16 May, 2022


Political Monks And The Kelaniya Declaration

By Sumith Ariyasinghe

Mr Sajeeva Samaranayake’s recent article (CT April 28, 2013) on the Kelaniya Declaration merits a longer response than is practical under “Comments”.  This document is a unilateral declaration of independence by the monks of the Vidyalankara monastic college at Kelaniya in January 1947. The British government had already decided to grant independence to Ceylon, and it was to be ceremonially effected a year later, on February 4th, 1948.  The intention of the Declaration was to derive independence from what the monks considered its authentic source, namely the people as represented by the Buddhist Monastic Order (Sangha) rather than an Act of the British Parliament resulting from an agreement between the British government and the Ceylonese leadership. The latter was not considered to be true or full independence by these monks and other radical nationalist groups. Samaranayake attaches great political and moral significance to the document, considering it “a declaration of high principles as a guide post and reference point in our continuing search for political adulthood”. He further considers it “clearly ahead of its time”. His reasons for this high valuation are that it envisages “true independence” and it “speaks for the rights of all the people of the country” and for “a single nation”, transcending the Buddhist clergy’s traditionally exclusive identification with Sinhala Buddhists.

Walpola Rahula

“Comments” on Samaranayake’s article in the CT show that many readers were impressed. I am not only unimpressed, but contend that the Declaration is not what it seems, and what it really represents has caused great harm to our nation, leading us to a protracted civil war and other evils, not the least of which is the government we are saddled with today. In my view, far from being a statement of lofty intentions, the Declaration was a publicity stunt engineered by the Left, in particular by the LSSP, in its attempt to challenge the dominant political clique at the time that became the UNP. Several capable young scholar monks of Vidyalankara were sympathisers if not members of the LSSP or the CP, and it is they, and not the totality of the Vidyalankara monks that made the Declaration, although they managed to gain the consent, enthusiastic or lukewarm, of some senior monks, most importantly the erudite Principal of the College, Kirivattuduve Pragnarama. It is highly unlikely that the monks wrote the Declaration. It was probably written by the LSSP, the monks merely translating it into Sinhala, a language in which the LSSP leadership had only shouting proficiency. It is however possible that the monks were consulted in the process of writing it. Its lapidary articulation suggests that it is the work of a mind familiar with or trained in constitution making and law. It is no accident that the 1972 constitution drafted by Colvin R de Silva incorporates the basic ideas of the Declaration, in particular its derivation of sovereignty.

If we read the Declaration as a free standing document, that is, with no reference to the rest of the literature with which it is inextricably linked, especially a second Declaration made by the same monks on the heels of the first, and with no reference to the social and political context of the time, the Declaration does sound impressive. But that is really the problem, because it is precisely in relation to the linked literature, especially the second Declaration that ensued, and the broader socio-political context alone that we can properly understand the Declaration.  Seen thus, the Declaration is no more than a preamble to its twin, the second Declaration. Declared by the same monks at the same place a few weeks after the first, it does not take a great deal of insight to see that the two are related. The first Declaration prepares the ground by spelling out, in the lofty terms that understandably impressed our writer and readers, the case for not just independence (which was imminent anyway), but a certain specific kind of independence. And the second Declaration elevates the monks to the status of ideal agents and carriers of that particular kind of independence. Thus, the two Declarations reflect the status and power aspirations of these political monks. Underlying these aspirations and legitimizing them is the idea of return to a utopian Buddhist state that allegedly existed prior to the arrival of the European conquerers. Empowered by a brilliant re-articulation of the monk’s political role by Walpola Rahula, these monks eventually evolved into an influential monastic upper class of wheelers and dealers, of which the robed marauders of the Bodu Bala Sena are the latest mutation.

In this perspective, the Declaration emerges in its true colours, not as a lofty and inspiring national document, but as just another example of empty words so familiar to us from our standard political talk high on precept and abysmal on practice.  I would in fact argue that it’s worse than empty words.  Because, the Declaration’s denunciation of colonialism has led to a pathological antipathy towards the west in general that has been detrimental to the national interest and exploited by all nationalist groups for narrow political advantage. The latter is an exercise the present regime is doing with great skill as we can see, for example, in the antics of Wimal Weerawansa, and the numerous theories of western conspiracies against Sri Lanka, which serve to camouflage the regime’s ubiquitous failings.  Irrespective of how and why we were colonized, and the merits and demerits of colonialism, the reality is that we did go under colonial rule. Given that reality, the rational attitude, and that in keeping with the national interest, would have been to use the colonial experience to our best advantage. The scholar monks of the sister college of these monks, those of the Vidyodaya monastic college at Maligakanda, Maradana, adopted this more rational, realistic, and indeed more Buddhist attitude, much to their and the country’s advantage. The latter attitude should have been carefully nurtured and allowed to thrive and bear fruit, which would have brought us to a happy, peaceful, inclusive, prosperous, broad minded and modern society, but that was unfortunately nipped in the bud by the narrow Sinhala Buddhist nationalism of these monks associated with the Declarations.

The two Declarations, taken together, are the charters and founding documents of Sinhala Buddhist hegemony, and therefore represent the origin of our problems and our regression to mediaevalism. Although the first Declaration talks about “a single nation” and “the people”, the context and the actions that followed demonstrate clearly that these terms do not mean all the people as equal citizens of a “single nation”, but the Sinhala Buddhist people in a Sinhala Buddhist nation, with the minorities excluded or relegated to second class status. It is obvious that the pro Sinhala Buddhist Constitution of 1972 is rooted in these Declarations.

It’s the same monks who made the Declarations who a few years later formed the Eksat Bhikshu Peramuna (The United Bhikkhu Front) that more or less forced S.W.R.D.Bandaranaike to accept a majority hegemonic platform in the election campaign of 1956, the centerpiece of which was Sinhala Only. It is hard to imagine a piece of legislation more injurious to the idea of a “single nation”. We cannot accept, as Samaranayake does, the mere mention of “people” as meaning all the people of the island when the overwhelming evidence, literary and sociological, is for it to mean only some people, the Sinhala Buddhists. While some of these monks were close associates of the left parties, especially the LSSP in its glorious youth, they were at heart narrow and parochial nationalists, believing in a Sinhala Buddhist utopia. Deriving from the Sinhala-centred chronicle, the Mahavamsa, this utopia is also powerfully envisaged in the work of the nationalist leader Anagarika Dharmapala. The narrow Sinhala Buddhist nationalism of the monks was made readily apparent when these “socialist” monks abandoned the left parties as soon as they found a nationalist alternative, that provided by Bandaranaike’s SLFP. Far from a “single nation” consisting of all ethnic and religious groups, the rallying cry of these monks, borrowed from Dharmapala, was “country, race and religion” (rata, jatiya, agama). While “jatiya” in Sinhala can mean “nation”, what these monks and their lay cohorts meant was race, far from anything like “a single nation”.

In his evaluation of the Declaration, Samaranayake resorts to the realm of the mystical. He talks about freedom having a “spiritual core” and as “men and women in robes in search of the truth … united with people of this country in their quest for true peace and happiness”. Behind this attempt to elevate the Declaration to a spiritual plane is the idea that pre-colonial Lanka was a paradise, in which the king and the monks and the people were united in a spiritual bond and lived in idyllic harmony. Even the great Ananda Coomaraswamy contributed to this fallacy by his romanticization of the pre-industrial world. Similarly, the world of contemporary Buddhist scholarship has been deluded at times into believing in a harmonious “Buddhist State”. We however know enough of the realities of pre-colonial Lanka to realise that it was a system of feudalistic, despotic rule in which the elites, including the monks, were partners with the despot in oppressing the masses of the people. The “hydraulic civilization” and the monumental stupas are built on the sweat of the oppressed, although tyrants take the credit for them, much like the state of affairs today. The “Ancient Compact” Samaranayake talks about is no more than the unfettered exploitation of the ordinary people by the despot and his feudal minions, a system duplicated at different levels of administration down to the village in which the village elites extracted the labour of the poor.

This is neither surprising nor confined to Lanka but is the story in all pre-modern systems. The first colonialists, the Portuguese, the Dutch and the British in their early rule were of the same mould, and undoubtedly committed atrocities. But in the late British period, starting about mid 19th century the colonial government, spurred by the rise of liberalism in their own backyard, gradually introduced reforms based on enlightened social ideas. Colonialism thus played a positive role in the lives of the ordinary masses. It is instructive for us to recall that in a classic essay on India, Karl Marx, no friend of colonialism, stated in no uncertain terms that whatever the crimes of England are, British rule in India was effecting a social revolution. The same is true of Lanka and all other colonies, and what these Declarations did was to lay the foundation for reversing that social revolution, and diverting the course of our history backwards, eventually to the mediaeval tyranny under which we are labouring today.

It is remarkable that aggressive anti-colonialist and post-colonialist nationalism is a pre-occupation of the educated indigenous elites of colonies and post-colonies. Other carriers of this genre of nationalism are the English educated elites who are the descendants and inheritors of these indigenous elites. The reason for their aggressive anti-colonialist nationalism is that it is the colonial power that deprived them of the feudalist licence to oppress the poor of their societies at will. As far as the majority who were born to poverty were concerned, colonialism was not oppression but liberation. Because, in the pre-colonial era these elites enjoyed hierarchical privileges and feudalist perquisites, and could abuse, abduct, kill, rape, plunder, imprison and more with impunity, being protected by their birthright, whereas a hungry commoner stealing a fruit could be punished with death. It was colonialism that introduced enlightened social ideas like individual rights, equality, the rule of law and universal suffrage, ideas that struck at the root of privilege and feudalist elitism. Here we are talking about some of Marx’s “social revolution”. These ideas of course are very much present in Buddhism. But that Buddhism, the Buddha’s Buddhism, never touched our culture, our Buddhism being a cultic ritualism, which the Buddha derided. To his credit Samaranayake concedes that these colonial derived ideas “represented modernity and the clear way forward”. But unfortunately he does not pursue that conviction to its logical end. After merely mentioning these ideas that “represented modernity” he re-enters his make believe world of ancient glory in which these monks represented something “more fundamental”. Closer examination shows that the “more fundamental” thing they represented is none other than the framework of unequal, feudalist, social relations.

The framers of the 1972 constitution think no end of the “true independence” it allegedly ushered, as we saw most recently in a boastful newspaper article by the LSSP leader Tissa Vitarana on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of that constitution. One criterion of “true independence” as suggested before, is the alleged derivation of power from the people rather than an Act of the British Parliament. This is purely a legal nicety that may be important to the elites, but meaningless for the ordinary working people. For the people, it is far more beneficial if, for example, we retained those vestiges of “false independence”, like the availability of appeal to the Privy Council, the presence of British bases, and a mutual defence agreement with Britain. Had our people been given the opportunity to retain the right of appeal to the Privy Council, chances are that the occasion for such appeal would never arise, because that opportunity itself would have acted as a deterrent to compromising the independence of the judiciary. Had we had British bases, the LTTE would never have been allowed to build a navy, to raise its violent head in the north and east and, for that matter, to gain the strength it altogether did. As far as individual freedoms, democracy and governance are concerned, one needs only to compare the era of late colonial rule with today’s tyranny that is upon us as a direct result of “true independence”.

One reason for the Declaration’s position, shared by the Left parties and some of the nationalist elites, that the impeding Independence of February 4, 1948 was not full independence was that it retained the British monarch as the head of the state, to be represented by a Governor-General. It strictly legal terms this is correct. But it is a legal nicety with no consequence for the sovereignty of the country.  Some countries of the Commonwealth, like Canada, Australia and New Zealand have the British monarch as their ceremonial head of state, and are no less sovereign for that reason. For a period of 24 years, from 1948 until the coming into force of the Colvin R de Silva constitution of 1972, the head of the Ceylonese state, the Governor-General, was appointed by the king and Parliament of Britain. But the Governor-General was merely a ceremonial functionary, and his appointment by the king and Parliament of England was fictional. It was solely the prerogative of the elected government of Ceylon to appoint the Governor-General. Besides, some of our kings were of total or partial Indian origin, and unlike the British monarch or the Governor-General, they enjoyed real power. In hindsight, it is clear that this ceremonial link with Britain would have been beneficial to the country, although it pleased the egos of certain nationalist elites, and suited the designs of some wily politicians to ask for “true independence”, and claim credit for it.  The abolition of this link is another example of our cultural inability to adopt the pragmatic, advantageous and statesman-like position when confronted with a choice.

It is appropriate here to make a brief reference to sovereignty.  This was a useful concept at the birth of the nation-state, but has lost most of its applicability and moral validity since then. In a globalized world in which high technology can ignore political boundaries, no country is sovereign in the absolute legal sense in which it has been classically defined.  Besides, on a different plane, that of power, some countries are more sovereign than others. Small, underdeveloped countries can yell sovereignty at the top of their voice, but in reality, when it come to a push, they have no sovereignty worth talking about as we know from the Indian airdrop and the subsequent appearance of the Indian army on our “sovereign” territory. Whatever sovereignty a small country enjoys is not the result of any recognition of such in the abstract, but the self-interest of potential violators.  Among some of the former colonies including Sri Lanka, sovereignty has become a curtain to hide behind in the face of the international vigilance on governance and human rights, inevitable in the contemporary world system.

Samaranayake begins his article with the Declaration’s “high principles as a guide post and reference point in our continuing search for political adulthood”.  The truth is that under late colonialism, we already had reached substantial political adulthood, and what the Declaration represents is a regression not just to political infancy but political imbecility.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 0

    I too commented on the original article and felt that the term ‘people’ did not cover all the people but only a particular segment. It is still quite common to consider the minorities as guests or visitors who no doubt have to be treated with all hospitality. Such feelings seem to be noble but then guests and visitors have no rights in other peoples houses. How much better if the minorities are considered as younger siblings which is a more accomodating arrangement.

    Nevertheless the feelings and aspirations of the Sinhala people are well understood and minorities have no objection to the preservation of their language, religon and culture. In fact the language, religon and culture of all people of this nation needs to be protected and preserved. We are far more richer in having all the colours of the rainbow than one shade of yellow.

    • 0

      this is Akin to saying that the Vanni tamils, the Low caste tamils, the eastern Tamils and the Muslims would be better off under Sinhala central Government’s suppression than one ruled by the Jaffna Tamil Elite.
      “For the people, it is far more beneficial if, for example, we retained those vestiges of “false independence”, like the availability of appeal to the Privy Council, the presence of British bases, and a mutual defense agreement with Britain.”

      On what evidence does the author rely on for such claims as this
      “In the pre-colonial era these elites enjoyed hierarchical privileges and feudalist perquisites, and could abuse, abduct, kill, rape, plunder, imprison and more with impunity, being protected by their birthright, whereas a hungry commoner stealing a fruit could be punished with death.”

      Overall there are some valid and interesting points but sometimes misguided and illogical with broad generalizations.

  • 0

    Brilliant article. agree with every word.

  • 0

    One needs to compare this declaration with the declaration of independence by the Americans, where they included ALL people.

    However, unfortunately for the Monks, men meant the imported Sinhala Buddhists, in keeping with the Monk Mahanama Myths. This is the core problem in Building a Nation in Sri Lanka. It is rather unfortunate that Buddhism was introduced to Lanka and it was hijacked by Monk Mahanama, racism. Lanka would have been fat more coharant and peaceful, had it remained Jain or Hindu,(like Bali Indonesia).

    It is what it is, and we all need to live live with this curse.


    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


    Annotated text of the Declaration

    The declaration is not divided into formal sections; but it is often discussed as consisting of five parts: Introduction, the Preamble, the Indictment of George III, the Denunciation of the British people, and the Conclusion.[74]


    Asserts as a matter of Natural Law the ability of a people to assume political independence; acknowledges that the grounds for such independence must be reasonable, and therefore explicable, and ought to be explained.

    In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

    The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

    When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.


    Outlines a general philosophy of government that justifies revolution when government harms natural rights.[74]

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.


    A bill of particulars documenting the king’s “repeated injuries and usurpations” of the Americans’ rights and liberties.[74]

    Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
    He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

    He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

    He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

    He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

    He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness of his invasions on the rights of the people.

    He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

    He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

    He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

    He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

    He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

    He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

    He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

    He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

    For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

    For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

    For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

    For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

    For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

    For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

    For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

    For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

    For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

    He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

    He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

    He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

    He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

    He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

    In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.


    This section essentially finished the case for independence. The conditions that justified revolution have been shown.[74]

    Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

    The signers assert that there exist conditions under which people must change their government, that the British have produced such conditions, and by necessity the colonies must throw off political ties with the British Crown and become independent states. The conclusion contains, at its core, the Lee Resolution that had been passed on July 2.

    We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

    The first and most famous signature on the engrossed copy was that of John Hancock, President of the Continental Congress. Two future presidents, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, were among the signatories. Edward Rutledge (age 26), was the youngest signer, and Benjamin Franklin (age 70) was the oldest signer. The fifty-six signers of the Declaration represented the new states as follows (from north to south):[75]

    New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
    Massachusetts: Samuel Adams, John Adams, John Hancock, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
    Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
    Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
    New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
    New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
    Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
    Delaware: George Read, Caesar Rodney, Thomas McKean
    Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
    Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
    North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
    South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
    Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

  • 0

    Dear Budhist brothers and sisters.,



    PART – 01 – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6RQJQVzV0A
    PART – 02 – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfFG0Ritld4
    PART – 02 – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4HVo7ekUvM
    PART – 04 – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vB70BlKIEJk

    ( WATCH ALL PARTS 04 )




    • 0


      Is selecting one Myth or belief over another Myth or belief a solution unless there is support for one myth over another Myth or belief.

      Where did Adam come from? East Africa about 70,000 years ago, as measured by molecular biology of the Y chromosome variations.

      Here is some information as to where the gene pool originated, and as to how you can test to find your own genealogy.


      All,except the Africans, descended from Africans by way of Arabia, before they spread out.

      Africans stayed in Africa.




      The Genographic Project Confirms Humans Migrated Out of Africa through Arabia. New analytical method approaches the unstudied 99% of the human genome.

      WASHINGTON, D.C., – 02 Nov 2011: Evolutionary history shows that human populations likely originated in Africa, and the Genographic Project, the most extensive survey of human population genetic data to date, suggests where they went next. A study by the Project finds that modern humans migrated out of Africa via a southern route through Arabia, rather than a northern route by way of Egypt. These findings will be highlighted today at a conference at the National Geographic Society.


      There is a Table There that shows the gene diversity and original location of the genes.
      Mediterranean 4%
      Northern European; 2%
      Southwest Asian” 58%
      Southeast Asian 35%

  • 0

    Colvin was also a Humbug after Phillip, NM and the rest. A man who spoke of two languages one country and One Language, two countries never incorporated safeguards to enshrine what he preached. Besides the ’72 Constitution made the once independent Bureaucracy subservient to the Politicians and the rot set in. The ’72 Constituion did away with the then Senate and all the checks and balances that helped to maintain Law and Order in the Country. Thereafter everything has been Politicized reducing the masses to mere political animals. Today the masses are herded as cattle and the Rulers believe Human Rights are not essential as we have lost our dignity and self respect.

  • 0

    so does it mean only Christian Priests can do politics?

    • 0

      Yes, Christian Priests, Buddhist Monks and Islamic Mullahs can do politics as Citizens, not as Christian Priests, Buddhist Monks and Islamic Mullahs.

      If they do, they violate their wows. They are required to promote their faith.

      It is like this. You get married to your spouse. You take a wow saying that you will be faithful to your spouse. After some time, you find your spouse less appealing, and take on other habits, like fishing, hunting, sports, politics and chasing other peoples spouses.Some are harmless but others are very harmful.

      This is the very problem with the Buddhist Monks in Sri Lanka. They participate in riots, as I have seen during 1958 as a little boy on attacking Tamil shops, and perhaps in killing as well, in the name of Lord Buddha.

      Buddharakitta, Somarama hero, were killers. The so called BBS or “Budu” Bala Sena has nothing to do with Buddhism.

      Read what the Venmerable Dalai Lama, a True Buddhist has to say.

      Sri Lanka would have been better off staying, Animist, Jain, Hindu or Atheist. Buddhism is the curse of Lanka because of the Buddhist Monk hegemony, and they tried to control the people and the kings.

      Lanka had a flourishing civilization before Buddhism. Same with India as well.

      Monk Mahanama Myths.
      DeJa Vu

      Buddharakita-Somarama Axis
      BBS Axis.

    • 0

      Christianity and Islam are political religions from it’s origin and those remain the same. buddhism and Sinhala – buddhist civilization are intertwined. Thereofre, some sinhala -buddhist need to be political active in order to preserve the culture.

  • 0

    Mr. Ariyasinghe is correct in every particular that he describes in this article and his analysis of a connection between the Declaration,almost certainly drafted by Colvin R De Silva, and the later emergence of Sinhala Buddhist nationalism is truly insightful.
    The line that the LSSP took about the impending grant od Dominion Status by the British to SL without any serious struggle by the island’s comprador-bourgeosie was contrary to the orthodox Lennist/Trotskite theory.This made them argue that the independence was not TRUE independence and should be rejected and the country should prepare for armed struggle!And some of us,youthful Marxists who attended the study classes that Colvin conducted in Wellawatte, with his usual flair and bombast, bought this line hook,line and sinker!

  • 0

    Addition to my earlier comment;
    I emphatically do not claim that the LSSP of that time or Colvin r de Silva were Sinhala chauvinsts or Buddhist hegemonists.Far from this being tru,Colvin was the leader of the Bolshevic Lennist Party of Ceylon India and the Maldives.
    Their Sinhala/Buddhist nationalism was to come later after they became bitter old men with no other path to power and revolutionary glory.

  • 0

    Brilliant exposition of all the myths that we live under. Also Shows what hypocrites we are. None of these eulogies of ancient times ever describe what life was really like for ordinary or average people in those times. The stories are only about kings. Just looking at photographs of our people at the turn of the century shows how they lived.

  • 0

    Nobody is keeping people in Sri Lanka by force… if they hate the country so much they are welcome to leave it without living in it and then moaning all day long.

  • 0

    Very good points – but as the buddha told siddhartha in Herman Hesse “one must be on guard against one’s own cleverness…”

    There is a Buddhist culture that transcends individual nations and cultures and the best buddhists seek to reach this level. pasted below is a stinging dissent of religio-nationalism by Sangarakshitha in his book Alternative Traditions – rec reading


  • 0

    Mr. Ariyasena has done us a service by educating us on the context. Indeed when we trace the evolution of the sasana from the beginning there has been a move away from the spirit to the word and from the word to rituals that have become emptier and emptier as time went on.

    For the Buddhists the search will continue for ways and means of turning the dharma and sasana into a resource that lights the way to political adulthood.

    We are also free as Buddhists to be guided by the words of the Kelaniya Declaration with full awareness of the political context now. Without accepting it blindly and without rejecting it totally we can still see as free individuals if there is something that we can take from it.

    What colonialism did to SL and the Third World of course is a different matter. Here again it is not simply a matter of being pro or anti west. Nor is it a matter of abdicating our own responsibility for ourselves. Instead there are lessons to be learnt by the colonisers and coloinised so that we do not maintain the old vicious cycles of exploitation of man by man.

    Anyway thank you.

  • 0

    Great article! Absolutely sums up the true historical and present situation in Sri Lanka! Thank you profusely Sumith Ariyasinghe for your contribution for enlightening the masses. It is people like you who are the real pro-people crusaders!

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 200 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically disabled after 5 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.