|
|
Buddhist monks given training to ensure peaceful co-existence in Sri Lanka
Full News Article
GamaRaala
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1006
Member Profile
|
 28 Jul 2006 06:24:16 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Lula,
OK, lets assume that, what you are saying is true, that the Tamils came into existence only after the 12th CAD (that's almost a thousand years), and there were no Independent Tamil Kingdoms in Sri Lanka prior to that.
Luila -- Get this straight. It is not me, but Historians say SL Tamil Identity emmerged only after 12th CAD. This includes Tamil Historians like Karthigesu Indrapala, even in his new book, he maintains this fact.
Secondly, The Aryachakrwarthi Kingdom that emerged 12CAD did not last at least 500 years. There is no truth in saying that's almost a thousand years .
I assume your intension is to justify that Tamils have a legitimate right to be a 'nation' based on answers to your THREE questions. So, First, can you answer these three questions in regard to
1) Muslims in the East of Sri Lanka
2) Upcountry Tamils in the Central areas of Sri Lanka
and explain whether they are already 'Nations with the right to autonomy'? Otherwise, indicate when or which year/period they will be qualified to be 'Nations with the right to autonomy'.
Edited By - GamaRaala - 28 Jul 2006 07:37:15 GMT |
GamaRaala
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1006
Member Profile
|
28 Jul 2006 07:01:13 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Kula,
No one would disagree with the fact that without an independent kingdoms you cannot issue coins.
This is BLINDLY applying today's currency regulations to ancient times without having an iota of knowledge in the evolution of money.
In the United States, the Free Banking Era lasted between 1837 and 1866. States, municipalities, private banks, railroad and construction companies, stores, restaurants, churches and individuals printed an estimated 8,000 different monies by 1860.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money
Even as late as 1866, in the US, there were 8,000 different 'monies'. Applying Kula's BLIND LOGIC says there were 8,000 Indepdent Kingdoms in the USA by 1866!! :-) :-) :-)
Some of these Kingdoms were 'Restaurant Kingdoms', 'Church Kingdoms', 'Construsction Company Kingdoms' and so on. :-) :-) :-)
------------------------------------------------------
Kula, I am REPEATING the same questions because you FAILED to answer them. Please answer them, so that you don't have to accuse me of repeating. ;-)
* IF there was a Historical Independent Tamil Kingdom in SL, for god sake, why did K Indrapala DIABOLICALLY, PURPOSEFULLY, OMIT that in his new book?
* Why does NOT his new book say in PLAIN ENGLISH that 'there was a historic Independent Tamil Kingdom' as you would like to concoct?
(To be continued)
Edited By - GamaRaala - 28 Jul 2006 07:35:28 GMT |
Kulakottan
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2773
Member Profile
|
 28 Jul 2006 09:37:20 GMT Report for Abuse
|
* IF there was a Historical Independent Tamil Kingdom in SL, for god sake, why did K Indrapala DIABOLICALLY, PURPOSEFULLY, OMIT that in his new book?
* Why does NOT his new book say in PLAIN ENGLISH that 'there was a historic Independent Tamil Kingdom' as you would like to concoct?
Quote:
The book is about the evolution of an ethnic identity identity and not about the existence of an indepenadnt kingdom
Having said this, let me quote what he said too:
#1
A NOTE ON THE ANAIKODDAI SEAL INSCRIPTION
Ko in Tamil and Malayalam means King and no doubt refers to a Chiefton here. Being a seal inscription, the name Ko Veta can be taken to be in the genetive case
#2
While rulers of the north and the south claimed to rule the whole country, although they were de facto rulers of sperate kingdoms, the Tamils of the north and Sinhalese of the south came to be isolated from each other
Even after this you may continue to say that its no 'Kingdom' but a 'Chiefdom'.
You may also say that:
'they were rulers and not Kings. I wanted him to say 'King' and he did not say that.'
Can I stop you ????
No, I cannot.
What I can do though is to stop responding.
Edited By - Kulakottan - 28 Jul 2006 13:50:57 GMT |
GamaRaala
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1006
Member Profile
|
28 Jul 2006 13:17:46 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Kula,
You quoted:
The book is about the evolution of an ethnic identity identity and not about the existence of an indepenadnt kingdom
Kula, if this book does not discuss the existance of a Tamil Kingdom, then we have to examine previous work of Karthigesu Indrapala to see his viewpoint on the issue. Now, you may try to make KI's previous work obsolete.
If there was something that KI wanted to make obsolete, it must have been obsoleted in this new book.
KI's 1965 Phd thesis tells us his viewpoint on 'Dravidian Settlements of Ceylon'.
In it, KI in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS says, until 12CAD, there were no Tamil Kingdoms existed in Sri Lanka!
KI did not talk about 'Tamil Kingdoms' in the new book; so his viewpoint is left unchanged.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have not understood so far, this is the difference between KI in 1965 and KI in 2006.
Ki in 1965 proposed people of 'SL Tamil' were migrants from South India, who migrated to SL and settled after 12 CAD.
KI in 2006 rejects this 'migration of people theory'. Instead, he puts forward the 'Migration of Tamil culture' theory. Citing SISL gene-pool theory, KI argues that people of SL Tamils would have been Sinhalese who later turned into SL Tamil culture due to South Indian invasions. He proposes this change was visibly observed after 12 CAD (see the similarity of time period with KI-1965), hence he proposes 'SL Tamil Identity emerged only after 12 CAD'.
'An independent Tamil kingdom prior to 12 CAD' is no where compatible with KI's new or old assertion. This is the very reason KI rejected 'Tamil Kingdom' theory in 1965. Neither did he did he propose such an absurdity in 2006.
It is because of this, you fail to find KI talking about a 'Historical Tamil Kingdoms' in his new book in 2006!.
And, this is the very reason I told you that KI is the WORST ENEMY of Tamil Separatists. Never ever in KI's life, he accepted the Mythical Tamil Kingdom that you like to concoct.
Edited By - GamaRaala - 28 Jul 2006 13:55:51 GMT |
Muru
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 505
Member Profile
|
 28 Jul 2006 13:33:47 GMT Report for Abuse
|
I told you that KI is the WORST ENEMY of Tamil Separatists. GR not really, he is the worst enemy of fanatics like you who dream of a Lanka of past yore which is 100% Buddhist and 100% sinhala. The TRUTH is the enemy of the Sinhala fanatics like you who claim that they are pure aryans and the rightful heirs of the island. The SL Tamils claim for self-determination is not based on any kingdoms present 100 or 1000 years ago. Even if the Jaffna kingdom never existed, it would make no difference. Its based on the claim that the NE is the home to an ethnic group distinct to the Sinhalese. As for your laughable 'ancient unitary state hypothesis', why don't you author your own 'ancient' chorincle and call it 'Gamavamsa', no doubt you can find some fanatical bhikkus who will bless it. |
LuLa
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2358
Member Profile
|
 28 Jul 2006 13:43:07 GMT Report for Abuse
|
GamaRaala,
Luila -- Get this straight. It is not me, but Historians say SL Tamil Identity emmerged only after 12th CAD.
According to Prof. K. Indrapala, prior to 10-12th century A.D, as a nation, the people of Sinhalay comprising of Damedas (Tamils) and others were known as Sinhalayas. However, with the invasion of Cholas 'Saivaism' was introduced. This created two separate groups namely 'Sinhala Buddhist' and 'Tamil Hindus'. Both Sinhalese and Tamils emerged as a separate race/ethnic group only after the 12th CAD.
A few others like Dr. Leslie Gunawardene pointed out the notion of 'Sinhala nation' came much later - only after the arrival of the Europeans. In the good old days the term 'Sinhala' was used mainly to identify the dynasty.
Regarding the SL Tamil identity,
Scholars have also accepted that the prakrit form of the Tamil name is Dameda occurring in the Brahmi inscriptions of SL datable to about the 2nd century BC. In some of these early records, the variant Damela is found to occur. The origin of a separate Tamil group in SL, whatever its characteristics over the centuries, will have to go back to this early Dameda group. (Page 4 ? Indrapala?s book).
In the cogent words of that distinguished SL archaeologist Prof. Senerat Paranavitana, 'the vast majority of the people who today speak Sinhalese or Tamil must ultimately be descended from those autochthonous people (of the pre historic period) of whom we know next to nothing. (uchc,1,1:96-97).
First, can you answer these three questions in regard to
1) Muslims in the East of Sri Lanka
2) Upcountry Tamils in the Central areas of Sri Lanka
and explain whether they are already 'Nations with the right to autonomy'? Otherwise, indicate when or which year/period they will be qualified to be 'Nations with the right to autonomy'.
Who is a Nation?
A nation is a community of people rooted in kinship and which has grown through a process of differentiation and opposition. It is not nature or nurture - but, it is both. It is a togetherness rooted in a shared heritage, language and culture and expressed in a determined will to live in equality and in freedom. It is a political togetherness concerned both with the structure and the exercise of power in an inter-national frame. But a nation is not a state. And it is not necessarily a state in waiting.
'...States can exist without a nation, or with several nations, among their subjects; and a nation can be coterminous with the population of one state, or be included together with other nations within one state, or be divided between several states. There were states long before nations, and there are some nations that are much older than most states which exist today. The belief that every state is a nation, or that all sovereign states are national states, has done much to obfuscate human understanding of political realities. A state is a legal and political organisation, with the power to require obedience and loyalty from its citizens. A nation is a community of people, whose members are bound together by a sense of solidarity, a common culture, a national consciousness... (Hugh Seton-Watson, Professor of Russian History at the School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University of London: Nations & States - Methuen, London 1977)
Tamils have lived in the Island of Sri Lanka from the beginning of its history. At least after the 12th CAD, for nearly a thousand years, the Tamils lived as a majority within a separate land area with a separate religion, culture and language. They also had their own independent Kingdoms within their separate land. What else do they need to call them a nation?
They have all the legitimate rights in Sri Lanka to call themselves as a separate nation and to claim for autonomy, which only the civilized community can understand.
For those who still think like primitives, it will take many more decades or centuries to understand this basic fact.
If the Muslims in the East of Sri Lanka and Upcountry Tamils in the Central areas of Sri Lanka were also like the above, yes, you can call them a nation, but when it comes to autonomy/federal set up, yes why not.
Edited By - LuLa - 28 Jul 2006 14:20:37 GMT |
Kulakottan
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2773
Member Profile
|
28 Jul 2006 13:57:15 GMT Report for Abuse
|
In it, KI in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS says, until 12CAD, there were no Tamil Kingdoms existed in Sri Lanka prior to 12 CAD!
Prof Indrapala did not say anything to that effect in his doctoral thesis.
I have alreday quoted what he said about his earlier work and the book that came about as a result of his 20 years of academic and field reaserch since then.
I shall not repeat.
Edited By - Kulakottan - 28 Jul 2006 14:06:03 GMT |
GamaRaala
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1006
Member Profile
|
28 Jul 2006 14:15:15 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Kula,
I said,
In it, KI in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS says, until 12CAD, there were no Tamil Kingdoms existed in Sri Lanka prior to 12 CAD!
You replied,
Prof Indrapala did not say anything to that effect in his doctoral thesis.
Can you quote K Indrapala on where he accepted your Tamil Kingdom theory? :-)
You said,
I have alreday quoted what he said about his earlier work and the book that came about as a result of his 20 years of academic and field reaserch since then.
Kula, I already said you would try to do this, trying to obsolete the whole work of KI's PhD thesis. Whatever KI found something new during last 40 years, he wrote them in the new book. But unfortunately for you, KI didn't find anything about an Indepdent Tamil Kingdom that you want to concoct. Hence, neither KI-1965 nor KI-2006 contains any material on 'an Indepdent Tamil Kingdom' that ran parallel to the Sinhalese Kingdom.
---------------------------------------------------------
Kula, you said to TC,
TC,
Its easy to argue with someone who discusses issues with an open mind but not the ones who had alreday made up their minds.
It is like waking up someone who is really sleeping rather than someone who pretend to be.
Kula, you are here talking about someone none other than yourself. You have already made up your mind about a mythical Tamil Kingdom. Even when Prof KI does not talk about a Tamil Kingdom in his new book, you are not prepared to accept KI.
Instead, you resort to Mythical Kingdoms that has no place in the books of Karthigesu Indrapala :-)
Edited By - GamaRaala - 28 Jul 2006 14:36:49 GMT |
shan
Senior Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 2260
Member Profile
|
28 Jul 2006 14:43:04 GMT Report for Abuse
|
I am still at work enjoying every moment of learning history. New addition is Muru, welcome aboard. What about the null hypothesis submitted by BB. Is it worth researching? Oh No not at all.
Kula and Lula
Too much to digest. Leave the poor soul alone. I believe it will be a myth for gama that you and me are Tamils and the direction this discussion may lead that you may have to prove that you are a Tamil in the near future. Please don't get fed up and get irritated. Continue your good work enlightening other members.
Don't spoil your weekend. Have a nice weekend.
Edited By - shan - 28 Jul 2006 14:46:05 GMT |
LuLa
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2358
Member Profile
|
28 Jul 2006 14:58:35 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Shan
Thanks for your encouraging words.
Have a nice weekend. |
|
Search All News and Discussions