ARIYALAI_SB,
Thanks for the reply. Let me first deal with Kandyan Convention, leaving your criticisms about Dharmapala thuma to be addressed at a later date.
I said this to highlight that, the Kandyan Convention was signed in 1815, but the Colebrooke-Cameron reforms did not take effect until 1833. This fact shows that, the Kandyan Kingdom was being administrated separately, this is the point! So the clause 9 of the Convention: Over non-Kandyans the position to remain according to British law states that, the Convention did not apply to other areas. This, you need accept unreservedly.
ARIYALAI, there is no point repeating the same argument, unless you can consistently counter my argument with facts. I asked you a question. If you cannot answer it, admit it without repeating the same bogus opinion which prompted me to raise that question. If you missed it, let me repeat the question.
Why on earth should British pledge with Sinhala Chieftains about the jurisdiction that applies to non-Kandyans, IF THEY REMAINED OUTSIDE THE RULE OF THOSE KANDYAN CHIEFTAINS.
ARIYALAI, if British considered themselves as the LEGITIMATE rulers of the areas captured before 1815, they would never have sought the permission of Kandyan chieftains on matters pertaining to subjects remained exclusively under their LEGITIMATE control. But they did because they knew they had no legitimate right to the land they captured. That is amidst the Treaty of Amiens (of 1796) which they signed with Dutch, as they knew that Kandyan Chieftains, as the righteous heirs and caretakers of the throne, held the key to the recognition they sought after most.
This is exactly the same recognition Americans expected from Japanese PM through Japanese Instrument of Surrender which covered areas including Okinawa Perfecture that was under US jurisdiction by then.
Above all, it is common sense that parties agree on matters through conventions that affect both the sides.
Please show me or point me to an instance when the Sri Lanka proper was being ruled by a Kandyan King in total. Did Kandy ever rule the entire Sri Lanka? Please answer without quoting any nonsense.
No. None of the Kandyan Kings have ever ruled Sri Lanka as a single entity which remained entirely under their control (to that matter neither King Dutu Gemunu ruled entire island under his exclusive rule even after bringing it under the a single flag (Eksesath, as it is known in Sinhala)). However, I can show you how the Kandyan Kings remained the supreme emperors of the entire island, including Peninsular Jaffna, even though certain parts of the island might have come under the direct rule of local kings who payed due respect (and of course, Taxes) to the Kandyan emperors.
Let me extensively quote from accounts left by Dutch Predikant Philippus Baldaeus in his celebrated work of 1672. The following excerpt (from his work) is a statement issued jointly by the participants (including a Namacar, sent by the King of Jaffnapatam) at the end of that meeting.
Cenuwiraed (Senerat) by the Grace of God, EMPEROR OF CEYLON, KING OF CANDY, Setevaca (Sitawaka), Trinquenemale (Trincomalee), JAFFNAPATAM, Settecorles (Seven Korales), Manaer (Mannar), Chilaw, Chitaon Panua (Panama), Batecaloa (Batticaloa), Palugam (Palukamam) and Jaele (Yala), Prince of Ove (Uva), Denavaque (Denawaka), Pasdan Corle (Pasdum Korale), Velaren (Wellassa), Cotamale (Kotmale), Mewatre (Miwatura), and Ventane (Bintenna), Duke of Willagamme (Weligama on the Southern Coast), Gale (Gaile), Ody (Udunuwara) and Jattenore (Yatinuwara), Count of Quartercorle (Four Korales), Harkepatte (Harispattu), Odogodaskary (Udugoda Korale), Corwitty (Kuruwita) and Bategedre (Batugedera), Peace to all whom it may concern,
Whereas we lay sick in bed and not knowing the time of dissolution we have therefore assembled together all our principal officers of state to consult with them as to secure the tranquillity of our country and to the well-being
of our beloved son Comara Singa Astana. (Philippus Baldaeus, A True and Exact Description of the Great Island of Ceylon, 1672)
If this is not enough, please do not hesitate to admit, as I can provide you another example about an agreement reached between Arya Chakrawarthi King Martanda Sinhai Aryan of Jaffna and King Vikramabahu III of Kandy, where the latter has been recognized as the Chakrawarthi Swaminwahanse (or LORD of Chakrawarthi in English).
Please, if anyone is confused, it is you! The term DOMINION meant in the context of clause 4, Kandyan Convention, the Kandyan Kingdom, and not anywhere else. This is a conjecture on the part of the Sinhala Buddhist nationalists to link the Convention to the Ceylon proper.
ARIYALAI. This is what Clause 4 says:
The dominion is vested in the sovereign of the British Empire, to be exercised through colonial governors, except in the case of the Adikarams, Disavas, Mohottalas, Korales, Vidanes and other subordinate officers reserving the rights, privileges and powers within their respective ranks.
If you insist that the Dominion was established only in areas held by Kandyan Kingdom, then there must have been British Colonial Governors ruling the areas held by Kandyan Kingdom by 1815 (If not, there would have been no way for British to vest the Dominion in Kandyan Kingdom). I am more than happy to know the name of a single British Colonial Governor who is considered as the governor of any area came under Kandyan Kingdom before 1815. PLEASE ANSWER.
Please, try to comprehend that, the convention was signed at the fall of the Kandyan Kingdom. It was made between the British and the Kandyan Chieftains, and no other party was involved including the Buddhist establishments of the Anuratherpura etc.
I am not going to comment on this since any student of History will find the obvious fallacy in that question about Buddhist Establishments of Anuradhapura in 1815. However, I cannot bother explaining all that as it is more important for you to know that agreements are usually signed between the supreme authorities of parties involved (or agents appointed thereof) and not among all Toms, Dicks and Harrys of both sides.
On Caluse 9, you further said (repeated):
You got it! It is exactly my point! Then, I do not know as to what do you want me to explain Mucha? Who were the signatories to the Convention?
ARIYALAI, Even though I 'have got' it it is crystal clear that you are nowhere near having it. Let me ask the same question again, in a different manner.
In addition to those who represented King George III, Kandyan Convention was signed exclusively by Kandyan Chieftains (There is no question about it). Yet, the two parties involved agreed upon the rules applicable to non-Kandyans. Tell me, what is the most reasonable conclusion you can reach based on the above two sentences.
Is it that the Convention was meant to cover the entire island (including areas not came under Kandyan Kingdom by 1815) OR is it that Kandyan Convention was meant to cover only the areas held by Kandyan Chieftains. If latter is the case, you have to EXPLAIN why British sought the conformity of Kandyan Chieftains about the laws applicable to non-Kandyans.
Good luck.
-Muchalinda
.
Edited By - Mucha-linda - 12 Aug 2008 22:33:47 GM |
Search All News and Discussions
12 Aug 2008 04:02:47 GMT 
13 Aug 2008 03:55:43 GMT 