---

---

Why oppose fragmentation when ‘small is beautiful?’

By Lt. Col. Anton Selvadurai (Retd)

The UN and the international community have always opposed the breaking-up of a country into smaller units, when fragmentation is all around them. Take the continent of Europe. What do we see there? A large number of states varying in size from large France to tiny Monaco.

The fragmentation of Europe took place for very valid reasons. That is why it continues to thrive. The various tribes of Europe with their different languages and customs created the divisions out of necessity, so that they could exist independently and with stability and their own sovereignty. All of them were unstable during the time of their creation and separated individually as they were incompatible and could not exist as one unit.

Each individual unit had its own character and ethos and language of communication and settled finally as individual nations just like individual human beings. For instance, France was formed from the original human tribe of the Franks. Other Germanic tribes that sacked Rome were the Goths, Visigoths, Celts, the Anglo Saxons etc., that contributed to the building of the enclaves of Europe. Now we have a United Europe and NATO.

We have a similar problem in Sri Lanka, where there are two distinct nations — culturally, linguistically and territorially. Although they had common origins, the differences in environment and religion and language kept them apart as separate nations, with each having its own sovereignty and a king. Even under the Portuguese and the Dutch the two nations were administered separately until the British in 1833 brought them together for the convenience of administration as a unitary state.

The British were great administrators and they did this in Africa and their vast empire when antagonistic tribes were brought together for the ease of administration. When the colonials departed these tribes resorted to their original states and started breaking-up into different nations with much bloodshed.

In Sri Lanka too the Tamils should have regained their independence as a separate state like in pre-British times, but because during British occupation the Tamils were forced to depend a lot on the Sinhalese for their livelihood they did not ask for a separate state. The north and the east where the Tamils lived was arid with only one monsoon and as the arid zone was inhospitable, the British did not develop it.

As the arid zone could not sustain them the Tamils had to depend on the lush south for employment. The Tamils therefore did not ask for independence and agreed to live together with the Sinhalese Buddhist majority. But subsequent events forced the Tamils to take up arms and demand a separate state, as they found it impossible to live together with the Sinhala Buddhists.

The Sinhalese appropriated the mythology and the spurious history of the Mahavamasa and claimed that the whole island of Sri Lanka belonged to the Buddhists, as the Mahavamsa stated that the island was gifted to them by the Buddha.

The Tamils voted for separation and now claim that it is a violation of human rights to refuse this rightful demand for separation. The ethnic war started in 1983 and is still going on and the Tamils from time to time are picked up by the army and transported to detention camps. The two nations are obviously incompatible. Like an incompatible marriage being granted legal divorce, the only solution to this problem is a political and not a military solution. This has been acknowledged by the UN and the International Community, but the war goes on, with over 75,000 dead.

It is strange that the US the UK say they "Cannot accept a divided Sri Lanka" — as if the country belongs to them, and continue to give the state military and economic aid. So how is the problem going to be solved? What is wrong with fragmentation?

Can someone give a solution to this problem? (Morning Leader - March 26, 2008)

---

Conceptualization of an island, the ultimate resistance
By: N.Malathy
Source: TamilCanadian - August 21, 2007 Studies

The long, bloody and intransigent civil war in the island, its protagonists and its causes have been subjected to innumerable studies. These studies can be grouped into two broad categories. One is the studies of the many peace negotiations and the attempts to resolve the issues over a period of two decades and the other is the anthropological studies of Sinhalese, Tamils and the LTTE. The second category, that is the anthropological studies on all the three entities have not received much attention. Whatever fascination each of these three sectors when put under the anthropological microscope may afford, some light has indeed been thrown on the perplexing issue of the Sinhala resistance to sharing power. Any international players who have attempted or are going to attempt to intervene to resolve the causes of this civil war must pay attention to this phenomenon and the cultural conceptualizations that are fueling this Sinhala resistance.

Resistance to share power

Simply put, why do the Sinhala people resist sharing power? A fairly standard response from an educated member of the Sinhalese will go something like this. The island belongs to all the people in this island and no part belongs to any particular group. Therefore their argument goes; devolving power on a geographic basis is against the principals of equality. They will then add that past discriminations against Tamils were small steps taken to redress imbalances that were built up during the colonial times. They will also say that there is really no ethnic problem in the island but only a terrorist problem.

How do the Sinhalese convince themselves of this line of argument in the face of massive electoral support shown by the general Tamil populace to the LTTE (terrorist) demands? This is the all important understanding needed by any international players wishing to intervene to resolve the conflict. This understanding must take into account the existing view of the Sinhalese about themselves as the chosen people on a chosen land, the unearthing of “evidence” in the early to mid 20th century that strengthened this view and the early misleading conclusions contributed by the western scholars with the limited information that was/is available.

The monks’ legends

The legends of the Sinhala people are different from other people’s legends in that it is a chronological history of State and Buddhism. When this was presented to the western scholars they were impressed by its coherence and its exceptional subject that was different from the legends of other peoples which was mostly about gods. When archeology was initiated in early to mid 19th century and it uncovered spectacular ruins everyone was in agreement that the Sinhala Buddhist legends were indeed not without basis. This attitude of the western scholars reinforced the Sinhalese views about themselves. The discovery was emotionally more potent than would have been otherwise for it was a great cure to the wounded honor of a people subjected to white racism for centuries.

In pre-colonial eras, the monks’ stories that formed the basis of the Sinhala’s views of themselves depicted the Sinhala’s as the people descended from a unique Lion (Sinha) dynasty from northern India when Vijaya and his friends descended on this island and civilized the island and established a great agro-civilization in it. The monks’ chronicles further add that Buddha himself came here after the Sinhala civilization was established and chose the people and the land to nurture Buddhism. There are many monks’ legends that reinforce this idea in different ways. Ones that have had a prominent place in contemporary times are, Vijaya, original man himself, and another prince Dutegemunu, who defeated a Tamil king from the north. These knitted together to form a profound view of themselves as a people of the land who must face the challenges posed by “outsiders”.

Metamorphosis of the legends into a rational view

Part of the colonization process was to introduce western education and the accompanying precision of thoughts to the island people. This naturally challenged some of the monks’ stories about the origin of the Sinhalese and the visit by Buddha etc. The origin thesis that was so deeply embedded into the culture has a staying power surpassing the rational education; it, however, needed to be wrapped with a veneer of rationality. Yet, the real challenge to this profound belief of a people about themselves came from the Tamils who asked for power sharing in the government. It is this rather than the need for precision of thought that ruffled the Sinhalese feathers because the first needs to be dealt with only at an intangible level while the second demanded the physical abolition of the core belief of a people.

As the pressure from Tamils built up over the decades the defensive walls put up to protect them from abandoning the core belief were also reinforced but in accordance with the rational thought that was now demanded in the international arena.

The wherewithal of this latest defensive wall includes the defenses stated earlier about the island belongs to everyone etc. Another refrain that came to be quoted regularly is the 2500 history of the island culture referring to the landing of Vijaya the “Adam” of the Sinhala people. This refrain in particular is noteworthy because it harped back to the monks’ stories while hiding the irrationality embedded within it. Also worthy of note is the manner in which the Sinhalese subconsciously started to refer to Sinhalese when they really were meaning the citizens of the island, Ceylonese. This reference reveals much of the thought process of the Sinhalese that were indeed being hidden behind a veneer of egalitarianism.

It is this all subsuming Sinhala consciousness embedded in the monk’s stories and later presented wrapped in a rational scheme that forms the basis of the Sinhala intransigence towards devolving power. Depiction of the Tamil struggle as only a terrorist problem was an additional coat of paint given to the Sinhala veneer of rationality by the international community.

Sharpening of the concept through parliamentary politics

One can now insert the story of parliamentary politics into this scene to understand the failed attempts at resolving the issue starting with the Dudley-Chelvanayagam pact onwards. Indeed the first two broken pacts that were signed and then abrogated were well intentioned by its leaders, Dudley Senanayake and SWRD Bandaranayke, who have had a strong Ceylonese identity. With the insertion of two party parliamentary politics and the sharpening of the Sinhalese identity all subsequent failed efforts by Sinhala leaders to resolve the Tamil issue were half hearted and were forced by India first then later by the international community.

Western blindness or Tamil-Sinhala friendship black spots

A comment made by Terresita Schaffer, a former US ambassador to Sri Lanka and considered an expert in USA on Sri Lankan affairs, in a discussion in the American Public Eye radio immediately after the Norwegian brokered peace process was on the card is worth noting because it exemplifies he poor understanding of the cultural forces at play among the Sinhalese. She commented that there were many friendships between Tamils and Sinhalese but there were many black spots in these friendships, referring to the avoidance of any serious discussion of the Tamil issue in these friendships. She was suggesting that these friendships must start to explore the serious issues. She of course had no idea about the impossibility of this project.

As the western nations attempt to intervene more and more deeply in this conflict they must make take on board this powerful and persistent concept of the undivided island that works at a very subtle level and lurks behind the sophisticated arguments and thus remains very difficult to grasp.

---

East Ceylon, the Tamils and History

August 5th, 2007

By Dharman Dharmaratnam

The Eastern Province has a land area of 9,361 square kilometers (3,613 square miles). The Tamils have had a presence in the region that goes back two millenia. Successive post-independence governments in Sri Lanka, backed by hardline Sinhalese nationalists, have attempted to deny the Tamil Hindu character of the region. They have attempted to do so through dubious efforts to distort history. This entails a highly selective read of the Pali and Sinhalese historical chronicles while suppressing the Sanskrit and Tamil literary evidence, the evidence of archeology and the records of outside travelers to the contrary.

This attempt to Sinhalize the East and to give it an exclusively Buddhist historical color is seen in the efforts of the current Percy Mahinda Rajapakse administration. It is a naked attempt to grab Tamil land and to de-Tamilize it using history as one tool of many to legitimize the Sinhalization of the East. The declaration of Sampur as a High Security Zone, failed attempts to secure UNESCO World Heritage status for Seruvila, the demerger of the North and the East, the Government’s Neganihara Navodaya program, and post-Thoppigala celebrations are examples. There is a veritable industry to roll back the Tamil character of the region.

This article presents some of the rich evidence that demonstrates the centuries old Tamil Hindu presence in the region. The East has been Tamil despite the efforts of independent Sri Lanka to settle Sinhalese peasants through land colonization schemes of dubious economic value.

Early Iron Age

Megalithic urn burials have been excavated in Kathiraveli in the Batticaloa district and north of Nilaveli in the Trincomalee district. This included black and red ware pottery tentatively dated to the 3rd century BCE and iron tools (Sudarshan Senivaratne, The Archeology of the Megalithic Black and Red Ware Complex in Sri Lanka, Ancient Ceylon, 1984). The ethnicity of these people can not be verified but remarkable parallels exist between these urn burials and those excavated in the Kaveri, Ponnaiyar, Tamraparani and Vaigai rivers in Tamil Nadu. Similar sites have been excavated in the Jaffna, Kilinochchi and Mannar districts. The Jaffna islands and the Aruvi Aru, Elapat Aru, Modarakam Aru and Kal Aru basins stand out. North Sri Lanka shared the same early iron age culture as did Tamil Nadu. Preliminary evidence suggests that the ‘megalithic culture’ witnessed the introduction of iron, the potters wheel, the plough, rice cultivation and minor tank irrigation.

Trincomalee

The Siva temple at Trincomalee known as Koneswaram is of considerable antiquity despite the strenuous efforts of Sinhalese nationalist historians to deny the Tamil Hindu character of the ancient port city. The earliest reference to a Hindu temple is in fact the Pali chronicle, the Mahavamsa, where chapter 35, verses 40 to 41, indicate that King Mahasena destroyed three ‘Deva temples’ in Gokarna (Trincomalee), Erakavilla (Eravur?) and in the village of the Brahmin Kalanda to atone for his defiance of orthodox Theravada Buddhism. He reportedly built Buddhist viharas in their place. This was in the 4th century CE.

Gokarna in Sanskrit translates as the “cow’s ear” and signifies a place of Saivite Hindu worship. The place name Gokarna recurs in western Karnataka and in Nepal, where both sites boast of ancient Siva temples! The Buddhist vihara evidentally did not last long if one were to accept the tradition of the Vayu Purana dated to the 4th century CE. Chapter 48, verses 20 to 30, refers to the ‘Siva temple on Trikuta hill on the Eastern coast of Lanka’. While Sinhalese nationalist historians have tried to put a spin on the alleged Buddhist antecedents of Trincomalee, the evidence is clear that the ancient port city of Trincomalee or Gokarna was a Hindu place of worship since antiquity. Further, the Tamil Saivite saint Tiru Gnanasambandar sang of the glories of the Siva temple in Trincomalee in the 7th century. The Nilaveli inscription in the 10th century refers to a land grant made to this temple.

An 8th century Sanskrit inscription was excavated in Tiriyai. The inscription engraved in the South Indian Grantha script, refers to merchant mariners from Tamil Nadu who endowed this Mahayana Buddhist shrine dedicated to the Bodhisatva Avalokitesvara and his consort Tara. It was interesting that the inscription was recorded in Sanskrit and not in Pali. Neither was it inscribed in early Sinhalese characters. It relied on the South Indian Grantha script instead. Neither was Thiriyai a Theravada Buddhist sanctuary dominant in Sinhalese history. The Grantha alphabet was used to write Sanskrit in Tamil Nadu and is similar to the contemporary Malayalam script!

The inscriptions dated to the kings Udaya III and Mahinda IV in the 10th century refer to Tamil lands (Demel gam bim) in the eastern coast of Sri Lanka.

The Cholas

The Chola interlude in Sri Lanka’s history dated from 993 CE to 1070 CE. This period marked a deepening of the Tamil historical presence in the East. Inscriptions dated to this period refer to a Tamil village in Kantalai called Chatur Vedimangalam. This village, consecrated to the performance of Hindu religious rituals, had a local assembly that administered the community. (S. Gunasingham, Trincomalee Inscription Series, Peradeniya, 1974). Archeological ruins dated to the Chola period have been excavated in Trincomalee, Kantalai and Padavikulam. (S. Pathmanathan, The Kingdom of Jaffna, Colombo, 1978, page 44).

Chola-era inscriptions record the activities of Tamil mercantile communities in Padavikulam (renamed Padavi Siripura in Sinhalese). The mercantile groups referred to were the Ticai Aayirattu Ain Nurruvar (Velupillai, Ceylon Tamil Inscriptions, Peradeniya, 1971) and the Ayyavole. Taniyappan, a mercant from Padavikulam, laid a foundation stone for a Siva temple there. A Tamil inscription by Raja Raja Chola refers to Ravi Kulamanikkeswaram Siva Temple in Padavikulam. (K. Indrapala, Epigraphia Tamilica, Jaffna Archeological Society, 1971 - page 34). A 13th century Sanskrit inscription excavated here mentions a Brahmin village in the area. The paddy fields of Padavikulam were watered by the Per Aru river (renamed Ma Oya in Sinhalese).

The Cholas also expanded a Buddhist shrine, Vilgam Vihara, which they called Raja Raja Perumpalli near Mudalikulam (renamed Moraweva in Sinhalese). Other inscriptions mention a Chola prince - by the name of Lankeshwara Devar who administered Trincomalee.

A 12th century Tamil inscription from Kantalai refers to the Siva temple of Ten Kailasam. (Epigraphia Zeylanica). Another inscription from Palamottai from the Trincomalee district records a monetary endowment to a Hindu temple by a Tamil widow for the merit of her husband. This was administered by a member of the Tamil military caste - the Velaikkarar (Epigraphia Zeylanica, Volume 4, Number 20).

Chola era inscriptions refer to a settlement of the Velaikkarar in Kottiyaaram, known today as Sampur and Mutur. Kottiyaaram was divided into two Chola administrative units i.e. Raja Raja Valanadu and Vikrama Chola Valanadu. (T.N. Subramaniam, South Indian Temple Inscriptions, Madras 1953). These examples prove without doubt that the Trincomalee district had a distinct Tamil Hindu presence in the 11th and 12th centuries, a point denied by the Sinhalese nationalist historians of today who legitimize attempts to suppress evidence of the Tamil historical presence.

The Pali chronicle, the Culavamsa, mentions that King Aggabodhi II built an irrigation tank in Gangatata in the 7th century. Latter day Sinhalese nationalists identify Gangatata with Kantalai but the link is unclear. Tamil literary sources of a later date acribe Kantalai reservoir to Kulakoddan, a Chola prince. The evidence is once again uncertain.

Magha of Kalinga

The invasion of Magha of Kalinga (Orissa) in 1215 CE deepened the Tamil historical presence in the East. Chapter 83 of the Culavamsa refers to Magha’s garrisons in Kottiyaaram, Trincomalee, Kantalai, Kattukulam and Padavikulam. The temple of Tirukovil in the Amparai district was built by Magha (Ceylon Tamil Inscriptions, page 6). Archeological evidence indicates that the Siva temple in Kokkadicholai in the Batticaloa district dated to his time i.e. the 13th century.

The Tamil lands of what is today Amparai and Batticaloa were traditionally divided into several principalities or ‘pattus’. These included Manmunai-pattu, Palukamam-pattu, Natukaatu, Eravur-pattu, Porativu-pattu and Koralaipattu. Pattu in Tamil, Kannada and Malayalam denotes a territorial division consisting of several villages ( T.V. Mahalingham, Administrative and Social Life under the Vijayanagara, P 81). Medieval Tamil texts dated to the 15th and 16th centuries, such as the Mattakalapu Manmiyam, the Konesar Kalvettu and the Dakshina Kailasa Puranam, not to mention the later Mattakalapu Purva Caritram, provide useful insights on the political conditions in what is today the Trincomalee and Batticaloa districts in the 13, 14 and 15th centuries. Sinhalese nationalist historians question the historical rigor of such textual evidence but the same critique could then be applied to the traditional Buddhist chronicles in Sri Lanka such as the Mahavamsa, the Culavamsa and the Pujavaliya!

The Vaiya Paadal, a late Tamil historical text dated to the 17th century, refers to the Brahmin Cupatittu who ruled Tiriyai, a Aanasingam who administered Kattukulampattu, a Maamukan who ruled Verukal and Thampalakamam, and a Mayilan who ruled over Kottiyaaram in the 1400s CE. The arrival of the Portuguese in the 16th century and of the Dutch in the 17th century led to turbulence in the eastern districts of Ceylon. Many of the old Tamil principalities sought protection from the Kandyan kings. But this does not deny the early Tamil presence in what is today the Eastern Province. Muslims from Sri Lanka’s west coast fled to Kandy to seek protection from the Portuguese and were resettled on lands in what is today Amparai. The Kandyan kingdom was itself a multi ethnic one. The last four kings there were infact from Thanjavur in Tamil Nadu! One Kandyan king built the Siva temple in Thampalakamam in the early 1700s.

While Buddhist remains in the East such as Deeghavapi and Seruvila do exist, these do not detract from the early Tamil association with the region just as the Tamil Hindu historical presence in the deep south of the island does not remove from the Sinhala character of the latter. I have highlighted a few of the many pieces of evidence that proves that the Tamil presence in the East is of considerable antiquity. The Tamils were a clear cut majority in that region until post-independent governments resettled Sinhalese in the region. Sinhalese Buddhist nationalism endeavors to suppress the historical evidence, but facts are stubborn. The Tamil Hindu historical claims to the East will not be forfeited regardless of the attempts by Percy Mahinda Rajapakse to transform the ethnic character of that land.

Entry Filed under: transCurrents NewsFeatures