Welcome! guestuser
Re-Login as another member
|
|
|
Report this post by 'Muru' for abuse
When you submit an abuse report, the modetrator will take an immediate look at this post and his/her previous posts to
see if there are any posting guideline violations are done by 'Muru'.
[This Kingdom was UNITARY, legitimately ruled by a single Sinhalese King, whose authority wielded from Jaffnapatam to Mada Kalapuwa to Devundara!] LOL! GamaRaala that is false! Unitary state is not the same as an united state! Yes the king ruled from all those parts, but it was not a unitary state! Unitary state was first introduced by the British in 1833, do you even know what the definition of an unitary state is? Medieval Sinhala society was (if it has to resembles any contemporary state system) federal in nature.
This is an interesting read:
http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/slrv.htm
As for what was the situation 1000 years ago, that is irrelevant. The people of the North-East are as indigeneous as the people of the south. If your claim is for a culture that was present before another culture, or a people who were there before another group of people, then surely the Veddas must be the only true heirs of Sri Lanka. Under your logic, Pakistan and Afghanistan must be brought back to India as a untied Hindustan, simply because the people there were all once Hindus a 1000 years ago. You disregard the fact that the people have converted or evolved to another ethnic group. The fact is the SL Tamil people of the NE are distinct to both the Tamils of India and to the Sinhalese (both genetically and culturally, thought they share many similarities with both population groups), its a process that has taken many centuries. What you want to do is force them to assimilate and become Sinhalese overnight. This is cultural genocide. You can keep on screaming about Tamil Nadu, which has no relevance whats so ever to the SL Tamil situation.
|
|
Search All News and Discussions