History of Tamils and Sinhalese in Sri Lanka

There is no nation on earth that boasts of 2 homelands - http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Tamil+Nadu (Nadu means Homeland) is the current homeland of the Tamil people and will always remain so. The British, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese and French have had many colonies but always only one homeland. Can the huge Italian population in the US demand an Italian homeland within US borders? No, and America is only a couple of hundred years old compared to Sri Lanka's couple of thousand. So if the Tamils want to live in their own homeland they should try Tamil Nadu.
That's http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Tamil+Nadu
Tamil Nadu is home to 60 million Tamils, yet Tamil is not an official language of India. Then why for 3 million Tamils in Sri Lanka is it so important?
1. If the Tamils had an ancient Tamil kingdom before the Sinhalese kingdom began in Sri Lanka like they claim, how is it that Tamils still number a mere 2.8 million, while Sinhalese became 17 million? Were the ancient Tamils less fertile??
2. If the Tamils came before the Sinhalese, why did they stay in the arid north and not move to more salubrious areas further south.
3. Although Tamil is an ancient language it has left no written history behind, in Sri Lanka or India, no monuments, no inscriptions to say where or what this ancient Tamil Kingdom was, or who ruled it - while Sinhalese Buddhist inscriptions and monuments can be found even in Kantharodai in Jaffna, which date back over 2000 years - Such ancient Sinhalese monuments and inscriptions can be found right across the country - in the north, east, south and west of Sri Lanka.
4. If there was a Tamil Homeland in the north, why didn't Tamil Kings like ELARA (BC 150) Who came from South India and ruled Lanka (sitting on the sinhalese throne at Anuradhapura), not run away to this northern "so called" Tamil Homeland to escape his death, or get soldiers from, when challenged and killed by a Sinhalese Prince from the south.
5. Throughout the ancient chronicled history of Sri Lanka there are several mentions made to Sinhalese kings getting down Tamil mercenaries from South India to fight their internal disputes, and many mentions to importing brides from North India for their kings. But there is no mention of mercenaries or brides got down from this so-called "Northern Tamil kingdom" where they could have walked to...Not even a marriage Proposal, or a citizens quarrel is mentioned!. So obviously a Tamil Kingdom did not exist in the north of Sri Lanka.
6. Tamil historian Dr S. Pathmanathan gives what he calls "a reasonably accurate chronological list" of the rulers of Jaffna in Dr K.M. De Silva's "History of Sri Lanka." The earliest Tamil King for whom dates are given by this Tamil Historian is "King Pararajasekaran, who ruled Jaffna from AD 1478-1519." This is correct according to Sri Lankan history.
But Sinhalese Kings have existed on recorded since BC250. The Sinhalese King Parakramabahu VI (1411-1466) repulsed the South Indian Vijayanagar Empire who tried to take over Jaffna. He then left his adopted son, Sapumal Kumara behind as emperor of Jaffna. When Parakrambahu died, in 1466, his own grandson took over the Sinhalese throne in Kotte in the South. When the adopted son Sapumal Kumara heard of the death, he went to Kotte in 1469, leaving Jaffna vacant, and killed the King's grandson to become King of all Lanka. This enabled one Pararajasekeran to become the first King of Jaffna in 1478 (only about 530 years ago).
7. Wilhelm Geiger, the famous German Ideologist writing in 1932 about the Mahawamsa (Ancient Sinhalese Chronicle) says, it is "the most astonishing dynastic history of any people from 542 BC to 1758. It is a well known fact that for hardly any part of the continent of India, is there such an uninterrupted historical tradition as for the island of Ceylon" (Sri Lanka). (He does not make mention about any Tamil History).
8. The Tamil Historian Dr S.G.Gunasegeram writing in "The Tamil" in 1955 says, "No peoples have had the good fortune to inherit such a comparatively reliable story of their hoary past as the Sinhalese. The people of Ceylon in general, and particularly the Sinhalese, are rightly proud of this ancient story of their long line of kings The Mahawamsa is a book that should be in the library of every educated Ceylonese - a book that should be read and re-read with understanding." - Again there is no mention of "Tamil history" by this ethnically Tamil historian. Why? Because there was NO Tamil kingdom or history available
9. The Sinhalese, who came from North India 2500 years ago, were Hindus.. It is an accepted historical fact that in around 300BC, Emperor Asoka sent Buddhist missionaries from India, to eastern countries like Sri Lanka, Thailand, Cambodia, Burma, Laos. Today these countries are Buddhist, like Sri Lanka. So why did Asoka not send any missionaries to this TAMIL Homeland called Eelam?
Asoka favoured Sri Lanka by sending his own son (a monk) and daughter (a nun) to Sri Lanka. This son and daughter of the great Emperor Asoka who came all the way from North India, and whose only mission was to preach Buddhism, spent over 40 years of their lives in Sri Lanka until death. They preached to the Sinhalese, but did not even think of preaching to this "(imaginary) ancient Tamil Kingdom," which was only walking distance away from the Sinhalese capital Anuradhapura where they lived ? Why? Was it discrimination against Tamils by Asoka and his pious children?
IS this not proof, that there was no Tamil kingdom nor even a fair population of Tamils, to encourage these devout, dedicated religious teachers to want to go and preach to this "imaginary northern kingdom," as was done in Burma, Thailand etc?
10. If Tamils had an "ancient Tamil Kingdom in the north", were Sinhalese so foolish, to go and set up their first kingdom in 394BC in Anuradhapura, (by King Parakramabahu I), where it would have been enveloped on all sides by this "so-called imaginary" ancient Tamil kingdom. Why be so foolish when the Sinhalese could have occupied the whole of the south and had their Capital in the south instead of going to Anuradhapura?
And were Sinhalese so stupid to build, (from around 300 BC), extensive irrigation systems and reservoirs, huge religious monuments some 140 to 160 feet tall that still stand as strong as the day they were built, and build nine-storied monasteries. Would they plant their most "SACRED BO TREE" in Anuradhapura if they knew their kingdom was enveloped by this "Tamil kingdom" where they could be attacked at any time and destroyed by this "Imaginary" Tamil Kingdom?
11. When in BC250 King Devanampiya Tissa went to Nagadipa (ancient name for Jaffna) in the very North to receive the sacred Bo Tree, there is no mention of him going through or to any Tamil Kingdom to get to the North. That was because there was no Tamil or any other Kingdom in the North.
12. This "so called Tamil kingdom" did nothing, built nothing, left nothing - no irrigation systems, no ruins of palaces or temples or anything else - no religious buildings, no inscriptions, no written history, nothing left behind for posterity - While in the heart of Jaffna in Kantharodai there are Buddhist temples built by Sinhalese kings. - No Tamils or their " imaginary" kingdom could have ever been Buddhist - No way!
13. There is only one recorded attack throughout history on the Sinhalese Kingdom from the North. That was by a Malayan, Chandrabhanu who first tried to attack the Sinhalese Kingdom and when he failed he went to Jaffna and tried to attack Sinhalese people from the North. But he was killed. All attacks on the Sinhalese Kingdom came only from South India - None from this so called Tamil Kingdom.
14. Around 1505 when the Portuguese took over the south and harassed Arab traders who were running businesses there. The Arabs complained to the Sinhalese King and the king gave them land on the East coast, where they still live today. This proves the East, Batticaloa and Trincomalee were also under the Sinhalese kings - in 1505 - and not under any Tamil king.
15. When the Dutch arrived in 1637 they signed a deal with the Sinhalese King to have berthing rights for their ships in harbours on the East coast, Trincomalee and Batticaloa during the monsoon rains, proving that the eastern costal regions belonged to the Sinhalese in 1637.- and not to any Tamil Kingdom.
16. When in 1660 Robert Knox's father's ship "Anne" stopped over at the eastern port of Trincomalee, Sinhalese soldiers arrested them and took them to their Sinhalese King, proving that in 1660 the east was under a Sinhalese King. Robert Knox and his friend Stephen Rutland lived among the Sinhalese (mostly in Kandy) for over 17 years. Robert Knox wrote "Robert Knox in the Kandyan Kingdom" a book about the Sinhalese he met. Nothing about Tamils or any Tamil kingdom is mentioned.
17. When King Valabha from India attacked Nagadipa in the north, King Mahinda IV (AD 956-972) sent Sinhalese troops to fight the Indians... Why? Because there was no Tamil King in Jaffna.
18. Historian Codrington says, "Place names in Jaffna indicate that it was held by the Sinhalese at a very remote date."
19. Portuguese historian De Queyroz in "Conquest of Ceylon" says "As long as Anuradhapure was the capital, the whole island was subject to one King - There were fifteen kinglets, Dinvaca, Valave, Putaloa, Trinquilimale, Batecaloa, Candea and Jaffnapatam". (Anuradhapura was the capital of Sinhalese Kings)
20. In Iriyagolla's book "Tamil claims to land" he says, Tamil Historian Rasanayagam in his heavily Tamil - biased book "Ancient Jaffna" admits that , "Jaffna was occupied by the Sinhalese earlier than by the Tamils, is seen, not only from the place names but also in some of the habits and customs of the people." And in the preface to "Ancient Jaffna" Prof. Iyengar says, "Eelam is the ancient version of the Sinhalese term Sihala. Therefore Eelam stands for the entirety of Ceylon."
Sri Lanka is a Sovereign State for All!
Where we denounce mono-ethnic racist Eelam ideology...
21. When the British took over entire Sri Lanka in March 1815 by signing the "Kandyan Convention" only Sinhalese chiefs were invited to sign this Convention, which agreed to maintain and protect the Buddhist religion, its rites and privileges and their places of worship". Why were Tamils not invited to sign it? Why no mention of protecting Hindu places of worship?
Why did Tamils not demand to sign it, if they too owned a separate part of Sri Lanka? And why did they not demand that Hinduism should also be protected? Obviously Tamil Hindus were a small insignificant minority- not big enough to protest.
There is so much to prove that there was NO Ancient Tamil kingdom, and absolutely nothing to prove there was one.
22. In 1970 the Tamil Congress Manifesto stated, "The Tamil Congress is sincerely and honestly convinced that Federation is bad for Ceylon, it would be worse for the Tamils - Is it the objective of Tamils that they live as equals with Sinhalese and enjoy the rights in all nine provinces of their motherland or that they should contain themselves within the narrow confines of the North and East? The Congress cannot believe that Tamils will surrender their rights which they have so far enjoyed in (the other) seven provinces."
23. In the early 1980s when terrorism began, the 12% ethnic Tamils in the country accounted for 34.9% Engineers, 35% doctors, 38.8% Veterinary surgeons, and 33% Accountants, in Public service. That's not at all bad for a supposedly discriminated race.
In the early 1900s it was Sir Ponnambalam and Ananda Coomarasamy (both ethnic Tamils) who began the "University movement" in Colombo (not in the north) which led to the establishment in Colombo of Sri Lanka's first University. In the 1940s, A. Mahadevan a Tamil, (son of Sir Ponnambalam Arunachalam) was Minister of Home Affairs. It is obvious that all these educated Tamils lived in the south amongst their Sinhalese piers without feelinf at all discriminated.
If there was any discrimination how could nearly half of the 2.8 million Sri Lankan Tamils still continue to live among the 17 million Sinhalese in the South, where they have lived for generations? Some of these Tamils have never visited the Tamil regions in the north.
In 1983 when this terrorism began, there were many ethnic Tamils in the Sri Lankan Cabinet and in top jobs in the capital - Mr C. Rajadurai was Minister of Regional development - Mr. Devanayagam was Minister of Home Affairs - Mr. Thondaman was Minister of Rural Industries - Mr. Shervananda was Chief Justice - Mr. Rudra Rajasingham was Inspector General of Police (and later High Commissioner to Indonesia) and his father was Senior Surgeon of the Colombo General Hospital - Mr Pasupati was Attorney General.
In the 1980s, the High Commissioner in the UK was a Tamil - The Colombo University had many Tamil lecturers and the Colombo Medical College had Professors and lecturers in Anatomy, Medicine, Surgery, Biochemistry, Obstetrics - 4 of the 5 Ophthalmologists at the Colombo Eye Hospital were Tamils in the 1960s - In 1971, Leader of the Opposition in Parliament - Mr Amirthalingam was a Tamil, whom the LTTE killed in his own house in Colombo in July 1989, after coming on a "bogus appointment" - So where then, is this discrimination?
In the early 1900s the British allowed one Sri Lankan to be appointed to the State Council. The Sinhalese and Tamils agreed on a Tamil being appointed, showing that, as commented in a local journal in 1899, "among the races in Ceylon, the existing relations are perhaps far more cordial than in any other British dependency in the east."
The "dignity and equality" of Tamils or Muslims was never a problem. Jobs went to those most suitable. Even in the far south, there were Tamils and Muslims living in dignity conducting their own businesses in which Sinhalese were employed, or Tamils and Muslims were employed by Sinhalese. Hindu Temples, Muslim Mosques, Buddhist Temples and Christian Churches stand side by side in the south - and they freely hold their own festivals throughout the year without any interruptions from the other races or casts.
Self Determination - The Tamils Say they want the right to rule. This is absurd in a country as small as Sri Lanka. Power devolution through provincial governments may work in a nation as big and populace as India, but it is totally unrealistic for a small nation like Sri Lanka. Next there will be the Muslims, Burghers, Malays, Pasis, Boras, Jahs and every other ethnic race in Sri Lanka demanding self governance.
Freedom Fighters - You can fight for freedom from foreign invaders or from apartheid oppressors like Mandela did in South Africa, you can also fight for freedom through political channels, but when you take up arms against a state that is an act of treason. When you use ethnic cleansing, genocide and mass-murder through indiscriminate bombings of civilian targets; that is usually regarded as acts of terrorism.
NOWHERE in the world have FREEDOM FIGHTERS, claiming to be the SOLE REPRESENTATIVE and SAVIOUR of its people, KILLED MORE of its OWN PEOPLE than the ENEMY. The LTTE have!

Duleepa Perera

Main Menu

See Also

Main Menu