Why Sinhalese are the majority
While it is a fact that the majority of the people of Sri Lanka today are Sinhalese, yet it has to be accepted that a very large number of them are descendants of South Indian Tamils who had come to the Island throughout the ages as peaceful migrants or South Indian warriors of Sinhalese pretenders to the Islands throne-or as warriors of Pandyan and Chola invaders who settled here and were Sinhalised during course of time.
This never ending process of amalgamation which is going on even today should have originated from the earliest time, well before the coming of Vijaya. This is the only way to explain the presence of Tamil or Tamil derived words even in the Pali chronicles. Most of the ancient names of rivers mentioned in the Mahavamsa are Tamil words. e.g. Kadamba Nadi, Mahakandara Nadi, Gona Nadi, Gambira Nadi etc
Tamils of Ruhunu, Rajarata and Mayarata became Sinhalese after 246 BC, i.e. during the reign of Sinhalese and Tamil kings. Tamils of the South Western coastal belt became Sinhalase when the country was under European rule.
Tamils on Negombo, Kochchikade, Chilaw and Kalpitiya became Sinhalese after Ceylon attained Independence i.e. under Sinhalese rule. Are these neo-Sinhalese Dravidians or Aryans? Or is it that inSri Lanka, any person who opts Sinhalese as mother tongue ipso facto is an arya Sinhalese?
No Sinhala king, during the 2000 years of history, claimed that he was of Aryan dynasty. How then could the populace claim to be Aryans? Sinhala expatriates in the west, Middle East and in South East Asia are looked upon by the nationals of those countries, not as North Indians but as South Indians. There are some Sinhalese and Tamils with fair complexion: That may be due to miscegenation with successive waves of European conquerors from the 16th century onwards.
Edited By - Thivya - 1 Jul 2008 05:16:21 GMT |