|
|
Buddhist monks given training to ensure peaceful co-existence in Sri Lanka
Full News Article
GamaRaala
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1006
Member Profile
|
 8 Aug 2006 14:31:27 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Kula,
What is legitimacy?
We are only looking the ancient history thorough our present context.
Legitimacy that has to be applied to the Sinhalese Kingdom is the same legitimacy that is applied to England or Norway. These countries might have been divided before their respective nations evolved, but these nations are the LEGITIMATE rulers of these countries. It is the same legitimacy that applies to the Sinhalese Kingdom.
If that is the case Sri Lanka was not one country until it was brought together in the early part of history.
Then they were separated again.
Was it legitimate?
It is true that Sri Lanka was NOT a unified country before the Sinhalese nation evolved. For instance, if there were descendants of an ancient Pre-Sinhala Kingdom living today, they might have had the LEGITIMATE rights to claim autonomy based on their ancient Kingdom. Tamils, unfortunately, did not have such an Indepdent Kingdom, thus do not have a LEGITIMATE right to autonomy.
Edited By - GamaRaala - 8 Aug 2006 15:06:02 GMT |
GamaRaala
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1006
Member Profile
|
8 Aug 2006 14:49:10 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Kula,
If you look at the ancient history of countries, you cannot find any legitimacy in today's context. Emperor Asoka who is considered as one of the fairest of all, annexed small countries to his empire through WAR. Is it legitimate in today's context?
To make this easy to explain, I'll take an example.
Q) If I chased away rightful owners of a house and occupy it for 5 years, does it make me the legitimate owner of it?
A) As long as the rightful owners or their due descendants exist and claim their ownership, I am NOT the LEGITIMATE owner.
If someday, these rightful owners assimilate into my descdendants OR die out OR reliquish their ownership, NO OTHER PERSON can challenge my/my descdendants' LEGITIMACY to own the said house. I/My descendents will not tolerate any outside attempts to invade the said house, just as Norway or England would not tolerate the same. Those attempts will be treated as invasions.
Likewise, SL Tamils cannot challenge the LEGITIMACY of Sinhalese Kingdom on the basis of pre-Sinhala races simply because SL Tamils are not cultural descendants of Pre-Sinhala races.
On the otherhand, If Chola invasions eliminated the Sinhalese nation or assimilated them into the Chola race, then the Cholas would have been the LEGITIMATE Kingdom of SL today, because there would be no 'Sinhalese' to challenge their LEGITIMACY on the basis of previous Sinhalese ownership.
Edited By - GamaRaala - 8 Aug 2006 15:11:21 GMT |
Mucha-linda
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 3810
Member Profile
|
9 Aug 2006 01:41:23 GMT Report for Abuse
|
KULA,
Thanks for your lengthy but meaningful contribution. I have nothing seriously against what you said, but let me summarize my opinion.
As mentioned on a previous occasion, I am not ready to buy what ever these European *Gentlemen* reported as a gospel. However I am neither ready to repudiate all what they said simply because they were aliens who knew nothing about us. The approach we should take, to my knowledge, is to critically evaluate what they have said against the rest of the Archaeological and Historical findings. It is on this ground we can surely abandon what people like Hugh Cleghorn said including that of Chinese Chingalese and the Moorish majority of the Peninsular Jaffna. It, in fact, is again on this very ground we can accept most of the things recorded by people like Sir James Emmerson Tenant (Ceylon, 1859), Robert Knox (An Historical Relation of the Island Ceylon in the East Indies (1681), Farther Fernao De Queyroz (The Temporal and Spiritual Conquest of Ceylon, 1687), Dr. John Davy (An Account of the Interior of Ceylon and its Inhabitants with Travels in that Island, 1821) etc.
JOAO de BARROS wrote that:
#1 p30
'This opinion of the country, of the island's having been joined to the coast of the mainland, is confirmed by what is said by the peoples of it, principally those of Coramandel'
#2
'for its ancient name is Ilanare or Tranate ( Eela Nadu or Thiru Nadu (Tamil), as other say'
This means people of ancient Sri Lanka was all Tamils and the name too was Tamil.
Kula, I have neither read much about Joao de Barros NOR about what he has said. Even though you do not grossly believe what he said, the origins of name Ilanare aka Eela Nadu deserves some clarification, if anyone has got that otherwise.
One of the prominent persons who promoted this myth about Eela Nadu is none other than Father S. Gananpragasar (Ceylon - originally a land of Dravidians). This is how Prof. KI has responded to this myth in the Second Chapter of his Thesis to University of London.
In the first place , he (Rev Gnanapragasar) has argued that the island of Ceylon as well as the language spoken there were known in ancient times as Ilam and that the name of the language was later corrupted to Elu. These factors, in his opinion , 'should lead one to conclude prima facie that , at the earliest times, Ilam was occupied , at least in the main, by a Tamil speaking people. This argument is far from logical. Presumably it rests on the fact Ilam is now used only in Tamil as a name for Ceylon. But the origin of this name , far from indicating that the island was occupied by Tamil speaking people in ancient times, shows that the people from whose name Ilam is derived were Sinhalese. The earliest occurrence of this name is in the Brahmi inscription of South India. In these inscriptions, from Tirupparankunram and Sittannavasal, occurs the Prakrit form of this name, namely Ila. Evidently it is from this Prakrit form that the Tamil Ilam is derived. It could be shown that Ila is derived from Sinhala through the Pali Sihala, or more probably through another Prakrit form Sihila... Thus, Ilam could be derived from the name Sihala and would therefore, mean the land of the Sinhalese rather than indicate that Ceylon was originally settled by the Tamils. Gnanapragasar's arguments, on this score, will become groundless. The derivation of Ilam from Sinhala is accepted by leading Tamil scholars. ( S. Vaiyapuri Pillai, Madras Tamil Lexicon p 382 & S. Krishnaswamy Aiyangar in the Preface to S. Rasanayagam's Ancient Jaffna)
This is what S, Krishnaswamy Aiyangar has written in the preface to Ancient of Jaffna of Mudliyar S. Rasanayakam, to which Prof. KI has referred.
The attempt of the author to derive the name Ilam does not appeal to us as quite successful; Ilam to us seems to be directly derived from the Pali word Sihalam, which in Tamil would be Singalam or even Singanam, but a strict Tamilising would make it Ilam.... (Ancient Jaffna, Foreword, pV)
I know that we have argued a lot on why Europeans identified Tamils more or less as Malabars. While acknowledging your right to disagree, let me tell you that what you have quoted from Rev. E.R. Baierlein is not going to make the situation any better.
I have not been able to omit the primitive Church of Southern India, although its present place of residence is beyond the present boundaries of the land of the Tamulians. For the separation of Malabar from Tamil country, is of recent date; even our first Missionaries call Tamil land Malabar, and the language- even now not much different- Malabarish.
Yes, it could be a mistake by Europeans to call Tamils, Malabars ignoring the less visible differences. However it cannot be a mistake to decide that Malabar Identity was the one that was prominent before the division of Malabar from Tamil Country.
Kula, to my knowledge, this is not a mistake we cannot easily ignore relying on such a simple explanation. For example, the Provisions in the Thesavalame Law clearly states that it is applied only to *** the Malabars of the Province of Jafnapatam***. This time, mistake was made in a legal document and not in a book based on religious expedition.
Finally, let me also say a word about Prof. Indrapala. As said earlier, I have no ill thoughts or reservations about Prof. KI, though I do not want to leave that option closed altogether. If LTTE can make Sri Sabaratnam's TELO and Uma Maheshwaran's PLOTE to support them, there is nothing much an aged Professor can do about that (after all, Thilak Karunarathna had his own reasons to join UNP :)) I am not casting any doubts here. However, I am not quite happy to accept the explanation that Prof. KI has lost his 1965 PhD Thesis!!
-Muchalinda
.
Edited By - Mucha-linda - 9 Aug 2006 01:53:09 GMT |
Kulakottan
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2773
Member Profile
|
 9 Aug 2006 01:56:09 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Mucha,
It is true that he does not have a copy of his dissertation. However, if you know me well, I would not give up and will get access to a copy, notwithstanding the fact that he himself has admitted that its out of date now.
Kula |
Mucha-linda
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 3810
Member Profile
|
9 Aug 2006 02:20:49 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,
Muchalinda, generally, does not reply to confused people, if not for fun. However, on this occasion, Muchalinda prefers to clarify two allegations made by such a confused soul, for the serene and joy of ordinary pious.
Muchalinda does not want anyone to explain how theories are established in PhD thesis to abandon later. However, calling a PhD Thesis to carry 'a load of Trash' is a different story, provided it was called so by Eelamists even before the so called new discoveries became apparent, whatever they are.
Interestingly, some others argue that SL Tamils are the descendents of a sunken land mass existed in Indian Ocean millions of years ago, by the name Lemuria!!.
This is science and there was some evdence.
This is not Science at all. There are no provisions in modern Seismology for sunken land masses. According to Theory of Isostasy, sunken continents becomes physical impossibility, given the isostatic equilibrium of continental plates floating on the thermoplastic mantle.
That is all about Sunken Land masses. Linking that to Tamils is the next million dollar question. There is no historical evidence to prove that people lived in that continent are Tamils (if that has ever existed) except for a vague account in South Indian Sangam Literature, which to date has not been supported by any other single evidence.
-Muchalinda
.
Edited By - Mucha-linda - 9 Aug 2006 05:23:47 GMT |
Kulakottan
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2773
Member Profile
|
9 Aug 2006 02:27:53 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Gamarala,
Let me summarize our exchange of views as follows:
#1
You believe that Sinhalese are the rightful owners of Sri Lanka and Tamils are invaders and colonists and have to accept whatever is available now in terms of their rights.
I believe Sri Lankan Tamils too are co-owners and natives of this country and we have a right to live as equal citizens.
#2
You view and analyze the issue of autonomy for Tamils in the North East in the context of ancient history.
I view and propose autonomy based on the current geo-political realities and conflict resolution prospective.
#3
You consider the current problems as a conflict between the unitary character of our constitution and autonomy/separation.
I believe that we have already past that stage and the struggle is between autonomy/federalism and separation.
It appears that the gap between our two perspectives is as wide as the Bay of Bengal. Looks like that the gap would remain wide for a long time to come and so be it.
All what we can do is to find ways and means through our own perspectives to keep our country together.
Only time will reveal the outcome and you and me can keep on arguing till the cow comes home.
Kula |
GamaRaala
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1006
Member Profile
|
9 Aug 2006 06:02:11 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Kula,
What you listed as differences of opinion between you and me WERE NOT the fundamental differences. For instance, I believe every person as an individual, regardless of the race, must have EQUAL rights, WHICH IS ALSO the case in Sri Lanka. I also believe, as a culture, Sinhalese are the owners of the nation-state in the same way Anglo-Christians are the owners of Nation-states in the UK, USA, Australia etc.
The Fundemantal difference is, you believe, there was a Historical, Legitimate, Indepdent Tamil Kingdom in SL in the North and East, thus, Today's Tamils are entitled to autonomy in N&E based on this Ancient Tamil Kingdom.
I do NOT believe in this mythical kingdom as much as Karthigesu Indrapala or Paranavitha or any other serious historian.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Federal state for Tamils in the N&E is based on the premises that
-Tamils of N&E are the owners of N&E
-Sri Lankans Outside the N&E do not have equal rights in deciding what to be done in N&E compared with Tamils in N&E
This claim for the ownership CAN ONLY BE legitimized by way of an Historical, Legitimate, Independent Tamil Kingdom. Unfortunately, history is against the Tamil Eelamists.
The land and resources of N&E belonges TO EVERY SRI LANKAN CITIZEN, not just for residents in N&E. Do you agree to that?
To make it easy to understand, let's take Western Province as an example.
Citizens of Western Province CANNOT CLAIM the Airport and the Harbour and income generated in the Western Province lucrative Businesses belong to Western Province residents, and consequently, the Western province must have a semi-autonomy to decide their own future to serve the best interests of citizens of Western Province.
Whatever resources in the Western Province belong to EVERY Sri Lankan CITIZEN including those who live in Hamabntota and Jaffna. The Sri Lankan Government, not the Western Province, decide how to best use the resources in the Western Province.
The same principle applies to North and East provinces; they are not just 'SPECIAL' because Tamil separatists claim those two provinces based on a Mythical Tamil Kingdom.
Edited By - GamaRaala - 9 Aug 2006 06:04:54 GMT |
Mucha-linda
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 3810
Member Profile
|
9 Aug 2006 06:29:08 GMT Report for Abuse
|
GAMAYA,
Are you a lawyer.
-Mucha
PS: You are entitled to refrain answering above. |
GamaRaala
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1006
Member Profile
|
9 Aug 2006 06:30:03 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Kula (again),
Residents of North and East DO NOT HAVE a LEGITIMATE right to self-determination/autonomy/semi-autonomy in the same way Residents of the Western province DO NOT have same right.
Western Province has the Airport, the Harbour, and lucrative business that makes the WP the highest wealth owner. Do the residents of Western Province have a LEGITIMATE right to self-determination/autonomy/semi-autonomy and use wealth of the WP to serve the best interest of WP residents? A BIG NO NO..
The resources of WP belongs to EVERY SL citizen, consequenly, WP residents DO NOT HAVE A LEGITIMATE right to semi-autonomy/self-determination in regards to WP.
The same principle applies to North and East Provinces.
To counter this principle, Tamil Eelamists puts forward myths like Mythical Tamil Kingdoms and argue that SL Tamils historically enjoyed autonomy in N&E, and consequently, they have the right to autonomy in the N&E.
As you have experienced in discussions with me and Mucha, such claims for Mythical Kingdoms are only found in Mythology, while historians like KI and Paranavithana refuse to accept such mythical Kingdoms!. Lacking such a Kingdom, residents of N&E provinces DO NOT have a right to self determination in the same way residents any other provinces. |
GamaRaala
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1006
Member Profile
|
9 Aug 2006 06:45:57 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Mucha,
No, I do a job in the same field I studied at UoM. |
|
Search All News and Discussions