 Return to LNP
This News Site:
Lanka Newspapers is the largest Sri Lanka News forum online. Thousands of Sri Lankans from around the world gather here daily to discuss current news events of Sri Lanka. Join Today!
|
|
|
Hindus set to convert to Buddhism
Full News Article
tigeress19
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 7555
Member Profile
|
21 Oct 2006 10:20:17 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Hi lula
wish you and your family a very happy theepavali.
i have just run through yours and mucha's posts and i could not answer now may be later today once i tuned my head to the history part.
speak to you soon lula. |
LuLa
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2316
Member Profile
|
21 Oct 2006 16:28:07 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Tigress,
I wish you the same, a very happy theepavali to you and your entire family.
All what Muchalinda has told you about 'my theories' is not true.
Most of what I quote here are taken from or what I understood from the writings of renowned historians like Prof. K.Indrapala, Prof. Leslie Gunawardana and a few others.
Regrettably, after the ethnic conflict erupted, in the last three decades, a new breed of pseudo-historians or his-story tellers have evolved and Unfortunately, Muchalinda only follows these charlatans.
Coming back to the history, before the 12th CAD and after 3rd CBC, that is after emperor Ashoka sent his Buddhist missionaries and converted the King Devanampiya Tissa (Theva Nambiya Theesan) and later his subjects (including Tamils) into Buddhism, almost all the natives of Sri Lanka (including the Tamils) became Buddhists.
Also, during the period from 3rd CAD to 6th CAD, Buddhism had spread widely in Tamil Nadu and won the patronage of rulers there.
The major urban centers of Kanchi, Kaveripattinam, Uraiyur, and Madurai were centers of Buddhism and Jainism. These were also important centers of Pali learning.
It was at this time that Tamil Nadu gave some of its greatest scholars (both Theravada and Mahayana) to the Buddhist world.
Three of the greatest Pali scholars of this period were Buddhaghosa, Buddhadatta, and Dhammapala and all three of them were associated with Buddhist establishments in the Tamil kingdoms. Two of them, Buddhadatta, and Dhammapala were Tamils. The third and the most celebrated, Buddhaghosa is one about whom reliable biographical details are not available but a large number of Pali works are attributed to him.
It is a well-known fact that even Tamil Buddhist monks of South India used Prakrit or Pali languages in preference to Tamil in their writings. This is because the Buddha spoke in Prakrit and Pali and were considered to be the sacred languages of the Buddhists.
As Buddhism was one of the dominant religion in both Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka, naturally there were very close relations between the two regions. The monks from Sri Lanka too, went across to the Tamil kingdom and stayed in the monastries.
The situation in Tamil Nadu, however, began to change towards the beginning of the 7th CAD when the rise of Vaishnavism and Saivism posed a serious challenge to Buddhism and Jainism. There was a significant increase in Brahmanical influence and soon the worship of Siva and Visnu began to gain prominence.
The Buddhist and Jaina institutions in Tamil Nadu came under attack when they began to loose popular support and the patronage from the rulers. One result of this was the migration of Buddhist and Jaina monks and devoted lay members to kingdoms where they could find refuge. While the Jainas were able to go to Kannada and Telugu regions, the Buddhists turned to Sri Lanka.
Anthropologist Obeyesekera makes a strong case for Buddhist migrations from South India as a consequence of the Saiva-Vaishnava movement.
During this early peroid, it was not easy to identify or differenciate the people of Sri Lanka as Tamils and others because they were all living together as Buddhists and their names were very similar, and most of them were able to speak Tamil and the Hela languages.
As per the pre-historic and early historic inscriptions in Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka, the Tamil names did not end with an 'n' or an 'm' or an 'i', but were very similar to those Prakrit or Pali names ending with 'a'.
It was only in the last few centuries that the language, the shape of the characters, the names etc. have evolved into the present form. This might have happened after the Tamils developing what it is commonly called as the 'pulli (dot) system' which is peculiar to Tamils in particular among the Indian lanaguages and due to this dot system the words/names ending with 'a' ends up with 'n' and 'm'.
That is why, if the chronicles such as the Mahavamsa did not mention about the Tamil Kings of Anuradhapura and if our historians were to depend only on the inscriptions, we would not have known that these Kings were Tamils. But at the same time, there would have been many native Tamil Buddhist Kings out of the many rulers whose ethnic identities the chronicles may not have mentioned at all and therefore we will never know.
Since, Pali and Prakrit languages were widely used among the monks and Tamil and Hela were common among the people and most of the Kings knew almost all of them, there was hardly any differences among the Sri Lankans before the 12th CAD.
For your information,
There were 12 signatories to the Kandyan Convention of 2nd March 1815 AD which includes the British Governor Brownrigg and 11 Sinhalese Chiefs (Adikars, Dissaves and others) of the Kandyan Provinces.
The best part is, most of these Sinhalese Chiefs like Ehelepola, Pilimatalawe the elder, Pilimatalawe Junior, and Ratwatte have signed in the TAMIL language and Molligoda, Dullewe, and Millewe have signed in both Tamil and Sinhala.
This shows that even during the 19th CAD, not only that the Sinhalese were fluent in the Tamil language but it was also widely used.
Edited By - LuLa - 21 Oct 2006 18:15:30 GMT |
Mucha-linda
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 2619
Member Profile
|
23 Oct 2006 04:06:11 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Dear LULA,
* Let me reply to the second point you raised (i.e. about the findings of Kshatriya?s study) before the first, not because that the Tamils settled in SL under the auspice of the Colonial Masters is not a considerable amount, but because I have already addressed such nonsense on previous occasions.
Therefore, obviously more than 50% of todays Sinhalese population are from the South Indian Tamils. This fact is further established by the findings of a genealogical study made by Kshatriya who analysed the Sinhala gene drawn from random samples which showed 69.83% Indian Tamil.
Of course, the 69.83% Indian Tamil contribution in the Sinhalese gene pool does not mean that 69.83% of todays Sinhalese population are decendents or converts from Indian Tamils.
You have seemingly misread not only the findings of Kshatriya, but also the explanation I gave in my previous post to clarify you at where you got that wrong (unfortunately, your misunderstanding has fuelled by your custom-made and predefined opinion about myself as someone who believe in pure Aryan Blood, which is not the case).
Lula, I have no problems accepting even if all the Sinhalas (not a mere 50%) are of Tamil origins (let them be low caste or whatever). But all I wanted to highlight is that what Kshatriya has found is not essentially that. Kshatriya is speaking about percentages genealogical contributions, and not about percentages of ancestral origins. As such, when he says..,
The Bengali contribution is 25.41%, the Tamil (India) contribution is 69.86%, and the Veddah contribution is only 4.73%. Thus the Sinhalese have a predominantly Tamil (India) contribution followed by the Bengalis and the Veddahs.
..he is NO WAY saying that 69.86% of modern day Sinhala population is descended from Indian Tamils etc (even though it may be the case, it is not what his study reveals). Instead what he has found is that a given Sinhala person has 69.86% of characteristics that can be genealogically traced back to Indian Tamils. However, some other characteristics of that *very person* may still be traced back to other groups like Veddas, Bengalis etc. It is not that a given Sinhala person bore Characteristics that belonged to Indian Tamils, and that the number of such persons amongst Sinhalas is 69.86 as a percentage.
Let me explain this further. Once generalized what Kshatriya has found is that Muchalinda, being a given Sinhala individual, may has 69.86% of his characteristic (like the colour of his hair, that of his eye balls, his height etc) with Indian Tamils origins where as certain other characteristics of his (like the size of his brain) may still have Vedda origins.
I think this should make it clear enough.
** Let me proceed to the other misinterpretations and misunderstandings you have committed.
Anyhow, it is ridiculous to assume that there are considerable amount of recently migrated Tamils among Jaffna and Batticcaloa Tamils brought by the European Colonialists based on the writings of just one Tamil professor who says that there was a rise in population in Jaffna and a comment made by a Dutch officer who was able to identify the foreigners among the Tamils, and also knowing very well how the Jaffna society works and how the natives of Jaffna would have catagarized and treated the new immigrants.
As said during our earlier discussions, what you are indirectly demanding here is nothing but a video footage, which we cannot produce for obvious reasons. However Lula, it is not a good practice to overly-simplify the evidence I have produced while cleverly omitting certain other important arguments, which otherwise is more than enough to prove what I said, beyond reasonable doubts.
It is not only the evidence pertaining to BRITISH Capt. Robert Percival (not Dutch) and to Prof. Sinnappah Arasaratnam you refused to accept, but also of many others. For your kind information, let me remind you (along with the reasons given by you which made you not to accept those).
1. When Dutch Predikant Philippus Baldaeus clearly said how he was told by peoples of Jafna Patnam on how got peopled from the Coromandal Coast, you said that what he has heard were rumors!
2. When you were presented how both Robert Knox Jr and numerous others identified so called native inhabitants of Jafn Patnam as Malabars or Coromandels, you reduced that to a mere mistaken identity!
3. When presented what Markus Vink has said about the Imperialist sponsored migration of Tamils from South India to grow Tobacco, you refused to accept that saying that you know who those migrants are, being an insider to Jaffna Tamils!
4. It is after all those denials you refused to accept the accounts made by Capt. Robert Percival where he said that there were more foreigners in Jaffna than the natural inhabitants of the country. According to you, he has no knowledge to recognize the differences between foreigners and natives!
5. It is also after all those you refused to accept the findings of Prof. Sinnappah Arasaratnam said, where he clearly mentioned about the expansion of population in Peninsular Jaffna during the times of Dutch. Following the tradition, you refused to accept that since he has not quantified the said expansion of population in percentages!!
Lula,
Dutch took South Indian Tamils to places as furthest as Bali (in Indonesia) as well as Africa. And you argue that they have somehow not taken many Tamils to Jaffna across the straight.
Not only that.
The whole reason behind the introduction of Thesawalamei Law by Dutch was to encourage the Vellalars of South India to come and grow tobacco. I am keen to know your respond to that.
*** Let me also make a final note on the following you made.
The biggest joke which is absolutely hilarious is when people think that, if a part of the natives adopt a different religion and culture, they should loose their native status.
Lula, the real JOKE in fact is if anyone wishes to be treated as a Native even after he/ she has abandoned the Native culture.
Let me ask you a simple question. If 5% of Sinhala Buddhists convert to Judaism tomorrow, do you expect the Sri Lankan government to give foremost place to Judaism along with Buddhism, simply because their ancestors are natives of Sri Lanka.
-Muchalinda
.
Edited By - Mucha-linda - 23 Oct 2006 04:10:42 GM |
LuLa
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2316
Member Profile
|
23 Oct 2006 18:50:16 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Mucha,
Kshatriya is speaking about percentages genealogical contributions, and not about percentages of ancestral origins.
I accept that, at the begining I misunderstood Kshatriya report but if you read my reply to you, I have mentioned it as only an additional supporting factor.
What Kshatriya says is that the parental populations for the Sinhalese have been considered to be the Indian Tamils, the Bengalis, and the Veddahs of Sri Lanka of which the Tamil (India) contribution is the highest and he concludes that the Sinhalese of Sri Lanka are genetically more similar to the Tamils of Sri Lanka and India, who were always in close proximity with each other historically, linguistically, geographically, and culturally.
Since you have no problems in accepting even if all the Sinhalas (not a mere 50%) are of Tamil origins (let them be low caste or whatever) I am still telling you that the present day Sinhalese are an ethnic group that evolved in Sri Lanka by the assimilation of various ethnic communities and the majority of them were from the South Indian Tamils. In other words, more Tamil blood flows in your veins, a fact which most of the Sinhala and Tamil racists refuse to accept.
Dutch took South Indian Tamils to places as furthest as Bali (in Indonesia) as well as Africa. And you argue that they have somehow not taken many Tamils to Jaffna across the straight.
It is true that the Dutch brought some slaves to Sri Lanka from South India for the Tobacco plantation in the North and for the Cinnamon, coffee and coco plantation in the South, but your claim that there are considerable amount of recently migrated Tamils among Jaffna and Batticcaloa Tamils under the blessing of European Colonialists is totally untrue.
Regarding your 5 points reminder, I have analysed all those and we have gone through all of them in detail. If you want to revisit them to do a further analysis, let me know and I am ready for it.
Let me just take your first point as an example,
When Dutch Predikant Philippus Baldaeus clearly said how he was told by peoples of Jafna Patnam on how got peopled from the Coromandal Coast, you said that what he has heard were rumors!
Mucha,
The Dutch historian Philippus Baldaeus was living in Jaffna during that period, and was preaching Christianity in the Tamil language.
This is what he said,
'I have heard it often asserted by the inhabitants of Jaffna Patnam that, that part of the country was TIMES PAST peopled from the Coromandal coast and hence the dialect of their fatherland.'
This Dutch officer landed in the to Malabar Coast first, stayed there for a very short time moving along the Malabar Coast to Coramandel Coast up to Nagapatnam.
He knew very well that Malayalam was not the language of the Coast of Coramandel and the people of Coramandel were not Malabars, but he was calling the Sri Lankan Tamils as Malabars and from Coramandel.
In other words, what he says is,
'that part of the country was times past peopled from the Coramandel Coast and hence the dialect (Malabar Language) of their fatherland'.
If a well qualified Dutch historian such as Predikant Philippus Baldaeus who knew the entire region and the Language can make such mistakes, I do not need to say much about all the others you have mentioned even though most of them have NOT mentioned about any recently settled people/slaves in Jaffna although they talked about Malabars and about a similar language as Coromandal.
Also, it was almost the same period when this Dutch historian was living in Jaffna that the slave trade was flourishing, when tens of thousands of slaves were brought to Sri Lanka from Coromandel, and if a considerable amount of them were settled in Jaffna, why did this Dutch officer has to overhear some peasants of Jaffna talking; he could have said with authority that, a large part of Jaffna was peopled with the slaves from Coromandel.
I repeat, it is true that the Dutch brought some slaves to Sri Lanka from South India and settled some of them for the Tobacco plantation in Jaffna but it is definitely NOT a considerable amount as you wrongly believe.
The whole reason behind the introduction of Thesawalamei Law by Dutch was to encourage the Vellalars of South India to come and grow tobacco.
The adherence of special laws such as Tesavalamai by the Northern Tamil society in Sri lanka is NOT due to any South Indian Vellalars or any Tobacco cultivation. It was only a customary law that governs property rights among the Tamils of Jaffna, codified by the Dutch in 1707 under the heading 'The Malabar Laws and Customs', under which not all property could be given away. A person could give away only the tetiatettam, i.e. property acquired by either husband during the period after married life and or the priests acquiring from such properties. Even of the tetiatettam property, the husband cannot alienate the whole property; the wife is entitled to half of it. Those properties inherited from the parents cannot be given away according to ones own wish.
Lula, the real JOKE in fact is if anyone wishes to be treated as a Native even after he/ she has abandoned the Native culture.
Your above statement shows that there is hardly any difference between the LTTE and the Sinhala-Buddhist chauvinists, they are just the two sides of the same coin, and this is the mentality which drove even the moderate Tamils to seek separatism.
The Sinhalese Buddhists who abandoned the Native religion and culture and became Sinhalese Catholics/Christians are still natives, similarly, the Tamil and Sinhalese natives who abandoned the Native religion and culture are also still natives. The best part is, those Tamils and Sinhalese who abandoned the Native religion and culture not only adopted a new religion and culture but they also occupied into a well demarcated land area which is nearly one third of the country.
In other words, they are not only natives but they also have a separate native homeland.
Edited By - LuLa - 23 Oct 2006 19:06:42 GMT |
Piedmon
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 989
Member Profile
|
23 Oct 2006 20:25:39 GMT Report for Abuse
|
The famous and verbose Mucha - Lula debates reminds me of my time in the Middle East. During the period of Ramadan, some of the TV channels would broadcast programs where they invite Christian scholars to debate against Muslim ones.
The Christian ones are in almost all cases just other Muslims pretending to be Christians. Anyway the usual outcome of the debate is that the Christians beliefs are ridiculed allowing the Muslim scholar to conclude that Islam is the only true faith. Often times a show is made of the Christian converting to Islam for extra effect. Its a complete setup. Never mind that you cannot debate religion with a zealous Muslim. For a Muslim they cannot even question the existence of their god. And even a more remote chance that they will ever concede to a Christian in the Middle East of all places.
It was all very bizarre and profoundly dumb for someone versed even in high school debate training.
You see Lula, debating with a Sinhala lunatic like Mucha , brings into question your own sanity. This is a Sinhala Buddhist chauvinist. Do you think you can reason with this retard? What do you hope to achieve?
Edited By - Piedmon - 23 Oct 2006 20:33:44 GMT |
Mucha-linda
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 2619
Member Profile
|
24 Oct 2006 03:00:24 GMT Report for Abuse
|
LULA,
Given the time available, let me limit my response to the issues we have previously not discussed (i.e. the Thesawalamei Law and the Biggest Joke you have ever come across).
* Lets start from Thesawalamai Law.
It was only a customary law that governs property rights among the Tamils of Jaffna, codified by the Dutch in 1707 under the heading 'The MALABAR Laws and Customs', under which not all property could be given away. (emphasis added)
Lula, before proceeding any further, can you please explain what could have made the Dutch to give this so called *Customary Law of Native Jaffna Tamil Inhabitants* a name which does not indicate that (seemingly, their *Mistaken Identity* has gone to an extent where no such ambiguities are tolerated..bl00dy Dutch!!).
Thesawalamai Law is not a Customary Law of Jaffna Tamils. The fact is, it is not even a customary law of Hindus. Instead, Thesawalamai has clear South Indian Muslim origins. One of the prominent features of the said law is the right of pre-emption among co-owners. This is something clearly descended from Muslim Customary Law Personal to Mohammedans of India.
According to Muslim traditions, it is the groom who gives a dowry to the bride. This dowry is called Mahar. Muslim men wanted to avoid this dowry being passed on to others through their marriages and thus their customary law. This law was later adopted by Malabars and Mukkuwas of Malabar region. It was this law which later Exported and Codified by Dutch to be practiced in Jaffnapatnam (and adjoining areas of Vanni, not in any Eastern Province).
One of the reasons that made Thesawalamai Law to be seen discriminatory to women is the lack of very practice (where the dowry is given to the bride, not v.v.) which made South Indian Muslims to adopt it in the first place.
Not only that. The said Dutch law also identifies the domain of people whom this law applies to. As reported in *Long Title of the Thesawalamai Regulation No. 18 of 1806*,
The Thesawalamai or the customs of the MALABAR INHABITANTS OF THE PROVINCES OF JAFFNA as collected by order of the Governor Simons in 1706 and promulgated by the Dutch Government of Jaffnapatnam or Eelam. (ibid, emphasis added)
Ironically (to you), it is not speaking about any native Tamil Jaffna population. It is neither speaking about any descendents of Malabars..but about MALABAR INHABITANTS of Jaffna (Seemingly, Capt. Robert Percival of Royal Navy is not alone, there are many others who identified those as foreigners, what a tragedy).
* Lets move to the Biggest Joke you have ever heard.
Your above statement shows that there is hardly any difference between the LTTE and the Sinhala-Buddhist chauvinists, they are just the two sides of the same coin, and this is the mentality which drove even the moderate Tamils to seek separatism.
If you do not have any solid arguments to counter, then please do something else. But please do not repeat (recycle) this type of garbage again and again. Criticizing both LTTE and JVP/ JHU simultaneously is not going to make you a moderate. Moderateness is not about criticizing two entities where you identify as extremes.
The Sinhalese Buddhists who abandoned the Native religion and culture and became Sinhalese Catholics/Christians are still natives, similarly, the Tamil and Sinhalese natives who abandoned the Native religion and culture are also still natives.
Lula, do not act stupid. Be realistic. A country is not a mere piece of land where a son inherits it from his parents no matter what his conduct is, as long as his parents do not mind that. In a similar way, Nativity of a population is not something decided by their genealogy, but by their culture. After all, English Queen is genetically not pure English (if there is such a thing). But she has still been accepted as the Queen. What made her there is her culture (and the faith), not her genetics.
As such, if a set of Sinhala Buddhists decide to convert to Judaism tomorrow, do not expect the Sri Lankan Government to declare Jewish New Year day (Rosh Hashanah), a National Holiday.
In other words, they are not only natives but they also have a separate native homeland.
Oh..No. In adition to declaring it a National Holiday of Sri Lanka, we are also expected to accept another homeland.
Insh'Allah!
-Muchalinda
PS: This contains information extracted from work done by Dr. HW Thambiah, KHJ Wijedasa, DGB De Silva, Dr. Sinnappah Arasaratnam, Gamani Iriyagolla and lankalibrary.com.
.
Edited By - Mucha-linda - 24 Oct 2006 03:06:20 GM |
LuLa
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2316
Member Profile
|
24 Oct 2006 07:36:10 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Mucha,
I thought you were an intellect but suddenly you have turned into a comedian. You are coming up with endless jokes; it can all be compiled together as a treasury of jokes by Muchalinda.
seemingly, their *Mistaken Identity* has gone to an extent where no such ambiguities are tolerated.. bl00dy Dutch!!.
there are many others who identified those as foreigners, what a tragedy
Right from the beginning, the Europeans who came to Sri Lanka called the native Tamil Inhabitants as Malabars (a mistaken identity due to the similarity in the spoken language) and later it got established among them.
Even Predikant Philippus Baldaeus, the Dutch priest/historian who knew the entire region (Malabar and Coromandal coasts) and also the differences between Malayalam and Tamil people and their languages very well, called the native Tamils of Jaffna as Malabars.
It clearly shows that, that is how the Europeans started calling the native Tamil population right from the beginning. It's not a big issue. Just because the Europeans called the native Tamils as Malabars, that does not mean that the Tamil home land established from the 12th CAD along with its Kingdoms will be called Malayali homeland and Malabar kingdoms. Even if you call a rose by any other name, its sweet smell will never change.
Regarding the Thesawalamai Law
Thesawalamai Law was not originated or brought in and introduced by the Dutch.
As the rulers of Jaffna, they accepted the customs of the Northern Tamil society and by the order of the Governor Simons in 1706 it was promulgated by the Dutch Government as a customary law of Jaffna and codified it under the heading 'The Malabar Laws and Customs'.
You have totally misinterpreted the Thesawalamai Law by comparing it with the Muslim Customary Law of India. The Malabar Laws and Customs of Jaffna have nothing to do with any customary laws adopted by Malabars and Mukkuwas of Malabar region.
The Arabic word 'maha' meaning dowry or 'bride price' is the amount the bridegroom has agreed and publically announced to pay to the bride's father or a representative in front of the gathering.
It is not an Islamic law but a customary law among the Arabs which was also followed by the Muslims in India including those in Malabar region during that time.
The Thesavalamai is part of some ancient customs of Tamils in Sri Lanka and India on the matrimonial rights and Inheritance with respect to property and intestate succession and has no relationship what so ever with the Malabar Muslim Customary Law of India.
Women under Thesavalamai Law cannot sell, transfer or gift their property (even when purchased from one's own money during marriage) without the written consent of their husbands. A husband might manage his wife's property and finally, leave it to another woman in his last will. A separated wife may find her estranged husband purposely holding back his consent to prevent her from making use of her property. Anyhow, like many other laws, this also discriminates women.
Do not believe those boot lickers and charlatans such as Thambiah, Wijedasa and Iriyagolla, these people are famous for twisting, turning and manipulating the facts.
Coming to the biggest joke.
The present day Sinhalese are an ethnic group that evolved in Sri Lanka by the assimilation of various ethnic communities, lets say on Sunday.
The present day Eela Tamils are an ethnic group that evolved in Sri Lanka by the assimilation of various ethnic communities, into a well defined land area (NE), on Monday.
Today, leaving the Indian estate Tamils, every Tamil settled/living in any part of the South has his/her ancestry in the NE, where the Tamils are the majority race, and every Sinhalese settled/living in any part of the NE has his/her ancestry in the South, where the Sinhalese are the majority race.
Every person born and brought up in his/her homeland where his/her ancestors have lived for many centuries is a native of that land. To put it in simple terms, the Tamils in Tamil Nadu are Indian nationals and natives of Tamil Nadu. Similarly, the Tamils of Tamil Eelam are Sri Lankan nationals and natives of Tamil Eelam (NE).
The natives should have their own language, religion and cultural rights to be the foremost within their homeland (not the entire country).
Such systems are already adopted by many civilized countries under a federal setup.
We need not go as far as Switzerland for an example, just look at our closest neighbor India.
A similar federal system already existed right from the 12th centaury in our country until the British made it into a unitary state and gave the whole thing to the majority who are still enjoying the political and economic powers for themselves without sharing it with the minority.
Anyhow, things will definitely change in our country too, but after some time, when a large part of the majority community becomes a little more civilized.
Edited By - LuLa - 24 Oct 2006 20:10:06 GMT |
Mucha-linda
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 2619
Member Profile
|
25 Oct 2006 02:51:55 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Dear LULA,
Thanks for the reply. Thank you also for giving me more ammunition so that I no longer need to search for any more evidence to prove my point. Therefore, please pardon me if you cannot find any new substance in this. I am just repeating the very things you mentioned to show how illogical you are.
* Nativity:
What matters here is not the name the Europeans used to call Jaffna inhabitants. But what made them to call them as such. In fact, it is these reasons that pose serious questions about nativity of those inhabitants.
Lula, if you look like a Jew, if you speak a dialect of Hebrew, if you believe nothing but the Old Testament and Talmud, if there are rumors that you are Jewish, if the other Jewish think that you are one of them and more importantly if you believe that you are a Jew, then don't blame Palestinians for calling you a Jew, simply because you live on the West Bank (of Jordan River). What made you a Jew is not your genetics, but your Jewish-ness.
(In fact, this is an analogy with reduced effects. In our case, here we have a set of Jews on the West Bank demanding an Israel, when the 55million of their true Israeli brethren across the river demand almost nothing).
Therefore Lula, it is not me who call a Rose another name, but you. Not only that. What in effect, you are doing here is calling a particular flower another name while recognizing all the other flowers with similar characteristics as Roses.
seemingly, their *Mistaken Identity* has gone to an extent WHERE NO SUCH AMBIGUITIES ARE TOLERATED..bl00dy Dutch!!
Thanks for acknowledging the sarcasm in that (what else can you do there other than that, anyway). However, there is a reason behind saying that.
Identifying the residents of Jaffnapatnam at those times, as Malabars is not just something based on a mere rumor. It is some thing that has also made it all the way long to clauses of Roman Dutch Law, enacted by Dutch. There is no need to remind you that law is an area which has zero tolerance towards harboring any such ambiguities.
* Thesawalamai:
The Thesavalamai is part of some ancient customs of Tamils in Sri Lanka and India on the matrimonial rights and Inheritance with respect to property and intestate succession and has no relationship what so ever with the Malabar Muslim Customary Law of India.
I hope you are not demanding another video footage of a Closed Circuit Video Surveillance here. However, let me establish this *beyond reasonable doubts*.
In addition to the Muslim Customary Law Personal to Mohammedans of India, there is another set of laws called Hindu Customary Law. The matrimonial aspect of Thesawalamai Code is not something that can be seen in Hindu Customary Law, but in the Muslim customary law personal to Mohammedans in Malabar. Secondly this law has clearly been practiced in Malabars and Mukkuwas in Malabar region by Hindus, even though it was never a Hindu Customary Law. This is more than enough for any sane person to accept beyond reasonable doubts that Thesawalamai was originated in Muslim traditions before being adopted by Hindus of Malabar region.
Lula, Muchalinda (of course) is not someone like Shakti who would say anything that fits to the occasion, not assessing the consequences if challenged to prove.
Therefore Mister, if you want any proof that,
The Malabar Laws and Customs of Jaffna have nothing to do with any customary laws adopted by Malabars and Mukkuwas of Malabar region.
..is not the case, please refer to the following. This is what British Civil Administrator Sweethenham said (opposing the decision by the sitting Magistrate of Mulativu to accept Thesawalamai as the Law of Vanni).
..laws in the Vanni districts in respect of succession had relationship to the customs of the Malabars and the Mukkuvas. (Minutes of 1879)
If you still insist to accept that Thesawalamai has something to do with Customary Law of inhabitants of Malabars, please go and refer to the article on numerous pro-Eelam, pro-LTTE websites. Those do acknowledge that as a fact.
Do not believe those boot lickers and charlatans such as Thambiah, Wijedasa and Iriyagolla, these people are famous for twisting, turning and manipulating the facts.
I am not going to comment on KHJ Wijedasa or Gamani Iriyagolla not because they deserve your allegations, but because you are no way near acknowledging their arguments, no matter how true those are. But let me tell you one thing about Dr. H.W. Thambiah. Do not criticize him not knowing who he is.
* About the BIGGEST JOKE (you have ever heard):
I will not adhere to your Sunday-Monday Logic since it is not comprehensive as you have deliberately omitted including certain vital facts in there. In my opinion, the best analogy in that regards is how some of the Buddhists converted to Catholicism under the pressure from (and/ or influence of) Protuguese.
Ancestors of almost all the Sinhala Catholics of today once lived as Sinhala Buddhists on this land before the arrival of Portuguese. But it is nothing but ridiculous if any Catholic tries to dictate terms on how to administer the Buddhist Ruins around the country, on the ground that they too have the same right since their ancestors too have contributed the same amount that of an ancestor of a Sinhala Buddhist. It is similarly ridiculous if any of those Catholics expect the Buddhists to give their religion the foremost place in par with Buddhism, on the ground that their ancestors too lived on this land as those of modern day Buddhists.
-Muchalinda
.
Edited By - Mucha-linda - 25 Oct 2006 02:58:12 GM |
GamaRaala
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 818
Member Profile
|
25 Oct 2006 05:47:02 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Further on the deep relations between the Eelam Tamils and India, Balasingham said: 'Even before the Liberation Tigers were formed, India had shown interest in the Eelam Tamils. This is because even though we are in Eelam, ETHNICALLY WE (SL TAMILS) ARE INDIANS. OUR (SL TAMIL) ANCIENT HISTORY BEGINS IN INDIA.'
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/7598_1670664,000500020002.htm
SL Tamil race is a unique race; they are 'ETHNIC INDIANS' and their 'HISTORY BEGINS' in India -- yet they claim 'RACE NATIVITY' in Sri Lanka!
Edited By - GamaRaala - 25 Oct 2006 06:00:47 GMT |
LuLa
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2316
Member Profile
|
25 Oct 2006 05:57:06 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Mucha,
I also have to just repeat the very things you mentioned to show how illogical you are.
Let me rephrase your statement,
Lula, if you look like a Tamil, if you speak a dialect of Tamil, if you believe nothing but the Saivisim and the Hindu religion, if there are rumors that you are Tamil, if the other Tamils think that you are one of them and more importantly if you believe that you are a Tamil, then don't blame the Europeans for calling you a Malabar, simply because you live in Jaffna. What made you a Tamil is not your genetics, but your Tamilness.
First, let me remind you that the Tamils are from the Coromandal coast and their dialect is Tamil, where as the Malabars are from the Malabar Coast and their dialect is Malayalam.
Let me also remind you that the religious beliefs, culture and language of Tamils and Malabars are somewhat different.
The Europeans who landed in Malabar before coming to Sri Lanka called the Tamils of Jaffna as Malabars due to a mistaken identity, and later they established it.
Now, coming to the Nativity,
If you look like a Tamil: almost everybody in this region (Indian Tamils, Malabars, Eela Tamils, Sinhalese) look somewhat alike.
If you speak a dialect of Tamil: of course right from the beginning of Sri Lankan history (3000 years).
If you believe nothing but the Saivisim and the Hindu religion: yes, it was adapted from the nearest neighbor (converted from Buddhism), see my reply to Tigress.
If there are rumors that you are Tamil: why should I believe rumors when I am already a Tamil.
If you believe that you are a Tamil: of course I do right from the beginning from when our ancestors arrived thousands of years back from south India.
Then don't blame the Europeans for calling you a Malabar, simply because you live in Jaffna: no, I will not blame them for a mistaken identity. A rose is always a rose and it smells the same even if they call it any other name.
What made you a Tamil is not your genetics, but your Tamil-ness: definitely, the language, religion and culture.
If a group of natives (Tamils, Sinhalese and others) adopt the religion and culture from their nearest neighbor, evolve into a new race (Eela Tamils) and settle down in a separate land area, is it necessary that they should loose their nativeness of their own land and gain nativity from the neighboring land from where they adopted the new religion and culture?
If a group of natives(Sinhalese and Tamils) including Muchalinda settle down in a land area somewhere in Hambantota and adopt the Bengali language, culture and religion, will Muchalinda loose his native status here and become a native of Bengal?
Even if the Eela Tamils look like their neighbors (definitely, their ancestors came from there thousands of years back), even if they speak the same language (same reason), even if they follow the same religion and culture what they adopted, still they are the natives of their own land and NOT their neighbor's land.
In our case, here we have a set of Tamils in the NE demanding a country, when the 55million of their true Tamil brethren across the river demand almost nothing
The Indian Tamils of Tamil Nadu are already having their own state where, their own language, religion and culture are the foremost.
The Eela Tamils of Tamil Eelam also had their own state along with their own kingdoms until the Europeans grabbed it from them and gave it to the majority, today they are only asking it back.
Therefore Lula, it is not me who call a Rose another name, but you.
No, I never called a rose by another name, I still call a rose a rose, the rose I am talking about has all the characteristics of the rose but the only difference is, it bloomed from a different place. It was the Europeans who landed in Malabar before coming to Sri Lanka mis-identified the rose as something else.
Thesawalamai Code is not something that can be seen in Hindu Customary Law, but in the Muslim customary law personal to Mohammedans in Malabar. Secondly this law has clearly been practiced in Malabars and Mukkuwas in Malabar region by Hindus, even though it was never a Hindu Customary Law. This is more than enough for any sane person to accept beyond reasonable doubts that Thesawalamai was originated in Muslim traditions before being adopted by Hindus of Malabar region.
Only an insane person will accept all what you have said above.
For your information, the Hindus of Malabar region never adopted the Muslim traditions such as the 'maha' where the bridegroom has to pay the 'bride price' to her father.
This is what British Civil Administrator Sweethenham said (opposing the decision by the sitting Magistrate of Mulativu to accept Thesawalamai as the Law of Vanni),
He observed that, the laws in the Vanni districts in respect of succession had relationship to the customs of the Malabars and the Mukkuvas. (Minutes of 1879)
What the British Administrator Sweethenham observed was, the Thesawalamai law had a relationship to the customs of the Malabars and the Mukkuvas. He did not say that it was adopted from there.
Even if we assume that the Thesawalamai law is somewhat similar to the Muslim Customary Law practiced in the Malabar region, what is your point? Are you trying to prove what the Europeans misquoted, that is, the Tamils of Jaffna are Malabars and not Tamils, just because they adopted a few Malabar customary laws?
That is why I told you not to believe in those charlatans who pick some similarities from here and there, manipulate them and fabricate new His-stories.
About your BIGGEST JOKE
I have clearly explained you the Tamil nativity in my last post. What other vital facts do you need?
Regarding the Sinhala Catholics who were also a part of the Sinhala Buddhists, before the Europeans arrived, are still the nationals of Sri Lanka and the natives of Negombo, Ja-ela and Moratuwa, but unfortunately, they are still living among the Buddhists although they have a different religion and culture and therefore they cannot claim a foremost place for their religion.
Regarding the Tamils, right from Sena and Guttika (those before them are not known) the Tamils and Tamil Buddhists have also contributed to the entire country until they got separated into a land for themselves. From then onwards, they were not living among the Sinhala Buddhists. Today, the Eela Tamils have their own native land culturally evolved by innumerable generations of their people in the course of many centuries. It is the duty of every Eela Tamil to protect and preserve it for their future generations. They are only struggling for their rights which they lost after the Europeans arrived, but it should NOT be through violence.
Edited By - LuLa - 25 Oct 2006 20:05:35 GMT |
|
Search All News and Discussions