| Sri Lanka News Updates with Discussions |
Sri Lankan News & Discussions |
|
Report this post by 'LuLa' 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 'LuLa'.
|
|
GamaRaala,
[Luila -- Get this straight. It is not me, but Historians say SL Tamil Identity emmerged only after 12th CAD.] According to Prof. K. Indrapala, prior to 10-12th century A.D, as a nation, the people of Sinhalay comprising of Damedas (Tamils) and others were known as Sinhalayas. However, with the invasion of Cholas `Saivaism` was introduced. This created two separate groups namely `Sinhala Buddhist` and `Tamil Hindus`. Both Sinhalese and Tamils emerged as a separate race/ethnic group only after the 12th CAD. A few others like Dr. Leslie Gunawardene pointed out the notion of `Sinhala nation` came much later - only after the arrival of the Europeans. In the good old days the term `Sinhala` was used mainly to identify the dynasty. Regarding the SL Tamil identity, Scholars have also accepted that the prakrit form of the Tamil name is Dameda occurring in the Brahmi inscriptions of SL datable to about the 2nd century BC. In some of these early records, the variant Damela is found to occur. The origin of a separate Tamil group in SL, whatever its characteristics over the centuries, will have to go back to this early Dameda group. (Page 4 ? Indrapala?s book). In the cogent words of that distinguished SL archaeologist Prof. Senerat Paranavitana, `the vast majority of the people who today speak Sinhalese or Tamil must ultimately be descended from those autochthonous people (of the pre historic period) of whom we know next to nothing. (uchc,1,1:96-97). [First, can you answer these three questions in regard to 1) Muslims in the East of Sri Lanka 2) Upcountry Tamils in the Central areas of Sri Lanka and explain whether they are already `Nations with the right to autonomy`? Otherwise, indicate when or which year/period they will be qualified to be `Nations with the right to autonomy`.] Who is a Nation? [A nation is a community of people rooted in kinship and which has grown through a process of differentiation and opposition. It is not nature or nurture - but, it is both. It is a togetherness rooted in a shared heritage, language and culture and expressed in a determined will to live in equality and in freedom. It is a political togetherness concerned both with the structure and the exercise of power in an inter-national frame. But a nation is not a state. And it is not necessarily a state in waiting. `...States can exist without a nation, or with several nations, among their subjects; and a nation can be coterminous with the population of one state, or be included together with other nations within one state, or be divided between several states. There were states long before nations, and there are some nations that are much older than most states which exist today. The belief that every state is a nation, or that all sovereign states are national states, has done much to obfuscate human understanding of political realities. A state is a legal and political organisation, with the power to require obedience and loyalty from its citizens. A nation is a community of people, whose members are bound together by a sense of solidarity, a common culture, a national consciousness... (Hugh Seton-Watson, Professor of Russian History at the School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University of London: Nations & States - Methuen, London 1977)] Tamils have lived in the Island of Sri Lanka from the beginning of its history. At least after the 12th CAD, for nearly a thousand years, the Tamils lived as a majority within a separate land area with a separate religion, culture and language. They also had their own independent Kingdoms within their separate land. What else do they need to call them a nation? They have all the legitimate rights in Sri Lanka to call themselves as a separate nation and to claim for autonomy, which only the civilized community can understand. For those who still think like primitives, it will take many more decades or centuries to understand this basic fact. If the Muslims in the East of Sri Lanka and Upcountry Tamils in the Central areas of Sri Lanka were also like the above, yes, you can call them a nation, but when it comes to autonomy/federal set up, yes why not. |
(C) 2000-2008 www.lankanewspapers.com - Sri Lankan News & Discussions - Contact Us - RSS Feed - News Archives - src - FAQ |
Search All News and Discussions