Another gem from LA
The concept, 'Sri Lankan Buddhist' is an ancient one, and one which came about prior to the decline of Buddhism in India (remember the Mahavamsa was compiled sometime in the 400s using records from an earlier period). Much like the Israelies and Judeaism there is a special relationship between Sri Lankans and the 'national philosophy' of Buddhism (a relationship which is affirmed by the Mahavamsa). At present the only Sri Lankans who follow this philosophy are Sinhalese Buddhists. With the weight of history bearing down on them, Sinhalese Buddhists have a unique historical legacy to maintain. The most important aspect of this legacy is the protection of the 'national belief' from non-Buddhists (which in the present context includes Sinhalese Christians and Tamil Hindus). This is important, because it is upon this FACT that we consider Sri Lankan Tamils as lesser or not 'co-indigneous' with Sinhalese Buddhists. They deserve equal rights, but not equal historical status. Of course there are other arguments which come to play here, but im presently avoiding them for want of time.
It should be noted at this point that most ancient, and some, more recent migrants from South India (the karavas, salagamas, duravas etc) have since been integrated into mainstream sinhala society. The chief means of doing this was through conversion (Buddhism), or simply taking up the Sinhalese language and its peculiar customs (with education, occupation and caste having a part to play in how quickly migrants integrated). But most tamil speakers today are descended from late arrivals who primarily settled in the NE parts of the country. For various socio-political reasons they had little contact with the Sinhalese south and so continued with their traditional beliefs (some later converting to Catholicism). Geographic proximity to South India, the breakdown of the Sinhala polity (in the North) and the establishment of a Tamil Kingdom in Jaffna, were instrumental to the fragmentation of the Sri Lankan polity along ethnic lines. Of course there has always been some degree of 'ethnic conciousness' and separation between the two groups, but what developed in the latter period is what is at the root of our current ethnic issue. The tamils today believe they cannot share the same politcal and cultural space as the Sinhalese. This is perhaps 'new' in a historical sense, though as I have reiterated elsewhere (much to the chagrin of certain all-knowing 'pundits' in here), Tamils have perenially shown partiality to-and retained close cultural contact- with mainland india (language, religion, food, caste structure, agriculture and tenurial methods, etc etc). Can they thus be realistically considered 'co-indigenous'? I don't think so (but then again, that's not my opinion, it's what most Sinhalese people think).
The evidence for this is in the Chronicles themsleves. One notes in the Mahavamsa a constant theme about invasions (ie. South India) and the religious ramifications of these foreign intrusions (i.e. the perversion of the 'national belief' and subjugation of Sinhala people). From this we learn that the protection of Buddhism from Demala invaders was a large preoccupation of the early Sangha. In light of this, if contemporary Tamils, or Christians (Sinhalese Christians like myself included) want to talk about their 'indigenous status' in Sri Lanka, they must do so with deference to Buddhism and its rightful postion in Sri Lankan/Sinhalese history. I am always conscious of this fact and make sure my beliefs do not degrade or uproot the 'national belief'. Tamils must likewise acknowledge their historical inferiority (be it, only in a symbolic sense) if they want to live at peace with the Sinhalese. They must first respect the old ways of this land and its people- the Sinhalas.
|
Search All News and Discussions
30 Sep 2008 05:42:04 GMT 
30 Sep 2008 05:42:50 GMT 
30 Sep 2008 05:43:18 GMT 
30 Sep 2008 05:44:22 GMT 
30 Sep 2008 05:45:03 GMT 