I am sorry if I misunderstood ceylonese, but, my misunderstanding has its origins in visiting too many LTTE conferences.

You mention about Ravana, Mahavamsa etc and how Tamils were the original inhabitants.

I would suggest that the Sinhala is older than the Tamil as you know it.

For example, the Tamil identity as you know it did not exist during the Anuradhapura and polonnaruwa periods.

At the time the identities were Chola, Pandya, Kerela and Sinhala.These were names of the royal houses.

The Tamil nationalist mind set, like the Sinhalese nationalists have a habit of going back in history and attaching Tamil and Sinhala etho nationalist labels on those who lived in the past who had no such concept.

The Sinhalese word Demala has its origins more in terms of outsider/invader/south Indian, rather than Tamil. Unfortunately its gained a Tamil identity over the years. Similarly, Sinhalese was the name of the royal house, which has evolved into a ethno linguistic identity.

So what you and I understand today as Sinhala and Tamil identity, was an alien concept during the Anuradhapura, Polonnaruwa period.

Why don’t you quote from your own Chronicle?

The Yalpana Vaipava Malai states that the Sinhalese were the original inhabitants in Jaffna and that the Tamils got the land from the Sinhalese?

You reckon the YVM is wrong?

Why are there no Tamil inscriptions in Sri Lanka till the Parakramabahu period? No Hindu bronzes till this period.

Let us say that we agree to disagree.

N2, Sinhalese are not against Tamils. They have never been.

If they are against Tamils, Colombo today will not be a majority Tamil speaking city. Can you imagine Tel Aviv being a majority arab speaking city? Belgrade a majority Albanian speaking city?

This whole Sinahala thing was never against Tamils. It was a backlash against colonialism, everything English and Ceylon.

The Sinhalese ceylonese saw the writing on the wall and put their heads down, while the Tamil ceylonese leadership believed in their Chola/martial/educational/intelligence superiority and thought that they could take on the Sinhala modayas.

They are still taking them on and slowly dying in the process.

Unfortunately in the Tamil community, Fascism has seized political power. In the majority community there is a gradual process of political power drifting from the old ceylonese families
towards the Sri Lankan families. The Bandaranayake’s are no more, Wickremasinghe holds the last fort for the ceylonese. Once he goes, the ceylonese are no more. So its not 1971, its still going on and still the Sinhalese are showing their displeasure of the ceylonese, by not voting for Ranil.

I feel that you are Tamil living in the West and has not been to Sri Lanka for many years. If so, please visit Sri Lanka and your prejudices will breakdown.

The American Ambassador lives there and last Sunday he publicly stated that Tamils, Sinhalese and Muslims live here as friends, there is no ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka.

“You mention of a Ceylonese identity.”

When I wrote that, “Tamils have always been aware of these commonalities and so had no problem in regarding themselves as all Ceylonese together at independence.” (#32) I was not referring to a Ceylonese identity in the sense of a colonially imposed one at all. Rather I was simply stating the fact that at independence the island of Lanka was called Ceylon. (If it had been called Serendip I would have written “…all Serendipitians together…”. Etc. )

And in order to avoid any possible misunderstanding I even followed with the very next sentence: “That is, Tamils never had a problem with cultural diversity under a common humanity.”

The point was that at independence Tamils were happy to be part of a common nation (who cares what it was called) together with all the others on the island together. This would have been a great nation indeed if not for the Sinhala-Buddhist extremists and opportunist politicians (among whom were also many Sinhala-Buddhist extremists), who threw it all away.

“For 99% of the Sinhalese there is no such thing called a Ceylonese identity as Ceylon and Ceylonese is an alien British concept imposed by a colonial power. You only make them mad by waving colonial ceylonese identities. By making them mad, you will achieve nothing.”

“Sinhalese do not accept Ceylon or Ceylonese, its Sri Lanka or Lanka, its not Madarasi or Madras, its Chennai and its not Burma but Myanmar etc.”

The above then is due to your misunderstanding of my point. You simply picked out the word “Ceylonese” and attacked it out of context.

But your resentment at the use of “Ceylonese” is very strange: you say that it makes the Sinhalese mad. But if it did/does make them as mad as you say, why did the name change take place only in 1972? So are you saying that the Sinhalese were being driven mad for almost a full quarter of a century (1948 – 1972)? Or perhaps the Sinhalese (with their Mahavamsa Sinhala-Buddhist mindset) were so distracted by their virulent ant-Tamil stance that they only realised in 1972 that the name should be changed to achieve peace of mind?

Come off it dushy ranetunge, this nonsense of the Sinhalese being driven mad by the use of “Ceylonese” (I suppose by some evil Tamil design) as a contributing factor to anti-Tamil conflict is laughable.

I suppose this is another example of preferring fanciful constructions to facts: just like the preference for the Mahavamsa mindset fabrications for facts.

You also wrote “Sinhalese do not accept Ceylon or Ceylonese, its Sri Lanka or Lanka … and its not Burma but Myanmar etc”

But have these name changes made any difference to the lives of the people?

The regime that changed the name from Burma to Myanmar has ruined that country. Similarly the mindset that motivated the name change from Ceylon to Sri Lanka brought ruin to that country. There are also lots of African countries that are crazy about name changing, but with all the wrong motives including to distract from incompetent and corrupt governance.

By contrast the change of name from Madras to Chennai, Bombay to Mumbai, etc. was simply due to the natural pride of the people in who they are with no motive to attack other groups or to distract.

Also your reference to the Romans in Britain in comparison to the Tamils in Lanka shows that you do not like facts to get in the way of a good story. You wrote as below:

“The statement that Tamils have lived in Sri Lanka from the earliest of times is misleading and is not accepted by the Sinhalese.”

“Its like saying that the Romans, the legions of Julius Caeser, and so the Italians have lived in Britain from the earliest of times.”

“The Italians in England today and the Tamils of Sri Lanka today are relatively recent arrivals who are yet to be absorbed into the Sinhalese identity.”

Did you not know that the Romans were in Britain BEFORE the Anglo-Saxons? (And also when the Romans arrived the British Isles were anyway already inhabited by various Celtic tribes.)

The reason the English language is called the “English language” is due to the invading Anglo-Saxon tribe – the word “English” is from Angle/Anglo/Anglican etc. after that foreign invading tribe.

So if you compare the Romans/Italians to the Tamils and the Sinhalese to the Anglos, then you are of course saying that the Tamils were first.

In fact in saying this you would of course be correct. You don’t even need to look for any hard evidence for this: it is obvious that anyone who had boats like the Tamils would have come across the Palk straits. If Vijaya could have come all the way from East India why wouldn’t anybody else?

The Ramayana also at least attests to the fact that people from India came over to Lanka. (According to the story Ravana was also an Indian who came over and took over the Kingdom of Lanka from Kubera who was his older half brother. Note also that the name “Lanka” was given to the island by the Indians in Hindu mythology and considerably predates the existence of the Sinhalese and the Mahavamsa, Dipavamsa etc. And if you like, “Lanka” is also an Indian Hindu colonial name, only much older than “Ceylon”.)

Anyway, the point of the Vijaya story is about the establishment of some sort of Kingdom. But that was done only with the help and agreement of the Tamil Madurai Kingdom, from where Vijaya got his wife who was also accompanied by various ministers (who helped set things up). So Vijaya’s Kingdom would have been subject to the will of Tamil Madurai Kingdom. The post Vijaya Lankan Kingdom owes its very existence to the Tamils.

Even though no doubt it was well known and visited for its riches, probably no one bothered to set up any permanent Kingdom on the island for a long time (since whatever gave rise to the Ravana story) – maybe the interior was too wild, maybe people were scared of those they called the Yakas etc. But since Vijaya had no choice but was forced out and ended up on Lanka and seemed to have conquered the Yakas with the help of Kuveni, it looks like the Tamil Madurai rulers took the opportunity to use Vijaya as some sort of Viceroy.

Note that the idea of a Kingdom and its rulers must be separated from the people who are ruled. Sometimes there is high correlation sometimes not. After Vijaya died, the Lankan Kingdom continued under people who came over from India – some from the Kalinga dynasty and some from dynasties that would be regarded as Tamil, (and don’t forget that the Indian dynasties were related and intermarried just like the European dynasties).

“The Sinhalese identity and language is unique to Sri Lanka as the English identity and language is unique to England originating from the orginal inhabitants and absorbing many races over the years.”

Certainly what is called the Sinhala language evolved in Lanka, but it does not follow at all that the Sinhalese are the original inhabitants of Lanka. The English identity and language is unique to England but the English are largely invaders from other parts of Europe who violently conquered and displaced the indigenous Celtic tribes – just like with the incoming Indians and the native Vedha tribes of Lanka. And don’t forget that the Romans were there before the Anglos!

The British Isles have had a very volatile past just like Lanka.

(In fact when the Portuguese arrived there were 3 Kingdoms on the island of Lanka: the Jaffna Kingdom that was Tamil; the Kandyan Kingdom which was a Sinhala Kingdom but ruled by a Tamil – and as mentioned already the Kandyan aristocracy is more Tamil than Sinhalese; and the Sinhala Ruhuna/Kotte Kingdom. In fact the Jaffna King may have brought the whole of Lanka under his rule (like Parakramabahu the ‘Sinhala’ King whose language was Tamil) if not for the arrival of the Portuguese.)

Anyway your point about uniqueness is trivial – of course every language group can lay claim to uniqueness. So what!

But you are trying to falsely extrapolate from only originated on Lanka to sole right to Lanka. Firstly every language group cannot but originate from where it originates – this is trivial. Secondly, now kangaroos are native to Australia, Polar bears to the Arctic region, giraffes to Africa, Ceylon jungle fowl to Lanka and so on; but there are also various other animals and birds and so on in these same places – so it does not follow that kangaroos have a sole right to Australia over Koala bears, giraffes to Africa over zebras, Ceylon jungle fowl to Lanka over peafowl and so on.

“The Tamil language, culture and identity is from South India.”

Is this meant to be a revelation? Again so what! And don’t forget your geography. Guess what? Surprise! Surprise! Lanka is in the region of South India. If you persist with this line of thinking you will get into a terribly confused muddle in noting that Telugu for example is also from South India. Think about it – unfortunately this is something the Mahavamsa mindset does not seem to allow. Why should the Tamil speaking regions end on the beaches of India? Why do the Tamil speaking regions in India have the rough land borders that they do?

That the Tamil speaking regions extend across the Palk straits and to parts of Lanka is no more nor less amazing or puzzling than the fact that Tamil speaking regions have their extent on the land. The sea is not an impassable barrier for humans you know! If you ‘think’ in the way you are doing, the next argument will be about which side of the river, which side of the mountain, which side of the city, which side of the street etc.

Besides, the island of Lanka was never so isolated from the outside world nor an impregnable fortress where some unique Sinhala race evolved, like say the finches and iguanas on the Galapagos Islands.
Language development on the other hand can be extremely fast and can happen in just a few generations. Classical Tamil is different from modern Tamil Nadu Tamil, (and Lankan Tamil is closer to Classical Tamil), and Malayalam most probably originated from some version of Ancient/Proto Tamil – Kerala was part of the Chera Tamil dynasty so perhaps in those times there was something that could have been called ‘Tamil-Malayalam” or something; clearly now there is a divergence of Malayalam and Tamil as separate languages.

Similarly early Sinhala would have had considerable commonality with early Tamil: many Sinhala words are only superficially different to Tamil words. The reason why Sinhala has a linguistic structural similarity to Indo-European languages is probably due to the powerful influence of the Mauryan Emperor Asoka and the spread of Buddhism in the medium of Pali (which also belongs to the indo-European family): so Sinhalese perhaps evolved from as a Prakrit-isation (due to Asoka’s influence) and Pali-isation of whatever was spoken earlier on the island of Lanka. Note also that the Sinhala script is very similar to South Indian scripts such as Malayalam, Telugu etc. and also Thai and Cambodian – that is the Sinhalese did not originate their script from ground zero either.

But again it is clear that (when you say “The Tamil language, culture and identity is from South India.”), you dushy ranatunge are still deeply under the spell of the Mahavamsa-mindset: what you are trying to say is that the Sinhalese are descendants of the mythical lion-blood Vijaya Aryan race while the Tamils are not; the Sinhala-Buddhist Aryan lion-blood Vijaya descendants have a foremost claim to the island of Lanka while the Tamil Hindus do not.

“The above two facts are undisputed and from it flows the compulsions of the majority community.”

Well, I have just shown you that your “two facts” are meaningless. So any compulsion arising from meaninglessness must also be meaningless and foolish – for example the Mahavamsa-mindset compulsions.

It is truly ironic that while Buddhism preaches that wrong views and ignorance are causes of suffering, the Sinhala-Buddhists of Lanka (in as well as the one’s who have left Lanka) insist on perpetuating wrong views and ignorance.

Why should Tamils (and even any normal minded Sinhalese) live under threat of violence if they do not subscribe to the wrong views and ignorance and lies of the Sinhala-Buddhist mahavamsa mindset? Why should the Tamils and others live a lie just to keep the violent Sinhala-Buddhist blackmailers happy? No doubt you know that Sinhala-Buddhist Sri Lanka is one of the worst human rights abusers in the world.

“Buddhism has always been the state religion of Sri Lanka, whether you like it or not. It was only under foreign occupations that Buddhism was distanced from the colonial state. Even then the British in the Kandyan convention agreed to give it special status.”

Untruths again dushy ranatunge! Buddhism only arrived on the island of around 200+ AD due to Asoka’s son Mahinda, during the reign of Devanampiyatissa. Buddhism only very became seen as the “state religion” very much later; well over 1000+ years later – go and check out the real history for yourself.

Also around the time Buddhism grew on the island of Lanka very many Tamils (both in India and Lanka) were also Buddhists. It was largely Sankara Acharya (around 750AD), but also others such as Ramanujan (around 1050 AD) who revitalised and revived Hinduism and which resulted in the decline of Buddhism and Jainism in India (and the areas of Lanka that were in communication with whatever was going on in India). The further regions of the island remained Buddhist.

Also, the rise of the Chola Empire saw Hinduism spread into South-east Asia as well as consolidating Saiva Hinduism on the island of Lanka.

I hope you are also aware that the reason why Buddhism was given recognition by the British was because Tamil Kandyan King supported Buddhism.

“Tamil nationalists demanding that Buddhism should be distanced from the state is like the Tamils in Britain demanding that the Queen as head of state should not be the head of the Church of England.”

The present Tamil nationalism is a consequence of the anti-Tamil Sinhala-Buddhist extremist Mahavamsa-mindset. As I said before at independence the Tamils were happy to be Ceylonese together (or if find that upsetting read it as “together as a common nation on the island of Lanka which was at that time known as Ceylon”).

Tamils have nothing against Buddhism, and in fact many Tamils have considerable admiration for Buddhism, but the problem is that Buddhism has been hijacked by the Sinhala-Buddhists with their mahavamsa-mindset. And so the reason for keeping religion separate from the state.

Again dushy ranatunge you have confused matters. The Church of England and the State/Parliament of Britain are very separate institutions/entities. The queen is merely the nominal/ceremonial head of both. For example suppose there is a cricket club and a rugby club there is nothing wrong with someone being the honorary chairman of both, and both rugby and cricket can be played without hindrance.

“Such a demand also indentifies the Tamils as a community with the colonial invaders, a mistake Tamil politicians have repeatedly made, antoganising the Sinhalese.”

This statement of yours is founded on confusion and falsehoods. The only antagonism the Sinhala-Buddhists are experiencing is self made – due to wrong views and ignorance as the Buddha might have said.

“You can fight as long as you want, but the Sinhalese will not yield as they will fight as fanatically for their cause as the Tamils.”

It is the Sinhala-Buddhists who are the fanatics and who caused the fighting in the first place. The Sinhala-Buddhist cause is founded on false views and ignorance. What choice do Tamils have?

Much of what else you wrote is very confused and you are trying to clutch at straws, so I won’t reply point by point as there would be no point.

However you keep saying that the Sinhalese and Tamils should walk hand in hand.
That would be very nice. But why did the Sinhalese not do so for the period of almost 30 years when the Tamils engaged in peaceful marches/protests? Why did the Sinhalese/Sinhala-Buddhists react to the peaceful protests with violence and anti-Tamil pogroms?

“The Tamils can win the Sinhalese, not by threats or demands, but with understanding. Kadirgamar showed the way, by being accepted by the Sinhalese.”

Kadirgamar was useful to the Sinhala-Buddhist maniacs when he was alive as well as after he died. For example when alive he denied that there were any civilian casualties due to State aerial bombings of Tamils. After he died he was used to politically attack the LTTE. There are many highly plausible theories behind his death more so than the official one. Truth is clearly another casualty under the mahavamsa mindset.

The threats have always been from the Sinhala-Buddhist side.

You talk about understanding; now isn’t it strange that the Sinhala-Buddhists only realises the value of understanding after the armed reaction of the Tamils in response to the many murderous anti-Tamil riots. Where was this understanding during the time of peaceful protests? Where was the understanding in 1983? How much understanding is there now?

Just like changing the name to Sri Lanka made no difference, merely using the word “understanding” will not bring it about. Is there any will on the part of the Sinhalese to banish the Sinhala-Buddhist mahavamsa mindset? Is there a sincere will to take up real Buddhism?

dushy ranatunge you keep saying that there is no mahavamsa midset, but you yourself have shown it in what you have written.

Think about this: A nation built on dishonesty and lies cannot stand; there is also no hope of getting rid of wrong views and ignorance if there is hypocrisy, dishonesty and lying.

I am sorry for the delay in responding as I was away in Talawakele for the long Wesak weekend.

You raise many issues, but as I stated earlier there are two points of view.

We will argue till the cows come home, but will still disagree.

I will try to address a few issues to highlight the problem.

You mention of a Ceylonese identity.

For 99% of the Sinhalese there is no such thing called a Ceylonese identity as Ceylon and Ceylonese is an alien British concept imposed by a colonial power. You only make them mad by waving colonial ceylonese identities. By making them mad, you will achieve nothing.

Sinhalese do not accept Ceylon or Ceylonese, its Sri Lanka or Lanka, its not Madarasi or Madras, its Chennai and its not Burma but Myanmar etc.

The Ceylonese will have to accept Sri Lanka, whether they like it or not, both sinhalese ceylonese and Tamil ceylonese.

The statement that Tamils have lived in Sri Lanka from the earliest of times is misleading and is not accepted by the Sinhalese.

Its like saying that the Romans, the legions of Julius Caeser, and so the Italians have lived in Britain from the earliest of times.

Julius invaded Briton at the same time as Elara invaded Sri Lanka. The Romans have been absorbed into the English identity and the Tamils of Elara and now Sinhalese.

The Italians in England today and the Tamils of Sri Lanka today are relatively recent arrivals who are yet to be absorbed into the Sinhalese identity.

You trying to maintain a Tamil ceylonese in Sri lanka is as alien a concept to the Sinhalese as some Italians in Britain pointing to the Roman baths all over England and trying to safeguard an Italian identity in England.

One fact remains undisputed.

The Sinhalese identity and language is unique to Sri Lanka as the English identity and language is unique to England originating from the orginal inhabitants and absorbing many races over the years.

The Tamil language, culture and identity is from South India.

The above two facts are undisputed and from it flows the compulsions of the majority community.

There is no mahavamsa mind set. The mind set of the Sinhalese is no different to the English mindset in England.

Buddhism has always been the state religion of Sri Lanka, whether you like it or not. It was only under foreign occupations that Buddhism was distanced from the colonial state. Even then the British in the Kandyan convention agreed to give it special status.

Tamil nationalists demanding that Buddhism should be distanced from the state is like the Tamils in Britain demanding that the Queen as head of state should not be the head of the Church of England.

Such a demand also indentifies the Tamils as a community with the colonial invaders, a mistake Tamil politicians have repeatedly made, antoganising the Sinhalese.

These are ground realities. I understand that the Tamil nationalist mind set do not accept these realities and are fighting, but at what cost.

At the start of this fight, the Sri lankan Tamils were 12.8% of Sri Lanka’s population. Today its less than 4%. The Sinhalese know this, while the Tamils seem unaware that they are as a community self destructing.

You can fight as long as you want, but the Sinhalese will not yield as they will fight as fanatically for their cause as the Tamils.

Surely, there must be some other way?
You said that the Tamils value education.

Does an educated community hand over their destiny to a maniac.

If you fight the Sinhalese, you will lose, slowly, but surely, as the numbers are against you. Even the Americans have reached this assessment in their military study.

There is another way, the British brought down the Kandyans without firing a shot, remember? Now here are intelligent people who used their brains without waving clubs threateningly from caves.

The Tamils are behaving like the Portuguese (aliens), raising the red flag to the Sinhalese, only to face destruction.

There is another way.

The Tamils can win the Sinhalese, not by threats or demands, but with understanding. Kadirgamar showed the way, by being accepted by the Sinhalese.

Anandasangaree, Devananda and even Karuna and now Pilliyan have various degrees of confidence of the Sinhalese.

The Tamils need a nelson mandela, or a Martin Luther, to lead them out of the darkness and the Sinhalese will join the ranks of the Tamils and on that day you will achieve your dream, holding hands with the sinhalese, not by demanding or threatening.

I find this whole conflict a total waste as to me, Tamils and Sinhalese are natural allies and a little bit of understanding of each other could have saved so much misery.

Below are some comments on what you wrote:

“I understand your position on these issues, but there are other opinions and let us say that a majority of the Sri Lankans would not share your views.”

OK. It is clear that you (and those you refer to as “us”) disagree with what I said and do not share my views. But is there any reason beyond merely disagreeing or not liking what I have said? Can you point out features of my position or viewpoint that you can rationally and factually dispute? Or is the earth still flat?

In reminding you, in brief, I have said as follows:

The Sinhalese and Tamils have considerable genetic and historical commonalities across all levels of society, but are culturally and consequently attitudinally different.

Tamils have lived on the island of Lanka since way way back and have always been a part of Lankan society (from the aristocracy to the commoners) since way back, as far as you can go. And not only have Tamils have been Sinhalised but Sinhalese have also been Tamilised.

Tamils have always been aware of these commonalities and so had no problem in regarding themselves as all Ceylonese together at independence. That is, Tamils never had a problem with cultural diversity under a common humanity.

However the Sinhala-Buddhist extremists (with their Mahavamsa mindset as outlined above, see post # 31) together with the opportunistic Sinhala politicians threw away both the possibility of a great national future as well as the facts of history (which they substituted for the fabrication of the Mahavamsa mindset).

And when the Tamils repeatedly engaged in peaceful political protest, such as peaceful marches, they were met with violence that frequently grew into wholesale anti-Tamil pogroms, many of which if not all were well organised and orchestrated, meant to teach the Tamils a lesson for daring to question the Mahavamsa mindset.
Wasn’t this terrorising of the Tamils a most evil kind of terrorism?

Not surprisingly Tamils said enough was enough: hence the armed reaction to anti-Tamil violence.

I also pointed out that the Mahavamsa mindset was largely due to Anagarika Dharmapala.

Among the cultural differences I pointed out the Tamil attitude to education/learning – which was why the Tamils both took and benefitted from the opportunities during British colonial times. (And this would have been true of the Tamilised Sinhalese too.)

As long as the erroneous Mahavamsa mindset continues genuine peace is far away.

So dushy ranetunge, are you saying that you and the “majority of the Sri Lankans” do not agree? If so on what point or fact? (Of course a person is entitled to hold onto the belief that the earth is flat, but where will that get you?)

“Just because they disagree with you does not make your point of view moderate and their point of view extreme.”

It’s not about moderation and extremes: its all about facts versus dangerous Mahavamsa mindset fictions.

“The Sinhalese compulsions are no different to majority compulsions in other countries and all societies have extremism.”

The question is not whether it exists or not but about its acceptability and how much it is condoned and even sanctioned.
Violence and murder are found in all societies, but does that make it alright? Racism exists in many countries but does that make it acceptable?

So dushy ranetunge, are you saying that Sinhalese extremist compulsions driven by the Mahavamsa mindset are acceptable simply because it exists?

“Like the Tamils, the Jews in Europe could claim that they have been around for thousands of years in Europe, that they have been discriminated, that they wish to retain their language, that they are smarter, more educated than the Europeans.
But there will be no Israel in Europe. This is reality.”

dushy ranetunge, this particular comparison of the Tamils of Lanka to the Jews of Europe very clearly demonstrates that you too hold onto the Mahavamsa mindset, (which is probably why you think you know my position and disagree).

The Jews of Europe are migrants who settled over many years in European countries among the Europeans.

However both the Tamils and the Sinhalese (including the Tamilised Sinhalese and Sinhalised Tamils) are migrants from various parts of India. And both have been a part of the Lankan political and social scene from the earliest times (though the regions in which they each dominated do differ).

Tamils belong on the land of Lanka as much as the Sinhalese and vice versa.

So the situation with the Tamils of Lanka is completely different to the situation of the Jews in Europe.

But what you dushy ranetunge are still saying (in line with the Mahavamsa mindset) is that the foreign/outsider Tamils (like the Jews in Europe) migrated into the Sinhala-Buddhist land of the Sinhala-Buddhists.

Tamils are not separatists asking to carve out a place from the Sinhala-Buddhist land that belongs to the Sinhala-Buddhists at all.

Rather since the Mahavamsa mindset seems to be so entrenched in Sinhala thinking Tamils wish to run their own affairs in their own land on Lanka too.

Get rid of the Mahavamsa mindset through education or by legislation (like Nazism in Germany) and everyone can live together in peace: if peace together is not possible then isn’t peace apart more moral than continuing to kill each other?

And if we were to speculate about the characters mentioned in the Mahavamsa itself (which doesn’t necessarily and unambiguously support the mahavamsa-mindset): do not forget that even Vijaya according to the Mahavamsa married a wife from (Tamil) Madurai. Clearly, in those days the Kings of the different parts of India knew each other and intermarried. The Tamil Madurai princess would not have been given away to an unknown nobody. Do not confuse the issue of a Sinhala kingdom on the island of Lanka with the race/community.
It is also historically unclear when the Sinhalese language as such took on its distinctness. And indeed what was the mythical Vijaya? He is only credited with being the founder of the much later Sinhala Kingdom but was he Sinhalese? His children, the heirs to the Kingdom, were at least half Tamil. And what about his further descendants? For all we know Dutegemunu (or at least the personage behind the story) was a Tamil speaker though a Sinhala King, not unlike the last Kandyan King!

So this is my position and above are some of my views. And I do not support terrorism of any sort, State terrorism included.

“Unfortunately, in most countries the majority point of view prevails. Terrorism will not reverse or change this in any way.”

I do not really like to say this, but still, since you said it first, let me put it this way: in the North and North-East the majority are Tamils. Therefore the majority point of view will prevail.
And State Terrorism will not reverse or change this in any way.

I understand your position on these issues, but there are other opinions and let us say that a majority of the Sri Lankans would not share your views.

Just because they disagree with you does not make your point of view moderate and their point of view extreme.

The Sinhalese compulsions are no different to majority compulsions in other countries and all societies have extremism.

There is nothing that has happened in Sri Lanka in the last 100 years in respect of minorities that has not happened in the United States ( with the blacks), Britain (In Ireland) and India.

As to the educational achievements of Tamils, let us say that we have different point of views.

I am of the school of thought that if two communities have equal access to education and resources their success in education of in any other fields will be similar.

Tamil educational achievements and motivations in this respect is no different to those of Sinhalese in the coastal areas, as Colombo and Jaffna had the best schools, teachers and resources and the English speaking Sinhalese and Tamil classes dominated Sri Lanka, 50 : 50.

The rural Tamil and Sinhalese underclasses who lived in rural areas had nothing.

The State adjusted this imbalance and the English speaking Tamils and Sinhalese were disappointed.

So let us say that on all these issues we have a different point of view. I am not saying that you are wrong or that the Tamil point of view is wrong.

I am saying that the Sinhalese have a different point of view and it is as valued as the Tamil point of view.

Unfortunately, in most countries the majority point of view prevails. Terrorism will not reverse or change this in any way.

Like the Tamils, the Jews in Europe could claim that they have been around for thousands of years in Europe, that they have been discriminated, that they wish to retain their language, that they are smarter, more educated than the Europeans.

But there will be no Israel in Europe. This is reality.

The Europeans unloaded their burden on Arab land in the middle east and they are paying a heavy price for it even today.

” You are continually advocating that Tamils are superior in some way to the Sinhalese.”

Not at all. I never said that.

I refer you to my earlier comment where I wrote: There are huge cultural differences even though genetic and historical commonalities are also considerable – (#29).

As you can see, I have emphasised that there are indeed considerable GENETIC and HISTORICAL commonalities.

However there are huge differences in culture and consequently attitude. For example Tamils BY CULTURE and ATTITUDE have always valued education and intellectualism since time immemorial – for example Tamil Sangams or academic assemblies began thousands of years ago; some people suppose that these are legends that arose say around 1500 years ago, but even then 1500 is still a very long time ago!
Here is another cultural point that many Sinhalese do not seem to grasp. Now days everyone (Sinhalese included ) speaks about the value of getting a good education, optimising job opportunities and so on.
But culturally Tamils also value learning for learning sake.
It was this attitude to education and intellectualism which was the foremost reason that the Tamils gained considerable educational, social and economic advantage during British colonial times.

And even earlier in pre-colonial times the so called Sinhala kings relied heavily on Tamil advisers and expertise.

I say so-called Sinhala kings because the Sinhala Kings were of Tamil extraction. It was only their kingdom which was a Sinhala Kingdom. You are no doubt also aware that the higher caste or aristocratic Kandyan Sinhalese are descendants of the Tamils who accompanied the various Kandyan Kings and their wives from India. (It was very unfortunate that the British also killed many of them for resisting/protesting).

So I agree with you that from top to bottom, Kings to commoners, many Tamils came to see themselves as Sinhalese and in fact also vice versa – the genetic and historical commonalities are considerable. And of course all share a common human nature of good and bad etc. too.
And of course there are good and upright Sinhalese; there are some who voice their concern even now; and I mentioned in post #20 Dudley Senanayake as an example of a moral Sinhala politician.

What is even more interesting is that most Tamils are fully aware and informed of all this and have always been.

But most Sinhalese are not, and still continue to hold on to the Mahavamsa mindset and believe that Tamils are really foreign invaders or migrants, who the Sinhalese either could not repel or graciously permitted to settle.

It is the Sinhalese who erroneously believe that they are some sort of distinct lion-blood Aryan tribe descended from Vijaya with a special claim to Lanka over everyone else. Much of this foolish thinking is largely due to Anagarika Dharmapala who promoted the silly and false idea of an Aryan Sinhala-Buddhist race, perhaps as a reaction to the inferiority he felt with regard to the British and in search of some sort of identity in the face of an opening up of the world. (If you read some of Anagrika Dharmapala’s writing you will be shocked as to how much he actually loathed himself and the Sinhalese people whom he wanted to remake as a glorious race that the British would respect). I always found it highly amusing when Sinhalese are frequently surprised that there are so many light skinned Tamils, which is indicative of the Sinhalese (or Sinhala-Buddhist conditioned) mind wanting to stereotype and narrowly categorise people.

Tamils on the other hand are not bothered by matters of mythical genetic identity, but are very much concerned about CULTURAL IDENTITY and FREEDOM in that regard.
And I refer you to post #13, where I pointed out the dangers of being excessive in regard to identifications and attachments, which is explicit in Buddhist philosophy. And Hindu philosophy is also clear on this. And did you know that the Tamils had a long history of Buddhism too? – and Tamils are aware of this through the older Tamil literature.

So at independence Tamils were happy to be Ceylonese together, while the Sinhalese could not grasp the idea of multiculturalism and religious multiplicity, but got carried away with the narrow minded stupidity of Sinhala-Buddhist extremism. And of course the Sinhala politicians took full advantage of the extremist communalism (and some of course also subscribe to it).

Again you can see the cultural and attitudinal differences between Tamils and Sinhalese (or I should say Sinhala-Buddhist intoxication).

dushy ranetunge you wrote “Not many Tamils are aware that many Sinhalese worship hindu gods and hindu shrines are found in most buddhist temples.”

Again not at all! Rather Tamils are well aware of this, it is nothing new. So I would say that you should have said “Not many Sinhalese are aware that Tamil are fully aware that many Sinhalese worship hindu gods and hindu shrines are found in most buddhist temples.”

Actually even that is not quite right: you should say “…worship deities and gods described in Hinduism and Hindu type shrines …”! . But you know what? Hindu philosophy, or at least its interpretation, has also benefitted much from Buddhist discourse. Again, did the Buddha consider that he had made a new religion or did he see himself as a Hindu reformist? Can we discuss these sorts of without feeling our sense of who we are getting challenged?

“So things in sri lanka are not black and white as what fascists try to make it out to be.”

The people who have painted things black and white are indeed the fascist narrow minded Sinhala-Buddhist extremists.
For these fascistic narrow minded extremists it all clear and simple.
Their silly story goes something like this: The Vijaya descended lion-blood Sinhala-Buddhist has the foremost claim to the land of Lanka; and they came to Lanka before the invading foreign Tamils. Us and Them; Black and White; Our Sinhala-Buddhist land versus Foreign Tamil invaders, and so on and on. (That is why I said that there is a huge need to educate the Sinhalese and make them more historically and socially aware so that they can get out of the mahavamsa mindset.)

But dushy ranetunge I think you are referring to the protesting Tamils as fascists, are you not?
Does this not show that you are still unaware of the history of the people of Lanka and the history and reasons and causes of the conflict?
How do you expect peace to happen when even you, an educated Sinhalese is still blaming the victim for daring to say enough is enough?
And if you an educated western-advantaged Sinhalese (I am using your view #25 on “western-advantaged”, not mine) cannot understand it what hope is there for the rest?

You are continually advocating that Tamils are superior in some way to the Sinhalese. I have interacted with Tamils and Sinhalese my whole life and I see nothing superior in Tamils or Sinhalese.

Both have educated elites and both have fascists, and both have innocents who make up the majority.

I employ both Tamils and Sinhalese both in Sri Lanka and in the UK and also several other nationalities, and other than cultural conditioning I see no difference between different nationalities.

There is bad and good, intelligence and ignorance in all of them.
There are wealthy successful Tamils in the west as well as successful wealthy Sinhalese.

I do not see the differences that you see among Tamils and Sinhalese but more similarities.

I am not sure that you are aware that a significant sections of the Sinhalese society is made up of recently Sinhalised Tamils.

In fact recently the war in Sri Lanka was conducted primarily between Tamils who had been absorbed into the sinhalese identity and tamils who had not been absorbed into the sinhalese identity.

During the chandrika regime, the army commander, the defense secretary and significant portions of the sri lankan forces were and are even today manned by Sinhalese of Tamil descent who are distinguishable by their caste.

Chandananda de silva and Rohan de silva daluwatta belong to the Karawe caste among the Sinhalese.

It is a south indian caste found mainly in sri lankas coastal regions.

Karawe is the same as Karaiyar, Prabakarans caste.

Any academic historians would tell you that the Sinhalese castes of Karawe, Durawe and Salagama are of recent South Indian descent. The JVP represents the under castes among the Sinhalese who are now more sinhalese than the sinhalese.

Not many Tamila are aware that many Sinhalese worship hindu gods and hindu shrines are found in most buddhist temples.

So things in sri lanka are not black and white as what fascists try to make it out to be.

“We have expectations which are closer to the developed Western mean political standards and expectations, because we communicate in English and have been conditioned in the Western way”

This is not quite correct. East or West, English speaking or not, people have sense of political decency and political expectations. However education (and a culture in which education is highly valued and seen as important) makes a difference to one’s political awareness and participation. And for this reason Tamils have always been ahead of the Sinhalese in regard to being politicised. This is clear if you look at the political scene during colonial times. Also during those times while the Tamil politicians believed that they were as good as the British, the Sinhala leaders mostly aspired only to be to be Kalu Suddhas. So when the British left the Sinhala politicians had no idea about politics or good governance, but only grasped that they were in power and that politics was about getting power at any cost, by any trickery. There are huge cultural differences even though genetic and historical commonalities are also considerable. Mastery of playing cunning games is not the same as mastery of good governance.

“If you look at the Tamil struggle, its strongest advocates are those who have our mind set and they are expecting from Sri lanka our/western standards and ideals.”

Not at all. Tamils have always been more politically educated and socially aware.

“In all these countries the system works and meets the expectations of the majority or the government will get voted out.”

But the politicians in those countries do not seek to get at the majority by relying on and playing the tribal/communal card. Benjamin Disraeli for example could never have become the Prime Minister of Britain along race line for he was of Jewish descent. And now in the US there is Obama. And at independence Tamils did not think along communal lines but assumed that they were all Ceylonese.

“In Sri Lanka 90% don’t know what an Aston Martin is, and they don’t care as it is a perception alien to them, but only the Colombo English speaking class who are about 1% of the population gets excited and expresses outrage.”

Whether or not people know what an Aston Martin is irrelevant. However they do understand neglect, corruption and opportunism. If you tell someone that a certain politician’s relative has got an Aston Martin and they do not know what it implies of course it won’t make a difference; but explain it and it most certainly will get them exited and they will express their outrage.

I agree that there is a huge necessity to raise proper political awareness especially among the Sinhalese. As mentioned already Tamils are ahead in this and that is why Tamils have politically protested since independence. The common Sinhalese also had very good reasons to protest for being neglected by the Sinhala elites but did not; rather they only got stirred up by the Sinhala politicians along communal lines over and over again.

Also when the Tamils protested peacefully in terms of their grievances the Sinhalese never joined (except for one or two communists maybe), but the peaceful Tamil political protests were always met with violence at the hands of Sinhala thugs (including members of the armed forces and police) organised by the Sinhala leaders. The 1983 anti-Tamil riots were meant to teach the Tamils a lesson that they would never forget! The burning of the Jaffna library in 1981 was also intended to put the Tamils down. It is not at all surprising that the Tamils saw that the only way to address their grievances would have to be through armed means.

Also separating aspirations from grievances is fallacious. Grievances exist because aspirations are thwarted. During the time of peaceful protests the aspiration was to be and succeed as an equal citizen of the country. Since that aspiration was thwarted, the grievance of being denied has now turned to an alternative way of reaching for normal human aspirations.

“Look at the Black struggle in the United States. It only succeeded, when whites marched with the blacks as the understood the black grievances and expressed outrage.”

As for the “Black” struggle of the US, there have always been “Whites” who have been sympathetic. There was always a strong anti-slavery movement to begin with.

“The Tamil struggle will only succeed, when the Sinhalese march with the Tamils and express outrage.”

So why didn’t the Sinhalese join the Tamils when there were peaceful protests for about 30 years after independence in 1948?

“This is difficult now, because the political establishment in Sri Lanka has addressed Tamil grievences over the last 20 years of the conflict and Tamil grievences have now been replaced by Tamil aspirations”

It was always difficult for the Sinhalese to accept Tamil grievances given the Mahavamsa mindset, and it will probably be so for a long time to come. Independence was in 1948, Tamils protested exclusively peacefully until the 1980’s, so isn’t it telling that Tamil grievances have only been addressed minimally over the last 20 years and only after the armed conflict? And even now the best the Sinhala political establishment has to offer is the useless 13th amendment.

“You cannot mobilise the Sinhalese for the Tamil cause with aspirations.”

See earlier comment about fallaciously separating aspirations from grievances. So the above is merely a political slogan that seeks to lay the blame on the victim.

To stop myself repeating myself, I will paraphrase what I wrote as a similar response to Ms. S. Ganga on a previous thread on this Website:

http://federalidea.com/focus/archives/425

English is an Alien Language, it was forced upon everyone when the British conquered the Island. The reality is that while it is a useful language to learn in this globalized world, it is not a language native to Sri Lanka….Both Tamil and Sinhalese are Native to the Island, but that was when the Isalnd was decentralized and non-integrated. We are integrated now, Tamils also live in the South and Sinhalese also live in the North and East (before the Ethnic Cleansing by the LTTE that is,…)

Basically you saying that Tamils would prefer to have English as a National Language over Sinhala proves my point that it is the Tamil Communalist mentality that has an Aversion to Sinhala and all things Sinhalese.

And let me point out that you say one has to learn Sinhala to feel sinhalese? That is your statement, not mine… I said that the Sri Lanka needs an Official Language and that language practically should be Sinhala. (and in case you want to know,…I can barely speak sinhala myself… but I understand the need for there to be a common tongue)

And as for your statement that all was equal before 56′ is the most ludicrous thing I have heard yet… Only if you enjoyed being Colonial Lackies then you would actually come out and say that British Rule was a good thing… Subjugation to another Race… yup! Is that why Tamils like living as Second Class citizens in the UK and Canada and other Western Countries? Is the Colonial House-Tamil mentality that is talking over here? Your statement below proves my point:

*** In making Sinhala the official language of this country all Tamils were all of a sudden made second class citizens. I hope this negates your initial view that this country needs a common language. ***

This says it all… because under the British, you did not perceive yourselves as Second Class Citizens…(LOL) it was a desirable thing to be for Tamils during Colonial Rule, right? Only when the Language was changed Back from your Colonial Master’s tongue to a Native language do you lash out saying Tamils are 2nd Class Citizens…

LOL!

In my experience, it was primarily who my parents were, customs/practices of my family/community and interactions with other communities that has shaped my identity. Being a product of an English speaking Sinhala Buddhist father and a Sinhala speaking Sinhala Christian mother, I think I have a relatively weak Sinhala identity. I think chances are it would be a lot stronger and perhaps a more settled identity if I had both Sinhala speaking Sinhala Buddist parents ( I think I feel closer to Christmas or Elton John than Aluth Avrudhu or Amaradeva). Being exposed to and enamored with western scientific and philosophical ideas perhaps weakened it still further. This is not something I am proud of or ashamed, but simply the way it has worked out for me.

On the flip side though, if cricket fervor is any guide, I have a strong Sri Lankan identity and living in the west has made me realize that my Sri Lankan identity has significant psychological value.to me. Sri Lankan achievements make feel good. May there be more of such events

Shan