale or Seehalam).

Having called the island Ceylon (i.e. Sihale as an English corruption) the British curiously recognised two different ethnic groups which were invented for the first time in this World. Sinhalese based on the predominant language spoken on the island (sihala basa= sinhala or siyabasa – the latter meaning my language) and Tamuls based on the other major language spoken on the island ( Taymoli appears to have been corrupted to Tamul, the former meaning “my language”). Interestingly, “Tamuls” later became “Tamil” perhaps influenced by a Mahavamsa derision. Bishop Caldecott was certainly to be credited with taking this a step further and creating the Dravidian/Aryan (quite mythical- a myth created completely de novo in Caldecott’s mind) racial divide. This set the scene for further solidifying a deep rift especially by placing what were two sister languages in either side of an artificially created mythical divide.

As far as I am concerned all races and ethnic identities are bunk. However, as Dr. Roberts indicates, even though artificial, ethnic identities certainly provide practical assistance for policy makers who need to take into account the beautiful cultural diversity that different etnicities represent.

In this case these rather young ethnic groups, “Tamil” (not Chola, Chera or Pandya) and “Sinahla” (not people of Sinhale) are perfectly acceptable because the abstractions can be directly correlated with groups of people practising unique cultural attributes.

WRT not wanting to call oneself Sri Lankan but Ceylonese, I am not sure that Australian Bureau of Statistics would give a damn about an anachronistic identity. However, I have seen individuals who would definitely not think of themselves as “Sinhalese” call themselves Ceylonese as ironic as it may be! It appears those who are ethnically not Sinhala do an honour to the ancient Kingdom of Sihale/ Sinhale in insisting a connection to it whereas the Sinhalas do not have that psychological need.

Thus I agree with Dr. Roberts about the need to wipe out this identity Sinhala ethnic group will have with the island whether you call yourself Ceylonese or Sri Lankan. We might as well stick with Sri Lanka as, at least it has no etymological connection to any of the ethnic groups originating on that island even if one such group strives to expropriate the overall identity of the island-people.

Interesting!

Just a clarification, wouldn’t Mixed Lankan be better translated as Mishra Lankika rather than “Mishra Sinhala”? Or alternatively maybe it would be better to use “Mishra Jathika” or simply “Sambole” to encompass all mixes including those with part colonial lineage? I guess the English translation would be “Hybrid Lankan” : )

If I was filling out the Aussie census I would have just put Austral-Asian : )

Question 18 of the Australian census asks for the Ancestry. What is expected is the Ancestry of the person who is been counted. Thus the advised offered by the ATC is fair. If both your parents are Dravadian, your Ancestry would be “Dravidian”. If your parents were from different ethnic groups your Ancestry would be “Mixed”. Sri-Lankan is not an ethnic group, so this classification is not appropriate for Ancestry. Nor is “Sinhalese”. Sinhalese or Sinhala is not an ethnic group for the reason that to be of the same ethnic group, there must be genetic connections/common genetic characteristics within the members of the group. The so called Sinhala people have genetic connections mainly to different ethnic groups in different parts in India i.e. Bengal, Kerala etc. than to each other. Only commonality the “Sinhalese” share is the Language. This would not qualify as to be a separate ethnic group.

In Question 16, to write Tamil is correct. Since what is asked for is the language spoken at home by the person been counted, OTHER THAN ENGLISH. Here a Sinhalese speaker would be correct to write down Sinhala, as much as a Tamil speaker to write down Tamil, as both of these are languages other than English.

As with regards to Country of Birth, Sri-Lanka is a controversial term. This is because the term came in with the 1972 constitution. The geographical area governed by this constitution would be called Sri-Lanka and people living within it called Sri-lankan. This was NOT acceptable to most people at the time, other than the Sinhala-Buddhist, and it remains unacceptable even to date for most none Sinhala-Buddhist. Sri-Lanka and who is a Sri-lankan was defined by the constitution of 1972. This constitution placed one group of people superior to other groups living within it. It also opened avenues to give more re-cognition/privileges to that chosen group. This is a fundamental flaw for good nation building. It would never be able to be used to unify all groups within it. This had been the main reason for all the divisions/unrest the country has experienced so far and will remain so to the future. No one outside the “chosen group” cannot and would not with heart & mind like to identify themselves as “Sri-Lankan” (whatever spin anybody puts on what being a Sri-Lankan is) as long that definition is based on a bias. As things stand, identifying ones self as “Sri-Lankan” would be accepting this superiority of the chosen group. In this context, “Ceylon” would be the better term.

So what am I trying to say? I cannot see any other solution than admitting and learning from our mistakes of the past, and start from square one.
WHEN THE PATH CHOSEN DOES NOT LEAD YOU TO YOUR GOAL, I CHOOSE A DIFFERENT PATH. WHAT DO YOU DO?