24 June, 2018

Blog

There Aren’t Two Equal Nations (Or More) In Sri Lanka: Rejoinder To Laksiri Fernando

By Dayan Jayatilleka –

Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka

Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka

Laksiri feigns surprise that I sought to place Kumar David and him in the same category and rebut them in the same polemic. The reason should be obvious: they both defend Chief Minister Wigneswaran’s claim of Tamil nationhood and make the same claim themselves with some modifications.  I reject it.

Let me put it as bluntly as I can.

There is no Tamil nation in Sri Lanka, but there is a Tamil minority in Sri Lanka. There is however a Sinhala nation in Sri Lanka. That is the only ethnic community on the island which can claim the status of a nation as such. Though they do have a just claim to autonomy and devolution, the Tamils of Sri Lanka do not have the right of national self-determination, be it external or internal.

An overarching Sri Lankan nation will contain only one ethnic nation within it– the Sinhalese; the other communities are either minority nationalities or national minorities, which should have all the rights accorded to such communities by the UN. They should also be free of any discrimination, in compliance with the UN’s Durban declaration.

It is trickery for Laksiri to equate even by implication, the reference in the Preamble of the UN Charter to ‘nations’– which clearly pertains to UN member states– with ethnic or cultural communities within a member state. One does not follow from the other.

Laksiri’s point that the Tamils may be a numerical minority in Sri Lanka but are not so outside of Sri Lanka has significance only as an important strategic problem for the Sri Lankan state. It has no significance in terms of status or conceptual definition. How for instance, does the fact of 70 million Tamils in Tamil Nadu give the Tamils of Sri Lanka the status of a nation? How can citizens of another country have rights as a community or lay claim to enhanced status for an existing ethnic community within Sri Lanka?

There are no ‘equal cultural nations’ in Sri Lanka as suggested by Laksiri. The Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims are not equal cultural nations and there is no basis to recognise them as such. There cannot be equal cultural nations in a country in which one community is 74%. One cannot make equal that which is not. Culture will evolve by osmosis or transmission.

What on earth does Laksiri mean by ‘qualitatively equal’? It is striking that he has avoided reference to Godfrey Goonetilleke’s lucid formulation on the subject of ‘equality, proportionality and equity’. I suggest that Laksiri study his entire essay. Since Laksiri obviously needs it to sink in, let me repeat the point Godfrey made, which sums up my perspective far better than I can express it:

“In the modern Sri Lankan context the conditions have to be such that each ethnic and cultural identity will find its proportional weight and presence in our society. Each will need to recognise and accept this configurationThe modus vivendi that is implied here redefines equality within a framework which recognises the reality of collective identities and the difference in the relative weight and presence of these identities when they enter into any partnership.”   (My emphases-DJ)

I didn’t say that Prof Fernando and David belonged to the same party; I said that they were both Trotskyists and as far I know still are or seem to be. Certainly they are co-thinkers, and fellow travellers of Tamil nationalism. They certainly didn’t support the war to defeat the fascist-secessionist Tigers.

According to Prof Fernando, Marx, Engels and Gramsci were wrong on the national question. Well, I’d rather be wrong with them than right with Laksiri (or Ephraim Nimni). I might add that I disagree entirely with Nimni’s (quasi-Trotskyist) critique (what a coincidence!) of Gramsci on the national question. I am entirely in agreement with Gramsci’s stress on the project of national and state unification, and his positive reappraisal of Machiavelli also on that score.

Laksiri Fernando and Kumar David should ask themselves why no ruling party which professes to be Communist or guided by Marxism-Leninism, shares their interpretation on nations and self determination,  and all of them support the Sri Lankan state in Geneva and elsewhere. Laksiri’s and Kumar David’s views on Sri Lanka’s Tamil Question are more congruent with those of the AIADMK of Jayalalithaa than with the Communist parties of Cuba, China and Vietnam. Some progressives!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 4
    1

    This is what Dr Dayan Jayatileke said at the 12th Bakeer Markar Memorial lecture on ‘Challenges to Strengthening Sri Lankan Identity’, delivered on Nov 17, 2009.

    “Now, when we talk about Sri Lankan identity, what do we really mean? What does it mean to be a Sri Lankan? We may put it even more basically or crudely: To whom does Sri Lanka belong? This is the crucial question. Let us face it squarely. I submit that there are broadly speaking, three perspectives on this. These may not be explicit, though some have been explicitly stated — but in many cases, they are perspectives that are and have been the implicit co-ordinates of policy. What are these three views?

    One is that Sri Lanka belongs to the few. The other is that Sri Lanka belongs to the many and the third perspective, which I hold and which I hope to urge on this audience, is that Sri Lanka belongs equally to all its citizens.”

    Sri Lanka being ‘the Nation’ and all citizens being equal shareholders and entitled to equal rights under the laws of the country, the question of multiple nations or a nationa belonging solely to one majority community should not arise. Any other interpretation would lead to discord and fragmentation.

    • 7
      0

      Almost over 82 comments.

      over 90% out of them have disagreed with DJ – what more evidence you need to marginalize this self proclaimed political analyst ?

      • 1
        2

        sama:

        “that a majority of people is not always right and a minority of them not always wrong” — Tissa Jayathilaka.

        • 6
          2

          Navin

          “that a majority of people is not always right and a minority of them not always wrong” — Tissa Jayathilaka.”

          You are absolutely right.

          I suppose you had Sinaha/buddhists in mind when you wrote your comment. Well they make up 74.9% of this population.

          • 0
            2

            Dear Native Veddha,

            Responding to Navin, who quoted Tissa Jayathilaka “that a majority of people is not always right and a minority of them not always wrong”, you wrote “I suppose you had Sinaha/buddhists in mind when you wrote your comment. Well they make up 74.9% of this population”

            Navin responded to Sama’s statement “Almost over 82 comments. over 90% out of them have disagreed with DJ – what more evidence you need to marginalize this self proclaimed political analyst?”

            Sama’s population is 82 or just over.

            Unless one loses track of the context or is hell bent on mischief, what Navin had in mind should have been clear.

            Tamil Nadu has an overwhelming Tamil Majority but it has no relevance to what Sama said, just like your smart aside.

            Language confusion?

            Kind Regards,
            OTC

        • 3
          0

          Here you are dead right when considering the PC elections results in favours of current regime, it is clear to all of us. There we the dissidents thought that majority poor people that make up over 70% would teach highly abusive rulers a bigger lession, but though some signs were given, they won the elecitons. This is the reason why many feel today – a larger majority is still being cheated by current regime. Last time it was GENIVA goni billa. Next time it will be again that, because the days of MR physcial existence is numbered. I am ashamed to see the situation, but this will be inevitable.

    • 2
      1

      Safa, First of all this is not SriLanka. SriLanka is a adopted name for Kingdom of SINHALE as called in few centuries back. MR must change the name from SriLanka to Kingdom of Sinhale or Three-Sinhale [Ruhunu ,Maya ,Pihiti]. Must change the British Provincial boundaries according to Ruhunu,Maya ,Pihiti.

      • 2
        1

        What would your role in one of those three Sinhale, Andhare?
        Actually if that happens its better, we can allocate one to racist animals like Mara and his sattebis.
        We will live in peace in the other two.

      • 3
        0

        noel-jones

        The identities Sinhala and Tamil were used in Lanka for a long period of time stretching as far back as 3rd century BC. But the entity represented by the term Tamil or Sinhala is very different at different times. For example, Sinhala was used in the Anuradhapura period to represent a Vansa, a clan of people associated with a particular agriculture based on a special irrigation system. These people were considered to be of North Indian descent. It is widely believed that around 500 BC some North Indian people came to Lanka and overpowered the native society that existed there. Thus there were Vansa clashes in that early period of history. These Vansa clashes continued until the end of Rajarata civilization and the emergence of semi-feudal society in the wet zone. In this society divisions were based more on trade caste groups.

        When we look at the Kandyan kingdom before the takeover by the British, we see that the word Sinhala is used to represent the ruling elite. The Radala-Mudali elite referred to themselves as the Sinhala. In this scenario not only the other caste groups in the Kandyan areas were left out of the Sinhala identity, but also the entire community in the low country who spoke Sinhala as their mother tongue. At this stage caste was more important than any other clan identity. The word jatiya, the Sinhala word used in general today to represent a nation, was used widely at that stage to represent caste. Even today if one asks a Kandyan villager about his jatiya he may assume that as a reference to his caste. In any case at that time and until recently people in Lanka were more loyal to their caste group than any other form of community. Sinhala royalty always thought it is better to marry from Tamil royalty than to a lower caste person from the Sinhala kingdom. This thinking was not confined to the royalty but common to almost all caste groups. Even until recently, such thinking existed in spite of Sinhala vs Tamil national clashes.

    • 4
      3

      There is no singhala nation, the country belongs to both tamils and Singhalese, it should be divided as provinces and operated with autonomy, the Singhalese fear the tamils will rise up like the jews so they suppress them, If Singhalese believe in themselves they should give it a try. Allow tamils to rule even a small area like Jaffna only just to see Tamils will rise and control the whole of Asia in 15 years time. Tamils are the most educated, interlligent, hardworking and prosperous people – says the history ( even with all the suppression).

      • 0
        1

        I knew it. Tamils want a ‘Bantu land’ in Jaffna to start.

        • 4
          0

          I am no muslim

          Kallathonii Sinhala/Buddhists have been building a Aryan Sinhala/Buddhist ghetto in this island.

          • 0
            3

            Kallathoni Vedda from the East is stupid. He doesn’t see that it is his Tamil cousins who started Tamil ghettos in every city they sought to live in the guise of refuges.

            • 3
              0

              I am no muslim

              ” He doesn’t see that it is his Tamil cousins who started Tamil ghettos in every city they sought to live in the guise of refuges.”

              The Sinhala/Buddhist(?) asylum seeking Vijaya started building Ghettos and now the present day Sinhala/Buddhists continue to grab every inch of my ancestral land with the sole objective of enlarging their Ghetto exclusively for the Sinhala/Buddhists.

      • 0
        1

        Dear Ravi,

        You say ” the country belongs to both tamils and Singhalese,”

        I would say that the country belongs to her Citizens as there are many others who are neither Sinhalese nor Tamil.

        You say “Allow tamils to rule even a small area like Jaffna”

        That is a fair request.
        As a Sinhalese I will definitely support that.

        Kind Regards,
        OTC

  • 1
    4

    Dr.Rajasingham Narendran

    The first nation should be the Veddah community, the second nation should be the Tamils and the third nation the Sinhalese/ Sinhala-Buddhists.

    Please enlighten us with the reasoning behind this statement of yours. What is making you believe Tamils are the second in line to “nationhood” ?

    cheers

    • 6
      1

      Vibushana ,

      For starts please read my recent blog in CT on evolution of the Sinhala script and the citation therein.

      If the Sinhalese are a mixture of Yakshas, Veddhas, Rakshasas, Tamils and others, theTamils are one of the parent communities of the Sinhalese. Further, Vijaya and his 700 friends brought in their brides and those who accompanied them from Madurai – old Tamil Kingdom in India. The offspring from these unions were 50 % Tamil. The mothers of this strand of the Sinhalese were Tamils. Viewed even through this simplified derivations of much vaunted history , the Tamils are the second nation after the Veddhas.

      Dr.RN

      • 3
        2

        If the Sinhalese are a mixture of Yakshas, Veddhas, Rakshasas, Tamils and others

        The 3 tribes are indeed mentioned in Mahavamsa. It seems more Tamils spend time reading the Mahavamsa than Sinhalaese themselves. You seems to have added “Tamil” to the tribes. What is the source of this information please? Who said Tamils were “mixed” with Sinhalese?

        Further, Vijaya and his 700 friends brought in their brides and those who accompanied them from Madurai – old Tamil Kingdom in India. The offspring from these unions were 50 % Tamil.

        FYI, the language and culture you belong, now referred as “Tamil” only came into existence after 15 CE. Even then it was only a regional dialect.

        Vijaya’s offspring would be “50% Tamil” if these were races as Caucasian, Mongolian and Negroids etc. They are not races but cultures and ethnicity. The people of the entire subcontinent are genetically the same.

        Simple analogy I can give to you is think of it as a cap one wears. Vijaya’s wife can wear “Malabar” cap whilst in India. But then she can arrive in island and wear a Sinhala cap. She becomes a naturalised Malabar. Her offspring goes further begins to wear Sinhala cap moving completely away from Malabar.

        When Vijaya arrived the entire region including the subcontinent seems to have had a single script, the Brahmi. Indeed the further one goes entire continent had a one common script. As time went by the Brahmi went in different directions.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmic_scripts

        What differentiates Sinhala from others in the region are the vowels it uses (Table above). Vijaya arrival presumably adds 4 vowels to existing Sinhala script. This is how Sinhala broke away from the regional formation and came into its own. As time goes by, particularly after land bridge closes Sinhala evolves independently from the common fold. While all thing was going on Tamil was not even on the drawing board.

        Mahavamsa uses “Damila” to refer to South Indians. European calls them Malabar. When Indian linguistic states are formed the Malabar dialect you speak now becomes “Tamil” when its was only a non-descript regional dialect before. The “Tamil” identity was most probably taken from Mahavamsa as nowhere else it seems to be found. If this is the case it was the Sinhalese that gave you your present ethnic identity.

      • 1
        3

        Dr.RN
        OK assuming Wijaya and his 700 friends brought in their brides from Madurai as you say and Madurai was Tamil, I agree that their offspring can be argued to be 50 % Tamil. But your claim; 700 Madurai women make ‘Tamils as the second nation after the Veddha’ puzzles me.

        So, let’s dig a little deeper into this. Wijaya’s grandson Pandukabhaya was fathered by a Yaksha. And that makes him just 25% Tamil. Sinhalas believe as Mahawamsa mentions Pandukabhaya started Sinhala race by assimilating his mother’s race with Yaksha, Naga, Deva and Raksha, the four tribes that was there in Lanka at the time. Mind you Buddhist antiquities talk about Buddha coming to Lanka to resolve a fight between two Naga kings. That shows a large number of those tribes were there at the time. However, none of those tribes are with us today. Last known Yaksha, Ritigala Jayasena died few decades back and his progeny are Sinhalas now. Needless to say all in those four tribes have become Sinhalas.

        There is no proof such as rock edits, monuments or chronicle writings to prove Vedda is the first nation of Sri Lanka. Mahawamsa talks about Wijaya, his 700 men and their brides from India but not Vedda.

        I think Sinhala assimilating with Tamils happens this way. We all know Sinhalas had so many wars with Tamil invaders from India. When they were defeated or gone back to their homeland with the plundered booty, the remainder had become our guests and settled down with the local polity by integrating into the Sinhala populace.

        • 4
          0

          Banda
          “Pandukabhaya started Sinhala race by assimilating his mother’s race with Yaksha, Naga, Deva and Raksha, the four tribes that was there in Lanka at the time.”

          The above statement is absolutely hilarious. Before coming to the Argument about the myth – four known tribes (Yaksha, Naga, Deva and Raksha) that existed before the invasion of Vijaya also known as ‘Siv-Hela’, let me say a few words about the terms used in Mahavamsa and from where they were derived. The scholarly monks of the Mahavihara in Anuradapura who wrote the Pali chronicles must have been very well versed in the Sanskrit texts of India such as the Mahabaratha, the Ramayana, and the Jathaka. The terms Lanka, Sinhala, Deva, Naga, Yaksha, Rakshasa, etc are mentioned for the very first time only in the Indian Mythology Ramayana and Mahabaratha and the historians are not sure if they were true. Very much later, the Mahavamsa has also adopted it (from Mahabaratha and Ramayana) but with a different twist by including a new (Lion) story. The beginning chapters of the Mahavamsa stories which includes the names Sinhala, Lanka, and the four Deva, Naga, Yaksha, Rakshasa, tribes has NO archeological/epigraphic evidence in Sri Lanka and the present day historians do not accept any of them as true. The island was named ‘Lanka’ (influenced by Ramayana), the people were named ‘Sinhala’ (influenced by Mahabaratha), and the four tribes Deva, Naga, Yaksha, Rakshasa is nothing but a cut and paste from the Mahabaratha. Mahanama Thero who authored the Mahavamsa seems to be an expert on cut & paste. There is a group of Sinhala-Buddhists by the name Hela Havula (Sinhalese literary organization founded by Munidasa Cumaratunga) and some jokers such as Arisen Ahubudu who has created a new theory (Siv + Hela = Sinhala) linking Ravana to the Sinhalas and totally contradicting the Mahavamsa to say that the Sinhalas are the original natives of Sri Lanka from the four tribes (four Hela) known as Siv-hela (Deva, Naga, Yaksha, & Rakshasa) and not migrants from India as mentioned in the Mahavamsa. Their theory is purely based on the Indian epics Ramayana and Mahabaratha. Some of them even want to add the Mahayana Buddhist text Lankavatara Sutta which is based on Ramayana to Sinhala-Buddhism. It should be noted that Ramayana is also a mythology that talks of the story of Rama and Ravana that happened very much before the Buddha. Mahabaratha is even older than Ramayana. How did “Siv-hela” (four Hela tribes) become “Sinhala”? First of all, there is no any historical evidence to prove that the term ‘hela’ was used to denote any race or country. On the other hand the term ‘Siv-hela’ cannot be seen in any of the ancient inscriptions in Sri Lanka or in any of the ancient literary works. I would like to ask any member of the Hela Havula, from where did you get this concept of Siv(four) hela? Can you present any piece of evidence to show that the concept of Siv-hela was used anywhere in our literature or any of the ancient inscriptions? Even if you take the Sinhala Language, there is no any rule in Sinhala grammar to derive Siv+hela to sinhala. If it is so Kav+pela should become Kanpela, Pav+hela should become panhala or pansala. Your derivation from Siv+hela to Sinhala is just another non-creative creation.

          • 2
            0

            Pandukabaya,
            In his translation of Visuddhimagga, Oxford scholar, Ven Nanmoli wrote in page xxxi that, “in the prologue to each of the four Nikaya commentaries it is conveniently summarized by Bhadantacariya Buddhagosha himself as follows: ‘[I shall now take] the commentary, whose object is to clarify the meaning of the subtle and the most excellent Long Collection … and was brought to the Sinhala Island by the Arahath Mahinda the great and rendered into the Sinhala tongue for the benefit of the islanders, ….’

            And Visuddhimagga and 30 or so other works by Buddhagosha that survives today, were written in the fifth century. The name ‘Mahawamsa’ wasn’t mentioned in any of them. But reference to Sinhala and Sinhala writings were clearly was mentioned in the preface of Buddhagosha’s writings.

            Anyone who read Buddhist writing knows that Sanskrit had displaced Pali as the medium of study by the first century AC. But Pali renascence was underway in Lanka and South India by the time of Buddhagosha’s arrival. So, while some influence of Mahabaratha and Ramayana on Mahavihara monks is obvious taking the above fact and the fact that Buddhagosha says Tripitake was made available to him in Pali written in Sinhala is paramount to show that Sinhala is not a creation by monk Mahanama as you people like to believe.

            So, leave out Arisen Ahubudu and others of Hela Haula, is it not logical to argue that Sinhala writing today is the further development of the language Tripitake was made available to Buddhagosha in the fifth century?

            Having said that, I do not deny that Sinhala language is influenced by many languages and cultures just like other languages the world over.

            • 1
              0

              Banda

              It is being said (even though nothing ‘ancient’ has been found as historical evidence till today to prove it) that the beginning chapters of the Pali Chronicle (Mahavamsa) was translated into Pali by the scholarly monks of the Mahavihara from the Vamsa text (original source preserved for many centuries) known as “Sihala atthakatha” written in Sihalabhasa. If the Mahavamsa is the history of the Sinhalese, what good does it make to the Sinhalese in translating it from Sihalabhasa into a language (Pali) that they (Sinhalese) cannot understand? Now, if we assume that the Mahavihara monks wanted those outside the island also to read the Sinhala-Buddhist history, then what happened to the original Vamsa text written in Sihalabhasa? If they have preserved it for many centuries, they could have continued to preserve it till today but unfortunately it disappeared after the Mahavamsa was written or rather destroyed. Very unfortunately, the Sinhala nation had to wait till the 19th century for someone to translate it back from Pali to Sinhala for them to read and understand the Mahavamsa. Is that not a crime committed by the Mahaviharic Bikkus to the Sinhala nation of Sihaladipa?

              However the truth is something else. There is also a commentary to the Mahavamsa written in Pali by an unknown Buddhist monk (definitely with ulterior motive) in the 13th century AD known as the ‘Tika’ or Vansatthappakasini to explain/interpret the verses in Mahavamsa. It is the ‘Tika’ that talks about a mysterious “Sihala atthakatha” (Vamsa text known as original source written in Sihalabhasa), the main reason for calling the Pali chronicle of the Mahavihara as the chronicle of the Sinhalese.

              Similarly, it is being said (not mentioned in any inscriptions) that the Theravada Buddhist scriptures Tripitaka (Viniya, Sutta, Abhidhamma) better known as the Pali Cannon was originally written in the Sihalabhasa and kept preserved for many centuries before it was translated by the Mahaviharic Bikkus into Pali. Now the same questions arise. If Buddhaghosa has actually said that he wrote in Pali so that the monks outside the island can also understand, what happened to the original text in Sihalabhasa? If it was preserved for centuries until Buddhaghosa came to Anuradapura, they could have easily continued to preserve it for the Sinhala nation of Sihaladipa. Did Buddhaghosa destroy the Sinhala version after he translated it to Pali? Now, if Buddhaghosa says that it is written in Sihalabhasa for the benefit of the island-inhabitants, then after translating it into Pali, Buddhaghosa or the Mahaviharic Bikkus has committed a crime by depriving the Sinhala nation from reading the Buddhist scriptures in their own language. In a land where all the ancient Buddhist artifacts are being preserved for millenniums by the Monks and the Kings, why such an important thing has not been kept safely?

              As you rightly said, in his translation of Visuddhimagga, Oxford scholar, Ven Nanmoli wrote in page xxxi that, “in the prologue to each of the four Nikaya commentaries it is conveniently summarized by Bhadantacariya Buddhagosha himself as follows: ‘[I shall now take] the commentary, whose object is to clarify the meaning of the subtle and the most excellent Long Collection … and was brought to the Sinhala Island by the Arahath Mahinda the great and rendered into the Sinhala tongue for the benefit of the islanders, ….’

              Did Buddhaghosa actually write the prologue in most of his Pali commentaries where he mentioned the language (Sihalabhasa), the land (Sihaladipa) and the people (Sinhalese) or is it the same as what happened in the Pali Chronicle that during the last several centuries after Buddhaghosa, spurious commentaries would have got added perverting the real intent and meaning of that great Bikku?
              The Mahavamsa also talks about Buddhaghosa and his work but it does not say anything about ‘Sinhala’ and none of the 5th century artifacts/inscriptions say anything about ‘Sinhala’. At least something of this sort could have been inscribed somewhere in Anuradapura in one of those cave temples where the Buddhaghosa and the Mahavihara monks were residing. What is found today as a commentary on the beginning pages cannot be trusted. Like the Mahavamsa ‘Tika’, this also could have been the work of some Buddhist monks at a later stage.

              • 1
                0

                Pandugabhaya

                “Mahanama Thero who authored the Mahavamsa seems to be an expert on cut & paste”

                What is wrong with cut and paste? it is better than lying. Banda recently declined the title of as chief plagiarist offered to him. He prefers medamulana doctrine of deception, corruption and thuggery.

                He put me in the terrorist list for showing his cut and paste skills!

    • 4
      3

      Vibushana, Apperaently Dr. Narendran Rajasingham trying to change the history of Srilanka by adding tamils as the second natives of Srilanka. What we heard is that it was Yaksha’s, Naga’s,Raksha’s and Deva’s tribes were living in 2500 years ago. The Veddha’s belongs to one of the above tribes.

      I don’t know Dr. Narendran recently found credible witness to support his theory or maybe he is day dreaming.Recently he publish a ‘evolution of the Sinhala script” by matching tamil letters to Sinhala in ancient time. There are similarities to Sinhala letters in Thai,Miyanmar languages too. So his theory is just another suggestion only.

      And from which part of India that Vijaya and his 700 friends arrived here, is still a mystery. Historian’s who conduct research about Vijaya’s arrival to SL found no credible witnesses about such a incident in Indian or Tamilian history as far as I know.

      • 6
        1

        noel-jones,

        I am sorry I missed mentioning the Naga and Deva components, claimed for the mix. There is also a Malay element in the mix. There are also European elements in the mix.

        I like the Sinhala pickle ( Atchcharu) with its many vegetable components. Despite its multiple components it is a unique mix that I enjoy eating. I view the Sinhalese the same way. They are a community that has emerged from many mixes and has grown through accepting and absorbing many peoples and attributes through history. There are progressive in many ways compared to the Tamils.They yet continue to be so.

        However,from what I know I will not concede that they are the only nation in Sri Lanka. If there is what is called a ‘Sri Lankan Nation’, we Tamils are part of it. But if there is going to be a concept of community based nations, the Sinhalese cannot be the sole claimants to nationhood in Sri Lanka. Since the Yakshas, Rakshasas, Nagas, Devas etc., are not lving amongst us and the Veddhas, Tamils, Sinhalese and Muslims are the most visible communities, I argue the Veddhas and Tamils should have priority status to nationhood over the Sinhalese.

        Please note that I am for a Sri Lankan nation and not communal identities taking on various ‘nation’ identitities. However, in view of what Dayan is advocating and what has been the historical trend post-independence. If that is the path we are compelled to take, so be it. As a Tamil, I will stake the claim for Tamils being the second nation in Sri Lanka, though it be a reaction to what Dayan is advocating and this government is pursuing.

        Incidentlly, the native Indians and Eskimos are considered the first nation in Canada, despite the destruction wrought on them by the new settlers. Even recent settlers like the Tamils,are being recognised as a separate community and their culture recognised through a ‘Heritage Day’.

        Dr.RN

        • 0
          2

          I think a seperate community and a seperate nation are two different things. And nobody doubts that tamils are a seperate community

        • 0
          3

          Dear Dr. Rajasingham Narendran,

          I agree with you. The Sinhalese are not a pure race. Our identity is the Sinhala language.

          You say “If there is what is called a ‘Sri Lankan Nation’, we Tamils are part of it”

          Of course you are part of it and unquestionably so.

          The following is based on the two scientific studies named below.

          1. “Genetic affiliations of the Sri Lankan population” (1995) Dr. Gautam K. Kshatriya (wiki)

          2. “Genetic affinities of Sri Lankan populations Human Biology”, by Kshatriya, Gautam Kumar (http://www.lankanewspapers.com/news/2007/6/15923_space.html)

          Parental Populations of the Sinhalese
          Tamil (India) 69.86%
          Bengalis 25.41%
          Veddah 4.73%

          Parental Populations of the Lanka Tamils
          Sinhalese 55.20%
          Bengali 28.17%
          Indian Tamils 16.63%

          Apparently the Sinhalese are Genetically 400% more Tamil than the Lanka Tamils.

          They also have a direct genetic connection with the Veddah that the Lanka Tamils do not have.

          Hence according to Genetics
          The First Nation status in Lanka goes to the Veddha
          The second Nation status to the Sinhalese
          The third Nation Status to Lanka Tamils

          The Lanka Tamils have branched off from the Sinhalese at an intermediate period of time and have developed a separate identity.

          You say “Incidentlly, the native Indians and Eskimos are considered the first nation in Canada,”

          The first Nation status is an acknowledgement of the original habitation. There is no doubt that the Veddah inhabited Lanka when the immigrants arrived.

          Kind Regards,
          OTC

          • 2
            0

            OTC

            “Apparently the Sinhalese are Genetically 400% more Tamil than the Lanka Tamils. They also have a direct genetic connection with the Veddah that the Lanka Tamils do not have. Hence according to Genetics The First Nation status in Lanka goes to the Veddha The second Nation status to the Sinhalese The third Nation Status to Lanka Tamils,

            your interpretations were based on the the following study you mentioned in previous comments. (Dr. Gautam K. Kshatriya in “Genetic affiliations of the Sri Lankan population” (1995) )

            I clearly remember that you made a fool of your self by commenting the following. I quote
            “The above Scientific study indicates that Lanka Tamils do not have any genetic contribution from the Veddha population who are the Sons of the Soil.
            Secondly, The Sinhalese have a 400% greater genetic connection with Indian Tamils than the Indian Tamils have with Lanka Tamils (69.86% for Sinhalese against 16.6% for Lanka Tamils).
            Thirdly, the Sinhalese contribution to the Lanka Tamil genome is 55% This indicates that the Lanka Tamils are an OFF SHOOT of ancient Sinhalese who have mixed with Indian Tamils at a later date. Indian Tamil + Bengali ——> Veddha = Sinhalese (Sinhalese are more Tamil than Lanka Tamils Sinhalese + Bengali —–> Indian Tamil = Lanka Tamil (Lanka Tamils are more Sinhalese than Tamil).
            The Sinhalese evolved in Lanka and the the Lanka Tamils evolved from the Sinhalese not vice versa as per the above scientific study’ unquote

            I have found some thing for your bird brain to fathom from the latest genetic study looking at more reliable mitochondrial DNA history.

            ‘Mitochondrial DNA history of Sri Lankan ethnic
            people: their relations within the island and with
            the Indian subcontinental populations’
            Lanka Ranaweera et al

            1. There is no clear genetic separation based on the PCA map between Sinhalese and Tamils, and between Up- and Low-country Sinhalese of Sri Lanka.

            2. Up-country Sinhalese groups are more geographically proximal
            with each other than do their Low-country counterparts. However,
            the closer association of the Up-country Sinhalese with the Sri Lankan Tamils than with the Indian Tamils is not in agreement with the geographic distances among them.

            3. the genetic distinctiveness of the Vedda people on the island of SriLanka, as reported in this study, confirm previous results based on the analyses of nuclear markers.

            I feel sorry that you have been caught naked!
            Best wishes and kind regards
            Ken

            • 1
              2

              Dear Ken Roberts,

              First let me thank you for bringing this new report published on the web on 7 November 2013 to my notice. Though you did not provide the link I am giving the link for the information of others. http://www.nature.com/jhg/journal/v59/n1/full/jhg2013112a.html

              Science is evolving knowledge. This report is only a few months old and hence should be better than the 19 year old report of Kshatriya.

              I based my comment on the Data and its interpretation by Dr Kshatriya, as I am not an expert on genetics. I clearly referenced the report. I presented his findings in a way that could be understood. Use the Kshatriya report and provide an interpretation different to mine if you can.

              You have presented 3 statements from this new report.
              DO they negate Dr Kshatriya totally?

              1. confirms that the Sinhalese and the Tamils are genetically related. Kshatriya said the same thing.

              2. We all know that Upcountry Sinhalese are GEOGRAPHICALLY closer to themselves than to the Low Country Sinhalese. Why you reproduced such an obvious fact is anyone’s guess.

              The second part states that Lanka Tamils are CLOSER to the Sinhalese than to INDIAN Tamils. Kshatriya says that the Sinhalese are a Parental population of the Lanka Tamils contributing 325% more genetic material than the Indian Tamils have.

              You seem to have confused Genetic Distance with Geographic Distance!

              Here is a statement from your reference that you did not reproduce

              “Interestingly, highest number of haplotype sharing was found between Vedda with Up-country Sinhalese and with Low-country Sinhalese. On the other hand, there was no haplotype sharing between the Vedda people with any of the Tamils”

              Confirms Dr Kshatriya’s assertion that the Lanka Tamils are not genetically related to the Veddha’s but the Sinhalese are.

              Even after reading my comment twice you could not comprehend what I wrote.

              You of course would be very intelligent and clever if you can use the Kshatriya report to NEGATE any of my statements. I doubt that you have the courage even to try.

              You say “I feel sorry that you have been caught naked!”

              Your sympathy is misplaced as you seems to have stepped out on the streets in your birthday suit!

              I do hope you have the courage to debate the contents of the Kshatriya report and prove that my comment is not factual. I am always willing to learn from a person with superior intelligence!

              Kind Regards,
              OTC

              • 2
                0

                Off the Cuff

                You said,
                “Interestingly, highest number of haplotype sharing was found between Vedda with Up-country Sinhalese and with Low-country Sinhalese. On the other hand, there was no haplotype sharing between the Vedda people with any of the Tamils. Confirms Dr Kshatriya’s assertion that the Lanka Tamils are not genetically related to the Veddha’s but the Sinhalese are.”

                You never learn do you??? I have to keep on exposing your stupidity.

                From the above statement, if you are trying to imply that the Sinhalese to a certain extent descend from the Veddas, you are totally WRONG.

                Now, let me quote Gautam Kumar Kshatriya’s conclusion,

                In conclusion, the original inhabitants of Sri Lanka were the Veddahs, who have had little admixture with the Sinhalese and possibly none with the Tamils.

                By reading the above, can a person with some IQ, rational thinking and logic come to a conclusion that the present day Sinhalese have a connection with the Veddhas from the ancient period???

                It is clear to a certain extent that the Veddas are the original inhabitants of Sri Lanka who most probably descend from the Balangoda man (due to the similarity in the genetic traits – v. Deraniyagala 1992: 330-4).

                Coming again to Gautam Kumar Kshatriya’s findings,

                The contribution of the Sinhalese to the Sri Lankan Tamils is 55.20%. Similarly, the Bengali contribution is 28.17% and that of the Indian Tamils is 16.63%.

                The above results indicate a predominant influence of the Sinhalese on Sri Lankan Tamils but there were no trace of any Veddas. What happened to the small percentage of veddha contribution to those Sinhalese who became Tamils in the ancient past? If the contribution of the Sinhalese to the Sri Lankan Tamils is 55.20% and the contribution of veddas to the Sinhalese is 4.73%, then the Sri Lankan Tamils should also have at least a very small percentage of that 4.73% but it is not the case, why?

                For those who are not aware, please note that a large part of the Vedda community assimilated into the Sinhala ethnic group by inter-marriages only during the recent past (not ancient period) and this amalgamation may be the main reason for the little admixture (only 4.73%) and therefore CERTAIN SINHALESE GROUPS have similar genetic traits.

                There is also a Tamil speaking Vedda population in the East who are inter-married with the Tamils. Unfortunately, Gautam Kumar Kshatriya has not included them in his findings.

                If you do not have the capacity to think rationally, it is acceptable but if you are trying to mislead others by lying, then I have to expose you like I did several times before.

                • 0
                  0

                  James

                  ‘If you do not have the capacity to think rationally, it is acceptable but if you are trying to mislead others by lying’

                  A well constructed lie is as good as truth! (quoted some where)

                  This is a genetic trait of ours and I blame it on native vedda!

                • 0
                  2

                  .
                  Dear James and Ken Roberts,

                  When you jump in the middle of a conversation without first reading and understanding what went before, one comes to foolish conclusions. That James is stupidity.

                  The statement that you attribute to me and placed between quotation marks is not mine. It’s also not Dr Kshatriya’s but from the New Genetic Study that Ken Roberts have brought to our notice.

                  Perhaps you are wise as self advertised but you certainly have problems with English.

                  You say “You never learn do you???”

                  I am always prepared to learn. Exchanging views with persons like Dr RN who I respect and with whom I have exchanged views for a long time, has provided me with that opportunity.

                  You further state “I have to keep on exposing your stupidity”

                  Whose stupidity has already got exposed can be seen from the foregoing and it will get exposed further from the ensuing.

                  You ask “What happened to the small percentage of veddha contribution to those Sinhalese who became Tamils in the ancient past? If the contribution of the Sinhalese to the Sri Lankan Tamils is 55.20% and the contribution of veddas to the Sinhalese is 4.73%, then the Sri Lankan Tamils should also have at least a very small percentage of that 4.73% but it is not the case, why?”

                  My post discussed the NEW report that Ken Roberts brought up. We were not discussing Dr Kshatriya’s. Fools Rush in where Angels fear to tread. Perhaps that is due to you Language confusion and the propensity to Rush in like a Mad Bull.

                  Ken Roberts also came with all guns blazing, just like you but he has not replied the post I addressed to him yesterday. Perhaps he has no answer to give or is intellectually too immature to finish what he started. There is no doubt that he has read my post, as like a coward, he is applauding your foolishness today.

                  Before asking stupid questions you should have asked yourself why a Geneticist, an expert like Dr Kshatriya use the Veddha, Bengali and the Indian Tamils as a Parental population for the Sinhalese and why he did not chose the Veddha as a parental population for the Lanka Tamils?

                  Was he the fool or you and Ken Roberts the fools?
                  To me as well as many others, the answer is obvious.

                  Dr Kshatriya says

                  “The contribution (%) of ancestral populations to the hybrid populations (Sinhalese and Sri Lankan Tamils) was calculated using the method of Chakraborty (1985, 1986), with each population considered the product of admixture of three parental populations. The parental populations for the Sinhalese have been considered to be the Bengalis, the Indian Tamils, and the Veddahs of Sri Lanka, and the parental populations for the Tamils are considered to be the Sinhalese of Sri Lanka, the Bengalis, and the Indian Tamils”

                  A parent provides DIRECT Genetic material to the progeny.
                  A Grand parent is more genetically distant than the parent and that is only one generation to the past.

                  If you have your neighbour’s Genes then you are not living with your father unless that neighbour is a blood relation of your father’s.

                  I hope the IQ and Logic you advertised that you posses, which if present has remained DORMANT up to now, will wake up from it’s slumber and trigger your Rational Thinking to help you understand why Dr K chose two different parental populations.

                  Please go back and read up before making a further fool of yourself.

                  Hope you will rejoin the discussion when you are in control of your emotions and mental faculties.

                  Kind Regards,
                  OTC

                  • 3
                    0

                    Off the Cuff

                    Looks like you have not understood what I have said. Dr Kshatriya may not be a fool but he has not done a comprehensive study. If Veddha, Bengali and the Indian Tamils are the Parental population to the Sinhalese and if the Sinhalese are the major Parental population to the Sri Lankan Tamils (55.20%) then obviously the Sri Lankan Tamils should also have Veddha, Bengali and the Indian Tamils as part of their Parental population. However Dr Kshatriya does not say so. There is some kind of error in Dr Kshatriya’s findings. The only other reason is, due to inter-marriages between Sinhalese and Veddas in the recent past, a group of Sinhalese may have a small percentage of veddha genes.

                    I am not bothered if it brought up by you or ken or anybody. It is obvious. BTW, you keep on harping about the English language, are you a suddha, are you a native English speaker, if not why bother about English, we are here not to show our language skills. Grow up man, grow up!!!

                    • 0
                      2

                      Dear James,

                      You say “Looks like you have not understood what I have said. Dr Kshatriya may not be a fool but he has not done a comprehensive study”

                      For you to make that judgment you should be better informed. Sadly you are making a fool of yourself again.

                      Still that intelligence you bragged about remains dormant or extinct.

                      First you need to understand the reasons why Dr Kshatriya did not include the Veddah as a parental population of the Lanka Tamils.

                      He did not do that on a whim but after a careful study.

                      Go back to Dr Kshatriya’s work, read and understand what he says and then rejoin the discussion. It’s stupidity to re enter the discussion without an understanding of Dr Kshatriya;s work, armed with only the Mad Bull instinct.

                      You say “If Veddha, Bengali and the Indian Tamils are the Parental population to the Sinhalese and if the Sinhalese are the major Parental population to the Sri Lankan Tamils (55.20%) then obviously the Sri Lankan Tamils should also have Veddha, Bengali and the Indian Tamils as part of their Parental population”

                      I cannot understand why you are persistent in displaying your stupidity again and again, even after I pointed you in the correct direction. A Bull will at least respond to the rope through his nose. But you are more like a stubborn Jack Ass! Perhaps that is your IQ!

                      Receiving Veddha genes Via the Sinhalese is second hand like a child having it’s Grand Father’s genes. Dr. Kshatriya was investigating direct contributions not indirect ones.

                      you say “However Dr Kshatriya does not say so. There is some kind of error in Dr Kshatriya’s findings”

                      Oh so you are the Geneticist, the expert who cannot find the fault but says there is a fault in what a real Geneticist writes and has been on the Public Domain for almost Two Decades!

                      Could you not find an authoritative source that rebutted Dr Kshatriya between 1995 and 2013 November? If you could not find such an authoritative source what does that tell you? Perhaps you are too much of an imbecile to understand the significance!

                      You have either not read Kshatriya carefully or you are not equipped to understand what he wrote. Dr Kshatriya has selected the Parental population of Lanka Tamils after careful evaluation and not on a whim or by flipping coins.

                      Go back and re read Kshatriya.

                      You say “The only other reason is, due to inter-marriages between Sinhalese and Veddas in the recent past, a group of Sinhalese may have a small percentage of veddha genes”

                      Without intermarriage genes cannot be exchanged.

                      But where is your evidence that it happened in the recent past? So that’s what you call logic and Rational Thinking? Making statements without evidence!

                      You say “I am not bothered if it brought up by you or ken or anybody. It is obvious”

                      What is obvious is that you were CLUELESS as to what we were discussing and yet was stupid enough to think you were being Smart.

                      You ask ” BTW, you keep on harping about the English language, are you a suddha, are you a native English speaker,…”

                      The answer is no to both questions. I am a Sinhalese.

                      You ask again “if not why bother about English, we are here not to show our language skills”

                      Because my comments on CT are in English and you and others like you post Stupid Comments because you and they cannot understand the Language.

                      The arrogance you displayed in your first comment, given the absolute ignorance of what was being discussed, is proof of your Stupidity.

                      Kind Regards,
                      OTC

                    • 3
                      0

                      Off the cuff,

                      Your response is absolutely hilarious, you seem to be not only ignorant/illiterate when it comes to knowledge in the subjects you debate here, but you have become a forum jester entertaining all of us to make our day with full of laughter. You are one of the best laughing stock on CT, please continue to entertain us further.

                      Most of the time when someone speak of a specific subject (say apples), you respond with something totally different (about pineapples). Similarly, here the subject is genetics but you are talking more about the Bull rather than about genealogy. Last time you came up with colonial history without knowing even the very basics and finally ran away leaving your amude (loin cloth) when I exposed your stupidity. This time you are talking about genetic study without even knowing the basic concepts of genealogy.

                      First of all, Dr Kshatriya has carried out his study on 11 selected groups (not comprehensive) and his interpretation shows that his research was biased. He had already studied the Mahavamsa and he talks more about the Vijaya myth (a legend that has very little historic evidence to support) that he has already accepted as truth.

                      He says,
                      “In fact, the contribution made by Prince Vijaya and his small band of 700 companions to the original pool of the Sinhalese must have been eliminated by the long-standing contribution (over 2000 years) of the population groups of northeastern and southern India.”

                      Again he says,
                      “The fusion of the Veddahs and the Sinhalese was recorded in the ancient chronicles of Sri Lanka (Dipavamsa and Mahavamsa) as early as 543 B.C., but the Veddahs were subsequently pushed to the inhospitable dry zone for a long period of time under pressure from early colonizers.”

                      Obviously, he has done the research with the conclusion in mind so that his results would match the so called ‘history’ as per the Mahavamsa.

                      Secondly, the Genealogist Kshatriya’s report only shows the ratio of the Indian Tamil, Bengali and Veddha admixture in the Sinhalese gene pool and the Sinhalese, Bengali and Indian Tamil admixture in the Sri Lankan Tamil gene pool but the test report DOES NOT SHOW the exact period when the mixture took place and we are not sure if these contributions were direct or indirect.

                      I am not a genealogist but for obvious reasons, I cannot accept his study as authoritative.

                      You said,
                      “Could you not find an authoritative source that rebutted Dr Kshatriya between 1995 and 2013 November? If you could not find such an authoritative source what does that tell you?”

                      There are several other genetic studies done on the SL population in the recent past and whatever Dr Kshatriya has done is considered old or obsolete and nobody bothers to rebut something when many other studies have superseded it.

                      Finally, if you expect non-native English speakers to speak/write Queen’s English, you should not be in a SL forum in the first place. You are still a kid mister. Do not worry about other people writing to this forum with spelling/grammatical errors, just concentrate on what you eat. You got to eat a lot and got to drink lots of milk so you can grow up very quickly to argue like a grown up.

                      I do not waste my time debating with buffoons. I have no more time to waste with you. Bye!

                    • 0
                      4

                      Dear James,

                      You said “Most of the time when someone speak of a specific subject (say apples), you respond with something totally different (about pineapples)”

                      I was discussing Genetics with Dr RN, who has the intellect to understand it, when an Obnoxious Jackass interjected without even knowing what was being discussed. Apples and Pineapples indeed!

                      You said “Similarly, here the subject is genetics but you are talking more about the Bull rather than about genealogy.”

                      I patiently tried discussing genetics despite the obnoxious rudeness. But the subject was too complicated for the Bull. Even a simple concept of a Parental population was beyond the Bull. As the Bull could not comprehend English, the language used in the debate.

                      There is this child who has your Genes. The Child also has your Father’s Genes. The mother of course is your wife. How do you know for certain, who the Father is? Is it you or your father?

                      I leave you with the problem as that is what you could not understand.

                      You wrote “Last time you came up with colonial history without knowing even the very basics and finally ran away leaving your amude (loin cloth) when I exposed your stupidity.”

                      Are you referring to the following two comments I addressed to you that you avoided replying?

                      https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/sinhala-buddhist-bigotry-root-cause-of-strife-in-sri-lanka/#comment-909721

                      https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/on-sri-lankas-war-criminals-by-an-officially-labelled-terrorist/comment-page-1/#comment-943453

                      The only stupidity that you expose is yours and you have done an excellent job of undressing in public.
                      I never RUN away from a Debate as I write factual comments and provide references. If I am proved wrong I apologize.

                      You write a whole lot of hogwash copied from Eelam website such as Tamil Canadian etc. Hence you do not provide links to original content, as you cannot do it.

                      Your comments here prove what I say

                      You wrote “First of all, Dr Kshatriya has carried out his study on 11 selected groups (not comprehensive) and his interpretation shows that his research was biased. He had already studied the Mahavamsa and he talks more about the Vijaya myth (a legend that has very little historic evidence to support) that he has already accepted as truth.”

                      Stupider and Stupider it gets.
                      Written like a true Eelamist separatist.
                      When you cannot counter the Evidence, slander the author.

                      You say “Obviously, he has done the research with the conclusion in mind so that his results would match the so called ‘history’ as per the Mahavamsa.”

                      Oh now Kshatriya has also doctored his research to comply with the Mahavamsa!

                      How stupid can you get?

                      You are saying the SITTING Professor of Anthropology of the University of Delhi, a Post Doctoral of University of Texas, Houston, who has published several books, at least 55 scientific papers in Indexed/Peer reviewed Journals and over 30 articles, is going to Jeopardize his Professorship, his professional career and his standing amongst the Scientific community by prostituting his research to authenticate the Mahavamsa?

                      What an Eelamist Jackass you have turned out to be!

                      Even the TGTE Goebbels, Usha has not uttered something silly like that.

                      you wrote “There are several other genetic studies done on the SL population in the recent past”

                      Why did you not give the references? The Tamil Canadian did not have any?

                      You say “… and whatever Dr Kshatriya has done is considered old or obsolete and nobody bothers to rebut something when many other studies have superseded it.’

                      Where are those MANY studies?
                      Can you provide the links if they exist?
                      You have proved what I said, twice already.

                      Old and Obsolete are two different things. One does not follow from the other. The Theory of Relativity is 90 years Older! Anyway at the time you BUTTED in, we were not discussing Kshatriya but you were too stupid to realize that.

                      You wrote “Finally, if you expect non-native English speakers to speak/write Queen’s English, you should not be in a SL forum in the first place. You are still a kid mister. Do not worry about other people writing to this forum with spelling/grammatical errors”

                      Spelling and grammatical errors are not of consequence.

                      You were making COMPREHENSION errors.
                      You could not COMPREHEND what was written.

                      If you cannot UNDERSTAND English, writing to an English Forum is STUPID. Limit yourself to a language that you can understand, Tamil perhaps.

                      You got bashed to a pulp by a Kid!

                      You say “I do not waste my time debating with buffoons. I have no more time to waste with you. Bye!”

                      You cannot debate on CT because CT is an English forum and you cannot UNDERSTAND English

                      Before you venture to discuss the subject of Genetics again learn how you can use Science to prove the child you have is actually yours and not your father’s.

                      BTW – withdrawing from the debate was the SINGULAR wise thing that you did.

                      Kind Regards,
                      OTC

                    • 1
                      0

                      One last response to the buffoon!

                      Regarding your problem, just go and ask your mother, who fathered you, is it the person whom you are assume to be your father or if it is his father or someone else, simple solution.

                      Tamil Canadian??? WTH is that??? Can you give a link???

                      COMPREHENSION errors in English??? Are you talking about yourself or me??? Show me at least one example.

                      It is not me but you have a lot of difficulty in comprehending even simple things written in English. Dr Kshatriya is a genealogist and not a historian but he has mentioned a lot about Mahavamsa in his paper where as he should be talking only about genetics. Either you have not read his research paper in full or you are blind to miss all that stuff or you are unable to read and understand what he has written. You are only making yourself an Arsehole. The best thing for you is, instead of wasting your time on subjects that you do not understand, why not go and learn how to cook Kavum, the Sinhalayas favorite food. Leave all these big stuff to the grown-ups.LOL

                    • 0
                      0

                      Dear James,

                      You say “One last response to the buffoon!”

                      We will see who that buffoon is, in a while.

                      You said “Regarding your problem, just go and ask your mother, who fathered you, is it the person whom you are assume to be your father or if it is his father or someone else, simple solution”

                      Oh no it is not my problem, it is yours.
                      I know how to resolve it scientifically but you don’t.
                      You are the one who does not understand what a Parent population is!

                      I asked you on April 21, 2014 at 1:48 am the following question based on Genetics.

                      There is this child who has your Genes. The Child also has your Father’s Genes. The mother of course is your wife. How do you know for certain, who the Father is? Is it you or your father?

                      Non of the data is untrue
                      The mother of your child is your wife.
                      The child has your genes and your father’s genes.

                      The given data is unquestionable and is true for all of us.
                      The question asked is also applicable to all of us.

                      A person who has no scientific answer will interpret the question offensively even though the question has a direct relevance to the subject under discussion, genetics.

                      The purpose of the question was to test your ability to give a scientific answer. I framed the question to expose your ignorance of genetic distance.

                      You interpreted it offensively because you were not Rational, had no scientific training and could not think for yourself (copy cats usually have a low IQ).

                      Your arguments here are not your own.
                      They are from other people all over the Internet and most are VERBATIM COPIES

                      My post below exposes you as a fraud and an imposter. I have given examples of copied matter and from where they have been copied.

                      https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/there-arent-two-equal-nations-or-more-in-sri-lanka-rejoinder-to-laksiri-fernando/comment-page-2/#comment-957725

                      A copy cat will be stumped by an uncommon question and you got well and truly STUMPED.

                      Your reaction to a scientific question is sufficient proof of your poor English Comprehension.

                      Kind Regards,
                      OTC

              • 2
                0

                OTC

                “I do hope you have the courage to debate the contents of the Kshatriya report and prove that my comment is not factual. I am always willing to learn from a person with superior intelligence”

                My frustration was vented at you for your lack of understanding how these genetic studies are conducted and your poor knowledge on human genetics.

                Kshatriya report/ study was based on measuring the genetic distance of certain autosomal chromosomes of different ethnic communities in Srilanka by using complex mathematical formula called ‘Nei`s standard genetic distances’.

                The use of autosomal ( non sex) chromosomes in studying the genetic diversity has resulted in variable results, However studying the mitochondrial inheritance has lead to relatively reliable conclusions in constructing human ancestry.

                From the outset, I was not prepared to engage in discussing the finding of either Kshatriya report/ study or Lanka Ranaweera study for obvious reasons of confusing the non medical readers.

                Let me also make it clear that,the study of human genetics is not rocket science and I greatly valued the intelligence of your or any other commentator. However your interpretations of the genealogy showed serious flaws in your understanding of human genetics as well your assertions on both studies. Therefore your uttering in this columns have been challenged either directly or indirectly to prevent miscommunication.

                Obviously, presence of Dr RN has been a shining light into our chequered discussion on srilankan genealogy.

                • 0
                  1

                  Dear Ken,

                  First let me thank you for addressing me directly.

                  You said “My frustration was vented at you for your lack of understanding how these genetic studies are conducted and your poor knowledge on human genetics”

                  I addressed my comment to Dr RN, a man who has earned my respect for his truthfulness and a man I have defended when he was hounded by separatists such as Dev. We have a relationship of mutual respect.

                  In my comment I agreed with him on two matters
                  1. That the Sinhalese are not a pure race.
                  2. The unquestionable right of Tamils to be a part of the Sri Lankan Nation.

                  I did not agree however, with Dr RN’s statement “I argue the Veddhas and Tamils should have priority status to nationhood over the Sinhalese” which I contested.

                  In contesting that I used the Kshatriya report I stated that
                  Apparently the Sinhalese are Genetically 400% more Tamil than the Lanka Tamils.

                  According to Kshatriya, genetically Sinhalese are 69.86% Indian Tamil and Lanka Tamils are 16.63% Indian Tamil.

                  (69.86/16.63) x 100 = 420%

                  My claim of 400% was conservative and based on Kshatriya.

                  I also stated the Sinhalese have a direct genetic link with the Veddha. That was based on the fact that Kshatriya chose the Veddha as a Parental population for the Sinhalese and found a 4.73% contribution.

                  Please correct me if I am wrong, the Parental population is based on a genetic distance study of all groups included in the study.

                  That is why I challenged you to disprove me using the Kshatriya report as what I wrote using it was factual. If there is anything wrong in the above please explain and I will accept what you say if your argument is logical.

                  I strive to be factual in my comments and give references whenever I can. I do not make spurious claims. I am aware that I can be wrong and welcome gentlemanly debates. I apologize when proved wrong and never repeat what is proved wrong.

                  However I cannot be cowed down by ungentlemanly, rude or thuggish comments as I have the capacity to take the rowdies and the thugs on. I call a person an idiot only after it is proved by that persons comments and I tell them why I do so.

                  Respect and civility shown will be returned, in equal measure.

                  I addressed you directly but instead of addressing me directly you aligned yourself with James. If you found my arguments to be faulty all you had to do was to provide the reasons why you thought so. There was no need to be impolite about it.

                  James is in the same league as Prasad. What they write is not original but copied from Eelamist web sites or someone else’s comment without any real understanding of the contents. That’s why they cannot meet arguments.

                  If you read my comment at this link, you will understand why I say so.

                  https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/there-arent-two-equal-nations-or-more-in-sri-lanka-rejoinder-to-laksiri-fernando/comment-page-2/#comment-957725

                  I am not a geneticist but I can understand a scientific paper. I don’t write blindly. Not only did I note the methodology used, I read up on the general background in order to make an informed comment. I may make a mistake and I welcome any constructive criticism. Learning is a lifelong endeavor.

                  Thanks to you we have gone beyond the Kshatriya report to the Ranaweera report. I trust that you have read my comment to Dr RN, time stamped April 19, 2014 at 5:34 pm .

                  The Ranaweera report has some interesting observations which are quoted below.

                  1. All the Sinhalese and Tamil subgroups intermingle well with the majority of the Indian subcontinental populations, forming a large genetic matrix.

                  2. Indian Tamils were separated from the rest of the Sri Lankan subgroups, except SU-Bam and SL-Ban, on the first PC axis. This is further strengthening of the hypothesis that Indian Tamils are genetically distinct from the rest of the Sri Lankan ethnic groups.

                  Notice the emphasized words in 2.
                  The Indian Tamils of Lanka are not related to Lanka Tamils.

                  Then from where did the Lanka Tamils originate? Obviously not from Tamil Nadu as there is no genetic connection with the people we know for CERTAIN are from Tamil Nadu, the Indian Origin Tamils of Lanka.

                  According to 1 Lanka Tamils are from the same area in the Indian subcontinent that the Sinhalese are from or they have branched off from the Sinhalese at some intermediate point of time.

                  As you are obviously from the medical profession and has an interest in genetics your reasoned opinion would be greatly valued.

                  I noticed that you have adopted a conciliatory tone and I have reciprocated that.

                  Kind Regards,
                  OTC

              • 0
                0

                Dear OTC,
                there was no haplotype sharing between the Vedda people with any of the Tamils
                OTC, by the way, noting haplotypes isn’t the only metric; there are nucleotides and other such factors to note, as well. PCA and Genetic-distance maps are aggregate metrics; they take many factors into consideration. If TS-Vau had a very distant connection, the lines would have connected to other Veddah groups or even other unrelated groups the same way (making the same distance). Although it seems to be a distance, VA-dal and VA-pol are closer to them than other Veddah groups, or even SU-thu, which indicates that there is a genetic connection but it is smaller than with the Sinhalese (again, if there was no such connection, it would have directly connected to the Sinhalese or other Veddahs on the bottom of that diagram, or even having a separate branch.

                Regards,
                Babu.

            • 0
              0

              For the attention of interested commentators,I submit some links for your observation and study

              1. Peopling of South Asia: investigating the caste–tribe
              continuum in India Gyaneshwer Chaubey,1* Mait Metspalu,1 Toomas Kivisild,1,2 and Richard Villems
              link: http://www.evolutsioon.ut.ee/MAIT/pdf/bioessays.pdf
              This is an interesting article to understand south asian population genetics

              2. Mitochondrial DNA history of Sri Lankan ethnic people: their relations within the island and with the Indian subcontinental populations
              Lanka Ranaweera1,3, Supannee Kaewsutthi1,3, Aung Win Tun1, Hathaichanoke Boonyarit1, Samerchai Poolsuwan2 and Patcharee Lertrit

              Link already provided by OTC, http://www.nature.com/jhg/journal/v59/n1/full/jhg2013112a.html

              3. Language isolates and their genetic identity: a commentary on mitochondrial DNA history of Sri Lankan ethnic people: their relations within the island and with the Indian subcontinental populations
              Gyaneshwer Chaubey
              link: http://www.nature.com/jhg/journal/v59/n2/full/jhg2013122a.html

          • 2
            0

            Dear OTC,

            While asserting that I have little interest in our past as a country, beyond an academic inquisttiveness and am more in interested in what we make of the here and now realities, to take a more sensible road towards the future.

            I am aware of the genetic study you have highlighted, but will however interpret the results differently.

            Since the indegenous Tamils of Sri Lanka have no Veddha gene markers, they have no Veddha ancestry or connections.

            Since the Tamils have a large percentage of Sinhala genemarkers and the Sinhalese have a large percentage of Tamil (India) genemarkers, the question arises how the Tamil (Indian) genemarkers in the Sinhalese were not transmitted to the indegenous Tamils. How did the Sinhalese end up with a largest percentage of Tamil (India)gene markers? This data shoud make those who want the Tamils to go back to India shut up.

            What are the genemarkers that are uniquely Sinhalese that were transmitted to the Tamils, leaving behind part that was Tamil (Indian)?

            How are the Indian Tamil genemarkers different from the indegenous Lankan Tamils?

            If the Lankan Tamil genemarkers are largely Sinhalese, could it be that the Lankan Tamils and Sinhalese share the same genemarkers, which could point to an evolution of the Sinhalese from a lankan Tamil base or a common indigenous origin in part?

            The larger percentage of Begali genemarkers in Lankan Tamils, compared to the Sinhalese mean to me that the Bengali genemarker mingling was in an original Tamil or Tamil-like population, which was diluted to a greater extent in the Sinhalese by the mingling with Tamil(Indians), Veddahs and others. The Yarlpana Vaipava Maalai, refers also to the Vijaya legend.

            In simplified terms the Lankan Tamils are more Sinhalese than the Sinhalese and the Sinhalese are more Indian than the Lankan Tamils.

            Since there are no Veddha genes in the Lankan Tamils, it appears that the latter have not intermigled with the Veddahs.

            The question thus arises whether the Lankan Tamils and the Veddhas co-existed in ancient Lanka, without intermingling to any meaningful degree. The performance of poojas by descendents of the Veddhas in the Katarikamam Murugan (Skanda) shrine to this day, points to mutual respect and co-exitence. Further, in Hindu mythology, one of Lord Murugan’s consorts is a Veddah maiden from Lanka. Murugan is a God worshipped largely by the Tamils. This confirms that Veddhas were known to the Tamils from ancient times.The Veddhas are not mentioned in the Mahavamsa.

            These deductions point to the possibility that the Tamils or their progentors qualify to be the second nation, if not the first nation in Sri Lanka.

            Let me conclude by affirmimg that whatever we were genetically or are now, have little relavance to the Sri Lanka of the 21st century.

            Let us make this a nation of equal citizens and respected communities. This will be democracy in its real meaning, provided that citizens are governed by a visionary constitution, the rule of law and unimpeachable institutional arrangements.

            Dr.RN

            • 4
              1

              Dr RN, OTC
              I am sorry to interrupt . I want to make make the following observations

              1. I agree , one need to think about ground realities first and the past second. However past tend to repeat, therefore it is worth pondering the past.

              2. The genetic study mentioned by OTC is old and and outdated. Furthermore his argument that tamils does not have connections with veddas is proven wrong in the current study. But genetic composition of sinhalese has more vedda components in comparison to srilankan tamils.
              I am open to the suggestions srilankan tamil may have chosen not intermingle with veddas.

              3. Paleogenetic and migrational genetics is a developing field. Initially the interest was in blood groups , currently maternal ( mitochondrial)and paternal genes (Y chromosomal) analysis gives a better idea on migational history of south asians. The current study by Lanka Ranaweera is more interesting because of the creation of haplotype map illustrating the connections.

              I seek an expert analysis of the current data because of the complexities involved. I remember Sbarkum a commentator of CT made useful contribution to this discussion.
              ken

              • 1
                4

                Dear Ken Roberts,

                You are welcome to interrupt.
                An intelligent discussion is appreciated.

                I am aware that I can be wrong and hence have no hesitation in apologizing when proved wrong.

                My reply here https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/there-arent-two-equal-nations-or-more-in-sri-lanka-rejoinder-to-laksiri-fernando/comment-page-2/#comment-953803 should clarify matters

                You say “Furthermore his argument that tamils does not have connections with veddas is proven wrong in the current study”

                It is not my argument. It is a statement based on a scientific study made in 1995 which has been confirmed by this NEW study that you have presented.

                You seem to be misreading and misquoting your own reference.

                Kind Regards,
                OTC

                • 4
                  0

                  OTC & Ken Roberts,

                  I spent all afternoon today reading Lanka Ranawana et al, article titled, Mitochondrial DNA history of Sri Lankan people: their relation within the island and with the Indian subcontinental population, Journal of Human (2014), 59,29-36, in Google, which both of you have referred to.

                  The results of this study involved different analysis involved the Veddas, Up-country Sinhalese, Low-country Sinhalese, Sri Lankan Tamils and the Indian Tamils in the island. The Muslims were not sampled in this study.

                  Their most important results with minimal scientific jargon are:
                  1. The Vedda population was genetically separated from other Sri Lankan ethnic counterparts.
                  2. Two Vedda subgroups were intermingled with the Sinhalese, both Up-country and Low-country, but not with any of the Tamils.
                  3. The genetic matrix in which the Tamil and Sinhalese subgroups , that cannot be clearly separated from each other, were observed towards the major branch of the Lankan genetic tree, with the majority of the Vedda people towards the other.
                  4. Interestingly, some Sinhalese groups were relatively closer to the a Tamils than to the rest of the Sinhala subgroups.
                  5. Another analysis of the same data also showed that the majority of the Sinhala and Tamil subgroups form close genetics proximities among themselves.
                  6. The Up-country Sinhalese are genetically closer to the Sri Lankan Tamils.
                  7. Sri Lankan subgroups were closer to each other, when compared to Indian Tamils.
                  8. All the Sinhalese and Tamil subgroups intermingle well with the majority of the Indian subcontinental populations forming a large genetic matrix.
                  9. However, the Indian Tamils were separated from the rest of Sri Lankan subgroups, with only two exceptions.
                  10. This is further strengthening of the hypothesis that Indian Tamils are genetically distinct from the rest of the Sri Lankan ethnic groups.
                  11. Up-country Sinhalese, Low-country Sinhalese and Sri Lankan Tamils exhibited similar frequencies of Haploid group M.
                  12. A package of Indian-specific mitochondrial DNA harbouring a coalescent age of about 50,000- 70,000 years, were present in the ethnic populations of Sri Lanka.
                  13. Haplogroup U2 was found in all studied populations, with its marked high frequency observed in Sri Lankan Tamils.
                  14. The western Eurasian contribution to the Sri Lankan maternal gene pool was 19.4 %.

                  This study is one step in advance of Kshatriya’s study and has more clarity. Future research can only clarify matters further.

                  In view of these studies should we be discussing , debating and wrangling over which community has the greatest claim to the ownership of Sri Lanka?

                  How would the likes of Gunadasa Amarasinghe and and Nalin Silva react to these facts? Have they historical, archeological and literary records to prove what the situation was 50,000 – 70,000 years back? What will Dayan say now about his Sinhala nation only theory? What will both the Sibhalese and Tamils say about their claimed genetic uniqueness?

                  How will we all try to build a Sri Lankan nation on the premise that we are the same people genetically, who came through the Indian mainland from a journey that began in East Africa millions of years ago, to establish ourselves in the Lanka of old and further evolve over the millennia. This study is also case for us to endeavour to make our essential genetic unity a basis to accommodate our present and very superficial cultural diversity.

                  I hope sense prevail and nonsense dissipates.

                  Dr.RN

                  • 1
                    0

                    Dr RN,
                    Thanks for interpreting, as clearly as possible, Lanka Ranawana et al, article. and nice way of ending – “I hope sense prevail and nonsense dissipates.”

                    • 0
                      3

                      Dear Anpu,

                      I am glad to note that you are following this discussion.

                      Dr RN is right and has reflected my own thoughts when he said
                      “I hope sense prevail and nonsense dissipates”

                      1. Proof has emerged that we (the Sinhalese and Lanka Tamils) are genetically close relatives though we use different languages.

                      2. Proof has also emerged that Lanka Tamils are not related to the South Indian Tamils.

                      Should you not throw the exclusive homeland crap out the window and share Lanka as equals?

                      Kind Regards,
                      OTC

                  • 1
                    0

                    Dr RN

                    The above mentioned research( Lanka Ranaweera et al) is a landmark research in migratory and paleogentics of Srilankan population. You have elegantly summarised the key findings of this study.

                    Major drawback of this study is the sample size(approx 200) and trying to extrapolate the findings of this small study to 20 million Srilankans could lead to erroneous conclusions.

                    Furthermore, interpretation of this study should be left to the experts ie geneticists familiar with genetic mathematical models and the fallacies of analysing the mitochondrial genomes used in this study.

                    But in my opinion, general consensus remains that Sinhalese and Tamils are of same stock in contrast to veddas. I share your concerns that this data could be interpreted differently by cheap polemics such as Prof Nalin Silva and Gunadasa Amarasinghe and of course our Omnipresent Off the cuff.

                  • 1
                    0

                    The journal referred to, should read, Journal of a Human Genetics.

                    Dr.RN

                    • 0
                      1

                      Dear Dr.RN,

                      Quoting from your comment:

                      (Dr.Rajasingham Narendran
                      April 20, 2014 at 7:49 am)

                      “When Lord Siva is depicted as half male and half female, we have understand that in each one of us, whether male or female, there is the other manifested in lesser, but variable degrees. Today’s science confirms the latter fact. If the Mahavamsa refers to Sinhabahu as the offspring of a lion and a women, I interpret that he had the strength and majesty of a lion”

                      No this is not right – today´s science has not confirmed it yet.
                      It is believed that hybridtheory could be the origin of human creatures. Even if the human hybrids have been tested in several laboratories, not respecting the ethical standards, according to american gentists (from Texas or Boston) (September, 2013) in that research – this not confirmed yet.
                      To the point of time, Mahanama Thero drafted Mahawamsa, there were no adequate source data for him to interpret them better. But my question is- over the centuries passed, all other senior buddhist professionals to stay lethagic in terms of bringing updated versions of Mahawamsa ?

                  • 0
                    4

                    Dear Dr. Rajasingham Narendran,

                    I was writing a response to your earlier comment (time stamped April 17, 2014 at 10:00 am) yesterday when I saw this post, Since replying your earlier post would not be constructive I decided to discard what I had already written and write a reply to your latest post.

                    Like you, I have no interest in delving on the past. My main concern is Equality of Lankans and how it can be achieved. The past gets dragged in when arguments are presented using the past that runs counter to Equality of Citizenship. Obviously such arguments have to be countered. One such argument amongst many others is the exclusive Traditional Homeland claim which neither History nor physicality can support.

                    I provided you the link to the Journal of Human Genetics expecting you to read the actual article which I too read. The Thesis is only about 6 months old and hence would be more relevant than Kshatriya’s 1995 report done with technology two decades immature than the present one. I of course am thankful to Ken Roberts for discovering this thesis but he should have provided a link for the benefit of others. So far, this new report has not been Peer Challenged, perhaps because the methodology has met the required standards.

                    In order to have a genetic diversity marriage between diverse ethnicities must be present.

                    The Rathugala and Dambana Veddah are mixed with the Sinhalese while Dalukana, Henanigala and Pollebadda Veddah is not. The first two are geographically proximal to the the sampled Sinhala populations while the other three are distant. Veddhas are of two kinds. The Veddha and the Ramba Veddha. The Ramba Veddah is seclusive.

                    The Lanka Tamils have been sampled from Jaffna, Batticaloa, Trincomalee and Vauniya. All of them are geographically distant to the Veddah Samples. That may be a reason for not finding any genetic connection. However Kshatriya in 1995 said the same thing.

                    Quote
                    The PCA is extended further to include various other ethnic populations from the Indian subcontinent (Supplementary Table S2) Figure 4. The result shown in Figure 5 accounted for 52.59% of the total variation. All the Sinhalese and Tamil subgroups intermingle well with the majority of the Indian subcontinental populations, forming a large genetic matrix.
                    Unquote

                    The above points to the common origin of the Sinhalese and Tamils.

                    Quote
                    However, Indian Tamils were separated from the rest of the Sri Lankan subgroups, except SU-Bam and SL-Ban, on the first PC axis. This is further strengthening of the hypothesis that Indian Tamils are genetically distinct from the rest of the Sri Lankan ethnic groups.
                    Unquote

                    SU – Ban is Sinhalese from Bambarabedda
                    SL – Ban is Sinhalese from Bandaraduwa

                    It is a known FACT that the Indian origin Tamils of Sri Lanka (IOTSL) originated from the South of India and mainly from Tamil Nadu.

                    The Lanka Tamils say they originated from Tamil Nadu or South India.

                    If that is true, why don’t we see a close genetic relationship between IOTSL who originated from South India and Lanka Tamils?

                    But we see a close genetic link between the Sinhalese and the Lanka Tamils. Why?

                    Obviously South Indian Tamils are not the Parent population of the Lanka Tamils.

                    Kshatriya says the Sinhalese are the Parent population of the Lanka Tamils.

                    Why is this latest Genetic study contradicting the Lanka Tamil claim?

                    Quote
                    Some Vedda groups (VA-Dal, VA-Hen and VA-Dam) are located at the periphery of this genetic matrix, whereas others (VA-Pol and VA-Rat) established only a remote relationship with the matrix.
                    Unquote

                    The above indicates that the Veddha is not from the Indian sub continent but indigenous to Lanka.

                    That the Sinhalese intermarried with the Veddha is not in doubt.
                    That the Sinhalese intermarried with the IOTSL is also confirmed by this latest study.
                    That the Lanka Tamils do not intermarry with Veddha or Indian Origin Tamils is indicated by this latest report.

                    It is possible that the Lanka Tamils avoid marrying the Veddha and the Indian Origin Tamils of Lanka due to the Lanka Tamil culture and Religion.

                    Note- PCA = “Principal component analysis”

                    Quotes are from the thesis,
                    Mitochondrial DNA history of Sri Lankan ethnic people: their relations within the island and with the Indian subcontinental populations
                    Lanka Ranaweera, Supannee Kaewsutthi, Aung Win Tun, Hathaichanoke Boonyarit, Samerchai Poolsuwan and Patcharee Lertrit
                    1. Department of Biochemistry, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
                    2. Faculty of Sociology and Anthropology, Thammasat University, PraChan, Bangkok, Thailand
                    Available at http://www.nature.com/jhg/journal/v59/n1/full/jhg2013112a.html

                    Kind Regards,
                    OTC

                    • 0
                      3

                      Dear Dr RN,

                      There is a typo in the following sentence.

                      The Ramba Veddah is seclusive

                      It should read as
                      The Ramba Veddah is reclusive.

                      The error is regretted.

                      Kind Regards,
                      OTC

                    • 2
                      0

                      Dear OTC,

                      Thanks for highlighting the common identity that underlines the Sinhalese and Tamils. I am sure future studies will prove that most Muslims share this coomon identity.

                      On the question of ‘Traditional Homelands’ you raise in view of these scientific findings, I would say prove to the Tamils by actions that the whole of Sri Lanka is their traditional homeland,they are your closest kin and they need not suspect your intentions. Prove also to the Tamils that you will treat them as equal citizens and a fellow community in all spheres of life and activity. I can guarantee the Tamils forget about traditional homelands faster than you can imagine. This process was unfolding from before independence to the day the ‘Sinhala only’ concept took hold and shook the Tamils to their very core. The subsequent events only confirmed the need for areas of refuge for tamils, which came to be referred as traditional homelands.

                      Dr.RN

                    • 0
                      0

                      Dear OTC,
                      That the Lanka Tamils do not intermarry with Veddha or Indian Origin Tamils is indicated by this latest report.
                      It might be just that Kshatriya’s studies weren’t including certain groups of Veddahs. The study published in “Nature.com” distinguishes between groups by geography and includes diverse samples. From the unrooted NJ tree and analysis from the PCA map, groups of Veddahs are genetically distant from each other. Certain group of Veddahs have some proximity with the Tamils in TS-Vau, and they are just as close to TS-Vau on the map as the nearest Sinhala-Veddah relationship. If Kshathriya’s findings left one those Veddah groups, it would not have showed up in genetic analysis of Tamils as the distance between Veddah groups are very high. I hope you consider this as well.

                      The exclusive homeland theory is nonsense; what this shows is that they have been living in proximity without problems for years until the government and LTTE started to separate them. Sinhalese were living in North, too. They were sharing the same land until idiots from both sides started doing crappy things to each other. Although these do not show chronological order, these do show that all are genetically close in Sri Lanka and that both are inseparable part of what it makes Sri Lanka.

                      Regards,
                      Babu.

                  • 0
                    4

                    Dr RN,
                    Thambiah, Devananda and others in the LTTE apologist group have rewritten Sri Lanka history to back claims by Tamil separatists. This research by Ranaweera and et al is clearly aimed at undermining the Sinhala nation and back the said apologist group. One cannot set known history aside and analyse research breakdowns on genetics. That and referring to your question on how Nalin would answer to “these facts”, I say, you’ll have to read his book named ‘Prabakanarange Seeyala, bappala saha massinala’ and you’ll have more than enough answers. The book is freely available through the web.

                    • 3
                      0

                      Banda,

                      I do not have the skills to read and understand the book you have recommended. It is unfortunate. Notwithstanding this, I would venture to say that ancient texts should be read with the understanding that they are allegorical and poetic. Poetry condones exaggerations and the core facts have to be sought. If the Ramayana says that Ravana had ten heads, we have to understand that he had the intelligence, vision, power of speech, hearing , smelling, eating etc., of the equivalent of ten persons. When Lord Siva is depicted as half male and half female, we have understand that in each one of us, whether male or female, there is the other manifested in lesser, but variable degrees. Today’s science confirms the latter fact. If the Mahavamsa refers to Sinhabahu as the offspring of a lion and a women, I interpret that he had the strength and majesty of a lion.

                      I try to understand religion and history through reason, logic and science. Having been trained in the biological sciences and self taught in other sciences to some extent, I have become more religious than less. This religion is based on the awe I feel on how everything biological, chemical and physical come together to work with precision, logic and reason.

                      Little known, little researched and sometimes falsified history should not be the quagmire we should be trapped in. Science is slowly opening our horizon with regard to our past, present and future on many matters. As the techniques improve we know more in greater clarity and more detail. Because someone like Lanka Ranwana, a scientist at the cutting edge on sub cellular nuclear genetics, though a Sinhalese, finds that the Sinhalese and Tamils are essentially the same people, does it make him a lessor scientist or a separatist? When he finds through science that the Lankan Tamils have little or no connections to Indian Tamils, it explains to me the attitude of the attitude of the a Lankan a Tamils towards Indian Tamils, despite the cultural affinity. What makes you so averse to being a kin of the Lankan Tamils or them being your kin? Why this prejudice against an emerging truth that can unite us as peoples? We should not try to become the Abel and Caine of Sri Lanka and find joy in it, Why this narrow minded, irrational and prejudiced attitude?

                      Dr.RN
                      ,

                    • 1
                      0

                      Banda,

                      In my earlier response I have wrongly referred to nuclear gentic inhereitance, it should read a cellular genetic inhereitance, as the mitochondria, which are intracellular, bur extra nuclear structures are involved.

                      Dr.RN

                    • 1
                      0

                      Sama,

                      During embryonic development we are basically female in form, despite our chromosomal sex, XY for males and XX for females. However , a surge of testosterone triggers the XY type to take the male path of development. The degree of this surge determines the degree of this maleness, from the ‘HE’ man to extreme effeminateness. In the XX type the same surge if high leads to the hirsute , muscular type of female , or at lower levels, various degrees of maleness. We can see this expression in males and females around us. This has led some to say that the male is a modified female.

                      This is the science I know, although outlined in simple terms here. Please let me know if you know other wise. I would like to learn.

                      Dr. RN

            • 0
              2

              Dear Dr RN,

              My reply to your post of April 17, 2014 at 10:00 am can be found here

              https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/there-arent-two-equal-nations-or-more-in-sri-lanka-rejoinder-to-laksiri-fernando/comment-page-2/#comment-955749

              Kind Regards,
              OTC

      • 4
        0

        noel-jones

        Yaksha, Naga, Raksha and Deva tribes living in SL 2500 years ago is a mystery but Pandukabhaya started Sinhala race by assimilating his race with Yaksha, Naga, Deva and Raksha, the four tribes that was there in Lanka at the time is the biggest mystery because there is NO evidence what so ever to prove it, even the Mahavamsa does not say so. It is a new theory created by the great His-story expert Nalin de Silva.

        Mahavamsa is the greatest Epic Poem written in Pali in Sri, it is a product of the minds of the scholarly monks who wrote the Pali chronicles. Most of the mythical/supernatural stories and legends in the Mahavamsa were derived either from the Jataka Tales or from the Indian Epics and Puranas written in Sanskrit. For example, stories with names such as Pandu, Vasudeva , Simhala, Sinhala, Yaksha, Naga, Deva, Raksaha, Lanka, etc are found in the Indian epics Mahabaratha, Bhagavad Gita, Ramayana, etc. I am sure the scholarly monks of the Mahavihara must have been very fluent in Sanskrit and very thorough with the Indian Epics, Puranas and the Jatakas and must have adopted all these stories (including the names) from them. The terms Lanka, Sinhala, Yakksha, Naga, etc are all copied from the Indian epics by the scholarly monks of the Mahavihara in the 4th Century AD. With the patronage of the Buddhist Kings, it is the Mahavihara monks (not Pandukabhaya) who must have assimilated all the Buddhists from many different tribes together and called them Sihala (followers of Mythical Vijaya). To date, no archaeological evidence has been found to prove Vijaya’s arrival or existence.

  • 3
    0

    To be fair DJ is doing a great service to the resolution o the theoretical issues. No one seems to fully understand the Rajapakse regime’s position but DJ is doing a splendid job of arguing it. DJ himself is seen as too ‘dovish’ by the chauvinist Rajapakse’s govt who won’t even do what DJ is asking for – and its pretty clear DJ is quite literally a ‘sinhala nationalist’ as he denies the existence of any other nation on the island. Now it is up to the Tamils and all those outside the island to consider whether that position has merit and if not take steps to redress any actions taken by Sri Lanka based on an unreasonable position.

  • 1
    0

    First of all it is important to accept that Tamil and Sinhala are languages, Islam, Christianity and Hinduism are religions. But Buddhism although not a religion but a way of life, since its accepted by many Buddhists as a religion is also considered a religion. So if we are dividing Sri Lankan population into groups we should decide whether we are going to use the Religion or Language as a base. If we use language then we will have only two groups, if we use religion as a base then we will have four groups or may even be five groups with those who do not believe in any religion. It is wrong for the Government, learned people and the population of Sri Lanka to mix and match religion with language based division.

    • 4
      2

      noel-jones

      “Apperaently Dr. Narendran Rajasingham trying to change the history of Srilanka by adding tamils as the second natives of Srilanka.”

      He is only following the foot step of the Sinhala/Buddhist historians.

      “There are similarities to Sinhala letters in Thai,Miyanmar languages too. So his theory is just another suggestion only.”

      What is your point if there is one?

      Are you alluding to a new version of history of Sinhala language? Perhaps you want rest of the people to believe that Sinhala language is the mother of all languages.

      Sinhala/Buddhists believe the first ape spoke Sinhala and practiced Sinhala/Buddhism.

      • 2
        1

        Native Mixed Veddha, I respect Dr.Narendran and Pandukabaya’s comments. But for you Veddha I feel sorry. Because Veddha has no dialect at all. I saw you offer New Year Greetings in one of your comment in all the languages. But where is yours? You forget your language? Anyway I remind you how to greet in Veddha language.

        ” Aluth Avurudu pojja Hodata Mando Karapalla”.
        Your answer to your question is that monks,intellects from Mayanmar and Siam[Thai] also came to this island frequently. And there is a similarity in their letters to Sinhala letters. Who knows the shape of that letters or some letters coming to our language from theirs.

      • 0
        1

        Native

        ‘Sinhala is the mother of all languages’

        Sinhalese are the native people because sinhalese are more genetically connected to veddas than other ethnicities

        Names of towns in North east have sinhala meaning therfore they are sinhalese towns

        And then a mayor pointing a gun at his own brethren

        I think the fault lie in your vedda gene!

        • 2
          0

          ken robert

          “I think the fault lie in your vedda gene!”

          Actually its Vijaya and his hoodlums propagated the present day Sinhala/Buddhists.

          I agree that we made mistakes letting those asylum seeking Kallthonies in instead we should have kicked them out of this island as soon as they had landed.

          Well its not too late yet.

    • 0
      2

      Park, Buddhism and Sinhala nation interwined together since Arahath Mahinda’s arrival to SL in 325 BCE. It was the begining of Sinhala culture and the Sinhala literature. And in the Past, Present and also in the Future extremist’s may try hard to destroy this bond and ruin our nation and the country. But it is not that possible. The Christian leaders in recent hisory like SATTALITE, RA-BLUE in Buddhist GUISE tried very hard to accomplish that idea. But we witness that those kind of leaders end up in dumpsters sooner or later.

    • 0
      2

      Park,
      For the racist Tamils, the division is language. Not so for others; what matter for them is culture. So leave Muslims out from your lumping.

      • 1
        0

        Park,

        Sinhalese and Tamils are like husband and wife, they have lived in the island for thousands of years together as friends and as enemies, today they fight but tomorrow they may get together like they have mixed with each other as we can see from the DNA/genetics and they both have followed the Buddhist-Hindu religion/culture but the Muslims are different, do not lump them with the Sinhalese or Tamils.

        Leave the Muslims to BBS, they will take extra care.

  • 4
    1

    Dr Laksiri:

    Dayan is an outcast. Just like Tamara, he is a bitter person having been unceremoniously dumped by the Rajapakses. The only way to make him understand that his game is up is to ignore him. That is the reason lately I have ceased commenting on what he writes. In a journey towards the aspirations of Tamils, Dayan doesn’t figure anymore in the equation. He is only an empty shell now. Just like how Tamara was shamelessly bemoaning insisting on her “Tamil” label when she too was “thrown” out, Dayan is just simply doing what the Sinhalese have always been doing – to find fault with and deride the Tamils’ aspiration to curry favour with the Rajapakses. Well, the Tamils aren’t sleeping, if that may comfort him and the Rajapakses.

  • 2
    0

    Well Dayan! There is a Sinhala nation in Sri Lanka. Then What is Sri Lanka? Is it a nation State?
    Does this mean that there are two nations in sri Lanka
    How many nations are there in India.
    Is Kasmir a nation state?
    Is there a Tamil nation in India.
    Then what happens to your percentages?
    Now let us look at the current crisis in Ukraine?
    Crimea exercised the right of self determination by havening a referendum a few weeks back an opted to join Russia?
    Hence Crimea is a nation state?
    Was it a Russian State within Ukraine before the referendum?. Now after joining Russia what is the status of Crimea? Or the great Russian State had swallowed the small Crimea!
    Dayan could you clarify with your theory of numbers/percentage.

  • 3
    0

    Dayan

    It seems you are paying back to the dynasty your gratitude for eating out of Namal’s hands the Aluth Avuduru Kavun and Kiribath he was in dishing out in Hambantota

  • 4
    0

    Dayan seems to have difficulty in comprehending simple concepts such as equality and the subtle difference between quality and quantity and also between equality and equity!

    If you know your dialectics, you could have no difficulty in understanding Dr Laksiri Fernando!

    What Godfery Gonathlake has formulated is not different from what Dr Laksiri Fernado advocates!

    -Equality, proportionality and equity

    – 74% of a community will consume 74% of the resources!4% will have only 4%

    what is your problem?

    – Equity means equal access! Note the difference in the meaning between equality and equity!

  • 4
    0

    Let me make it clear, first, that I am nuetral on the subject under discussion. Nuetrality does not mean in my case, that I have no knowldege of it at all, but just that I do not want to bring it to bear on a discourse, which, I think, needs to be enriched by other perspectives on the subject as well.

    My interest, however, lies in seeing how logically, decently, intellectually provocatively an author tries to explain the subject s/he has chosen. Let us call it persuasive argument, academic decorum, intellectual finesse, whatever.

    It is with this in mind, I went through each article written by DJ and Prof. LF on this limited topic and also the speech delivered by Justice V, from which DJ’s artcle is said to have originated as a repsonse. Let us leave aside (not on merits, though) prof. Kumar David’s peice on this same topic since LF prefers not to be lumped together with him in a response, and I should respect the spirit of his prefence even in making a comment on his response to DJ.

    Having gone through all this with the precaution taken, I have come to an inevitable conclusion that DJ’s writings on this subject are absolutely verbose, jargon-filled, quotation-sheltered articles and that Prof. LF’s, on the contrary, are measured, intellectually stimulating.

    It is my humble view that his is the best rebuttal I have seen in recent years in SL media, or in the media associated with, or covering Sri Lanka. DJ’s seems to rail far far behind it in terms of originality (i.e. quotations as conevnient and therefore selectivity), discipline (words used suggestive of ‘ignoragance’)and purpose (appearing to seek motive in others).

    We all know what is meant by ‘aberrations’ in the current era. Prof. GL Peiris uses this often in defending SL’s right record. But seeing the consistency of all the above attributes in DJ’s writings, it is difficult to consider them ‘aberrations’ in academic writing unless he wants to calls his contribution a political column.

    Possibly, this may be happening due to the fact that he writes so much within so little time. He thus overworks his ‘thinking machine’, with its worn-out parts being replaced with those from Gramsci, Che, Engels, now Godfrey G, to the point of entire machine becoming an ‘assembled computer’, not of his ‘original’ own.

    • 1
      0

      I have come to an inevitable conclusion that DJ’s writings on this subject are absolutely verbose, jargon-filled, quotation-sheltered articles and that Prof. LF’s, on the contrary, are measured, intellectually stimulating.

  • 1
    0

    I have come to an inevitable conclusion that DJ’s writings on this subject are absolutely verbose, jargon-filled, quotation-sheltered articles and that Prof. LF’s, on the contrary, are measured, intellectually stimulating.

    Dharshanie Ratnawalli could be suitable counterpart for DJ when it come to writing style

  • 2
    0

    Dr.Dayan Jayatilleka,

    Hope you would have read this following article written by Nalaka Rupasinghe, about you.

    http://www.thelondoneveningpost.com/features/meet-the-spindoctor-trying-to-make-navi-pillay-look-a-fool

    Please see how far he is correct.

    Also see the following web that shows diferent languages in India.
    Malayalam- Kerala State.
    http://mylanguages.org/malayalam_alphabet.php

    This is Tamil Alphabet.
    http://mylanguages.org/tamil_alphabet.php

    Bengali Alphabet.
    http://mylanguages.org/bengali_alphabet.php

    Sanskrit Alphabet.
    http://www.omniglot.com/writing/sanskrit.htm

    Hindi Alphabet.
    http://mylanguages.org/hindi_alphabet.php

    Karnataka Alphabet.
    http://mylanguages.org/hindi_alphabet.php

    Therefore out of all the above Sinhala Language is closest to Malayali Language.

    Therefore I think early Sinhala settlers would have come from KERALA.(Malayali Language resembles closer to Sinhala)

    Any opinions…….

  • 0
    3

    Wouldn’t it better SL government to sign an agreement with a Canadian government to allow all the Tamils to migrate or repatriate to Canada. And the way Canadian government and Harper and the rest worry about SL Tamils rights, I think Harper must seriously think about my suggestion. I think he thrill this idea and readily accept the suggestion. And another half a million tamils is not a big issue for the Canadians because they have resources such as lands,jobs or even to pay allowances. And on the other hand Harper’s vote base increase tremedously and the next election ha can come to power definetely.

    And then Indian don’t have problem with Jayalalitha,Karunanidhi or Vaiko. And the EU,UK,USA and UNHCR Navi Nazi Pillay do not need to worry about Tamils Human Right issues. And there is no more arrests or killings of Tamils in SL.

    • 2
      0

      noel-jones,

      Good idea. Also Harper can send all Sinhalese back to Sri Lanka, and President Rajapakse could call all Sinhalese around the world to come back to Sri Lanka to Develop it.

      A very good suggestion.

    • 0
      0

      “”Wouldn’t it better SL government to sign an agreement with a Canadian .
      And there is no more arrests or killings of Tamils in SL.”

      To start with Canadians don’t believe Lankans are nice people after SL government kept their former PM a heart patient at the airport for 5 hours and deported him- it’s taking its toll like the Bush Sr being retorted by Saddam and Bush Jr getting the mussie.

      It is easier for the Canadians via intermediary to send different strands of the foot and mouth and bird flu to Lanka to annihilate 60% of Sihala Buddhist to bring equality or viruses to kill the plantations then you kill yourselves.

  • 1
    0

    Bruno Umbato aka Padraig Colman. You too are exposed you Irish Rajapaksa stooge.

  • 0
    0

    Finally, the cat is out. This guy is a naked racist and Sinhala chauvinist. They guy does not understand that a nation is not defined by just numbers. Screw him. Modaya.

  • 2
    0

    Dear Dr. Jayatilleke,

    Is it numbers that make up a nation?

    There are 101 Nation States that have population numbers less than the Tamil population of Sri Lanka. Incidentally, I’m sure within the roughly 2.3 million Tamil people of Sri Lanka you could pull together enough qualified people to run an administration don’t you think? So a nation, or Nation State for that matter, is not defined by numbers right?

    If we took your percentage approach, does a distinct group qualify for being recognized as a nation only if it is in equal proportion to another distinct group? What if there is a 51 to 49% split? Does the 51% get to lord it over the 49%?

    Considering that 12% (or in your accounting 4%) is not sufficient to constitute a nation, what percentage should a group – resident in a particular area with a common linguistic, cultural and historical heritage – be for it to be considered a nation? Would love to hear a “political scientist’s” explanation to this question.

    Regards
    GTBP

    • 2
      0

      Dayan’s definition of a nation is absolutely hilarious (he has his own standards and yard stick to measure who constitute a nation and that too according to numerical figures). Very obviously, he is playing the communal card. He found out that the short cut to popularity among the majority community (as adopted by SWRD and the Rajapakshes) is to play the communal card. Recently, he even advised the opposition to do the same.

      I have never seen a person like Dayan changing colors so often like a chameleon. The selfish and opportunist Dayan suddenly playing the communal card very clearly indicates that he has gone bankrupt in many aspects. If he thinks that by engaging in CHEAP racial politics he may get some recognition from the majority Sinhala community and some sympathy from the government he is only fooling himself because everybody knows who Dayan is and what he is up to.

      • 1
        0

        This is the reason why nobody would appoint hiim further. I have no idea, let alone, Cmbo uni authorities would do so. I, believe he is becoming a laughing stock to the entire communities than a wise person, as recognized by many towards the end of 2009. Today, his talks are not far different to those of Wattiammas or gossipy mongers of the corner. How come a man having hands on exp on external affairs of the nation to fall this unestimable levels ? It is the person´s chamelian colours made it, nobody else. Or the guy´s health may not work as had been the case with years ago. How can else senior academic of his grade leave the comments similar to what came from Kelaniya Mervin, Kumarwalagama or the like lowlevel politicians of the day. DJ is totally contra RW, but pro Premadasa Junior. Why ? Just because of the family hatreds that kept him away from spot light in earlier times. Nothing else. And premadasa ´s were not colombo elites and their backgrounds were similar to those of laundary people to that time. At the time, Premadasa went amok in late 80ties, his only son-Sajith was roaming in London – I knew the places where he had taken accomadation, but not even had the chance to complete his Uni first degree completely. On his return, similar to the status of today´Namal offspring of the country´s president, Sajith started to search for nidhanwastu for any costs. There people thought late Premadasa´s son should be high level criminal. Anyway, his mouth inherited by his father gave him a voice among the southern folks and claimed few election victories. But his nature has proved, that the man is rebel like not own the capacity to work as a team player. SO how can he rule the nation … ?

  • 2
    0

    I am so happy that Laksiri chose to ignore this Dayan modaya. Good job Laksiri.

  • 0
    1

    Dear CT Readers, James and Prasad,

    James has turned out to be an intellectual thief.

    A dishonest person without scruples who copies from others without acknowledging the source in order to pose as a well read intellectual. One of a band of FRAUDSTERS deployed by the Separatists to filibuster discussions that can lead to building an understanding between Tamils and Sinhalese.

    In this case James has copied from Chola Pandyan’s comments written in 2008! Most of it is VERBATIM.

    No wonder James had difficulty in meeting arguments.
    He had no knowledge of the content that he copied and pasted!

    First it was Prasad. Now it is James.

    This dishonesty must be a trait of the Separatist Tamils.
    A trait one does not observe in respectable Tamils such as Dr Rajasingham Narendran.

    Chola Pandyan’s comments are available here.

    http://www.lankanewspapers.com/news/2008/3/25574_7_image_headline.html?CH11205728441046EN1

    CholaPandyan on 13 Mar 2008 13:57:44 GMT

    By reading the above, can a person with some IQ, rational thinking and logic come to a conclusion that the present day Sinhalese are the decedents of the Veddas or have a connection with the Veddhas from the ancient period???

    James on April 19, 2014 at 2:30 am

    By reading the above, can a person with some IQ, rational thinking and logic come to a conclusion that the present day Sinhalese have a connection with the Veddhas from the ancient period???

    ……………………..

    Identical word for word including the 3 question marks at the end He has deleted the words I indicated by italicizing from Chola Pandyan’s comment.

    ……………………….

    Chola Pandyan on 13 Mar 2008 13:57:44 GMT

    Coming again to Gautam Kumar Kshatriya’s findings,

    The contribution of the Sinhalese to the Sri Lankan Tamils is 55.20%. Similarly, the Bengali contribution is 28.17% and that of the Indian Tamils is 16.63%.

    The above results indicate a predominant influence of the Sinhalese on Sri Lankan Tamils but there were no trace of any Veddhas. What happened to the small percentage of veddha contribution to those Sinhalese who became Tamils in the ancient past?

    For those who are not aware, please note that a large part of the Vedda community assimilated into the Sinhala ethnic group by inter-marriages only during the recent past (not ancient period) and this amalgamation may be the main reason for the little admixture (only 4.73%) and therefore CERTAIN SINHALESE GROUPS have similar genetic traits.

    James on April 19, 2014 at 2:30 am

    Coming again to Gautam Kumar Kshatriya’s findings,

    The contribution of the Sinhalese to the Sri Lankan Tamils is 55.20%. Similarly, the Bengali contribution is 28.17% and that of the Indian Tamils is 16.63%.

    The above results indicate a predominant influence of the Sinhalese on Sri Lankan Tamils but there were no trace of any Veddas. What happened to the small percentage of veddha contribution to those Sinhalese who became Tamils in the ancient past? If the contribution of the Sinhalese to the Sri Lankan Tamils is 55.20% and the contribution of veddas to the Sinhalese is 4.73%, then the Sri Lankan Tamils should also have at least a very small percentage of that 4.73% but it is not the case, why?

    For those who are not aware, please note that a large part of the Vedda community assimilated into the Sinhala ethnic group by inter-marriages only during the recent past (not ancient period) and this amalgamation may be the main reason for the little admixture (only 4.73%) and therefore CERTAIN SINHALESE GROUPS have similar genetic traits.

    ………………………………………

    The above are just a TWO examples of the intellectual thievery practiced by James in a SINGLE post on this thread. There are more.

    What he does elsewhere is left for the imagination of the readers.

    Kind Regards,
    OTC

    • 2
      0

      Pot calling the kettle black…LOL

    • 2
      0

      CT Readers,

      For any kind of subject the best place to gather information/knowledge is Google search. Everybody gets information from Google with just a click, simple. There is nothing intellectual or scholastic when it comes to comments/comment columns in blogs/forums. In the comment column, one can give his/her personal view, other people’s view, cut & paste or do whatever you want as long as the commenter is having an anonymous/pseudo name like Off-the-cuff (not known to anybody – a thief in the night). The rules of plagiarism does not apply to comments in blogs/forums where the commenter uses a pseudo name like Off-the-cuff. Here, he/she is doing the same but crying foul and wiggling like a half cut worm when others do it. In other words, I have never seen Off-the-cuff commenting anything Off-the-cuff but expects others to do so. A double standard hypocrite with half or no knowledge but harps a lot about his/her English language skills which obviously is another laughable factor. Off-the-cuff is nothing but a certified buffoon who got kicked out from several other forums for such undesirable behavior. The best thing is to ignore such imbeciles who think no end of themselves and argue like retards.

      • 0
        2

        Dear James,

        Nero is without the robes now and is mad as a Bull Elephant in Heat.

        Can anybody identify you with the name “James”?

        For all we know it is a pseudonym dishonestly disguised as a Real Name.

        Ha ha haa, it was stupid to climb that lame horse.

        The name you use does not convey ANY Information about you.
        Prove that you can be traced using that name.

        How stupid can you get?

        Aacharya is a Pseudonym used by a Tamil Separatist who is a Lecturer in Law at a Lankan University and a signatory of documents signed in the name of “Tamil Civil Society”, headed by Rayappu Joseph.

        A fool speculates about the author’s name when that fool cannot challenge the contents.

        Now you want to make excuses for STEALING other peoples intellectual work!

        What else can you do when Rationality, Logic and IQ you bragged about was not really yours but stolen word for word from others!

        A Dog who defecates on a Stone cannot cover it.
        That is the meaning of a Sinhala Proverb.
        That is your predicament too.
        The more you try, the dirtier you get.

        Stupider and Stupider

        Have Fun copying from others but acknowledge the source.
        Don’t pretend that you are the author.
        That is FRAUD and THIEVERY.

        Kind Regards,
        OTC

  • 1
    0

    Many people here have seem to have got the mystery of Sinhalese genetics wrong. Let me straighten it up for everybody. Sinhalese are more genetically related to Bengalis. Around 72% of Sinhalese have Bengali as parental population, with 16% Tamil as parental population and 12% Gujarati as parental population. Also by genetic distance Sinhalese are closer to Bengalis than to Tamils.

    These are according to the more accurate and far more widely accepted researches and tests conducted on Sinhalese from different regions on the country. You may double check what I am stating here.

    My claim is further proved by the fact how the y-DNA haplogroups R2a and R1a1 are found highly among sinhalese. R haplogroups and its subclades are largely found in Indo-European speakers. Sinhalese have a total of around 50% in R2a and R1a1 which further proves the similarity to the Indo-European speaking Bengalis.

    Sinhalese being closer to North-Indians is further proved by looking at the general skin pigmentation of the 2 populations.
    In 2008 a study looked at SLC24A5 polymorphism which accounts for 25-40% of the skin complexion difference between Europeans and Africans and up to 30% of skin colour variation in South Asians. The study found that the rs1426654 SNP of SLC24A5, which is fixed in European populations and found more commonly in light skinned individuals than dark skinned individuals (49% compared to 10%), has a frequency of 50% in the Sinhalese and 30% in Sri Lankan tamils.

    Sinhalese are generally considered to be lighter skinned than Tamils and these studies which looked for SLC24AP polymorphism further proves that. (Mainly Sinhalese from the center of the Island who are mixed lesser than the Sinhalese nearer to the coasts are also considered fairer skinned than other populations in the island in general.) Therefore these findings put the Sinhalese closer to North Indian Indo-European speakers in genetics, skin pigmentation and language.

    Regarding the alphabet what I have to say is that the North-Indian Devanagari script evolved later from the Brahmi script which has influenced all alphabets in India. Since the bulk of ancestors of the Sinhalese moved before the innovation and use of Devanagari script in North-India they never saw the use of it in the Sinhalese language. There are also other North-Indian non-devanagari alphabets like the Gujarati and Orissan alphabets.

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 300 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically shut off on articles after 10 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.