Sinhala nationalist's favourite chapter of Sri Lankan history is the Chola invasion of Sri Lanka. Two things are proved by that: first, Tamils are hostile to Sinhalese, and second, Tamils settled in SL only after the Chola invasion. Both claims are dumbfounding. As Sinhala nationalists portray, the Chola empire's invasion of Sri Lanka was not a Tamil invasion against the Sinhalese.
It was a Chola invasion against the combined Tamil and Sinhalese Alliance of the Pandiya-Anuradhapura kingdoms. During the Chola invasion of the Pandyan Kingdom, the seeds of the Sri Lankan invasion were sown. As Tamil Pandya kings were allies of Sri Lankan rulers since prehistoric times, the Chola army fought with the combined Pandya-Sri Lankan army during their invasion of Pandya country. Pandya king Rajasimha fled to Anuradhapura with his crown jewels following his defeat. Wearing all three crowns of Tamil country was a matter of great pride for Tamil kings. The driving motive behind the Chola invasions of Sri Lanka was their desire to possess these royal treasures of the Pandyan kings. If you look at the invasion pattern of the Cholas from the 10th century they were only interested in conquering kingdoms in India and Southeast Asia that could pose threats to their supremacy over the maritime silk road trade. Sri Lanka played an insignificant part in this trade, so there is no huge economic incentive for them to conquer Sri Lanka.
It is also a historical fact that the Vijayabahu retook the island with Pandyan's help. In addition, even the Tamil Velaikkara armies fought for Vijayabahu. In the past, there was no Tamil or Sinhala racial identity, contrary to what Sinhala and Tamil nationalists say today. Sinhalese identity we speak of today is a construct of people like Anagarika Dharmapala. Sinhalese never saw them as one race before that.
For example in 1927 Kandyan Sinhala leaders recommended to the British that their national constitution should have a federal arrangement of two units for Sinhalese (one each for Kandian and low-country Sinhalese) and one unit for Tamils. Today the distinction between the two groups of Sinhalese has almost disappeared. Similarly, the 19th-century Tamil movement constructed today's Tamil identity. This is how history work and culture evolves.
History shows the Sri Lankan kings and the Tamil kings were both friends and enemies. The Royalty intermarried, and fought together and against each other. We have a shared history. Some Tamil kings invaded Sri Lanka and Sri Lankan kings invaded parts of Tamil country.
Several famous Sri Lankan monarchs themselves are from the Tamil bloodline. There's a fun fact that Sinhala nationalists don't tell you. Do you remember the great Sri Lankan king Parakramabahu the Great who invaded parts of Burma twice and was hailed as the hero of the Sinhalese? His grandfather was a Tamil Pandyan prince. Vijayabahu I had given his sister Mitta's hand in marriage to a Tamil Pandyan prince. That Pandyan prince became the father of Manabharana, who in turn was the father of Parakramabahu the Great. One man's hero is another man's villain. Paramkramabahu is a villain for the Burmese people and a hero for the Sri Lankans. What Cholas or Paramkramabahu did 1000 years ago was just the way all kings behaved in ancient times. When you understand this all the hatred against them is meaningless.
There is one more fun fact I want to share with you. The house of Kalinga from which famous Sri Lankan kings like Nissanka Malla came shares some Chola bloodline. Because Cholas conquered and married off their princesses to Kalinga kings. That is why the Kalinga dynasty of that time called themselves the "Chodaganga" dynasty. It refers to the union of the Eastern Ganga and Chola dynasties. Vijaybahu married a Kalinga princess and from her, the house of Kalinga began. As many of you may be aware after the death of Sri Vira Parakrama Narendra Singha in 1739 AD, the rest of the kings of the Kandyan kingdom were from South India. Tamil along with Sinhalese was the court language.
The Sinhalese script itself is heavily influenced by the Tamil Grantha script of the Pallavas. That is why modern Sinhalese scripts resemble Dravidian scripts, unlike other Indo-Aryan scripts.
Even if you believe in the Mahavamsa myths about the origins of Sinhalese. Vijaya married a Tamil Pandya princess and the Pandyan king sent to Lanka his own daughter, 700 other women (additionally a hundred maidens of noble descent), craftsmen, and a thousand Tamil families of 18 guilds. So there are more Tamils colonizing this island than Vijaya and his followers according to Mahavamsa.
No one in Sri Lanka including modern Tamils can talk about pure blood or pure race. Culture is constantly evolving as a result of mutual influence and intermixing. During the protohistoric period (1000-500 B.C.) Sri Lanka was culturally united with southern India and shared the same megalithic burials, pottery, iron technology, farming techniques and megalithic graffiti. This cultural complex spread from southern India along with Dravidian clans prior to the Prakrit speakers' migration. Archaeology gives us that picture. Most of today's Sri Lankans are a mix of these two groups along with the indigenous tribal population of Sri Lanka.
As a result of increasing proximity to the Indian mainland and isolation from the rest of Sri Lanka due to the thick forest cover, the northern part of Sri Lanka has a continuous Dravidian influence. Naga tribes also assimilated into the Dravidian culture. Tamils still retain Naga heritage and add a Naga prefix to their names and city names. In southern parts, the mixing of Prakrit, Tamil, Sanskrit and local indigenous languages and then pali with the introduction of Buddhism resulted in the eventual evolution of modern Sinhalese people and language. So anyone who understands basic anthropology wouldn't say Sinhalese were the original inhabitants of the island or that the entire island belonged to Sinhalese.
The only evidence the Sinhalese nationalists have to claim the entire island belongs to Sinhalese was the presence of Buddhist remains in the north. Again a stupid argument. Who said Tamils couldn't be Buddhist? Until the 8th century, most Tamils belonging to the merchant class were Buddhists. Nagapattinam (Note the name "Naga"-pattinam) in Tamilnadu was a Buddhist stronghold in South India since the 3rd century BCE. An inscription from Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka dated to the 2nd century BCE records Tamil merchants' association with Buddhist institutions. One of the five major ancient epics in Tamil is a Buddhist epic "Manimekalai" which is dated to roughly the 2nd century AD.
As you can see both Sinhalese and Tamils are so mixed up in Sri Lankan history. We have lived on this island since time immemorial. Racial identity was very flexible until recently. Tamil people became Sinhalese and Sinhalese people became Tamils. Do you know that two families who spread Sinhala nationalism in Sri Lanka, the Bandaranaike family and Jeyawardana family were both originally Tamils who got assimilated as Sinhalese? Google their family history if you want to know more about them.
Don't make a false narrative about yesterday's history based on your present prejudices and constructs. Both Tamils and Sinhalese contributed sweat and blood to build Sri Lanka. If Sri Lanka is to emerge from its current abyss, its highly educated people need to look at who leads whom in what direction. Politicians will not say or do anything against popular sentiments. Moderate voices from the educated community are needed to speak out against this stupid gross simplification of history from a racist perspective and educate the masses.
No comments:
Post a Comment