SINHALA AND TAMIL TRACES IN AN ISLAND’S HISTORY

PSP asks me a bunch of questions, all based on the assumption that I’ve bought the Vijaya Legend. I have not. The ‘refutation’ of the Vijaya Legend that PSP offers is that ‘no race is founded by an individual The Island was never isolated. There have even been Buddhists too before Arahat Mahinda, as evidenced by begging bowls discovered in Anuradhapura dating back to pre-mahindian times as well There are no references to any Tamil community or even a non-tamil Dravidian community or any community with any trace of “Tamils, Telugu, Kannada and Malayalees” that PSP claims inhabited the island ‘before Vijaya’s arrival’ (he seems to believe the ‘myth’!)

ABy Malinda Seneviratne ny discussion on claims which contain words such as ‘traditional’ or ‘historical’ can make sense only if assertions are backed by facts and not by myths. They should be buttressed by a corpus of evidence that are coherent and wholesome, and are not marked by the errors of selectivity. In an article where he sets himself the task of refuting an allegation that ‘the claim of traditional/ historical homelands (of Tamils) is a load of balderdash, unsupported by any kind of evidence,’ (see ‘Wigneswaran and the puppeteering with ghosts) P. Soma Palan (PSP hereafter) appears to have inadvertently reinforced my assertion (see his article ‘Claim of traditional homeland: Not a load of balderdash’).

PSP dwells at length on the Vijaya Legend. He calls it a myth and yet by sleight of hand typical of Eelam mythmodellers and in contradiction of his own myth-claim insists that the real name is ‘Vijay’ or ‘Vijayan’ (a ‘Tamilization’ that has become ‘par for the course’ in creative Eelamist historiography). The reference to Vijaya is taken from the Mahawamsa of Mahanama Thera in the 5th Century. It is an epic narrative in Pali. We cannot as yet take it as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and we certainly cannot call it a total fabrication either; the veracity of certain parts have been established by archaeological excavation and by corroboration via other texts while certain other parts remain unsubstantiated. The Vijaya legend belongs to the latter kind.

To make sense, it is useful to revisit the chronicler’s disclaimer. Mahanama Thera observes that the narratives (in text or other form) of the ancients (those who came before) are at times overly lengthy, at times all too brief and at times repetitive. He claims that his was an exercise of eliminating error and laying it out for easier comprehension and for the delight (of the reader). What was left out and what was added, we cannot be definite about as per available evidence. For the historian it is a useful document that provides a basetext and innumerable clues, nothing more and nothing less. PSP asks me a bunch of questions, all based on the assumption that I’ve bought the Vijaya Legend. I have not. The ‘refutation’ of the Vijaya Legend that PSP offers is that ‘no race is founded by an individual’. This is absolutely correct, but he’s making too much of a symbol or a signifier. It is not that Vijaya descended from nowhere and founded a race of sons and daughters who inter-married and had children of their own and multiplied. What’s important is not the name, but the process.

It is reasonable to assume that Vijaya was not the first (and certainly not the last) ‘prince’ who came to the island with an entourage and with a conquistador’s designs. For the chronicler his arrival was clearly significant enough in terms of impact on political control to give it the privilege of ‘starting point’. This does not mean that the island was inhabited or only sparsely inhabited at the time. Neither do we know for sure the ‘clan names’ if you will of the indigenous peoples. We do know that a document compiled by a South Indian Buddhist monk in the 1st or 2nd Century CE titled ‘Seehalavattuppakara’ referring to a community by the name ‘Seehala’. We know that there are references to various communities in early inscriptions but none in which a Tamil trace can be found. There are no references to any Tamil community or even a non-tamil Dravidian community or any community with any trace of “Tamils, Telugu, Kannada and Malayalees” that PSP claims inhabited the island ‘before Vijaya’s arrival’ (he seems to believe the ‘myth’!). I would love to examine his sources on this. The relevant cave inscriptions, by the way, are in Sinhala Prakrit. If indeed this was a ‘Tamil Island’ as PSP claims and if it were Tamils who were converted to Buddhism, surely there would have been some references, some caves, a dozen or even one with South Indian ‘Brahmi’ characters? None!

More on language, later. Let’s consider the ‘evidence’ that PSP offers. Ravana! It’s a nice story and interestingly written, true, but it’s as much ‘legend’ as the Vijaya story if not more. That was a story that was popularized elsewhere. The place names that PSP refers to are of relatively recent origin, this side of the Gampola Period to be more precise and possibly explained by several waves of immigrants being allowed to settle in various parts of the island by the kings of the time which are interestingly the very same places where ‘ravana legends’ and ‘ravana place names’ exist! That’s ‘history’; what PSP offers is conjecture. No evidence.

PSP likes to confuse terms. Hindu, for him, indicates Tamil. Non-buddhist by implication has to be Hindu. Of course the people who lived before the arrival of Arahat Mahinda had their own religious beliefs, some of which were quite possibly related to present day Hinduism. The Island was never isolated. There have even been Buddhists too before Arahat Mahinda, as evidenced by begging bowls discovered in Anuradhapura dating back to pre-mahindian times as well. Texts such as the ‘Divyavadana’ believed to have been written in the 1st Century CE speak of Buddhist missions that arrived in the Island from time to time, dating back to the time of the Buddha. What’s pertinent is that there is little evidence to say that even if there was any Hindu trace in these cosmologies there is even less ‘Dravidian’ markings and nothing of ‘Tamil’.

“The ancestral progenitors of present day Sinhalese are the converted Tamil Buddhists,” PSP claims. So, did Tamils drop language, create a new language and transformed into a different ‘ethnicity’ just because they converted to Buddhism (as claimed)? Whatever date the name ‘Sinhala’ came to be identified with the vast majority of people in the Island, what is clear is that there was a process involved and that if there indeed was any Tamil trace it was marginal. If ‘Tamil’ was erased by racist ‘Sinhala’ chroniclers, it is indeed strange that of the 15-20 names given to the Island by outsiders there is not one that has any Dravidian trace, leave alone a Tamil one.

PSP is full of myth and legend. In addition to the Ravana Legend, he says that the Kataragama temple (Tamilized as per his whims to ‘Kathiragamam’) existed around 13,000 BC. He offers no evidence. What we do know is that he’s speaking of the Mesolithic Age, the time of hunters and gatherers who didn’t have any fixed abode. “The existence of pre-vijayan and pre-buddhistic Hindu temples, millennia before the arrival of so-called Vijay and Arahat Mahinda, proves that the Tamils and other Dravidian Hindu races, was the majority population of Lanka,” he claims, but what’s this evidence?