29 February, 2024

Blog

Theory Countering Tamil Homeland Concept Placed Before UNHRC By Channa Jayasumana – A Response

By P. Soma Palan –

P. Soma Palan

I refer to the news Report in the front page of the Daily Mirror of 20th September, under the above heading. The redeeming factor is that, it is only a “Theory “of Prof. Channa Jayasumana (CJ), based on his controverted facts of Lankan history, presented before the forum of the UNHRC, on behalf of the “World Patriotic Lankan Forum”, countering the Tamil Homeland Concept. The historical falsehoods stated by the Prof. CJ prompted me to respond to his views. His speech before the UNHRC forum may go passively with the western audience,as they are not conversant with our ancient history.

I must, at the outset, clearly declare that I do so, as an independent, “free thinker”. I have no interest in Tamil politics or in Sinhala politics. My interest is purely an academic one, of our country’s history, and nothing more and nothing less. When history is controverted with falsehoods to serve the parochial ethnic interest of a community, whether it is Tamil or Sinhala, there is a compelling urge to reveal the falsehood, and state the factual truths based on my knowledge of history. My comments are restricted to the news Report only, as I have not accessed the full speech delivered by Prof. CJ at the UNHRC.

Concept of a Traditional Tamil Homeland

Is the Tamil“Homeland Concept” a violation of a Human Right to be canvassed before the Forum of the UNHRC? Does it violate the Human Right of another ethnic community? On the contrary, I would say it is, itself, a Human Right of a Community of people, to have an Homeland for themselves, provided  it fulfills the necessary ingredients for Self-determination as outlined by the International World Body, the United Nations Organization. The requirements to be fulfilled are:

1. A distinct Population

2. A distinct demarcated territory

3. A common socio-cultural cohesion

The above conditions are satisfied by the Tamil people of the North Eastern region of Lanka.

Thus the concept of a traditional Homeland of the Tamils is based on a principle of legitimacy, acceptable by UN standards. Therefore, how can the Homeland Concept violate the Human Right of the Sinhala ethnic community? Prof. CJ states that a “mythical  history had been created by racists in Sri Lanka leading to the violation of Human right of all Lankans.” The qualifying word is all (my emphasis) which has been decidedly used to make it appear democratic and inclusive. Once the Tamils and the Tamil speaking Muslims are taken out of “all Sri Lankans”, what remains is only the Sinhalese. In other words, what Prof. CJ says is that The Homeland Concept, violates the Human Right of the Sinhalese. The Sinhalese community constitutes 75% of the population and spread over ¾ of the land area of the country. The Tamil community may be about 10 or 12 % of the population and confined to about ¼ of the land area of the country, where they are the preponderant majority. How could this be a threat or violate the human right of the Sinhalese community? It is preposterous.  What is implied is that the Sinhalese are claiming the whole country, belongs to them , and the Tamils are aliens. Conversely, it is the majority Sinhalese who by denial and non-recognition of a Tamil homeland, violating the human right of the Tamils. In the light of the ancient or pre-history of the Island nation, the Tamils are also original inhabitants of the country. There was no separate, independent country called Lanka around 9000 years B.C. It was part of the Sub-continent of India with a mix of South Indian Dravidians of various ethnicities, such as Tamils, Telugu, Malayalees, Kannada etc. There were no inhabitants, called Sinhalese then. Due to a Geological upheaval, the present Lanka, being a part of the Continental mass, separated from India . Without delving into the ancient prehistory of the island, I will confine myself to the specific views expressed by Prof. CJ.

1. Prof. CJ states that “when the Portuguese arrived in Sri Lanka, Sinhalese people were the majority in the Jaffna Penensula”. This is just an assumed generalization. This is not backed by any Census statistics, because there was no official census compiled at that time. I don’t know how this was ascertained by him. At least, he could have estimated the number of the Sinhalese and Tamils in the population.

2. Prof. CJ says that “the Dutch who occupied the coastal areas of the country around 1650 A.D. brought the Vellalar Tamils from the present Tamil Nadu for their tobacco plantations”. Prof.CJ has with deliberate intention has qualified the Tamils as “Vellalars” to match the present preponderant Jaffna Tamils, who are high Caste vellalars. Prof.CJ is twisting this fact by adding the Vellalar description to it, to establish that the Jaffna Tamils were of recent origin during the Dutch period. Prof.CJ is innocent of fact that high Caste Vellalars will never venture out of their country to work as menial laborers, in the first place. Moreover, Prof.CJ seems to be ignorant of the fact that the Portuguese preceded the Dutch occupation of the country. When the Portuguese arrived, the Kingdom of Jaffna was already in existence and was ruled by the King, Sangili. There cannot be a kingdom without the Tamil people to rule. The absurdity of the contentious argument of Prof.CJ is revealed, if I say, that the British also brought the Vellalar Tamils from Tamil Nadu to work in their Tea plantations and the present Estate Tamils are all Vellalars. One can see how ludicrous is Prof. CJ’s view.

3. Prof. CJ says that scholars like Prof. Karthigesu Indrapala (I wonder he is a Tamil or Sinhala?) has pointed out (my emphasis) that there were no permanent Tamil settlements in Sri Lanka,before  13thcentury A.D”. It is noteworthy that no verbatim quote is reproduced of the said scholar. Therefore, the veracity of statement attributed to him is of a dubious nature. On the contrary, I quote a positive, stronger and affirmative statement of a renown historian of Lanka, Dr. Paul E. Peris, which is diametrically opposite to the so-called point of view of Prof. Karthugesu Indrapala- I quote “Following excavations of Kanthrodai, the ancient capital of Kings of Jaffna, I believe North Ceylon was a flourishing settlement long before Vijaya was born”- unquote. In terms of chronology of time, this refers to a period before 500 B.C, which is when Vijaya  is supposed to have arrived in Sri Lanka. This makes the statement that there were no Tamil settlements before 13 century A.D, a joke, to say the least. I think, it is more pertinent for the learned Prof. CJ to engage in countering the above authentic truth before the UNHRC forum, than with his fictitious new theory countering the concept of the Tamil Homeland.

4. Moreover, the view that there were no Tamil settlements in Lanka before 13th century A.D. would make the reign of the Chola King, Ellalan for 44 years in the 1st century B.C and his defeat by the national hero, Dutugemunu, a nullity and a non-event. Surely, King Ellalan couldn’t have ruled an empty land without his Tamil subjects for 44 years.

5. The most astonishing  and gigantic falsehood of history is the statement of the Prof. CJ  that “Tamil speaking people who constituted around 10% of the population with a history not going back to more than two hundred years”. As stated by historian Dr. Paul E. Peris at (3) above, Tamil Jaffna kingdoms existed 500 B.C. and beyond. If the pre-history of Lanka is taken into consideration,that is, from the period Lanka’s separation from the mainland sub-continent, India, around 9000 years B.C. King Pulasthi, ruled from the city Pulasthinagar (later called Polonaruwa) who was King Ravana’s grandfather, was followed by his brother Kumbakarnan, King Moothsiva and his son, King Devanambiya tissan. Could the Prof.CJ enlighten us, who these Kings are? Were they Sinhalese and Buddhists?  What was the religion of King Devanambiya tissan, before his conversion to Buddhism? These are the unanswered questions of our ancient history, by scholars and Professors like Channa Jayasumana. I would argue that they were all Hindu Dravidians, Tamil or Telugu or both. There was no Sinhalese or Buddhism during this pre-historic ancient period.

6. One may ask, if all the people of that ancient period were Dravidian Hindus, why is that the majority of the people (75 %) of the population today are Sinhalese? It is a valid question, yes. The simple answer to this question is the introduction of Buddhism to the country in 247 B.C. by Emperor Ashoka”s son , Arahat Mahendra. The ruling King Devanambiya tissan, being a Hindu, accepted Buddhism. This was a major turning point in the history of Lanka. The people too followed the King, and accepted Buddhism. However, people did not, overnight, renounce their Hindu faith, but continued with their worship of Hindu deities and observance of rituals and customs, side by side with the observance of Buddhist tenets, the Four Noble Truths and the Eight- fold path. This, resulted in a Schism in Buddhism, as in India. There were two schools of Buddhism, called the Mahayana  and Theravada Buddhism. The latter being the pure orthodox Buddhism and the former a hybrid form of Hinduism and Buddhism. This division of Buddhism prevails even today, with some countries practicing Mahayana, and Lanka following the Theravada doctrine of pure Buddhism. Even today, most of the Buddhist temples have a Devalaya of Hindu deities. Nobody can deny this palpable truth. Secondly, the evolutionary creation of the Sinhalese language, first orally in the spoken language, using modified Tamil words and later in the 7th century A.D in the written language, which was created on the basis of the Tamil Alphabet and the Tamil Grammar, Virasolium. This is even affirmed by Dr.C.E. Godakumbura. Thus, the Sinhala language arrived, based on Tamil and Sanskrit languages. Rev. Gnanapragasam says there are more than 3000 Tamil words in the Sinhala language.

Thus, the two main elements necessary for a particular identity of a people, Religion and Language, became a reality. The large scale conversion of the people to Buddhism and the adoption of a separate language, spread over a period of 1300 or 1400 years, with their biological increase, gave the Sinhalese a dominant Majority, today. The ratio of difference between the residual  Tamils/ other Dravidians, and the Sinhalese would have been more or less same  around 1st century A.D, that is 25% and 75%, respectively, when the population would have been about say  ½ a million. Today after a period of 20 centuries, with the additional inputs to population, the Muslims, Tamils of Indian origin, Burghers, Malays and other minor ethnic groups, the percentage of Tamils dwindled, in the composite population of 20 million, to about 10-12%. Therefore, the reason for the disparity between Tamils and Sinhalese, that is 10/12 % and 75% respectively, is the primeval conversion of the Dravidian Hindus to Buddhism and the adoption of an artificially created language, which gave rise to the Sinhalese identity. Prof. CJ brags about, saying that  “75% of the population with a history of more than two thousand years and Tamils speaking people who constitute around 10% of the population with a history not going back to more than two hundred years”. Prof CJ is impervious to the knowledge that Tamils and their religion, Hinduism, has an un-datable history of ten millennia and beyond, making 2000 years history of the 75% of the Sinhala population, chronologically speaking, to  insignificance.

7. Rather than countering the Homeland concept of the Tamils by claiming a fictitious violation of the Human Rights of the Sinhalese, it is more desirable that the Prof.CJ and the like-minded intellectuals and the Sri Lankan State, counter the specific UNHRC resolution 30/1, alleging violation of International Human Rights Law and International Humanitarian Law, and the War Crimes charges brought against the country, during the Civil War against the Tamil militants.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 7
    6

    P. Soma Palan

    “His speech before the UNHRC forum may go passively with the western audience,as they are not conversant with our ancient history.”

    Please do not underestimate those who attend these fringe meetings.
    When decisions are made by International Institutions, they are based on expediency and not based on facts. This doesn’t mean the audience do not have the resources to factcheck.
    Tamils as well as the Sinhalese think the people outside this island are stupid, Ill-informed and ignorant, therefore they could take them for a ride.

    The smart ass patriot Prof. Channa Jayasumana should have been warned by his fellow patriot that UNHRC was not the platform to dish out whatever he thought was authentic history. It was not his fault. You should be looking for his guru, maybe the smart ass patriot is an ardent follower of the revisionist public racist Anagarika Homeless Dharmapala or perhaps an avid reader of HLD M’s typing.
    Hence he should be excused.

    • 8
      5

      Prof. Channa Jayasumana seems to be ill-informed, bigoted, anti-Tamil and profoundly ignorant. I wonder who chose him to speak on a subject he knows nothing about. All the crap that Prof. Channa Jayasumana dished out at UNHRC is nothing but a theory (fully based on assumptions, cannot be proved) created/concocted by the Sinhala Racist origination known as the Jaathika Chinthanaya (national consciousness) Movement founded by the racist dental doctor Gunadasa Amarasekera and the crackpot racist Mathematics professor Nalin Silva.

      • 6
        3

        The Sinhalese live purely on assumption that they came first and therefore the island belongs to them. There is no evidence even to prove that the Kings who ruled Rajarata were Sinhalese but only assumption. The Sinhalese assume that if you are a Buddhist then by default you are a Sinhala. None of the Buddhist Kings of Rajarata were Sinhalese. They were only Buddhists and during early period a Buddhist does not necessarily be a Sinhala.

        • 1
          2

          Hmmm historians whether it is British, Sinhala, German and Tamil have concluded that kings who ruled Rajarata were Sinhalese. It is a fact machan

          • 2
            0

            Sachoo,
            Parakrama Bahu the Great was definitely not Sinhala. Facts are facts.

            • 1
              2

              How many Parakramabahus do you know? And Sinhala kings took brides from India and according to you their offsprings are not sinhala? And ignoring the fact they had been giving leadership to a Sinhala country? It is not the person idiot, it is the role.

              • 1
                0

                Sachoo,
                Are you saying the Sinhalese are not a race then?
                So a person may change his ethnicity with his role. So, Sinhala bus conductor but the same guy as a driver is Tamil??
                If you mean there is no such thing as a Sinhalese, I agree with you.
                Or are you saying that the Sinhalese always must be ruled by outsiders? Quite true. Look at the mess since 1948.

      • 2
        0

        If this incoherent racist is representative of the Sinhalese “intelligentsia”, it won’t be long before some outside power takes over again. This Jayasumana is also a live wire in the Natha deviyo cabal that promotes “organic” farming.

      • 0
        0

        This particular Prof. came into being thanks to those controversial research on Kidney diseases. I wonder how could he be offered a professorship without having him proved years long post doctoral studies on the subject he should have been offered his PhD. I really wonder, the kind of low level professors could do lot more problems if they joined the kind of so called patriots.. not patriots but extremists groups.

    • 5
      5

      Tamil homeland is Tamil Nadu. End of story. Look at all Tamil songs, films, etc. NONE made in SL! Funny homeland.

    • 2
      2

      Native
      I am the only Sinhalese on this forum who supports a separate homeland for all Tamils (all Tamil speaking people irrespective of their religion, caste or the date of arrival) You must have noticed that I never argue on history. What concerns me is the PRESENT – the EXISTING demographic distribution of Tamils all across the island. Sinhalese must understand that the
      ONLY way to move them out of Sinhala majority areas is to establish a separate homeland for the Tamils and Tamils must understand that establishment of a homeland is tied with their physical relocation. International guarantees will be requied for the process.

      Soma

      • 3
        0

        soma

        I am the only native son of the soil in this forum who is willing to carve out a 10 square miles of island for the Sinhala/Buddhist noisy fascist minority. And remember you and your fellow Sinhala/Buddhist fascist minority has no option but to relocate to your confined area.

        Therefore get ready.

    • 2
      0

      Who is this professor ?

      He cant even pronounce the words properly ?

      These men just abuse their freedom and betray the majority of folks by the kind of speeches.

      I think whoever would go to such forums should be well conversant in English so that the message could go to the masses.

      Just because the guys are filled with their aggressions to rule out not to have an ethinic problem is joke. We indeed have problems between majority and minority tamils and muslims.
      These men working to local extremists groups making every effort to paint the picture infavour of them.
      If Rajakshes would be the future leaders, this country will have no future at all.
      God bless srilanka.

  • 8
    9

    Mytho mania or considering imaginations as history is one of the cornerstones in Tamil Nationalism. During 1920s 30s Tamil Nationalism in SL was shaped by the Tamil revivalist programmes in Tamil Nadu. According to Tamil revivalists in TN, the first human was called homo dravida and he came to earth 50,000 years ago. Many Tamils believe in these laughable claims.
    Tamils erroneously believe (and they very strongly attach themselves to that belief) that Dravidian means Tamil which is WRONG. And Tamil is the oldest existing language which is again wrong. The Tamil nationalist project was created based on these laughable imaginations.

    And Tamils in Sri Lanka influenced by the Tamil revivalist propaganda in TN, started saying Sri Lanka is essentially a Tamil country and they were the first to create a civilisation here. This is the root cause of Sri Lankan conflict. Tamils believe everything under the sun comes from Tamil.

    And Kadurugoda is not a Tamil civilisation, it was Buddhist temple complex. Many Buddhist artifacts have been found there.

    • 7
      6

      Sach ” Tamils believe everything under the sun comes from Tamil.”

      Its the Sinhalese people who coined the phrase “velupillai Prabakran the Sun God “
      So the Sinhalese believe even the Sun is Tamil.

      For that matter the astrology, strongly believed by Mahinda, is based on Tamil navakiragam.

      Such – who knows even the Universe may be Tamil.

      Ask Mahinda why he keeps going to Thirupatthi

      so My3 and Prof may utter nonsense in UN but their basic behavior and belief is all based on ancient Tamil culture.

      • 1
        1

        hmm..nothing important left to say.

        • 2
          0

          you never say anything important anyway….

          • 0
            0

            Well, then Tamil nationalists here wont get agitated and you wont blabber! So you have nothing important left to say?

            • 1
              0

              Sach- I am not here to say anything important.I just say the facts.
              Sach – truth sometimes hurt. so learn to live with it

    • 7
      5

      Mad man. It is Kantharoddai and not Kandugods. Yes it is a Buddhist complex but does not mean it is Sinhalese . Everything Buddhist in the island or anywhere is not Sinhalese. It is an ancient BUddhist complex that was built by the Tamil Buddhist and not Sinhalese. Lots of Tamils were Buddhist at one time and Tamil Buddhists took an important role in spreading Buddhism to SE ASia and even to NE Asia. Sinhalese did not do anything.. This complex is largely Mahayana and this itself proves that it had nothing to with the Sinhalese, as the people who call themselves Sinhalese or their ancestors , did not belong the Mahayana sect, however ancient Tamil Buddhists belonged to both sects. Theravadha and Mahayana. Now Sinhalese racists backed by their government and armed forces are trying to twist the fact and claim , Kantharodai as theirs and proof that Sinhalese lived there in ancient times. What nonsense, this site is thousands of years old and largely Mahayana and there were no people called the Sinhalese or Sinhalese language until the 7AD. Draividian is Tamil and there is definite evidence come to light that the Indus valley civilisation is Dravidian and the language spoken was proto Tamil. Similar potsherds and ruins to the Indus Valley civilisation and symbols have been found in Tamil Nadu. The ancient Tamil Bullfight sport Sallikattu was practised in both areas, similar stamps have been found in both areas. Many people had a strong suspicion that the move to ban it by certain powerful sections in India , was to destroy this ancient living sport of the Tamils and the proof to Indus valley civilisation.

      • 2
        4

        Where was the name Kantharodai mentioned? From where is this name Kantharodai taken from? I know the source where Kadurugoda comes from which is an old source.

        Among the Buddhist artifacts found in Kadurugoda, there were Prakrit written tabs. And again what are the sources for such a large number of Tamil Buddhists? There is no doubt Tamil Buddhists lived at one time. But it is a very rare case. Buddhism never was a main religion among Tamils.

        Mahavamsa talks about Sihala people, Buddhagosha talks about Sihala language, Ajantha frescoes talk about Sinhala people, and even Mahabharat. But Mahabharat does not mention Tamils.

    • 5
      2

      Sach
      The Tamil Revivalist programme had an impact within limited quarters in Tamilnadu. The impact in Sri Lanka was insignificant, as the Tamil scholarship in Sri Lanka was not anti-Sanskrit to the extent that the Revivalists (Tamil purists) in Tamilnadu (then Madras Presidency) were.
      *
      As for traditional homelands, kindly read a few serious historians before diving into unknown waters.
      Traditional homelands are not exclusive to one community, although they have a long history of residence there.

      • 2
        2

        SJ

        “Traditional homelands are not exclusive to one community, although they have a long history of residence there.”

        Are you wake? While you spend your entire life finding fault on FP, TULF, Tamils, TNA, UNP, Sambandan, SJV, …. Sirisena quietly slipped something that is not in the constitution. Please read:

        “As a Buddhist country, the values and philosophy in the teachings of Theravada Buddhism too, we believe, can provide important and useful insight in the quest to seek solutions to many of the problems the world faces today.”

        Address by His Excellency Maithripala Sirisena President of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka General Debate of the 71st Session of the United Nations General Assembly New York, 21 September 2016

        http://www.pmdnews.lk/speech-delivered-president
        -maithripala-sirisena-71st-session-united-nations-
        general-assembly/

        Wake up.

      • 1
        2

        I have read many serious historians and I am yet to find a historian who could prove existence of a Tamil civilisation here or atleast widespread Tamil settlements in north prior to 13 AD.

        Refer work by Navaratnam and many Tamil nationalists in SL. They had echoed the same ridiculous theories spread by TN nationalists. These Tamil revivalists’ impact on Tamil Nadu and its politics was huge and denying it is wrong. For example fake historians in Tamil revivalist movement have been rewarded by the TN gov. Even Periyar used these fake history in its movement.

        Read K.M.De Silva’s book on Tamil Homeland.

        • 1
          0

          Sach,
          the Jaffna Kingdom is not the sole identifier for Tamil civilization.
          There are several archaeological finds of the last half century that have persuaded many a historian to change his/her views on Tamil presence in the North, and recognize very early civilizations in the island.
          Navaratnam is no serious historian.

          • 0
            0

            What are those findings? I am eager to know. Once I read Pathmanathan of Jaffna university said he has found Tamil Brahmi inscriptions in B.C period. But he never reveals it. Most of the ‘Tamils lived in the North since ancient time’ argument come up with graves that have similarities to that found in South India, or the mention of ‘Naka diva’ in the Vallipuram inscription.

          • 1
            0

            Let’s say ( for argument’s sake) we have conclusive evidence to suggest dravidians lived in the Northern part of the island. What happened to these people? What did they build? What happened to their children? Do you find any record of a continuing strong Tamil presence or a kingdom in the Northern part of the island in any of the Chronicles? In foreign sources? Even the Cholas who invaded the country several times have written about the Sinhalese in SL. But they mention absolutely NOTHING about a Tamil civilisation in SL. Are you telling me the Tamils in SL used the cloak of invisibility to cover themselves up so that NO ONE notices them? Dont you see the sheer amount of historical artifacts left by the Sinhalese in SL and the Tamils in TN? If Tamils lived in SL that long, should not they have left a legacy equal to that?
            Yesterday I saw a young Tamil mourning for the lack of a Sri Lankan Tamil dance form and having to learn Bharatanatyam which is a legacy of TN. Why is this? Are you telling me the forefathers of Tamils in SL were nincompoops that they left nothing for us to remember them? Isnt it more plausible that they came to our shores since 13 AD which is exactly when we find evidences for large scale Tamil presence?
            Almost all historians in Tamils were politicians. All Tamil politicians used fake Tamil history to whip up the communal feelings of the Tamils and get votes!

      • 0
        0

        “The Tamil Revivalist programme had an impact within limited quarters in Tamilnadu. The impact in Sri Lanka was insignificant, as the Tamil scholarship in Sri Lanka was not anti-Sanskrit to the extent that the Revivalists (Tamil purists) in Tamilnadu (then Madras Presidency) were. ”
        I see first time a very good straight forward answer from SJ.
        Buddhism and Sinhala are two different aspects. Sinhalese is Centuries junior to Buddhism. Buddhism didn’t come to Lankawe by mythical stories of women sleeping with lion. It really speared thought human interactions, painstaking memorization and dedicated spiritual life. When Jainism and Buddhism spread in TN, TN went into Dark Period. The Kings did not inter marry or exert their authority in Ceylon. TN coastal communication came to almost dead. The Author of “Manimekhala” is describing that Manimekhala came Ceylon by flying to teach Buddhism to Ceylonese, because he was not sure how to describe her traveling (mainly the sea route). This was picked up Mahanama about 500 years later and he too describes Buddha was flying to Ceylon to teach Buddhism. But in practice, the converted Hindus never abandoned their Hinduism and they were still going to pray Kathurugama Devyo or Pathini Devyo and break coconuts. Because it is taught Buddhism, it is Theravadam. In Practice it is Hinduism. Only limited Monks travelled from TN to Ceylon. They taught the Buddhism mainly in Pali and Sanskrit. The cultural cut off of the main land created an atmosphere to Ceylon language get corrupted with newly learned religious words. If one look at after 400 years of coercive foreign rule, with all kind of known incentives, the Christianity could not reach 1/10 of the land. So Buddhism conversion did not go very fast.

        • 0
          0

          This is the sort of history revisionism by Tamil Nationalists I am talking about here. Now how many of the readers know that there was NO MENTION of the then name for Sri Lanka in Manimekalai? And that story of Manimekala is hard to be accepted as a historical fact as much the arrival of Vijaya cannot be considered as history? In the Manimekala story, it says Manimekala was from a country named Naganadu. And Tamils assume Nagas are Tamils and hence they talk about a Tamil kingdom in SL. This is history revisionism.
          Sri Lanka has been in constant contact with parts of India when it comes to Buddhist studies. Even a king in Anuradhapura made a rest house in Bodhgaya to facilitate Sinhala Buddhist worshipper’s stay in Bodhgaya during Anuradhapura period.

      • 0
        0

        Mahanama with his lies, he have left enough clues to trace truth too. He has said Gemunu won 32 Tamil Chieftain on his path to Ellarla. He did not even mention about on Sinhala Chieftain. Practically he meant it was Hindu Chieftain with whom he had vengeance. Unfortunately his mind was reflecting the end result of Hindu Vs Buddhist & Jains fight in TN. So he made Gamunu as Buddhist Hero (Not Sinhala Hero.) Because the 32 kings were Hindu Kings, it tells Buddhism had not crossed Thissamaharama in the 160 BCs. As a warrior Hindu Gamunu did not like the Buddhist Ellarla ruling Anuradhapura. He prayed Kathirgamam Murugan, pledged his sword on the altar, and made offerings to win the war. He collected 32 Hindu Kings’ supports on his way to fight with Ellarla. Ellarlan had enough army because he was ruling the main part of the country. But his Buddhist Principles reminded him of Asoka Kalinga victory. So he said to Gamunu if Gemunu wins him, he can take the kingdom, instead pushing so many women to widowhood. Gamunu became a Buddhist only after winning the war, by impressed by the gracefulness of his enemy and statesmanship of his conduct. By Mahanama’s confession, Ceylon was Tamil when the war was taking place. But Buddhism had come up to Middle, but most probably by peaceful mean, unlike Kalapirar, who won TN and forced their religion in TN.
        I don’t know how much Mahanama has said about Ellara’s queen and his children. It was not a real war; it was like “Siva smiled and won the Tripura Fortresses”, it was only an amiable settlement; his family might have been voluntarily accepted into the new royal family.

        • 0
          0

          Again shows your lack of knowledge on Sri Lankan history. Mahanama thera took the story of Elara from Deepavamsa (Deepavamsa was written earlier than Mahavamsa). In Mahavamsa, Mahanama Thera calls Elara, a Dameda which means South Indian. But in the original, in Deepavamsa, it is NOT mentioned that Elara was a Dameda/South Indian.
          We all know Mahanama Thero lived during the time of King Datusena (we have Sirisena now, when was the last time you saw any Tamil with a name ending ‘sena’). Datusena came to power after defeating south indian invaders and chasing themaway. So Mahanama wrote according to the time he lived.

          • 0
            0

            sach
            Let me add to your point.

            Let us take the Elara/Dutugemunu episode. In the Deepavamsa there are only 10 lines/verses about Elara/Dutugemunu but in the Mahavamsa there are 11 complete chapters about Elara/Dutugemunu.
            Do you think Mahanama Thero has written all bull crap by blowing up 10 lines into 11 chapters (may be after smoking Cannabis)?

            Another example is, the Mahavamsa calls the king who ruled the island during the period 504-474 BC as Pandu Vasudeva. The Deepavamsa calls him Pandu Vasa. Pandu is the Pali equivalent of Pandya, Vasa means where he lived (his origin). In other words, Pandu Vasa meaning one from the Pandya country i.e., A Pandyan by his nationality.

            So what is your opinion, you think Deepavamsa is more accurate?

    • 3
      2

      “when the Portuguese arrived in Sri Lanka, Sinhalese people were the majority in the Jaffna Penensula”.

      Where is the evidence to prove this Prof. Channa Jayasumana?

      Please do not come up with the error that the Franciscan monk Fernāo de Queiros who chronicled “Jaffna during Portuguese” made by calling the Tamil speaking people of Jaffna as ‘Chingalaz’. The same Franciscan monk Fernāo de Queiros also wrote about the Brahmi script of the Ceylon inscriptions to be Greek (Temporal and Spiritual conquest of Ceylon, book 1, page60). The very first people he made contact with in Ceylon were the Southern Sinhalese. In describing the events in ‘our language-their language’ terms, their language had been set to Chingala by default, because that was Queiros’ perception. In his book ‘Jaffna under the Portuguese’ Prof. Tikiri Abeysinghe, who was Professor of Modern History in the University of Colombo till 1985, notes that in the period 1624-1626, the Franciscans converted 52,000 Jaffna Tamil Hindus into Catholics.

      And please do not come up with the famous old joke that the place names in Jaffna are in Sinhala. Contemporary Sri Lanka has place names which contain roots derived from Pali, Sanskrit, Prakrit, Tamil, Malayalam, and Telugu. Some twisted/misspelled names are due to the inability of the Europeans to accurately sound a local name. Simply by looking at a Portuguese or Dutch map of Ceylon with twisted/misspelled names and concluding them as Sinhala names is simply fooling the Sinhalese with twisted assumptions. Also, some of the crocked 20th century Sinhala Buddhist pseudo scholars took full advantage of the similarity between the two languages (Tamil & Sinhala) to play with words by twisting, turning, corrupting and creating very similar Sinhala names to convince the ignorant gullible Sinhala Buddhist majority that the original names were from Sinhala origin which the Tamils changed later.

      • 1
        1

        Kumar

        [“when the Portuguese arrived in Sri Lanka, Sinhalese people were the majority in the Jaffna Penensula”.]

        “Where is the evidence to prove this Prof. Channa Jayasumana?”

        Why do you need proof?
        In Sri Lanka no one has to prove what they blabber, type, say, ……………………….they are always right.
        How long you been living overseas.
        Maybe more than a decade hence your memory is fading.

        Have you ever come across evidence/proof/… being supplied by sach, Champika, Champa, somass, Hela, Douglas, Sangili Karuppan, HLD M, Kamalika Pieris, wannihami, ……………… Sirisena.

        At UN Assembly in 2016 Sirisena read out from his prepared text and please see an excerpt below:
        “As a Buddhist country, the values and philosophy in the teachings of Theravada Buddhism too, we believe, can provide important and useful insight in the quest to seek solutions to many of the problems the world faces today.”

        The Sri Lankan constitution does not support this man’s claim Sri Lanka being a Buddhist country.

        What more evidence do you need?

      • 2
        1

        There are place names in Jaffna which are in fact Sinhala origin. If you refer to the very book you mentioned here written by Tikiri Abeysinghe, it is mentioned in that book, kaytes was known as Urathota in the earlier period. It seems you dont read the book you quote ;)

        • 0
          0

          The book says island of Uruka-thurai (Uratota in Pali chronicle) now called Kayts (colonial name).

          Ūrāt-tuṟai is the earliest available written form of that place name, attested by two Tamil inscriptions of 12th century CE, one seen locally and the other coming from Tamil Nadu. Ūṟā-toṭa is the form found in the 13th century CE Pali chronicle Pūjāvaliya. (Toṭa means the same as Tuṟai).

          • 0
            0

            Uruka-thurai? Where did that come from? Where was it first mentioned as Uruka-thurai? Did you get this Uruka-thurai from Tikiri Abeysinghe’s book or from air? In Tikiri Abeysinghe’s book, he categorically states the former name of Kaytes island was Urathota.

            • 0
              0

              sach

              Please refer to Prof. Tikiri Abeysinghe’s book “Jaffna under the Portuguese” page 2 under the sub heading ‘changing perceptions of Jaffna’s importance’.

              Looks like you have never seen this book.

              • 0
                0

                There is no question that Jaffna was inhabited by Tamils by the time Portugese arrived here. Channa Jayasumana is incorrect here. But it is also proved without any question that there are large number of place names in Jaffna which are Sinhala origins.

                • 0
                  0

                  sach the very stupid

                  “But it is also proved without any question that there are large number of place names in Jaffna which are Sinhala origins.”

                  Like the Tamil names in the South, for instant Battaramulla, (Paththar Moolai – Gold Smith’s Corner), Chetty Street (- Heaṭṭi Vīdiya), Ananda Kumaraswamy Road, (Ananda Kumaraswamy Mawata), …….. Kolamba – Vedda word for harbour or fort, ……………

        • 0
          0

          Sach,

          “Urathota”
          First Thodam is pure Tamil word. It went to Sinhala as “thota”. Second, when one word go from one Language to another it always becomes shortened because of the sound corruption, How can Urathota get expanded in Tamils as Urr Kaval Thurai? Can you walk me through that change? Is that professor is one of the Badiudeen’s Standardization Candidate?

          • 0
            0

            Mallaiyuran

            It was the tradition of the early Buddhist writers in Sri Lanka to twist the Dravidian/Tamil names (of kings and places) sometimes out of recognition in transforming them into Pali or Prakrit (later Sinhala) forms.

            • 0
              0

              Any source of research work to back the claim? But we can attest many Tamil place names which has Sinhala origins.

          • 0
            0

            This is not the first time Kumar quoted Tikiri Abeysinghe and we can confidently says he must have been an authority on the subject. And he really is. Tikiri Abeysinghe who dedicated his life to study Sri Lanka’s history under colonial powers Portuguese and Dutch is indeed an authority. I guess you have not read much into SL history.
            Playing with words and trying to say every word originate from this and that Tamil word is another cornerstone of Tamil nationalism. It has only contributed towards entertainment in the world of linguistics and agony in Sri Lanka.

        • 0
          0

          Sach,
          Jaffna has been conquered by Sinhalese rulers; and more importantly there was strong trade and cultural exchange between Tamil and Sinhala speakers.
          There are many more places in the South with Tamil names. Will that make them Tamil territory?
          Kayts is Uur-kaaval-thurai in Tamil roughly meaning “town’s watch-harbor”.
          Urathota is a Sinhala adoption of that name.
          (You seem desperate. I can list better examples of outright Sinhala names, but that will prove nothing of the kind that you imagine.)

          • 0
            0

            Believe me friend with the abundance of evidence in my hand and careful study of Tamil mythomania, talking this subject with Tamil Nationalists is very easy. Yes there could be place names in South with Tamil origins, but it does not make South any Tamil territory. Because there is NO dispute whether Tamils lived in South or not. The dispute is in North and number of historians have figured out Sinhala place names in TN.

            Where is this Uur-kaaval-thurai mentioned? Urathota does not come from that. Sinhalese maintained Nampotha.

          • 0
            0

            Between why doesnt any Tamil commentator respond to my claim on Navalapiddy in TamilNet?

          • 0
            0

            Vallipuram gold plate talks about a deed done for a Buddhist temple in Vallipuram under the auspices of Anuradhapura King, Vasabha. Again the inscriptions done in one of the islets which is in Tamil was made by the King of Polonnaruwa, Parakramabahu. The inscription was made targetting the ships that come from Tamil Nadu (hence in Tamil). There are multiple evidences to suggest North was under the control of king in Anuradhapura and Polonnaruwa. If you read into SL history you will understand Tamil presence begins to be noticed in history records since 9AD. That is understandable due to the Chola invasions in 9AD. And we all know Kalinga Maga invaded SL in 13th century and caused Sinhala king in Polonnaruwa to relocate. From then on we observe the gradual decline of the Sinhala civilization until Parakramabadu the 6th come into power. And when Sinhala civilisation was in decline it cannot protect its gates. Kalinga Maga controlled North goes to different different hands later. Isnt this the story? Don’t the historical evidences we can find attest to this political history? There is NO evidence to suggest what you Tamil Nationalists like to believe. What were you doing when Kalinga Maga came?

      • 1
        2

        Actually tamilizing Sinhala place names still continue to this day. I once read an article in TamilNat where they were talking about a place called ‘Navalapiddy’ in central part of SL. I was wondering what this Navalapiddy was. And guess what I found out, it was Navalapitiya. They have Tamilised the name Navalapitiya into Navalapiddy.

        We can imagine how every -piddy came into existence among Tamil place names.

    • 4
      1

      Sach – Whatever your prejudices are – and there seems to be no shortage of them – the recent declaration by neutral international
      research organisations Tamil is the oldest living language is beyond
      question. Tamilnadu did not go ballistic when this declaration was made recently is proof Tamilnadu historians-archeologists are firmly convinced of this factuality.

      Jaundiced Sinhala bigots of your ilk can look at the moon and you know what??? But the fact will remain – unshaken. You must be one of those shy about the fact the existence of this wonder work Mahawansa was discovered, of all, by a British Civil servant in the 19th century after which extremists like the so-called Anagarika went nuts about the “uniqueness” of this work. Why did not Sinhala historians and chronicles talk about this Mahawansa in the 2,000 odd years it was in supposed to be existence?

      R. Varathan

      • 2
        0

        R. Varathan

        Mahawamsa was written Pali, the first Latin translation appeared in the early 1800, English in 1833, a second English Translation published in 1837, translated into Sinhala only about 1870s, … German one in 1912,

        Why was it written in Pali and not in Sinhala?
        sach has been asking the same questions for the past 10 or so years.

        • 0
          0

          Pali is an unwritten language, it has no script. It can be written in Sinhala or Tamil or anything else.

        • 0
          0

          Because Sinhalese used Pali for literature which is the language of their religion. And why is there no influence of Pali on Tamil if Buddhism was widespread among Tamils?

          • 0
            0

            There is a wealth of Buddhist literature in Tamil. Two major Buddhist epics of India are in Tamil.
            Buddhism along with Jainism dominated Tamil territory in India for several centuries and Buddhism faded only after the 10th Century.
            Tamil Buddhism did not have royal patronage to the degree that Jainism had, but it had influence among rulers and more importantly much popular following.

      • 0
        0

        I am not prejudiced my friend. In fact Tamils’ mythomania provide entertainment for me. Which neutral international research organisation declared that Tamil is the oldest living language? I remember Karunanidhi once did in 2010. Oldest living language! LOL

        When any kandyan king wrote to Portugese/Dutch/British agent on a diplomatic matter, he started his letter mentioning the authority he was conferred from the time of King Vijaya. Please check history. Even Kandyan kings considered Vijaya was the first in their line of dynasty. Mahavamsa has left such an indelible mark on Sinhala memory. They need not any Brits to discover their own legacy.

    • 1
      0

      sach,
      Mytho mania or considering imaginations as history is one of the cornerstones in Sinhala Nationalism. During 1920s 30s Sinhala Nationalism in SL was shaped by the Sinhala revivalist programmes in the South. According to Sinhala revivalists in the South, the first human was called homo aryana and he came to earth 50,000 years ago. Many Sinhalese believe in these laughable claims.
      Sinhalese erroneously believe (and they very strongly attach themselves to that belief) that Aryan means Sinhala which is WRONG. And Sinhala is the oldest existing language which is again wrong. The Sinhala nationalist project was created based on these laughable imaginations.

      And Sinhalese in Sri Lanka influenced by the Sinhala revivalist propaganda in the South, started saying Sri Lanka is essentially a Sinhala country and they were the first to create a civilisation here. This is the root cause of Sri Lankan conflict. Sinhalese believe everything under their arse comes from Sinhala.

      And Kantharodai is not a Sinhala civilisation, it was Mahayana Buddhist temple complex. Many Mahayana Buddhist artifacts have been found there.

      • 0
        2

        I am yet to find a single Sinhalese who has said the same. Can you name a single Sinhalese who stated there first human was a homo arya or bla bla? Because I can SERIOUSLY name a Tamil one who made such a statement. Sinhala nationalists REJECT this Aryan notion because it devalues Sinhalaness into an Indian origin one. Sinhalese have every reason to say Sri Lanka is essentially a Sinhala country. Even the foreigners used to call us by names which were derivaties of Sinhale. Sinhalese do NOT believe everything under the sun came from SL, but Sinhalese reasonably state Sri Lanka was and is essentially a Sinhala civilisation. How did you say Kadurugoda was Mahayana? And from where did you get the name Kantharodai?

        • 2
          0

          sach,
          You can name only one Tamil? I know of at least fifty who make such nonsensical statements!

  • 7
    4

    why was Prof. Channa Jayasumana reading his statement fast like an express train. Like a thief or a child running away fast after stealing.

    perhaps he wants to read the load of lies and run away before any one confront to challenge him.

    • 2
      10

      Rajash
      It is you who is the child running away. Man, Channa made a good use of the limited time allocated to him and within 2 minutes he gave a lightening attack to Tamil fabricators.

      • 2
        2

        Champa

        You don’t have to defend every stupid liar.
        Just hang on to Wimal Sangili Karuppan’s Amude which will show you are loyal to only one stupid racist.
        You do not have to marry everyone you sleep with.

      • 1
        2

        Champa – “within 2 minutes he gave a lightening attack to Tamil fabricators.”
        it was like new year fire works that failed to explode and went “pusssssssssssss”

      • 2
        2

        Champa, he is not fluent in English to deliver a speech without reading and at normal speed. I think that the lightning stuck him at the end and he ended as a fool.

    • 4
      1

      We have not heard of this Prof Channa Jayasumana earlier – in the Colombo lecture circuits. Not heard of any scholarly papers or media articles either. Of course, the dozens of Universities now in Sri Lanka churn out hundreds of Doctors and Professors – mostly shallow men/women who deserve pity more than academic attention.
      His child-like performance in UN/Geneva is extremely poor. The only thing he came out with in this brief rapid-fire address is an undisguised prejudice against Tamils and their history in Sri Lanka.

      His conclusion that Nandikadal is the final episode in Tamil history
      borders around madness – if not utter stupidity. He is clearly a man who has impressed Gamarala with his fairly tales about ethnic history in the country and, therefore, probably found a place in the plane to Geneva.

      Kettikaran

  • 3
    1

    Prof. Channa Jayasumana ….starts with “There is no Tamil home land in Sri Lanka” and then finishes …finishes “…genuine history shows there is no ethnic problem in Sri Lanka”

    so he unwittingly acknowledges there is Tamil Homeland in Sri Lanka but no ethnic problem?

    It appears he is a professor of medicine……he should stick to clinical studies not historic studies…

    I think the prof was too busy memorising his speech that he didn’t notice that My3 also uttered two rubbish speeches in the UN , one requesting every one to emulate Nelson Mandela and the other requesting every one to look at sri lanka with a fresh pair of eyes.

    both his request seems to have escaped the young prof in a hurry

    • 2
      1

      Rajash

      “It appears he is a professor of medicine……he should stick to clinical studies not historic studies…”

      Don’t you think Prof. Channa Jayasumana should spend rest of his life at UN and away from hospitals and research establishments as he does not have to deal with real people and their life.

      It would be good for the people, good for the hospitals, good for the country, good for the region, good for the world.

      Don’t you think the people who were present at the meeting knew exactly what he was trying to do as they are not stupid enough to believe what the dimwit was blabbering?

      Was he there simply to impress his wife, mistress, partner, ……………….?
      On his return his mother would have clipped round his ear for making fool of himself in an International forum.

  • 4
    4

    It is most unfortunate that an utterly ignorant individual like Channa Jayasumana has been selected by Sinhalese Extremist groups to present their concerns at the UN, when they could have used a qualified historian who knew the facts in a more cogent manner without making serious mistakes.
    But this writer is in the same class as Jayasumana, and ignores of history.
    Dr. Paul E. Peris, which is diametrically opposite to the so-called point of view of Prof. Karthugesu Indrapala- I quote “Following excavations of Kanthrodai, the ancient capital of Kings of Jaffna, I believe North Ceylon was a flourishing settlement long before Vijaya was born”
    There is no conflict between Paul E Peries and Indrapala.
    This does not mean that the people who lived before Vijaya (if that were a true story) were Dravidians. The legendary names of people who are supposed to have lived here, e.g., names like Ravana, Kuveni are not Tamil names but Prakrit names (middle Magadha).
    Ku-verni means “ku=Dark, Veni-Verni=colured”, and so Kuveni meant “dar-coloured” one, just as the name of the father of Dutu Gemunu was “Ka-van” tissa, where “Ka=Dark -van=Varna” means dark colured Tissa. Ra-vana mean Raja=King of the Vanaya=Forest which was the Vanni (Forest) region.
    The Chankam literature mentions 18 countires of ancient south Asia.
    cimkaḷam, conaakam, cā vakam, cīṉam, tuḷuvam, kutakam, konkanam, kanna-tam, kollam, telin(g)kam, kalin(g)kam, vaṅkam, kaṅ- kam, makatam, kaṭāram, kavuṭam, koklam, tamilakam; சிங்களம், சோனகம், சாவகம், சீனம், துளுவம், குடகம், கொங் ;கணம், கன்னடம், கொல்லம், தெலிங்கம், கலிங்கம், ;வ ங்கம், கங்கம், மகதம், கடாரம், கவுடம், கோசலம், தமிழகம்.
    It clearly mentions CINKALAM.
    No where do we find any evidence to show that the population that existed in Sri Lanka BEFORE Vijaya were Tamils, although this seems to be the assumption of this writer.

    • 4
      2

      Stop posting lies racist. We do not know the real name of Deva Nambiya Theesan. However the word Nambiya is a pure Tamil word, Derived from Nambikai meaning belief. His name means the great man who loved god in Tamil. His father was King Mutta Sivan this is a pure Tamil word meaning the great or venerated Siva , Proving they were Tamil Saivites. Kaavan means in Tamil the one who guards and this person is a king. Like in Thirukural “Kaavalan Kaavan Enin” Kaavan Theesan in Tamil means the great king who guards. Theesan was a title that was given to Buddhists proving these people were Naga Tamil Buddhist. His other name was Kakai Vanna Thessan meaning the king or great man the colour of the crow. These are all Tamil words Do not distort history. The Sanskrit word Rajah is derived from the Tamil word for king Arasan and not the other way around. Later it came back to Tamil again in the form of Rasa. Chinkallam( The red or copper coloured land in Tamil Chepu+ Alam) ) is a Tamil word used in ancient times to describe the ancient Dravidian semi Tamil Elu speaking people of the island. This is what the Sangam ;literature was describing not the modern Sinhalese who never existed then. When the Sinhalese language and identity evolved they used this ancient Tamil word to identify themselves . Just like the way the Slavic Macedonians use the ancient Greek name Macedonia. Who else would have lived there in the island other than the Dravidians? Giants? Ogres? Paul E Pieris and Indrapala are renowned historians and stop trying to distort history. Indrapala has recently stated the island’s Sinhalese and Tamils are largely descended from the same Dravidian stock in the island. The arrival of Buddhism spread the Northern Prakrit dialects in the south of the country , whilst the North East and North West coast until recently retained their Dravidian/Tamil identity despite many of them converting to Buddhism at one time.

      • 1
        1

        RS
        “Deva Nambiya Theesan” is a Tamiliization of “devanam piya tissa”.
        Meaning Tissa with affinity to divine beings.
        *
        The Tamil word “arasan” is derived from the Sanskrit “raaja” which entered Sinhala uncorrupted.
        *
        On your other etymological adventures, the less said the better.

        • 2
          2

          No it is Devanampiya Tissa and not Devanam Piya Tissa! This has not been Tamillised. May be you are now revising history too and names to suit Sinhalese extremists. This what you always do , Just like Subramanian Swamy or the late Cho , people who called themselves Tamil but are/were constantly attacking Tamil people. Now for the word Arasan
          Yes. The ‘King’ in Tamil is ‘Arasu’>Rasu>Rasa>Raja etc.’Rayan’ is another word for ‘Rajan’ This has become ‘Roy’ in Bengali.It may be surprising but the word has travelled across the world as the following words used in other languages go to prove.
          1.Czar(Rasar)
          2.Caesar(-do-)
          3.Rex(Ras)
          4.Caiser(Rasar)
          5.Shah(Rasa)
          6.Pasha(Rasa)
          7.Rajah(Rasa
          Ar in Tamil generally means Circle. (Eg: Aarathi , Muthaaram; Aaram – Garland ).
          Aran /Aranam in Tamil means Fort. The commonly used word is Kottai. .
          Aran -manai means – the place/ fort – surrounded with protection.
          Arayam also means the FORT. The one who rules from Aran /Arayam (FORT) is called as Arayan..(அரையத்திலிருந்து ஆளுபவன் அரையன்)
          Arayan’ later transformed as ‘Arasan’.
          Ya – Sa transformation is very common in Tamil.
          Like முயல் – முசல் ; மயிர் – மசிர் ; நேயம் – நேசம் ; அரையன் – அரைசன்
          Arasan deformed colloquially as ராசா / Rasa – without prefix A / அ.
          Rasa – the Tamil word gave birth to so many words like ….ராஜா /Raja, ராய்/Roy, ராயல் /Royal, ராயர்/Royar.
          Happy I know you are great apologist for Sinhalese racists and Muslim opportunists and love to bootlick them and attack your fellow Tamils, for reasons only known to you. Keep up the good work. Good try

          • 0
            1

            RS
            Could you point to the earliest occurrence of the word aracu in Tamil. Thirukkural is post-Sangam and Northern vocabulary had penetrated Tamil at the dawn of the Christian Era.
            Tamil words for king were man and venthu. To rule is ‘aal’ but that is phonetically far from aracu.
            *
            Your etymology suggests that you can give the likes of Thevaneyappaavaanar and Thaviithadikal a good run for their money.
            An anecdote from the fringes of the WTR Conference Madurai 1980/81:
            A first ape theorist was going on about how words of all languages originated in Tamil. My friend Dr K asked him (TiC) to tell how the word ‘salt’ came about. The man did not bat an eyelid and went on to claim: “Where does salt come from. The sea, isn’t it? What is in the sea? Alai (waves)! Alai — salai — sal — salt!”
            There is a clue for you, So, carry on regardless.
            *
            Bwt
            devanampiya analyses as devanam+piya.
            Some knowledge Sinhala/Tamil grammar will help.
            *
            One has to be desperately pathetic, to take cover under caste, racial and religious identities.

          • 1
            0

            Nicely put. Good technical post, however, you do realize that most Sinhalese here have no idea about what you are saying. They have no clue about the very strict rules in Tamil. For starters, you can never start a Tamil word (formal/literal Tamil) with a consonant and there is a good reasoning behind it. It makes the language restrictive but the reasoning is quite sound. In Sinhala you can get around this by combining consonants (Sankrit and Pali influence), but notice that most so called Sinhalese especially in the villages have trouble prouncing when consonants are combined. Aspiration is completely ignored. They pronounce ස්ථානය (‘location’) as ඉස්තානය, වෘත්තය (‘circle’) as වුර්තය, විකෘති (‘distortion’) as විකුර්ති, ස්කන්ධ (‘body’) as ඉස්කන්ද and list goes on. The need to add a vowel or the need to create a consonant vowel in front is a TAMIL TRAIT. Strictly speaking it is incorrect to write ஸ்கந்த. You have to add a vowel in-front and make it இஸ்கந்த. You have to change க்றித்துவம் to கிறித்துவம். It is shocking how the so called Sinhalese cannot speak actual Sinhala. Got to be the joke of the millennium.

          • 1
            0

            This is the reason the throne is called pure Tamil Ariyannai and in Sanskritised Tamil Simhasanam,

        • 1
          0

          SJ, Here is something that might interest you. During Tamil Sanga period:
          ஆற்றங் கரையின் மரமும் அரசறிய – – ஒளவையார்.

    • 1
      0

      K
      Etymological ventures of the kind tried above are dangerously subjective.
      *
      Sangam literature does not name the countries listed above.
      Most are territories that the Chola empire reached. Some expansion in South India occurred under the Pallavas. All of these were post-Sangam.

    • 0
      1

      “Prof. Karthigesu Indrapala has pointed out that there were no permanent Tamil settlements in Sri Lanka before 13th century A.D”.

      Prof. Channa Jayasumana is not talking about Prof. Karthigesu Indrapala but he is talking about Mr. Karthigesu Indrapala, a 1965 PhD student who pointed out that there were no permanent Tamil settlements in Sri Lanka before 13th century A.D. Why is Prof. Channa Jayasumana talking about Prof. Karthigesu Indrapala’s latest publications?

      40 years after his 1965 PhD thesis, Prof. Karthigesu Indrapala as a senior Archeologist/Historian says his PhD dissertation (with very limited material) is completely out of date (obsolete) that even he does not have a copy of his 1965 PhD thesis what he wrote 40 years ago as a PhD student. He further says in his recently published book, his 1965 PhD thesis (with full of assumptions and hypothesis) was presented as the first major attempt to bring together all available evidence on the subject and admits that it was in no way a complete study. With new findings in the field of archaeology during the 4 decades, he changed his views/opinions and assumptions which is natural.

    • 3
      0

      During the early historic period (6th century BC to 3rd century AD), Lanka/ilankai (as first mentioned in the Ramayana) was a part of South India separated by a shallow sea and was only a walking distance before the sea levels rose. Even today, one of the ancient bridges that was linking South India to Sri Lanka can be seen in the NASA shuttle images. During that period, irrespective of whether they were Yakkhas, Nagas, or any others, all these tribes were Saivaite Dravidians (devotees of Lord Siva, Saivaism is a sect of Hinduism/Brahmanism prevalent in Sri Lanka before Buddhism). The Naga tribe not only lived in both Sri Lanka and South India but they were also moving back and forth between Sri Lanka and South India. All the ancient rulers of Sri Lanka before the arrival of Buddhism were also Saivaites (followers of Saiva Siddhantam). The Pali chronicles leave us in no doubt that the worship of Siva was prevalent in Anuradhapura and elsewhere in the island. The numerous occurrences of the personal name Siva in the Pali chronicles and in the early Brahmi inscriptions also support this. As per Ramayana, even the Yaksha king Ravana was believed to be a Dravidian chieftain and a strong devotee of Lord Siva. During the early period (before Buddhism), the Island of Sri Lanka was not a Dhamma Deepa of Buddha but a Siva Bhoomi (Land of Siva). As confirmed by Dr. Paul E. Pieris, in the ‘five corners’ of the island Lanka, there were five ancient historical Ishwaram temples of Lord Siva (Nuguleswaram, Munneswaram, Koneswaram, Tondeswaram, and Katheeswaram). Sri Pada/Adam’s Peak was originally known as Sivanolipatha Malai (sacred footprint of Siva). Even today, if they dig/excavate deep in any part of Sri Lanka, the archeology department could find Statues of Lord Siva, some of them that were already found are kept in museums while many got disappeared/lost.

    • 2
      0

      Can you give a source where Paul.E.Pieris says so? Because this is the first time I heard such a thing

    • 2
      0

      And the Tamilakam defined in Sangam literature was actually limited to Tamil Nadu. They never bothered to talk about a Tamil country which was just across the strait which I find strange.

      • 0
        0

        Sach
        Sangam literature did not talk of Tamilakam.
        The concept evolved after much socio-cultural development; and at the time Kerala was Tamil speaking.
        Linguistic identity of Kannada is a little later than Tamil, and Telugu even after. But Malyalam branched from Tamil.

        • 0
          0

          Again you are wrong about kannada, Tamil and Telegu. In fact languages like Kannda and Telegu predate Tamil. All these languages came from what historians identify as proto dravidian langauge. That proto dravidian language is NOT Tamil. Tamil nationalists have this strange notion about language evolution. According to them the whole of Indian subcontinent was Tamil speaking and after arrival of Sanskrit, Tamil was corrupted with it and gave birth to Kannada and Telegu and finally to Malayalam. That is how Tamil nationalists see it. That is NOT the way it happen. In fact Tamil has later origins.

        • 0
          0

          I am not sure about the origins of Tamilakam. But Tamilakam is limited to TN according to Tamil literature.

    • 0
      0

      There was NO Buddhism in Sri Lanka until Emperor Asoka’s missionary monks led by Mahinda Thero converted the Saivaite Dravidian/Tamil King Muta Siva’s second son Tissa (brother of Maha Siva) to Buddhism in the 2nd century BC (Tissa/Tisa is the Buddhist name, his real Saiva name is not known. However, Thisan is a Sangam age Tamil name found in Keezhadi excavation). For accepting Buddhism, Emperor Asoka (who assumed the title Devanampiya Piyadasi which means “Beloved-of-the-Gods”) gave Tissa a similar title Devanampiya. Buddhism in Sri Lanka was actually a North Indian conspiracy organized by the North Indian Emperor Asoka and his son Mahinda with the support from the local stooge Tissa (second son of Saivaite King Muta Siva) who seized the Anuradapura throne (with Asoka’s support) which rightly belonged to his elder brother Abhaya (Apayan).

      Following the king Devanampiya Tissa, a large number of Saivaite Dravidian tribes in the island embraced Asoka’s Buddhism, Aryanised/Prakritised their speech, learned to write using Asoka Bhrami script, adopted the Lion symbol (the Indian Lion which represents the accomplishment of Buddha) and the Dhamma Chakra (also called the Asoka Chakra), accepted the Asoka Buddhist culture and implemented Asoka’s technology to build Stupas, Chaityas, Viharas, Sangharama, and so on. The authors of the early Brahmi inscriptions in the island which are in the Pakrit language were almost certainly Buddhist monks (even the Buddhist Sangha in Tamil Nadu had used Pakrit/Pali language in preference to Tamil in their writings). These inscriptions mainly record the donation of caves to the Buddhist Sangha. The language of these inscriptions should not be assumed to be that of the common people. Even though the written language started only after the invention of the Brahmi script, Tamil was a spoken language thousands of years before it was put to writing and is one of the ancient living languages in the world.

    • 0
      0

      Your mistake is you are quoting “இராவணன், குவேனி” from Sanskrit and Pali literature. You goofed to recognize that they were adopted into the writing language instead of Tamil. You need to understand that Indus valley to Ceylon there was only one race lived. You further need to understand, Matura, Mathurai and Matara are one single name Tamil
      Look at this map. it is the Dutch prepared when captured Jaffna Kingdom from Portuguese. They are showing three separate areas for the three kingdom, in the south a large area piloted as Matura.

      https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Map-of-ceylon-c1692.jpg

  • 5
    5

    The Tamil community may be about 10 or 12 % of the population and confined to about ¼ of the land area of the country,

    This writer seems to be unaware of the actual distribution of Tamil speaking Sri lankans. The majority are in the south. So, you don’t have 12% “confined” to about 1/4 of the Land area.
    The majority of even the minsters of the TNA live in Colombo!

    Read Captain Percival’s account of Jaffna in 1800-1820 and then you see that the majority of people in Jaffna Peninsula when Sri lanka became a British Crown Colony were Muslims, the seond group were Tamils and Sinhalese. But our people who should have the first rights to the Jaffna Peninsula on a historical basis (when the British left) were driven out by the LTTE and Tamil s today are not even admitting their crime of “ethnic cleansing”.

    • 3
      3

      OH really go and tell these fairy tales to someone else. Enough that you converted low caste immigrants from South India whose ancestors arrived in the island only a few centuries ago , are now trying to steal the ancient Tamil east from the Hindu Tamils , who are the original owners of the east and whose ancestors took pity on the ancestors of the eastern Muslims and gave them refuge when they were fleeing the Portuguese and then the Sinhalese . Now you are making up fairy tales to steal the north too. The Muslim and Sinhalese presence in the north is very minimal. Now all sorts of fairy tales are being concocted by Sinhalese racists and Muslim opportunists to steal the north from the Tamils. A Hindu Tamil king with no Hindu Tamil subject but the land was full of low caste Islamic converts from South India or Sinhalese who were never there in the first place. This country will never prosper, as it is full of Sinhalese racists and Muslim opportunist. Ironically is most of them who are descended from low caste Dravidian Tamil immigrants from South India and DNA proves this. Sinhalese share 70% DNA with Indian Tamils and Muslims almost 90% or more. Sri Lankan Tamils only 17% with Indian Tamils

      • 3
        3

        Rohan,
        “Now all sorts of fairy tales are being concocted by Sinhalese racists and Muslim opportunists to steal the north from the Tamils.”
        Man, it is the other way round. Dravidian invaders who invaded Sinhale 17 times stole the land inhabited by Sinhalayo. Where were Anuradhapura and Polonnaruwa kingdoms that lasted for thousand of years. It is true that Demala rulers were in Sinhale as occupiers. When Sinhale had weak Kings, Dravidians invaded and occupied land and ruled but when a strong person became the King the Dravidians were chased away. But they kept on coming back. However they failed to establish a permanent foot hold in Sinhale.

    • 2
      0

      B
      It may interest you to know that the Han who comprise 94% of China’s population occupied less than a quarter of the Chinese land mass.
      *
      North and East were sparsely populated owing to climatic factors and forestation.

      • 0
        2

        North and East was sparsely populated because Sinhalese were forced to leave these areas due to invasions. And looking at Tamil Nadu, do you really believe any area tamils inhabit has the ability to become sparsely populated?

  • 4
    5

    A good reply Somapalan, however a small correction . Yes the Dravidians from many of these regions were in the island during prehistoric time , What is now Modern Oriisa, Andhra, Telengana, Karnataka, and ancient Tamil country in India( modern day Kerala and Tamil Nadu) , However it is commonsense that the over 90% of them would have arrived from the ancient Tamil country due to the close proximity and few from the other regions. Moreover around that time there were no languages called Telugu or Kannada and definitely not Malayalam , which only started to diverge from it Tamil mother around the 12TH century. Even as far as 1830 , the vast majority of the population of Kerala (80%) were still speaking a form of Tamil ,written in Tamil letters called Malabar Tamil. The British banned this language in 1830 to please the Namboothiris and their Nair/Menon bastards. Kannada is around 3000 years old the most and Telugu a bit younger During this time these people were speaking Proto Dravidian / old Tamil dialects . Proto Dravidian or old Tamil are one and the same, as it is only the Tamil language that has retained, over 85% of the proto Dravidian vocabulary and not the other Dravidian languages. In the outer regions it was more coarse and they soon evolved into Kannada and Telugu . The native language of the island at that time was Elu a simple semi Tamil Dravidian dialect. The Vedda dialect as probably did the old Sinhala( Hela derived from Elu) approaches far closer to Tamil than modern Sinhala in its pronunciation. The Vedda dialect, their spoken language is identical with Elu which was the spoken language of ancient Sri Lanka, which is semi-Tamil; as to the grammatical structure it is essentially Dravidian and simple .

    • 2
      2

      There are a lot of experts in linguistics among Tamils which provide nothing but entertainment for the world of linguists. James Gair who researched Sinhala language has clearly stated Sinhala has features of Aryan, Dravidan and another language which could not be classified as either Aryan or Dravidian. James conclude this to be the language used by the people in SL before new waves of immigrants come from India.

      • 0
        0

        Sach
        Amateur linguistics is not the preserve on one community.
        There are plenty of Sinhala counterparts on these pages.

        • 0
          0

          Amateurism and deliberate misinterpretation for political aims are two different things. Misinterpretation of linguistics and coming with laughable theories on evolution of language by Tamils with the aim to prove Tamil as the mother of all language is a joke in the world of linguistics. There are hardly any Sinhalese who entertain the idea that Sinhala was the first language or bla bla. Even if there were ones, they are mostly ridiculed by the Sinhalese themselves.

      • 0
        0

        The other language was the jungle language used by beasts, as part of the Sinhalese ancestry and DNA belongs is a lion. Now start roaring chirping and screeching like a wild animal that you really are.

  • 3
    5

    Another factor to consider that the Sinhalese population increased is due to large amount of Tamil low castes and Dalits from South India, who were imported into the island by the Portuguese and then the Dutch and settled along the western and southern coasts , to work in various service industries and as indentured labour in the huge southern spice estates. Now their Sinhalised descendants make up half the present day Sinhalese population. Within a century or two these people doubled the island’s Sinhalese population. Later forced assimilation of hundreds of thousands of Tamil Catholic fishermen living along the west coast around Negombo , Chilaw and Puttalam , after independence and the large scale ethnic cleansing and more than a million Tamils fleeing the island in the last 30 years also increased the percentage of Sinhalese. Funny it is the Sinhalese population in the island that greatly benefitted from the importation of low caste Tamil from South India by the European colonials ( Portuguese and Dutch ) and not the Tamils . Yet this man and the Sinhalese hardliners, many of them descended from these recently migrated Tamil low castes , are trying to twist the facts. The Dutch did settle a few thousand Indian Tamil low castes in the Jaffna region to work as indentured labour for the Vellalar landlords in their Tobacco estates but they were very small in number, compared to the hundreds of thousands who were settled in the south first by the Portuguese and then the Dutch. These people were assimilated into the Nalavar caste. Like NV stated, the audience who listened to these lies and blatant Sinhalese racist propaganda have to means to check the fact on the web or even concur with the local embassies stationed here

    • 3
      3

      Siva Sankaran Sharma
      As clearly seen Tamils are BORN LIARS who can even make 1s into 2s.
      Contrary to what you are blabbering on and on, we Sinhalese have no blood connection with your Tamil Nadu low caste Kallathonis. We are a unique nation who had 181 monarchs from Anuradhapura Kingdom to Kandy Kingdom.
      The Portuguese and the Dutch had to bring down Tamils from Tamil Nadu for tobacco cultivation purely because Sinhalese who were wealthy with their own money generating lands, refused to work under them.
      Your lack of knowledge about Sri Lanka’s history or your continued pathetic attempt to change our history is painfully immature.
      Both Portuguese and the Dutch made it a point to cover the entire part of Jaffna in order to halt Tamil Nadu invasions. They both ruled only coastal areas.
      Even the ORIGIN of the “Tamil Eelam Map” is ONLY A COPY of the top part of the Dutch Map of Ceylon.
      Even though British took India completely under them and then captured Ceylon from the Dutch, they never made any attempt to amalgamate both territories. They always treated Ceylon as a separate territory because the British was able to clearly distinguish the difference between Indian Kallathonis and Sinhalese from our unique language, cultural distinctiveness and the separate history.
      Your assertion that Portuguese settled Kallathonis in the South is not true as the Portuguese were mostly interested in cinnamon and elephant trading in addition to areca nuts and pepper which were in abundance in the lands belonging to Sinhalese as seen in “Thombu” (land registers.)

      • 1
        3

        Yes I know that you are racist Sinhalese nut case.. Sinhalese were wealthy most of them were dirt poor and their so called aristocracy were largely Tamil immigrants from South India and so were their kings

      • 0
        3

        “We are a unique nation who had 181 monarchs from Anuradhapura Kingdom to Kandy Kingdom.”

        Not a single one of them was a Sinhalese. Can you prove that the 181 monarchs from Anuradhapura Kingdom to Kandy Kingdom were Sinhalese. Where is the evidence? It is all pure assumption.

        • 0
          2

          Tamilan,

          If the 181 were not Sinhalese, who were they Tamils?

          If so, where did the Sinhalese come from? Are they Tamils too?

          Then, why is this need to live separately to Sinhalese? Can’t you accept Sinhalese as your own and live among them as equals?

          • 0
            0

            Shenal

            Most of the rulers of the island Sri Lanka were either native Tamils/Vanni chieftains, or Dravidians tribes (Nagas), or Pandyans/Pandu or Cholas or at least half Tamils. Even the Pali chronicles do not call any of them as Sinhala Kings. Even the last four kings of Kandy were Dravidians from the Nayaka (Vaduga) dynasty that ruled Madurai (Tamil Nadu). The Kandyan Sinhala Buddhist Maha Nayaka Theros of the Maha Sangha (Asgiri and Malwathu) had to overlook every Sinhala-Buddhist in the country to import Dravidians from the Nayaka dynasty that was ruling Tamil Nadu with Madurai as their capital from 1529 until 1736 to sit on the Kandyan throne.

            By quoting from Lord Valentia’s Travels and from an article of Joinville which was published by the Royal Asiatic Society of Ceylon, Mudaliyar Simon Cassie Chitty wrote in 1838, “The Singhalese, though forming a distinct nation, and differing in their religion, language and manners from Tamils, had no kings of their own race, but of the latter, and according to Lord Valentia and Joinville ‘a Singhalese cannot be a king of Ceylon; that is every person born of a Singhalese father or mother is excluded from the throne’.”

            • 0
              0

              Datusena, Gotabhaya, Vasabha, Thissa, Mahinda, Abhaya….do these names sound Tamil to you? If you honestly believe these are Tamil names, I challenge you to pressurize 100 Tamil women to name their first born sons as ‘Gotabhaya’

              • 0
                0

                Sachoo,
                Are the names dreamt up by Arisen Ahubudu and his admirers “Sinhala” ?
                Kshenuka? Dinakshi? Thamodya? Ishini?Adeepa? Vikash?
                Are you so thick that you don’t know that names change over the generations? Why was Solomon West Ridgeway Bandaranaike named that way? Ever heard of Brampy Singho or Don Carolis? Or even Don David Hewavitharana? At least Tamils didn’t go through all these contortions of convenience.
                Please, your ignorance is painful.

              • 0
                0

                Sach

                “Datusena, Gotabhaya, Vasabha, Thissa, Mahinda, Abhaya….do these names sound Tamil to you?”

                What makes you think that these are Sinhala names? Just because the present day Sinhala women name their first born sons with these name, it does not mean that these ancient names were Sinhala. The early Buddhist writers in Sri Lanka were famous for twisting the Dravidian/Tamil names (of kings and places) sometimes out of recognition in transforming them into Pali or Prakrit (later Sinhala) forms.

                Today the names of the old Pandyan kings (such as Kula Sekara, Chandra Sekara, Vira Wickrama, Parakrama and so on) are adopted by the Sinhalese (not Tamils) and they have succeeded in misrepresenting the Pandyan/Tamil foundations of Sri Lankan civilization as Sinhalese.

      • 0
        0

        It is actually the Sinhalese who became a majority after the colonials arrived. The Portuguese and the Dutch colonized hundreds of thousands of South Indian Dalit in the Southern parts of Sri Lanka as menial labourers/coolies for growing/peeling cinnamon, coconut planting/plucking and toddy tapping. These South Indian Dalit converted to Buddhism and eventually got naturalized as Sinhalese. Otherwise, today either the Tamils or the Veddas would have been the majority in Sri Lanka.

        • 0
          0

          Is this Kumar David who is saying Sinhalese became a majority after colonials came? Seriously what has he gained in his education? Imagine if this is how Tamil Marxists think, how would Tamil Nationalists think?
          Dayan J was right. Tamil marxists were MORE nationalist than Marxists.

          • 0
            0

            Sach

            You have christened me with a new name ‘David’. However, I still prefer my original Saivate name.

            You Sinhalese are very good at Assumptions.

      • 0
        0

        Idiot Champa,
        “Your assertion that Portuguese settled Kallathonis in the South is not true as the Portuguese were mostly interested in cinnamon and elephant trading in addition to areca nuts and pepper which were in abundance in the lands belonging to Sinhalese as seen in “Thombu” (land registers.)”
        You have the nerve to talk about land registers now? All this time you said they were false.
        Still you haven’t really read them. Why don’t you look at coastal areas and tell us why there are so many Tamil/Muslim names? Don’t post cheap lies to score points.

    • 1
      1

      RS: “…due to large amount of Tamil low castes and Dalits from South India”
      *
      Will he ever learn?

      • 1
        0

        When will you ever learn, Sinhalese a-se licker? They are largely descended from Tamil low castes and Dalits and it is a fact. If they were descended from the upper castes I will say so but they are not. Stating the truth about someone’s actual origin is not a crime. Trying hide this and create a myth , like what the Sinhalese and Muslims do is a crime and it has created so much chaos and hatred in the country due to these fake Aryan and Arab origin for the Sinhalese and Muslims respectively. It is you and them that subconsciously think being low caste is bad not me. That is why they are so anti Tamil to hide their lowly origin from Tamil Nadu and support all sorts mad theories and you are an opportunist trying to create trouble , for reasons known only to you or for some sort of benefit. All this hatred lies and venom posted by the Sinhalese and some Muslims is not an issue but you come attacking the Tamils , especially me , with all sorts of imagined prejudices. You call your self an academic but do not want the truth to be told but glossed over , as it will offend the sensibilities of these fake Aryans and Arabs and you cannot have that , therefore attack me. You really are pathetic. Trying to gain cheap brownie points from the Sinhalese racists , at my expense. I remember you once leaping up to the defence of that odious creature Shenal and stating I am a racist and should be banned from this forum , when this person posted something very derogatory about all Tamil ( this includes you) . This was not an issue to you but when I took this person to task , You found it offensive. What an opportunistic hypocrite.

        • 0
          0

          One known when he has driven the point home.
          The loser resorts to verbal abuse through the wrong opening in the body.

  • 3
    3

    The most important statement is that that TAMIL HOMELAND CONCEPT violates the UNHRC – HUMAN RIGHTS CODE AS WELL AS THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF SINHALA COMMUNITY WHO DOES NOT HAVE ANY OTHER COUNTRY TO SAY THIS IS OUR MOTHER LAND. Sinhale or now Sri lanka is the only mother land and homeland Sinhala people have. Tamils can not have a distinct population and socio-cultural cohesion as they fighting and killing each other on the basis of CASTE, RELIGION and the ORIGIN OF THEIR MIGRATION (I mean Kallathoni, Malayali, JAvanese, protestants and hindus and fisher men who are the earliest migrents.

    • 4
      3

      You do not have any other country! What about 75% of the island consisting of seven provinces where you have are now the majority . This is your mother land. The north and east are the motherland of the Eelam Tamils and have always been. The North west province and parts of North Central province , was also part of the Tamil lands but thanks to the British the Tamils lost them, as the British entertained very favourably towards any Sinhalese claim , however remote it was. What was declared as the Tamil lands of the north and east of the island , were the areas the Sinhalese had no claim whatsoever and had been always Tamil . The core Tamil homelands. This is the only home land that the Eezham Tamils have for themselves too. To preserver our unique identity, customs and our own form ancient spoken Tamil. Now the Sinhalese government , armed forces Buddhist monks and racists , using their brute majority and all the resources of the government are cooking up fairy tales, distorting history and are trying their best to claim these lands as Sinhalese too . Even the ancient Buddhist monuments that were built by Tamil Buddhists and largely Mahayana as proof that Sinhalese Theravada Buddhists had been living there. What bullshit, at the time most of these monuments were erected, there were no peoples called Sinhalese. The Tamils are not stealing the Sinhalese homeland but Sinhalese are trying to steal the Eelam Tamil homeland and even deny that it exists. No ethnic problem this is what that crafty Sirisena was trying to do in the UN by hugging Indian origin TamilMinister Mano Ganesan. Rajapakse used to take Ananda Sangari or Douglas Devananda with him and display them like pet dogs to the world, to prove there is no ethnic problem and Sirisena is now doing the same. I thought Mano Ganesan was far better than this.

  • 2
    1

    According to Dr Paul E. Perris when Vijaya landed in Ceylon there were five Eelworms – Thiruketheeswaram and Muneshwaram Temples in the West, Thondeshwaram in the South, Koneshwaram in the East and Naguleshwaram in the North. Thondeswaram is now a Vishnu temple If Vijaya is a Sinhalese then there should be Sinhalese in Bengal/Gujarati. There are none.
    The Nagas were the dominant ethnic group until the 8th century. Their names Ila Nagan, Sri Nagan, Kora Nagan says it all. In fact, Devanampiya Tissa was a Naga king. Duttu Gemenu is a descendant of Devanampiya Tissa’s brother Mahanaga His other brother Mahanaga, Prince of Ruhuna was the founder of the Principality of Ruhuna. The war between Duttu Gemenu and Ellalan is not a war between Tamils and Sinhalese. It was a war between Tamil Hindus and Naga Buddhists. The Sinhalese population increased through a process of assimilation of Tamils who were brought to Ceylon by the Portuguese/Dutch. The Karava, Salagama, Durawa, Demelagattara, Berava, Parava castes were one time Tamils. This is the reason the Sinhalese share a very high percentage of DNA with Indian Tamils, as most of them are descended from South Indian immigrants. The Sri Lankan Tamils are not, They only share a 17% DNA with Indian Tamils. When Ponnambalam Arunachalam was denied a seat in Colombo, he was advised by the Sinhalese leaders to contest in North/ East the homeland of Tamils.
    Coming nearer home the Sinhala elites like J.R. Jayawardene (grandson of Tamil Thambi Mudaliyar) and S.W.R.D.Bandaranaike (a direct decedent of Nilaperumal, a Tamil from South India who arrived in Ceylon in the early sixteenth century) are included. If you analyse the ancestary of the Senanayakes, they are all South Indian. What about the Radella Rattwatte who signed the Kandyan convention in pure Tamil?

    • 2
      2

      He also signed his name as Ravattai in Tamil and not Ratwatte. They changed or Sinhalised this name to Ratwatte in order to preserve their huge amount of wealth. This is one of the reasons that the Kandyan Radala families have taken their place or village name from where their family hailed as the their family name , as they wanted to hide their Naicker/Pandian Tamil origin.

    • 2
      1

      “The Karava, Salagama, Durawa, Demelagattara, Berava, Parava castes were one time Tamils.”
      That is uncertain: it is most likely that they were South Indians but not necessarily from one language group.
      *
      The dominance of Tamil in the Court of the King of Kandy is akin to that of french in the Court of the Tsars in Russia. It proves nothing about one’s ethnicity.

      • 1
        1

        SJ, they were all of South Indian origin. The Salagama , Durawa, Demelagatara , Berava( Paraiyan) and Paravan castes originated from the modern Indian state of Tamil Nadu. The Karava largely from Tamil Nadu but many from Kerala and a few from southern Andhra ( hence the Karawa name Waduge/Vaduge or its derivative Baduge, meaning from Telugu House. Vadugan was a derogative name given by the Tamils to Telugus. However at the time the Karawa migrated Both Kerala and Tamil Nadu were Tamil speaking. The language of Kerala at that time was Malabar Tamil , or Malayalama written in the Tamil script , that was still the language of the vast majority of population until the 1830s. Even the powerful Syrian Christian Church in Kerala used Tamil. It was only in the 1830s the British at the insistence of their powerful Namboothiri Brahmin and their half caste bastard offshoot Nair/Menon allies banned Malabar Tamil/Malayalama and declared that the official language of Kerala from now on will be the highly Sanskritised Manipiravalam dialect of the Namboothiri Brahmins , that was written in the Tulu based Tilgari script, that these people brought in from their Tulu homeland just north west of Kerala. Originally this dialect and written form in Kerala was only confined to them and to some of the Nairs and Menons , whilst the rest of the population was using Malabar Tamil or Malyalama.

        • 0
          0

          RS
          My response was to the one who said that the castes listed were once Tamils.

      • 1
        1

        contd: After 1830 The British made this highly Sanskritised dialect of the Namboothiris as the official language and renamed this language Malayalam or Malayalama and banned the original Dravidian Tamil Malayalama or Malabar Tamil language. As a sop the introduced a lot of Dravidian(Tamil words) from the native Malyalama language. This is why even now the simple spoken Malyalam of the masses is almost Tamil whilst the literary version is very Sanskritised.

    • 2
      0

      What Paul E Pieris said was more research into those Hindu temples in so called Easwarams should be conducted. Unfortunately he could not conduct any thorough research. But historians later state these easwarams were probably built later for the use of traders who came here for trading. There is a reason why everyone of these so called Easwaram was situated close to an ancient port. It was used by traders.

  • 2
    3

    Don’t take that so-called “professor” seriously. Let him have his fun. He is only making a fool of himself. I mean, you have to be a special kind of professional moron to go in front of the UNHRC and utter such nonsense. The Jaffna Tamil dialect existed before the Europeans set foot in SL. In fact, people in Tamil Nadu find the Jaffna dialect rather weird. Jaffna Tamil is a distinct dialect unique to SL and such dialects don’t evolve overnight. It is very likely the early natives in the North (likely the ‘Naga’ people) had their own unique language (may have had some similarity with early ‘Veddha’ language), but due to proximity to South India and due to migrations and/or invasion from South India, the Tamil language started to get absorbed and eventually replaced the native tongue but retained some unique native characteristics. Just look at the difference when an Indian Tamil and a Jaffna Tamil pronounce simple words like மரம் (Tree) and போக (Infinitive of போ or ‘Go’). Same goes for Sinhala. Whatever language early natives in the south spoke got overwritten mainly by Sanskrit and to a lesser extent by Pali yet has some very peculiar characteristics. For example prenasalized consonants (ඟ, ඦ, ඬ, ඳ, ඹ). Hint, hint – notice when Veddha people talk it is as if they speak through their nostrils. This is very rare in Asia. The other would be vowels (ඇ, ඈ). You don’t get this anywhere in South Asia but here is the kicker – Jaffna Tamils constantly use those sounds (மரம் – මැරම්, அர் – ඈර්, மன்னார் – මැන්නෑර්).

    • 1
      1

      Thanos, the Sri Lankan Tamils are largely descended from the native Naga , a Dravidian people who adopted Tamil as their mother tongue 3000 years ago. The original Sinhalese are largely descended from the Yakka, another Dravidian tribe. The Naga and the Yakka are basically the same people. The Naga were the elite and worshipped the cobra, a legacy they gave to modern Hinduism, that regards the cobra as sacred. The Yakka are boorish peasants and were largely spirit worshipers. When Buddhism arrived , it was avidly accepted in the Yakka predominating areas but in the Naga predominating areas it was not. Hence they largely retained their ancient Tamil identity in their areas , whereas the Yakka peasants who converted to Buddhism in their droves were not averse to Prakritisation of their Tamil dialect and it gradually evolved as Sinhalese. In ancient Tamil another word for Naga is Chera. This is why the island was called Cheran Theevu meaning the island of Naga Many consider the work Serendib originates from the Tamil word for the island. “Cheran Theevu” . Ancient Tamil Chera Nadu was also full of snake worshipping Naga . In ancient Kerala you had Sarpa Kaavus , Forest reserves where snakes and hence other wild lives and nature thrived.

      • 0
        0

        RS
        Real NAGA lot live in Ampara distrct. In other areas dissendants of NAGA plus South indian soldiers who brought here time to time by our kings and occupied south Indian tamil kings.But Jaffna so called Elite class was dessendants of Vellala Tamils brought hare by Ditch.

        • 1
          0

          It was your coolie Salagama ancestors who were brought here by the Dutch and made to work hard in the hung cinnamon estates. This why you are screeching here, in pain and obsessed with low caste Tamil slaves imported into the island by the Dutch. Vellalar are land owning upper castes and would have never migrated to consented to be transported to another land as indentured labour or slaves, to do coolie work in another land. It would have been the lower castes and Dalits. The Dutch and the British imported these low castes/Dalits from both North and South India to work in the huge estates in their colonies. As for the Naga they lived everywhere and Sri Lankan Tamil are largely their descendants. It is your ancestors and the ancestors of around 50% of the so called Sinhalese , who are purely descended from low caste and Dalit Tamil coolies who were imported into the island by the Portuguese and Dutch do not try to distort history .. This is the reason the Govigamma derogatively called you people ” Demala Jarawa” meaning the dirt of the Tamil or Tamil dirt and did not allow you to enter Buddhist temples run by them or to ordain you people as monks. DNA also proves it is the Sinhalese who are largely descended from Indian Tamil . 70% DNA nd not the Sri Lankan Tamils only 17% DNA in common with Indian Tamils. Whom are you trying to fool you cinnamon peeler

  • 4
    3

    RSS
    You can live posting this type of rubbish until your death but nobody cares you. Feel sorry. You need care before further deteriorating.

    • 1
      2

      The truth hurt dear. You also need a lot of care, as you are full of hate and this is not a good thing. Learn to accept the truth and live in peace with your fellow humans.

  • 4
    1

    Irrespective of UN policies on self determination, India will never permit a separate Tamil entity in the North of Sri Lanka for obvious reasons. Geneva is as impotent as those who argue from both sides.

    • 1
      2

      Irrespective of what India or wants or not, self determination is in the hands of the Tamils Not Indians . We all know what they want and their part in the Eelam Tamil genocide but we have to decide what is best for us and not India. India never cared for us and will not but will only use us., however they are not our enemy but Sinhalese racists like you are. They did not kill us you killed us. Far more powerful countries than India have broke up. The Soviet Union. Sri Lankan Tamils do not see India as our enemy but as our friend and have no intention of breaking up India. This is a fairy tale created by Sinhalese racists and anti Tamils in India, to deny Tamil people in Sri Lanka their rights. Some of these so called anti Tamils in India are people who call them selves Tamils but anti Tamil to the core. Like one who visited the island recently to invite a war criminal back to India. Sri Lankan Tamil have their own unique history culture way of life and spoken Tamil and want to retain it. They have never been part of India and have no intention to be part of Tamil Nadu or break Tamil Nadu away from the rest of India. Despite sharing a common language and religion , they are strangers to us and we do not want to be assimilated by them. Tamils in India also want to be part of India, as they have been for thousands of years and it is more advantageous to them. Like stated earlier it is the Sinhalese and anti Tamils in India who keep on spreading this lies and myth, as it suits their genocidal agenda. The formation of Bangaldesh did not break West Bengal from India and it will the same. The Eelam Tamils and the Indian Tamils had parted and gone their different ways thousands of years ago. It is the Sinhalese who have more blood ties with Tamil Nadu than the Sri Lankan Tamils.

    • 1
      2

      India will never permit a separate Tamil entity in the North or North East Sri Lanka, therefore this gives the Sinhalese racists and Muslim opportunist to kill, discriminate , commit genocide , ethnic cleansing and steal the North Eastern Eelam Tamil home land and get away with it , as India does not want a Tamil entity and will turn a blind eye to this , as the genocide of the Eelam Tamils and the loss of their homeland will suit the Indian agenda too. May be it will suit the agenda of certain anti Tamil Indians. Mostly non Tamils but also a few who call them selves Tamils but think they are not real Tamils but some Aryan Brahmins,. so above the rest of the Tamils and the genocide of their fellow Tamils is not an issue to them or some sort of joy , as they are considered lowly Dravidians. If India considers this , it will be its greatest mistake , as it will be in India’s interest to have a powerful largely Hindu, Tamil population secure in their homeland in the north and east of the island , either in a federal set up or in even in their own land. It is these Tamil lands in the north east of the country , that has acted as a buffer against the largely anti Hindu anti Indian Sinhalese and Sri Lankan Muslim population . If they take over/steal these ancient Tamil lands and make it theirs, India, especially its two southern states will have hard times, as they will surrounded by real and not imagined or perceived enemies. When it had comes to the crunch it was the Sri Lankan Tamils who had sided with India and not these Sinhalese or Muslims who always had a history of siding with China and Pakistan. If Indians are getting fooled by the sly smiling faces of the likes of Rajapakses and the buffoonery of Sirisena and Wickremesinghe, they are fools and this is what they have been so far.

  • 2
    6

    Dear Writer If you have evidence to counter what Mr. Jayasumana said at UNHCR, Go there with help of your people Tamil Diasopore and counter it. no point in writing essays here. Anyway this is Sinhalese land. your Land is Tamilnadu. We have every rights to counter false allegations level again us by the supporters of brutal LTTE terrorists.

    Just look at the story of discovering Lankan Cinnamon particles found in ancent historical Pyramids in Egypt. It is dating back to around 9000 BC. That means Here in Lanka we had very good civilised society . Otherwise Egypt maritime traders could not land here and do business transactions with local population.In other term we can say we had very civilised people here with language. otherwise this type of business transactions with foreign countries was not possible.

    As per ramayanaya at that time or around five thousand or six thousand years ago. no such very good civilization existed in south India regions. That means Very good civilized civilization existed in this land even before 9009 BC. As you know to process Cinnomon into usable state you have to have very good toolings. That means people lived here were gone through Iron ages. As well as all the ancent ages and fully civilized lot.

    Who were those people. Definitely ancestors of present day Sinhalese not Tamils. As per Ancents Evidance available We can say their language was ELU. or proto Sinhalese.
    In this context what Jayasumana stated in UNHCR is very Reasonable and very correct.

    Evolution of languages is very common one in very tribal societies. As you know in Papua new Ginea more than 920 languages evolved among very tiny population. As such please do not hate sinhalese proudly using language called Sinhala.

    You have your own language called tamil. But we never hate it. although it is a derivative of Ancent proto darvidian but not evolved like our ancent Elu Language.

    Thank you very much.

    • 1
      2

      Ranjith(SPRRW)

      Its you again.

      “Dear Writer If you have evidence to counter what Mr. Jayasumana said at UNHCR, Go there with help of your people Tamil Diasopore and counter it. “

      Don’t be stupid.
      He made a fool of himself at an International Forum.
      He is responsible for providing evidence, not the other way around.
      On the other hand being a fool does not require labels attached to his chest.

      • 1
        0

        Native Vedda

        You fool feel all are fool. That is the Nature. For The Other Man I am not Soyza. I am Wickramasooriya.Tamils are south Indian. Not from Anywhere else.South Indians Think They are the super men on earth. the came out of their almighty Maha brakmas head.

        UN forum open for all.you can put forward your grievences at it.. sametime other have rights to put forward their facts in self defence.If LTTE tamils can make noises at UNHCR, What is wrong with Sinhalese organizations making noises as well. You LTTE sympathisers act same way LTTE carders did.hit and run theory. no face to face fight.when come to face to face you all are defeated. That is what hapening in UNHCR just like defeated Elam war.

        Tamils sole aim is to kill all sinhalese and grab our home land. Earlier they tried it with tribes lived in south part in India.. They think we are still tribes. but not you all were mistaken very much. we fight untill our last drop of blood exhausted.Go tamils find your place in Tamilnadu.

        • 1
          0

          Ranjith the bird-brain,
          ” Man I am not Soyza. I am Wickramasooriya.”
          So, what is your point? Soyza is Portuguese. Wickramasooriya is South Indian.

    • 2
      2

      You are the same Ranjit Soysa but dropped the Soysa part because people were poking fun of your recent low caste South Indian Tamil Salagama origin. An anti Tamil with a recent low caste South Indian origin from Tamil Nadu. Just like many of the recently Sinhalised South Indian immigrants. Very anti Tamil to hide their own lowly immigrant origin from Tamil Nadu or from some other part of South India.

  • 4
    0

    “the Dutch who occupied the coastal areas of the country around 1650 A.D. brought the Vellalar Tamils from the present Tamil Nadu for their tobacco plantations”

    If we were to believe what the Sinhala Buddhist chauvinists say, that there were no Tamils in the NE before the Dutch and only Sinhalese were living there, it prompts us to ask a few questions,

    1. In the recorded history of Sri Lanka before the British period, where is it mentioned that there was a mass influx/settlement of Tamils from South India to the North of Sri Lanka during the Portuguese/Dutch period? Even the Chola invaders only replaced the king and converted the Buddhists into Hindus but did not settle people in large numbers. It is true that the Dutch brought a few Dalit coolies from South India (Pallar caste) and sold them to the Tamil Vellalar farmers in Jaffna to help them grow tobacco but those people are very few in numbers.

    However, the main reason for the Portuguese in the 16th century and later Dutch in the 18th century to occupy the island was Cinnamon, NOT Tobacco and cinnamon grew only in the South. You should also know that the same Dutch settled much more (tens of thousands) of the same Dalit coolies from South India in the Southern parts of Sri Lanka for cinnamon, coconut and other plantations. Today their decedents are Sinhala-Buddhists. If you read the book “The World’s Oldest Trade”: Dutch Slavery and Slave Trade in the Indian Ocean in the Seventeenth Century” you will see that the Dutch settled most of them in the South from Colombo to Galle.

    In order to avoid the caste issue, all those South Indian Dalit coolies adopted Buddhist & Christian religions and eventually got naturalized as Sinhalese. Today their decedents are Sinhala-Buddhists and Sinhala-Christians.

    Continued…

  • 4
    0

    Continued from above…

    “the Dutch who occupied the coastal areas of the country around 1650 A.D. brought the Vellalar Tamils from the present Tamil Nadu for their tobacco plantations”

    2. In the recorded history of Sri Lanka, where is it mentioned that there was a mass exodus of Sinhalese from the North to the South? Did all the Sinhalese simply pack their bags and go to the South leaving all their precious lands to the newly arrived Tamils without any protest? (Please do not come up with stupid answers like malaria). If not, then what happened to all the Sinhalese in the North, did they all commit suicide?

    3. Most of the Sinhalese have their ancestral native place name also as a part of their name, known as Vasagama. Is there any Sinhalese person from any part of Sri Lanka who can come out and say that his Vasagama is a name from any part of North & East?
    Even those Sinhalese who are living in the North & East today were colonized after 1948 by DS Senanayake, if you ask them each one of them will say that their grandfather or great grandfather is from the South. The census of Ceylon conducted in 1881 indicates that the two Tamil provinces (North & East) were inhabited almost exclusively by Tamils. The Sinhalese population constituted only 1.8% of the total population of the two Tamil provinces in 1881; Sinhalese accounted for only 0.51% of the total population of the Northern Province, and 4.2% of the Eastern Province.

    Continued…

    • 0
      1

      Have you read about Kalinga Maga invasion?

      • 1
        0

        sach

        “Have you read about Kalinga Maga invasion?”

        Whose version?
        And what about it?

        Has HLD M unearthed new evidence Sinhala/Buddhists are sent from planet Seth to civilize the entire country, continent and the Earth? Perhaps it was Champika Ranawake.

        Are you still sitting on your brain or is HLD M is sitting on it.

        You’ve been asking the same stupid questions day in day out for many years. And fellow forum sharers have patiently answered you adequately and referred to may research papers and books.
        -.
        If you cannot get your facts straight/right please go away and become a politician/saffron clad thug. Mugging pays well.

        • 0
          1

          So what was Tamils doing in North when Kalinga Maga came to SL and established a kingdom? Were they invisible or lived in a parrel universe? If there was a Tamil kingdom, what was the nature of its treatment towards Kalinga Maga?

  • 3
    1

    “the Dutch who occupied the coastal areas of the country around 1650 A.D. brought the Vellalar Tamils from the present Tamil Nadu for their tobacco plantations”

    Continued from above…

    4. Bhuvanekabahu VI (Sapumal Kumaraya aka Chempaha Perumal) the adopted son of Parakrama Bahu VI captured the Jaffna Kingdom in 1450 (much before the Portuguese arrived). During his rule in Jaffna, he renovated/re-built the premier shrine of Hindu worship in the heart of Jaffna – the Nallur Kandaswamy Kovil (he did not build or re-build any Buddhist temple) for the people of Jaffna peninsula. The Tamils of Jaffna are still invoking his name and singing thevarams to him in the Nallur Kovil before the temple procession of Lord Murukan.

    As per your argument, if the Dutch brought the Jaffna Tamils, then the people of Jaffna before the Dutch arrived should have been the Sinhalese. If the people of Jaffna during the 13th Century AD were Sinhalese, then Sapumal Kumaraya should have built a Buddhist temple and NOT a Hindu temple in the heart of Jaffna. Why did he build the Hindu Nallur Kandaswamy Kovil in the 13th Century AD for the so called Sinhalese of Jaffna?

    5. In his book ‘Jaffna under the Portuguese’, Tikiri Abeyasinghe who was the Professor of Modern History at the University of Colombo till 1985 notes that in the period 1624-1626 (during Portuguese rule of Jaffna), the Franciscans converted 52,000 Jaffna Tamil Hindus into Catholics. Prof. Tikiri Abeysinghe is one of the very few who has done extensive research on Portuguese archives and Goa archives by living in those countries. Read “Jaffna under the Portuguese” by Prof Tikiri Abeyasinghe.

    Continued…

  • 2
    0

    “the Dutch who occupied the coastal areas of the country around 1650 A.D. brought the Vellalar Tamils from the present Tamil Nadu for their tobacco plantations”

    Continued from above…

    6. In 1672, the Dutch Predikant PHILIPPUS BALDEAES was living in Jaffna and was preaching Christianity to the people of Jaffna (in Tamil language). In his famous 1682 historical account of Jaffna, he never says the people of Jaffna were brought by the Dutch. During the Dutch period, the Jaffna Tamil Vellala Cannecapul Moddeley Tamby revolted against the Dutch by rounding up the powerful Vellalas of Jaffna along with some extra help from the Vanni that shook the Dutch administration. How can he organise such a revolt if he was brought by the Dutch?

    7. Dr. Paul E. Pieris has published extracts from the Portuguese tombo records which gives the original names of the present day Sinhalese with Portuguese surnames before their conversion to Christianity and Buddhism. They all point to recent South Indian origin. Prof. K.M. de Silva in his book `A History of Sri Lanka`, refers to the migration of the Karawe, Salagama, and Durawe castes from Southern India to Southern Sri Lanka between the 14th and 17th centuries AD. Professor of Anthropology Gananath Obeyesekere (in his book “Buddhism, Ethnicity, and Identity,”) states that “viewed in long term historical perspective Sinhalas have been for the most part South Indian migrants who have been sasanized,”

    There is enough of authentic evidence (I can list you many and quote from reputed Sinhala historians) to prove that the large majority of the Sinhalese were originally low caste Indian Tamils brought in by the Portuguese and settled in the south who eventually got converted to Sinhala Buddhists but what authentic evidence do you have to prove that the majority of Jaffna Tamils were brought in by the Dutch?

    • 0
      0

      K:
      “There is enough of authentic evidence (I can list you many and quote from reputed Sinhala historians) to prove that the large majority of the Sinhalese were originally low caste Indian Tamils brought in by the Portuguese…”
      “Authentic” like the stuff churned out by our nternet DNA specialists?
      *
      Have you considered the possibility that most Tamils with claims to ‘high caste’ were not quite high in caste and crawled up the caste ladder with help from alien hands.

    • 0
      0

      Aw aw Tamil MARXISTS call Sinhalese are low caste Tamils brought from India…..
      Machan Kumar, if low caste Tamils were brought from India and were settled in SL by the colonials, they became Sinhalised due to the overwhelming majority of Sinhalese. Dont you understand you are contradicting your own argument?

    • 0
      0

      So you have read PHILIPPUS BALDEAES’s work? And did not you realise by reading this book itself, how incorrect your statement that Sinhalese became majority once the colonials came? Does PHILIPPUS BALDEAES talk about Tamils in rest of the island apart from Jaffna peninsula?

      • 0
        0

        Sinhalese in rest of North & East does not make them a majority. Tens of thousands of low caste labor were brought from South India and were settled in Southern SL by the colonials, they became Buddhists to hide their caste, and they became Sinhalised because they were among the Sinhalese irrespective of the number.

  • 3
    0

    “I must, at the outset, clearly declare that I do so, as an independent, “free thinker”. I have no interest in Tamil politics or in Sinhala politics. My interest is purely an academic one, of our country’s history, and nothing more and nothing less.”

    You give it away mate!

    If the Tamils had boycotted the elections in January 2015, Mahinda Rajapaksa would have still been in power. The West would have then gone for a Kosovo like solution and you would have had your homeland and your separate state. Stupid Tamils.

  • 0
    1

    It’s interesting that the Sinhala people feel the need to go to UN and scream there was no Tamil Home land in Sri Lanka.

  • 2
    0

    Sinhalese don’t need anything much to prove the world the extent of threat they are facing, the comments made by racist Tamils are more than enough. One can ignore them as nut cases but these nuts with weapons, we saw what the disaster they could do to the nation

  • 2
    1

    Demalu in the Central part of the country were brought by British as indentured labor to work in tea plantations. Yapanaya Demalu were brought as indentured labor by Portuguese and Dutch to work in tobacco plantations. Yapanaya Demalu were categorized as ‘Malabaris’ by British until a Demala guy in the Census and Statistics Department changed the name to ‘Ceylon Tamils’ during British period. They managed to get this done by licking the a#s of ‘Para Suddas. Because of this move the Citizenship Act applied only to Demalu brought by British for plantations in the Central Part of the country although Yapanaya Demalu were also indentured labor brought by Portuguese and Dutch to work in tobacco plantations. Some of them became ‘Wellala’ by ‘Passing’. In Hindusthan they were low caste people. High caste Tamils in Tamil Nadu treat Sri Lankan Demalu as dirt.

  • 5
    2

    1. A distinct Population – made up largely of recent immigrants (during colonial period) speaking the same language and following the same customs and culture of their parent population across in India

    2. A distinct demarcated territory. – A province demarcated by the British colonisers in the mid 19th century.

    3. A common socio-cultural cohesion – A common desire to grab 35% of the landmass for their 11.8% minority.

    • 2
      0

      They are not trying to grab land. Grabbing land is stealing another persons lands. Tamils have not done but the Sinhalese are using their brute majority , the resources of their government and armed forces/police to grab Tamil peoples land. Yes they own 35% of the landmass .They always owned it and ruled this land not the Sinhalese. This is why the British demarcated this territory and ancient Tamil lands. You own 65% land and most of this fertile green territory , whereas the land owned by the Tamils is all in the dry zone and not very fertile. Your 65% is worth far more than their 35%. You were only 66% of the population until recently and owned 65% of most fertile parts of the island , whereas they were around 30% of the population until recently and owned 35% of driest and most infertile parts of the land . Yet produced far more goods than the Sinhalese. In UK, the Scots are 5% of the country and Scotland is around 30% of the land mass of Britain. So what is your problem racist?

  • 2
    2

    What ever Tamil politicians say, at the base level, most Tamils like to liv with Sionhala people. Sri lankan Army is doing a very good reconciliation effort in that. No one likes Politicians involving in any effort as it always lead to confrontation and despair. I think what professor did was excellent and needed in order to inform foreigners. I see the background to it.

  • 3
    2

    “I must, at the outset, clearly declare that I do so, as an independent, “free thinker”. I have no interest in Tamil politics or in Sinhala politics. My interest is purely an academic one, of our country’s history, and nothing more and nothing less.”
    But through out in his article, Soma Palan is expressing biased views and use information cooked up by fake historians like Real Shiva and Ghana.
    This is part of the proud history of Sinhala people in Sinhale:
    • 28,500 BCE – Beads of shells, burying dead underground (Ravana Ella, Fahien caves)
    • 27,000 BCE – using salt
    • 15,000 BCE – agro subsistence, pollen evidence from Horton Plains for farming, use of necklaces & needles found in Embilipitiya
    • 12,000 BCE – steel, copper, irrigation technology in Maduru Oya
    • 6300 BCE – pottery found in Kegalle (Dorawaka-lena)
    • 6000 BCE – Mahamevuna Uyana – a huge city that existed in Anuradhapura, which even used horses (bandit Vijaya arrived only in 543BCE)
    • 5000 BCE – discovery of grinding stone, rough clothing, fireplace indicating origins of Mahasona beliefs (Pallemala)
    • 4000 BCE – small family units increased to large settlements in towns adopting agriculture & metal
    • 3500 BCE – inventing boats (water-based transport system) that could carry 150 passengers (Attanagalla Oya)
    • 1000 BCE – iron (steel) technology replacing stone technology
    • 900 BCE – use of alphabet
    • 900 BCE – discovery of a major town extending 25 acres in Anuradhapura, by 700 BCE this area increased to 125 acres.
    • 600 BCE – first Brahmi letters
    • 564 BCE – Sivu-hela (Simhala) communities divided into 4 tribes
    • 543 BCE – bandit Vijaya arrived
    • 380 BCE – Anuradhapura kingdom for 1400 years
    • 250 BCE – Buddhism becomes state religion

    —————————
    Tamils have a history that they can be proud of in Tamil Nadu but Demalu or Malabaris ( a mixture of all sorts of Dravidians) do not have a history in Sinhale.

    • 0
      0

      EE
      The history you cite is very much pre-Sinhala.

  • 2
    1

    However I personally think What Jayasumana did was stupid and arrogant. While it is true that history put forward by Tamil self professed historians is fake and ridiculous, lets not forget Tamils lived in SL at least since 13 AD and they form an important part of the Sri Lankan heritage.

  • 2
    1

    “The Daily Mirror” of 25 September 2018 under the title “Tamils were discriminated by Vellalas: Sarath” reports {Rear Admiral Sarath Weerasekera has told the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva that the Tamils were discriminated by the Vellalas and not by the Sinhalese.
    In his speech on ‘racial discrimination’ he said the majority Sinhalese are charged with discriminating the Tamil minorities but in fact it was a section of the Tamils who discriminated another section of the Tamils}
    Sarath considers Vellalas as a race.
    Of the two i.e. Sarath and Prof JC, who is dafter?

  • 3
    0

    Dear Author and all participants,
    Please stop being foolish. Today there is definite scientific methods to exactly date back archeological findings. You only will be misleading the ignorant people who believe in all what you say as a politician or a learned professor. There is a lot of twisted writings and speeches made because of fear and ambition. But you can look at India for example and learn how India manages the Country without your kind of fear and ambition. There are about 300 different ethnic groups living peacefully and India is far ahead in all respect ready for a good future. Same situation in a tiny Island Singapore much smaller and with multiple ethnic groups. Neither in Singapore nor in India there was repeated violence against any ethnic group. If at all there was a violence it was seen by the Law and order situation it never got repeated. In spite of Sri Lanka coming under serious criminal investigation, there is no adequate Law and order situation to stop further criminal occurrence. Instead there is more and more top level crimes including war crimes are found committed and nothing done to prevent repetition of the crime.

  • 2
    1

    Ranjith(SPRRW): “Dear Writer If you have evidence to counter what Mr. Jayasumana said at UNHCR, Go there with help of your people Tamil Diasopore and counter it.”

    There is no need for Tamils to counter anything at the UN. The whole world knows the true history of Tamils.

    After all its the Sinhala army who are burying artifacts by night in the North East and digging them up in the daylight (accidentally of course) and shouting Eureka …..Sinhala people lived in the NE before the Tamils.

    • 0
      1

      Rajash

      Then why your people Tamils making series of representation at UNHCR. If your LTTE braved ones why were they collecting normal civilians and taking shelter among them.
      If their fight was genuine They could have fought face to face battle with forces not killing sinhala civilians. That means your lads were utter racist.That was not geuine uprising. Is it correct ?. We are not concern about Tamil people are living anywhere as per their wish. Our concern is terrorism and safety of our people.

  • 2
    1

    It’s simply the superiority complex of Tamils that’s created the Tamil homeland concept in SL

    The whole island is homeland for Sinhalese.

    The whole island is homeland for Muslims.

    The whole island is homeland for burgers

    So it’s clear that Tamil homeland concept is anti social & they must be forced to change their mind unless must be banished from the country to pave the way for peace for other communities.

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.