26 June, 2022

Blog

Revisiting Sinhala & Tamil Nationalism

By Uditha Devapriya

Uditha Devapriya

Walking along the sun-baked pavements of Polonnaruwa and studying the images of the Buddha and the monuments erected in his name last February, I couldn’t help but notice the motifs of South Indian temples that adorned them. With the collapse of Anuradhapura in the 11th century, Polonnaruwa took over as the capital of the Sinhala kings. Yet though the new kingdom arose because of succeeding waves of Chola invasion, it could not escape the cultural influences of those who ransacked the old capital.

The Chronicles refer to these invaders as heathens, infidels, believers in a false faith, no different to devils and demons. But after their conquest of the Sinhalese polity, they came to shape the very culture of the land they had invaded.

The art and architecture of the new kingdom soon came to reflect these realities. Though Buddhist in conception, image houses incorporated Dravidian motifs. The moonstone, which leads up to the Buddha images at the Vatadage, let go of the bull. The images themselves, which had epitomised serenity in Anuradhapura, took on a hardened complexion, a pivotal development in Buddhist sculpture. These developments spilt over elsewhere: thus after the 12th century, a Hindu devale was built at the Ridi Vihare in Kurunegala, at a time when the Siva devale had become a prominent, permanent fixture in Polonnaruwa.

It would be futile, of course, to think that cultural fusion of this sort was unheard of before Polonnaruwa, or for that matter Anuradhapura. The Brahmi inscriptions attest to a thriving and diverse polity, in which elites donated to monasteries and recorded where they came from, and what position they occupied, along numerous rocks and caves.

These are some of the most impressive inscriptions in the region, perhaps in the world, even if writers and social scientists don’t pay as much attention as they should to them. More than anything else, they show that in pre-modern society, one’s position was inscribed and determined by one’s caste and clan affiliations. If ethnicity figured in at all there, it was as a secondary concern that never really trumped those other considerations.

Nationalist commentators seem to elide these points. Given their grand narratives and totalising conceptions of history, this is only to be expected. Yet what is fascinating is that liberal and left scholars, in their debates with nationalist ideologues, fall back on the same criteria their opponents resort to. Almost nothing is mentioned about caste and class, the role of social structures rooted in kinship and clan affiliations, and the point that wherever and whenever there was conflict between race and caste, the latter prevailed, as it did when Narendrasinghe’s death raised the question of who would continue his line: a “Sinhalese” of low caste stock, or a “Telugu” of supposedly superior origins?

The biggest mistake we make when talking about history is grafting contemporary notions of ideology on the past. In doing so, we assume, not wholly unjustifiably, that what we think to be true today held true for all time. Thus, in the same breath in which Sinhala hardliners claim that the history of the country is the history of their collective, liberal scholars contend that the pre-colonial polity witnessed an intermingling of different ethnicities. In both cases, the notion of ethnicity looms large, probably more than is warranted. By contrast little to no attention is paid to intra-group dynamics, since nationalists and liberals focus on inter-group dynamics: the latter emphasising on differences, the former on affinities.

In his intriguing essay “The Peopling of Sri Lanka”, the late Senake Bandaranayake argued that a good first step to examining our past was to study history “stripped of its myths and distortions and free of communalistic bias on one side or the other.” A crucial element here was archaeological research, a point that seems to be lost on politicians and officials today, but one that needs to be emphasised again and again: put simply, if we don’t excavate and dig into our past as much as we should, we will continue to hold on to a history riddled with confrontation, rather than cooperation, between social groups.

If I seem to be dwelling on the past too much here, it is only to make a point. The point is this. Contemporary debates about ethno-religious nationalism are propelled by a view of history which does not hold much water. The opening lines of R. A. L. H. Gunawardana’s brilliant and, in my opinion, unparalleled essay “The People of the Lion” shows us that the myths we construct about our origins, about who we are and what we make of ourselves, tend to be coloured by surprisingly contemporary notions of race, religion, and ideology. To the extent that we call ourselves heirs to a tradition going back thousands of years based on those notions, we hence end up misreading our own origins.

Now the mistake social scientists critical of these claims make is that they focus more on Sinhala Buddhist nationalists than nationalists of other ethnic persuasions. This may be because Sinhala nationalists possess the loudest voice in the room. Yet Tamil ideologues also propel their narratives about the past. Polemics over whether Tamils were the “original inhabitants” of the country, a claim that the former Chief Minister of the Northern Province propounds with relentless abandon these days, for instance, may be borne out by literary evidence and origin myths, as with contemporary claims of a pristine Sinhalese past. But in the light of archaeological evidence, such assertions simply do not hold up.

The truth is that we don’t really know, and that we may not have all the answers. In saying that, we are more or less admitting that we don’t know much about each other. To me that is a more diplomatic way of addressing issues of identity than making claims about the superiority or predominance of one group over others.

All this ties in with an important point I made last year: that we need to re-evaluate and revisit nationalism itself, recognising its immensely progressive potential and discarding its regressive aspects. Yet such a strategy has been pre-empted, not by nationalist extremists – though they have to share much of the blame – but by social scientists. How so? Largely, through their insistence on approaching phenomena like nationalism, be it Sinhala or Tamil, from a vantage point of moral and intellectual superiority.

Let me explain. Anthropologists and sociologists have a habit of evaluating ethno-religious ideology through a contemporary lens. Many of them imply, not entirely wrongly, that such phenomena are remnants of the past and that they will eventually give way to the forces of modernity. Yet while paved with good intentions and sound reasoning, is hard not to discern an attitude of condescension within such claims.

To give one example, at the time of the Kandalama controversy, there were a number of liberal scholars who implied that Buddhist monks and villagers who took part in protests against the Hotel wanted to preserve archaic social relations, and that while the intrusion of multinational capital ought to be opposed, to the extent that it disrupted traditional social patterns, such intrusions would generate “desirable effects” and should be welcome. In the same vein, Sinhala nationalist ideologues who boycotted beverage companies and went as far as to campaigned to ban their products in local university canteens were criticised, while the impact of such companies and their activities in Sri Lanka was neglected.

What I’m suggesting here is that we need a shift in such attitudes. For two reasons: one, to get rid of the distrust with which nationalists of whatever persuasion view social scientists in the country today, and two, to tap into the progressive potential of nationalism by assessing the myths, legends, and claims of ethnic collectives on their terms. I propose that we revisit the pioneers of anthropology, especially Marx, Engels, and Malinowski, who taught us how to approach societies far removed from our frames of reference. From them we will have to learn to view these ideologies from the perspective of their proponents, in order to come to terms with such processes more sympathetically and objectively.

My plea for a paradigm shift in how we consider these issues should, of course, not absolve ideologues who propound exclusivist narratives. Far from it: social scientists emphasising the progressive potential of these phenomena should distinguish between what promotes cooperation and what promotes conflict between various collectives.

Unfortunately, we cannot do this if, while opposing nationalist propaganda, we cave into an ethnicised reading of history no different to that of the most ardent chauvinist. That is why a radical rereading of our past is required. A shift of focus to other lines of distinction, such as caste, can help us find out ways of emphasising the commonalities which bind us together. I believe such a strategy can, and will, help us set aside differences and bind us to each other. Yet this is a strategy social scientists have not fully understood. They should.

*The writer can be reached at udakdev1@gmail.com

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 1
    0

    I admire Uditha’s writings but not he following:
    ‘My plea for a paradigm shift in how we consider these issues should, of course, not absolve ideologues who propound exclusivist narratives. Far from it: social scientists emphasising the progressive potential of these phenomena should distinguish between what promotes cooperation and what promotes conflict between various collectives.

    Unfortunately, we cannot do this if, while opposing nationalist propaganda, we cave into an ethnicised reading of history no different to that of the most ardent chauvinist. That is why a radical rereading of our past is required. A shift of focus to other lines of distinction, such as caste, can help us find out ways of emphasising the commonalities which bind us together. I believe such a strategy can, and will, help us set aside differences and bind us to each other. Yet this is a strategy social scientists have not fully understood. They should’.

    It seems here he is either misguided or confused. I cannot imagine how a shift of focus to caste can help us find commonalities today? To find commonalities, a nation has to develop a common identity based on the place,people(diverse), and culture. I.e. what binds us rather than divide us. However, we cannot expect this from the politicians or the government because what serve their interest is factors that divide the people.

    • 2
      0

      S
      I think that his understanding of ethnicity and caste are superficial.

  • 10
    4

    Tamils are not making their claims borne out by literary evidence and origin myths, but on scientific and genetic proofs, which have emerged in recent times. At one stage there was only a single land mass connecting Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka. During this time people had walked across and settled here. Archaeologically there were only two ethnic groups in pre-historic time, Veddhas in south eastern parts bounded by Mahaveli to the north, central hills and Walave to the west and Dravidians in rest of the island. Urn burial sites which are hall marks of Dravidian civilization have been found in various parts, last two being at Ibbankatuwa near Galewela in 1998 and at Devalapola near Minuwangoda in 2011. Several ancient relics and potsherds similar to those found in Tamil Nadu have been found in various places in northern province, last two being at Nanatan school near Mannar and at Mallawi near Mankulam. Recently two caves of Veddhas were found in Medagama near Bibile and Kumana, which had inscription in Tamil Brahmi, which shows that Veddhas came under Tamil influence. Three genetic studies done by Sinhala scholars have shown that the core genetic material of Sinhalese is South Indian, which demonstrates that Sinhalese were originally Tamils, who later mixed with Bengalis, other south Indians and Veddhas and evolved into a new ethnic group like the Malayalees.

    • 5
      4

      First of all, I am no racist at all and one who don’t believe in any ethnic superiority. Let’s say all what you said is true and what actually had happened. What is your point of raising these historical incidents and events? Does your narratives give any resolution to our current sociological economic or political issues? Should the current Sri Lankan ethnic situation has any connection or be changed to the ethnic situation of the times that you have described? Why do we, both Sinhalese and Tamils always keep on digging graveyards of the history and pulling out some random skeletons and make a noise? What, how, when or if at all these things will ever give us, all Sri Lankans any peace, happiness or prosperity?

    • 2
      2

      Dr.GS
      Let us talk EXISTING demographic distribution

      Soma

      • 4
        2

        Soma,
        As someone who knows that the existing demographic distribution is a tampered one, you should curb your enthusiasm to play smart!

        • 2
          2

          N, what is the definition or historical parameters of a ‘tampered demography’? Evolution of the demographical fabric in a nation is all natural, whether factors shifted due to a civil war situation or plague or Tsunami or whatever – IT HAPPENED! That is history. Look forward and free your mind. Then the body will follow Nathan!

          • 1
            2

            Jit,
            TAMPERED: to make changes in something, especially in order to falsify.

        • 0
          0

          Nathan
          Let us take a census.

          Soma

    • 6
      1

      Dr Sankaralingam
      What you say is all very interesting for those studying history & prehistory, but what the devil has it got to do with the here & now? Solutions to SL’s ethnic & other problems need to address the CURRENT realities.

      • 5
        2

        It was Uditha who claimed that the Tamils are making their claims borne out by literary evidence and origin myths and Dr Sankaralingam is only correcting this false distortion of facts. Any meaninful and permanent solution for the Tamil question cannot be formulated on falsehood and distorting the truth. If there is sincereity in finding a solution then there must be sincerity in the intention.

        • 7
          0

          Of course, you are correct, daya thevi, but I still feel that this obsession with ‘who came first’ has overshadowed the concern about how we can heal the wounds, work towards reconciliation and broadly unite the people of this country, rather than find more and more reasons to antagonize each other. –
          This does not mean that scientific research into ancient history should cease. Not at all. But the findings should not be hijacked as yet another weapon in the struggle, the rationale, for dominance.

          And when I speak of the “here and now, “naturally I dont mean the situation, the demographic pattern at this very moment. The turbulence of the last 70 years has shaken up the situation so much, causing large numbers to flee, for one reason or another. In fact, I sometimes wonder whether there is a huge demographic (& other) difference between now and the 50’s.

    • 2
      0

      ” scientific and genetic proofs”
      Can we have some authentic samples?

  • 0
    1

    Three genetic studies done by Sinhala scholars have shown that the core genetic material of Sinhalese is South Indian, which demonstrates that Sinhalese were originally Tamils, who later mixed with Bengalis, other south Indians and Veddhas and evolved into a new ethnic group like the Malayalees.

    Dr.Gnana Sankaralingam

    The Sinhalese are descendants of Nagas and to a lesser extent the Yakkas. After the conversion of Devanampiya Thesan, son of Mutta Sivan, the ordinary citizens too got converted to Buddhism. Around the 8th century, the Buddhist monks wanted to give a distinct identity to the followers of Buddhism. Nagas who were Hindus, probably in a minority, were absorbed by the Hindu Tamils. Even today place names and family names suggest Naga influence.
    The Buddhist monks invented the Sinhalese language borrowing words from Hela (the language spoken by the Nagas and other tribes) Pali, Sanskrit and Tamil.

    Sinhala language scholar Mudliyar W. F. Gunawardena says, “The science of examination of the structure of a sentence is called its grammar. The grammar of the Sinhala language is Dravidian”. He further said, “The structural foundation of Sinhala is Dravidian while the super-structure is Indo-Aryan”.

    The Sinhala language expert Dr C. E. Godakmubara says, “the Sinhala Grammar Sidathsangarawa was based on the Tamil Grammar Virasolium”.

  • 3
    0

    Thanga, THIS IS THE WHOLE PROBLEM!! You quoted few historical events. Whether I or anybody else here can verify that to 100% accuracy is anybody’s guess. Fine, You may know much history than me, honestly! But my point always has been why it matters?? You type English on a desktop or laptop or a mobile in this forum to communicate your thinking. Does it have ANY relationship to your ancient history?? Tamils, Bengalis, Nagas or vaddahs?? You probably live in a western democracy, working in English and working for anybody who is NOT a Tamil, Sinhalese or Vaddah. May be your boss is Irish, Chinese, Canadian or a Peruvian. I dont know, and it does not bother me at all!. Your kids are very likely to be learning about modern science, astrophysics, engineering, law or medicine that has no connection to Tamils or Sinhalese or Vaddahs or Nagas? Why we love to live in a bloody dead history my friend???

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.