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”.

For some reason, my post though correctly posted, has appeared here

http://groundviews.org/2012/07/21/sri-lanka-tamil-self-determination/#comment-47783

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.

In connection with what you have written to Mr.Someone, Please see my suggestions published on July 26th, 2012 – 3.44

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?

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.

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.

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 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.

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.