• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
Tamils History in the eye of SihalaacademicSri Lankan History by Prof Manouri P Senanayake
 There is no nation on earth that boasts of 2 homelands - Tamil Nadu (Nadu meansHomeland) is the current homeland of the Tamil people and will always remain so. The British, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese and French have had many colonies butalways only one homeland. Can the huge Italian population in the US demand anItalian homeland within US borders? No, and America is only a couple of hundredyears old compared to Sri Lanka's couple of thousand.. So if the Tamils want to livein their own homeland they should try Tamil Nadu. That's Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu is home to 60 million Tamils, yet Tamil is not an official language of India. Then why for 3 million Tamils in Sri Lanka is it so important?1. If the Tamils had an ancient Tamil kingdom before the Sinhalese kingdom beganin Sri Lanka like they claim, how is it that Tamils still number a mere 2.8 million,while Sinhalese became 17 million? Were the ancient Tamils less fertile?2. If the Tamils came before the Sinhalese, why did they stay in the arid north andnot move to more salubrious areas further south.3. Although Tamil is an ancient language it has left no written history behind, in SriLanka or India, no monuments, no inscriptions to say where or what this ancient Tamil Kingdom was, or who ruled it -while Sinhalese Buddhist inscriptions andmonuments can be found even in Kantharodai in Jaffna, which date back over 2000years � Such ancient Sinhalese monuments and inscriptions can be found rightacross the country - in the north, east, south and west of Sri Lanka.4. If there was a Tamil Homeland in the north, why didn't Tamil Kings like ELARA (BC150) Who came from South India and ruled Lanka (sitting on the sinhalesethrone atAnuradhapura) , not run away to this northern "so called" Tamil Homeland toescape his death, or get soldiers from, when challenged and killed by a SinhalesePrince from the south.5. Throughout the ancient chronicled history of Sri Lanka there are several mentionsmade to Sinhalese kings getting down Tamil mercenariesfrom South India to fighttheir internal disputes, and many mentions to importing brides from North India fortheir kings. But there is no mention of mercenaries or brides got down from this so-called "Northern Tamil kingdom" where they could have walked to...Not even amarriage Proposal, or a citizens quarrel is mentioned!. So obviously a TamilKingdom did not exist in the north of Sri Lanka.6. Tamil historian Dr S. Pathmanathan gives what he calls "a reasonably accuratechronological list" of the rulers of Jaffna in Dr K.M. De Silva's "History of Sri Lanka." The earliest Tamil King for whom dates are given by this Tamil Historian is "King
 
Pararajasekaran, who ruled Jaffna from AD 1478-1519." This is correct according toSri Lankan history. But Sinhalese Kings have existed on recorded since BC250.. TheSinhalese King Parakramabahu VI (1411-1466) repulsed the South IndianVijayanagar Empire who tried to take over Jaffna. He then left his adopted son,Sapumal Kumara behind as emperor of Jaffna. When Parakrambahu died, in 1466,his own grandson took over the Sinhalese throne in Kotte in the South. When theadopted son Sapumal Kumara heard of the death, he went to Kotte in 1469, leaving Jaffna vacant, and killed the King's grandson to become King of all Lanka. Thisenabled one Pararajasekeran to become the first King of Jaffna in 1478 (only about530 years ago).7. Wilhelm Geiger, the famous German Ideologist writing in 1932 about theMahawamsa (Ancient Sinhalese Chronicle) says, it is "the most astonishing dynastichistory of any people from 542 BC to 1758. It is a well known fact that for hardly anypart of the continent of India is there such an uninterrupted historical tradition as forthe island of Ceylon" (Sri Lanka). (He does not make mention about any TamilHistory).8. The Tamil Historian Dr S.G.Gunasegeram writing in "The Tamil" in 1955 says, "Nopeoples have had the good fortune to inherit such a comparatively reliable story of their hoary past as the Sinhalese. The people of Ceylon in general, and particularlythe Sinhalese, are rightly proud of this ancient story of their long line of kings TheMahawamsa is a book that should be in the library of every educated Ceylonese - abook that should be read and re-read with understanding." - Again there is nomention of "Tamil history" by this ethnically Tamil historian. Why? Because therewas NO Tamil kingdom or history available9. The Sinhalese, who came from North India2500 years ago, were Hindus.. It is anaccepted historical fact that in around 300BC, Emperor Asoka sent Buddhistmissionaries from India, to eastern countries like Sri Lanka, Thailand, Cambodia,Burma, Laos. Today these countries are Buddhist, like Sri Lanka. So why did Asokanot send any missionaries to this TAMIL Homeland called Eelam? Asoka favoured SriLanka by sending his own son (a monk) and daughter (a nun) to Sri Lanka. This sonand daughter of the great Emperor Asoka who came all the way from North India,and whose only mission was to preach Buddhism, spent over 40 years of their livesin Sri Lanka until death.Theypreached to the Sinhalese, but did not even think of preaching to this "(imaginary) ancient Tamil Kingdom," which was only walkingdistance away from the Sinhalese capital Anuradhapura where they lived? Why?Was it discrimination against Tamils by Asoka and his pious children? Is this notproof, that there was no Tamil kingdom nor even a fair population of Tamils, toencourage these devout, dedicated religious teachers to want to go and preach tothis "imaginary northern kingdom," as was done in Burma, Thailand etc?10. If Tamils had an "ancient Tamil Kingdom in the north", were Sinhalese so foolish,to go and set up their first kingdom in 394BC in Anuradhapura, (by KingParakramabahu I), where it would have been enveloped on all sides by this "so-
 
called imaginary" ancient Tamil kingdom. Why be so foolish when the Sinhalesecould have occupied the whole of the south and had their Capital in the southinstead of goingto Anuradhapura? And were Sinhalese so stupid to build, (from around 300 BC),extensive irrigation systems and reservoirs, huge religious monuments some 140 to160 feet tall that still stand as strong as the day they were built, and build nine-storied monasteries. Would they plant their most "SACRED BO TREE" inAnuradhapura if they knew their kingdom was enveloped by this "Tamil kingdom"where they could be attacked at any time and destroyed by this "Imaginary" TamilKingdom?11. When in BC250 King Devanampiyatissa went to Nagadipa (ancient name for Jaffna) in the very North to receive the sacred Bo Tree, there is no mention of himgoing through or to any Tamil Kingdom to get to the North. That was because therewas no Tamil or any other Kingdom in the North.12. This "so called Tamil kingdom" did nothing, built nothing, left nothing � noirrigation systems, no ruins of palaces or temples or anything else - no religiousbuildings, no inscriptions, no written history, nothing left behind for posterity - Whilein the heart of Jaffna in Kantharodai there are Buddhist temples built by Sinhalesekings. - No Tamils or their "imaginary" kingdom could have ever been Buddhist - Noway!13. There is only one recorded attack throughout history on the Sinhalese Kingdomfrom the North. That was by a Malayan, Chandrabhanu who first tried to attack theSinhalese Kingdom and when he failed he went to Jaffna and tried to attackSinhalese people from the North. But he was killed. All attacks on the SinhaleseKingdom came only from South India - None from this so called Tamil Kingdom.14. Around 1505 when the Portuguese took over the south and harassed Arabtraders who were running businesses there. The Arabs complained to the SinhaleseKing and the king gave them land on the East coast, where they still live today. Thisproves the East, Batticaloa and Trincomalee were also under the Sinhalese kings - in1505 - and not under any Tamil king.15. When the Dutch arrived in 1637 they signed a deal with the Sinhalese King tohave berthing rights for their ships in harbours on the East coast, Trincomalee andBatticaloa during the monsoon rains, proving that the eastern costal regionsbelonged to the Sinhalese in 1637.- and not to any Tamil Kingdom.16. When in 1660 Robert Knox's father's ship "Anne" stopped over at the easternport of Trincomalee, Sinhalese soldiers arrested them and took them to theirSinhalese King, proving that in 1660 the east was under a Sinhalese King. RobertKnox and his friend Stephen Rutland lived among the Sinhalese (mostly in Kandy)for over 17 years. Robert Knox wrote "Robert Knox in the Kandyan Kingdom" a book
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...