1. I have PROVED (with vidence from the net, so anyone can check) both 'Sinhalese' and 'Tamils' used the same set of brahmi characters for centuries. I cannot prove both communities (that is IF there had been two coomunities) used the same language, but the fact that both communities use similar characters, it implies that the languaes they used (Again IF they used two languages) would have been very similar.
Basa Malasiya and English use the same characerset. Shakti can live in his own fool's paradise and argue both languages were 'one language' long time ago. :-) Hiyak-Puh!
2. ...The only difference was the communitiy that went to North copies many things from near by Malabar (Pandya) and Tamil Nadu.
Leave the North aside for a while.
Why would a community in the East ABANDON the 'language/cultre' that they practised until 13 CAD and adopt a LANGUAGE and RELIGION from Tamil Nadu, hundreds of Kilo Meters away and even across the sea?
If only few Indians came to N&E, it would not have made the whole native N&E population DUMP their native culture and adopt a new LANGUAGE and a RELIGION altogether.
Creole languages are examples for instances of two communities mixing. The resulted Creole languages have features of both original languages. What happened in Sri Lanka is completely different. Instead of a Creole language developing from what the so called native Sri Lankan Tamils supposedly spoke before 13 CAD and Tamil Nadu Tamil language, 'native Tamils' dumped their language and adapoted South India's Tamil Language, religion and even the culture.
If there ware not a very large Indian Tamil population coming to Sri Lanka since 13 CAD, there was no reason for SL Tamils to DUMP their centuries old 'native language' and religion and ADOPT TamilNadu Tamils' (1) Language, (2) Religion and (3) Culture.
Just because Tamil Nadu was of 'close proximity' to North and East does not 'INDUCE' Tamil language/Hindu religion in N&E across the sea unless their there was a constant migration that could outnumber the local population.
3. No 1, above proves the myth about the 'Sinhalese' stone scriptures in North and East.
The inscriptions were written in language that was later transformed to Sinhalese, not Tamil. One needs a lot more than an 'O-Level Sinhala D' to realise this. ;-) That is why scholars research in universities into archealogy, unlike Shakti, who brings his own arheological theories with his 'O-Level Sinhala-D' qualification.
4. The presence of the ruins of Buddhist temples in North (eg. Kandarodai) is clear, because there was a period the 'Tamils' of North were themsleves Buddhists.
'Kandarodai' a Tamilised version of 'Kaduru Goda', a Sinhalese place name. 'Matta Kalappu' is a Tamilised version of 'Mada Kalapuwa', a Sinhalese place name. Neither Kandarodai nor Matta Kalappu (nor thousands of other Sinhalese place names in N&E) have any Tamil etymological meanings.
5. It is also clear Sri Lankan Tamils in North and East show features of both Keralites and Indian Tamils. (People who ask them to go to Tamil Nadu would also ask them to go to Kerala, if they knew this fact. But they did not.)
6. No. 3 itself (without any other evidence) proves Sri Lankan Tamils are a seperate community from the Tamil Nadu Tamils.
He he he :-) :-) How come the 'native SL Tamils' show features of 'Keralites' :-) :-) Mister, think before you write, otherwise you will shoot your own legs like this. Didn't it ever occur to you that this establishes the Malabars from Kerala cost were assimilated into
7. I have proved and given examples that Mahawamsa is not hundred percent correct, it has both inadvertant ('Kelaniya' example) and purposely introduced errors. ('Kashyapa' example) So one can never take such a book as gospel.
Mister, there is nothing called 'hundred percent correctness' in even in physics, let alone in Social Sciences. Anyone who has understood Heisenberg's Uncertainly Principle does not talk about '100% correctness' even in the domain of physics, except for those CIMA-student Parrots.
* Mahavanshaya Author, like everyone else, wrote what he perceived. *
Historians refer to Mahawanshaya because it cross matches with other archeological evidences.
If there is anyone who refers to Mahawanshaya as 'Gospel', those are Eelamists. The only referece they have for 'Demada Sena/Guttika' is Mahavanshaya!
8. I have pointed out Indrapala is just one historian.
Is there anything to 'point out' that? ;-)
(Naturally, a good scholar always correctshimself. So I am not blaming Dr. Indrapala)
...unlike Shakti, who still declares if Shakti the 'O-Level D' scholar cannot read ancient Sinhala script, they cannot be of Sinhala. Shakti was dumbfounded when he realised he could not read Old English either!
There were no point chanting Indrapala, Indrapala, Indrapala like a mantra without taking other contemporaty opinions into account.
There is no point in discarding Indrapala without showing what those NEW EVIDENCE that has emerged during last 4 decades. No one took this challenge so far. ;-)
9. I have very clearly staed that the validity of a statement like 'Sinhalese are the natives of this land, while Tamils are not' purely depends how you define the terms 'Sinhalese', 'Tamils' and 'Native' (Nobody took the challenge to define these terms.)
Mister, if you cannot understand the terms 'Sinhalese', 'Tamils' or 'Native', shouldn't you leave for people who understand it, without jumping in only to show your ignorance?
10. Finaly - let me state this very clearly - whether Tamils had permement settlements in North East or not is of only academic interest to me. If they were living at the time we gained independence, that itself is good enough for me to accept that they have RIGHTS any SINHALESE has to this country.
There may be many things that are 'good enough' for you. In fact, for you, even 'O-Level Sinhala D' is enough to analyse inscriptions and declare they cannot be Sinhalese!
The countries are not however governed by what is good-enough for 'Shakti the O-Level Sinhala D' scholar.
Regardless of whether Tamils live in UK/USA/Canada for centuries, and regardless of Jews lived in Europe for two thousand years, none of them have got EQUAL CULTURAL rights.
Edited By - GamaRaala - 4 Dec 2006 06:32:24 GMT