A few Sinhala friends had further queries on my last post regarding Cholas and Tamil history in Sri Lanka. Here is the answer. To talk about history first, we need clarity on two concepts. One is historicism and the other is historicity. Historicism means compiling history in a particular way to construct a narrative. Marxism is one of the most famous examples of this approach. An extreme example of historicism is people claiming that the entire world is controlled by the Illuminati. If you talk to them they will give you ample historical evidence to back it up. People who talk and promote historicism want only power and it will only lead to a bloodbath. We saw how Marxism led to communism and a bloodbath. In the last 30 years, researchers have understood that history is very complex and can't be viewed in the same way as it was once. It is impossible to explain every event by a single narrative; it requires a multifaceted understanding. This is called "historicity". Today's research emphasises historicity not historicism. But we Sri Lankans are still stuck in outdated historicism and want a simple narrative for all our problems. This led to nothing but a bloodbath in Sri Lanka and will continue to lead to nothing but a bloodbath.
Now let's talk history. There is an old Soviet saying "The future is certain, it’s the past that keeps changing.” That is how history works. We believe history is already there intact and we found it. That is not how it works. We will have evidence here and there, but 99% of history is not there. Using those evidence, we create hypotheses. In historical research, the primary evidence is always archaeological. Literature can only be used to identify archaeological sites or collaborate on existing archaeological findings. Literary evidence alone is never considered because it may be influenced by its authors' imagination and bias. This is something both Sinhalese and Tamils don't understand.
Literature can give us clues, but conclusions must be supported by other archaeological evidence. The majority of the objections I received were solely based on "Mahavamsa". So the first thing we need to understand is that something mentioned in a literary text called "Mahavamsa" or "Tamil Sangam Literature" alone doesn't make something true unless it is supported with other evidence. Mahavamsa's Buddhist bias has been well documented by researchers. The purpose of Mahavamsa was not to write the history of Sri Lanka but to establish that Sri Lanka is a country Buddha blessed for Buddhism to prosper. Mahavamsa's historical importance comes from the fact that it provides clues to probe our history, like "Tamil Sangam Literature". If everything in the Mahavamsa is true then we must conclude that human females and male lions could mate and reproduce human children. According to researchers three criteria should be considered when making hypotheses in historical contexts.
First, the hypothesis should be consistent with the archaeological evidence present in the area. Second, the hypothesis should be aligned with the history of the region (for Sri Lanka, South Asia is the region considered), and third, the hypothesis should be aligned with the overall picture of humanity's history. In this way, history will change as newer and newer archaeological evidence is found, both locally and regionally.
But the problem with Sri Lanka is that we have formed a historical narrative based on initial evidence available at independence. Then some power-hungry groups build politics around those narratives. So the power centres that benefit from those narratives will not allow them to change because it will endanger their grip on power.
As far as Sri Lanka is concerned until the 1960's there was no archaeological evidence of Tamil settlements predating the Chola invasion. Professor Indrapala who conducted research into Tamils in Sri Lanka in the late 1950's concluded there is no evidence of Tamils in Sri Lanka before Chola time. During 1966 and 1974, however, Prof. Indirapala explored the jungles of Northern, North Central, and Eastern provinces, discovering new Tamil inscriptions and Hindu temples.
With the discovery of pre-Christian era inscriptions in Tamil Nadu, regional history began to change too. He collaborated with all the evidence found in Sri Lanka and Tamil Nadu. He established that there are enough archaeological evidence and collaborative literary evidence to prove Tamils live in Sri Lanka at least since 300 BC. He has written a book "The Evolution of an Ethnic Identity: The Tamils of Sri Lanka C. 300 BCE to C. 1200 CE". Feel free to read it. It is also possible to find an article on "Tamil inscriptions in Sri Lanka" on Wikipedia.
Yet by 1970, the ethnic conflict had already gotten out of hand. The narrative "Tamils are invaders who came with Cholas" put forward in 1950 stays the same today even with ample evidence against it. If you are interested in learning more about Tamil Buddhism in Sri Lanka feel free to read "Demala Baudhayo" by Professor Sunil Ariyaratne. I highly doubt you could find a copy because Prof. Sunil mentioned Sinhala nationalists pressured him not to bring new editions to his book now.
We must be open-minded when researching history. We can't pick and choose history to create a narrative. We should let history be history and let scholars do their job and not use that to do politics since history is subject to change. The pursuit of truth should be our goal, not the establishment of our version of the truth as history. But all I'm seeing in Sri Lanka are millions of ostriches burying their heads in the sand.
Another question a friend asked was "Sri Lanka did play a role in the maritime silk road trade and why do I believe Cholas didn't invade Sri Lanka for trade reasons". Scholarly opinion is divided on this matter. Some say trade played a part but others say it doesn't. However, I tend to lean on the side that it doesn't after long contemplation. If you look at history, the maritime silk route underwent significant changes in the 10th century. First, there was the decline of the Abbasid Caliphate and the rise of the pro-trade Fatimid Caliphate in the Middle East. In East Asia, the Song dynasty in China was undergoing an era of unprecedented economic prosperity. So sea trade boomed on an unprecedented scale during this time. The quantity of trade through Sri Lankan ports was insignificant compared to other Indian ports and ports in the Malay Archipelago in South East Asia.
From a cost vs benefit standpoint, the Sri Lankan invasion is not economically beneficial for the Cholas. That is why they focused on invading the counties on the entire east coast of India and the entire countries in the Malay Archipelago once the Pandyas were crushed and the crown jewels were recovered from Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka was struggling economically at that time. The Cholas never really consolidated their control over southern Sri Lanka, which lacked large and prosperous settlements to tempt long-term Chola occupation. If the Cholas wanted to undercut Sri Lanka's maritime trade they could promote free trade by reducing tolls in their ports instead of invading Sri Lanka. Remember the Cholas abolished tolls in their ports during Kulothunga Chola's time. So an invasion was not necessary to undermine Sri Lanka.
In 1070, the Chola empire was ravaged by a civil war and the Chola emperor was killed in the process. Sensing the opportunity Vijaybahu with the help of the Pandyans and Burmese retook the island. But soon a new emperor took over the Chola empire and normalcy returned. If there had been such an economic incentive, Cholas could have attempted to retake the island. The Cholas were very strong until the end of the 12th century. After Chola civil war was over they routed the combined offensive of the Kalinga-Chalukya armies and invaded the Kalinga twice and brought some parts of the eastern Chalukya empire under their banner. They even established a permanent military presence in the Malay Archipelago to project power during this time. That is why I highly doubt there was a big economic angle. But it doesn't matter whether there is an economic angle or not, my conclusions are not affected by them. As I explained before the Chola invasion was not racially motivated and both Tamils and Sinhalese fought against the Cholas.
No comments:
Post a Comment