On the origin of Sinhala and Tamil races
by Sankiliyan Elankesan
This is in response to the letter published in The Island of 31st May 2006 under the title, "Sulu Karuna of Elankesan-III", authored by Prof. Nalin de Silva. He, out of his Maha Karuna and the expertise that he has acquired in Western Mathematical Analysis and Vibhajjavada Analysis of Sinhala Mahavihara Tradition, does not want to reply the primary and fundamental issues raised by me in my letter of April 17, but continues with his declamations that are not even remotely connected to the issues raised by me. I have in my previous letters, particularly emphasised and drawn his attention to this lacuna in his letters. I pray that my fervent appeal would touch his Maha Karuna heart and provide his reply without prolonging the agony of reading his pet theses from his, Mage Lokaya. However, I wish to make my observations and comments on some of the erroneous and inaccurate discoveries that he had dished out to the readers through, "Sulu Karuna of Flankesan-III, with a view to rectifying them in their proper and correct perspective.
I am aware and conscious of the fact that in no part of the world, are there Sinhalese speaking people, or nation or ethnic group domiciled as a minority group. This may be a fortune or a misfortune under the present circumstances prevailing in Sri Lanka. But, it is absolutely incorrect and palpably false to state that there are no relatives of the Sinhalese people in any part of the world. There are Sinhalese, even in the Arctic and Antartic regions, which the learned Professor may not be aware of. Lord Buddha, in his wonderful and unique dispensation of the Dhamma had declared that no phenomenon could appear, disappear or emerge without a CAUSE and if there is a CAUSE, there has to be an EFFECT as well. This is a universal truth and the learned Nalin de Silva will not reject it as non-sense.
Applying this dictum to the protracted disquisition and thesis of Prof. Nalin de Silva relating to the origin of the Sinhalese and their early settlement in Sri Lanka and its antics, the counter claim by the Tamils that the Sinhalese were aliens was caused by the Sinhala Buddhists in demanding and ordering the Tamils to migrate to their Home-Land, Tamil Nadu. The cause for this entire episode was none other than the Sinhala Buddhists and the EFFECT is the retaliation by the Tamils in exposing the origin of the Sinhala race and their early settlement in Sri Lanka with incontrovertible evidence, which might have hurt and pained the learned professor and the Sinhala Buddhists. Truth is unpalatable and sour for consumption.
Since Prof. Nalin de Silva in his part III of "Sulu Karuna of Elankesan" had assiduously claimed and asserted that the Sinhalese were the indigenous people of Sri Lanka and the Tamils, were and are aliens and migrants, I am, as a matter of duty, bound to put the record right by citing some of the authorities in respect of the origin of the Sinhalese and their early settlement. S. U. Deraniyagala, in his research findings and conclusions compiled in his book, Pre and Proto-Historic Settlement in Sri Lanka, says that the original Sinhala race could be traced to a group of Indo-Aryans, who entered India from Hindu-Kush around 1700 BC and subsequently came to Sri Lanka. He does not mention any of the Indo-Aryans getting absorbed with the people/tribes already in existence at the time of their arrival.
However, Dr. Paranavitana concludes that Mutu Siva (Murundu Siva), the son of Sinhala, a Chieftain of the Grameneya Clan in the Indus Valley Region is said to have sailed south from Southern India, established himself in Sri Lanka and ruled from 307 BC to 281 BC. He is quite emphatic that Mutu Siva is the founder of the Sinhala race. Dr. Paranavitana also admits that Mutu Siva intermingled and integrated with the people or group / tribes already there and founded the Sinhala race but, he could not identify the tribes/groups of people who were there at that time or period.
Prof. Nilakanta Sastry, in his book, The History of India and its Civilization, says that the Indo-Aryans migrated to Sri Lanka during the 6th and 4th century BC, intergrated and intermingled with the group/tribes/people already there and became the Sinhala race. He also does not identify the tribes/groups of people who were there at the time or period of arrival of the Indo-Aryans to Sri Lanka.
The consensus among historians and archaeologists at present is that the Sinhala race originated from Lala (Lata) which was in modern Gujarat. It was here that Simhala (or Sinhala), the son of a legendary union between a princess and a lion, formed his own Kingdom with Simhapura as the capital. His eldest son Vijaya with 700 of his compatriots were banished for his misbehaviour and misconduct. They landed in the North Western coast of Sri Lanka, where, Vijaya met the demon queen Kuveni and married her. Vijaya, with the help of Kuveni killed her tribe-the Yakkas-and became the first King of Sri Lanka. Vijaya got down from Madurain, South India, 700 Tamil women for his compatriots and a princess for himself and ruled Sri Lanka. The arrival of Vijaya and his 700 compatriots took place in 543 BC. Therefore, it is judicious to conclude that the Sinhalese race was founded by Vijaya during 543 BC and the Sinhalese race is the offspring of the Tamils.
Apart from the above sequence of commentaries by eminent historians relating to the origin of the Sinhala race and their early settlement in Sri Lanka, Douglas Bullis, in his commentary to the Mahavamsa, a sacred Gospel to the Sinhalese, portrays an altogether different interpretation relating to this matter. Since I have quoted the paragraph from the book, which was reproduced by Prof. Nalin de Silva in his letter of May 24, I do not wish to quote it again.
Hence, the assertion and claim by Prof. Nalin de Silva that the Sinhalese were the indigenous people of Sri Lanka and the absorption of some cultural traits of the Ardha Vedic (partly Vedic or half vedic) people who migrated to Sri Lanka from about the 9th century BC by the people (Yakkas, Nagas and others), who were living in the country, stands discredited, refuted and rejected on the basis of the above authoritative findings and declarations by eminent historians. Further, the learned professor having utilized phrases like, "PRO-VEDIC," ARDHA-VEDIC" and "OTHER PEOPLE" does not elucidate, clarify and explain as to who they were, and what the language and culture of the people who migrated to Sri Lanka were. He has to be specific, and exact to be accepted by the readers. However, in his own admission, it is evident that the Sinhalese race was founded by the immigrant people from Bharat (India). It is also an admitted fact that the Sinhalese people were immigrants and not the indigenous people of Sri Lanka. This is evident from the historical and archaeological evidence submitted by me earlier.
Let me now deal with the indigenous people of Sri Lanka. The indigenous people were none other than the Yakkas, and the Nagas, which fact is accepted by all historians and archaeologists without any doubt and dispute. Even the Mahavamsa accepts this findings, though Nalin de Silva has doubts about these groups of people being classified as the DRAVIDIANS. The archaeologists discovered three important factors from the Brahmi inscriptions found in Sri Lanka and based on them, they classified the indigenous people as DRAVIDIANS. The three factors are:
(a) System of burial of dead bodies (Urns) at the sites
(b) Brhamic inscriptions themselves
(c) Religious practices and observances
It is the clear and unambiguous findings of scholars and researchers that there was no evidence of pro-Vedic, pro-Indo Aryan, Pro-Ardha Vedic Aryans, or Sinhalese factors to conclude, assert, and vindicate their presence or existence. This is confirmed and established beyond any shadow of doubt by the historians cum Archaeologists E P. Fernando, Saddamangala Karunaratne and Ariya Abeyasinghe on the indisputable evidence of the existence of Dravidian Tamil Brahmic inscriptions in Sri Lanka prior to the introduction of North Indian Brahmic Inscriptions. Hence, it is reasonable and justifiable to conclude that the Tamils were the indigenous people of Sri Lanka, prior to the founding or formation of the Sinhala race or nation by the absorption of the Ardha Vedic-pro Vedic people from India with the people already in existence in Sri Lanka.
This position is further supported and strengenthed by the declaration of Paul Peiris that the Dravidians moved away from the North of India towards the south during 483 BC and entered Sri Lanka. Therefore, prior to the arrival of Buddhism in Sri Lanka, the indigenous people in Sri Lanka were none other than the Dravidians, whose language was Tamil. This was the reason for the Tamil Brahmic inscription being found in Sri Lanka prior to this period. The Dravidians were the pioneer architects of a new culture and new civilization in Sri Lanka with the experience and expertise that they acquired from the Indus Valley civilization. The Dravidians intergrated with the Nagas since they spoke Tamil and also followed their religious practices and observances. Vijaya and his 700 men arrived in Sri Lanka during 543 BC, got themselves absorbed with the demonish Yakkas, who spoke a peculiar language called, "ELU", which subsequently transformed into "HELA", gradually mixed up with PALI and finally evolved into the SINHALA language. The Sinhala language was established in common usage about the 3rd century AD in preference to Pali, but it continued to be used by the Buddhist clergy.
It was only in about 1250 AD Sinhala language developed into a written and literary language. This fact is amply proved by the execution of the Kandyan Convention in 1815 by the Sinhala Disawas. In the act of surrendering the Kandyan Kingdom to the Britishers six of the disawas signed in Tamil, barring Keppetipola, Galagama and Galaboda Disawas who signed in Sinhala. If the Sinhala language was a well-developed and rich language from the Ardha-Vedic period as claimed by Nalin de Silva, there would have been no necessity for the six disawas to execute the Convention in Tamil. Assuming that the contention of Prof. Nalin de Silva is correct in this respect, why was the Great Chronicle Mahavamsa written in Pali by the nephew of Sinhala King Mahasena, Mahanama Thera, instead of Sinhala? The Sinhala translation of the Mahavamsa was done only in the year 1924. This provides an idea of the development and richness of the Sinhala language for literary works.
Since Prof. Nalin de Silva had made reference to the Mahabarath and Ramayana in his dissertations, it is appropriate to quote from the Ramayana to disprove the contention that the Tamils are of recent origin as claimed by him. The Ramayana epic is accepted by the Sinhalese and the Tamils. It is a well known fact that Ravana was the King of Sri Lanka in 101 BC and his suzerainty over Sri Lanka was unchallenged. In the war that ensued between Sri Rama and Ravana, Ravana was killed by Rama and he enthroned Ravana's brother Vibhushanan as the King of Sri Lanka. In Vibhushanan's court, there was an instrumental musician by the name of Yarlpaady, who used to play IRUDRA VEENA for the king's amusement. King Vibhusbanan gifted the northern part of Sri Lanka to Yarlpaady in appreciation of the musician's excellent performance of the veena. Yarlpaady proceeded to Madurai, South India and requested from Kulotunga Pandiyan King to provide him a "yuvaraja", a prince to rule the northern part of Sri Lanka. Kulotunga Pandiyan king gifted his son Vijaya Koolangi Chakravarthy to Yarlpaady and they returned to the north of Sri Lanka and ruled, with Vijaya Koolangi Chakravarthy being the King of the northern part of Sri Lanka. Since this part of Sri Lanka was gifted to the Yarlpaady, it was named after him as "YAALPAANAM", the present Jaffna. It must be mentioned here that King Ravana was a devout devotee of Lord Shiva, a great instrumental and vocal musician and an eminent Tamil scholar. Vijaya Koolangi Chakravarthy got down from Madurai well over a thousand families and settled them in Yaalpaanam, since there was an acute shortage of human resources due to the mass scale massacres of the war.
The foregoing facts would provide an insight into the position of the Tamils and origin of the Sinhalese race and their settlement in Sri Lanka. There is no need for any comment at all, since the facts speak for themselves.
Prof. Nalin de Silva is entitled to his own interpretation of the term Aryans, Indo-Aryan, Pro-Aryans, Ardha-Aryans and Dravidians, but such interpretation has to be buttressed and supported by historical and archaeological evidence. I would kindly request him to read the research of Sir John Marshall, an internationally accepted and respected specialist in these fields, compiled in his book, Indus Valley-Mohan-ja-daro-Harapa civilization, in order to get a glimpse into the terms that he has used in his articles. From his excavations at the site, he has grouped the people who lived in and around the site of the said civilization as "ARYANS" and "DRAVIDIANS". He has given his reasons for grouping them as such, based on the language symbols and lettering found at the site. He has also emphatically stated that the architects of this world renowned Mohan-ja-Daro-Harapa civilization were none other than the Dravidians. These Dravidians, after the decivilization of the Indus Valley-Mohan-ja-Daro-Harapa due to natural calamities of floods, erosion, land slides etc, were compelled to move towards the southern part of India and settle down in the present States of Karnataka, Andhrapradesh, Kerala and Tamil Nadu, whilst some others moved further southward and settled down in the northern part of Sri Lanka. These Dravidians and their decendants are the Tamils who are presently domiciled in Sri Lanka. Prof. Nalin de Silva propounds a spurious theory that if the Tamils had been living in Sri Lanka for well over thousand years, or more, then, the Tamils should and would have evolved another dialect completely different from that of Tamil Nadu's Tamil language.
Since such a linguistic change had not taken place, he contends that the Tamils are recent immigrants to Sri Lanka.
The Tamil language was in existence and in literary use for well over 3000 years and it had not broken into small dialects during these long years. The only change that had taken place during this long period was in its formation of the letters, characters, vowels and consonents etc. Since Tamil is such a sweet, mellifluous and musical language, there was no need for it to be broken into several dialects as he imagines. It may be of interest to mention here for the information of the learned professor that the UNO/UNESCO recognized Tamil as one of the oldest languages of the world.
The learned Nalin de Silva had leapt into the Tamil literary arena, bemoaning the lack of Tamil books written by Sri Lankan Tamils, and also of a dearth in originality and creativity in Tamil literary works. If his concern is genuine and sincere, we are really happy about it. If I am to furnish him with details of the Tamil scholars, writers and researchers and their accomplishments, the editor would not allocate me space for their publication. Organised fostering, nurturing, nursing and developing the Tamil language and literature had been in prevalance from the period of Chera, Chola and Pandiya Rule and this organisation continues not only in India, but in Sri Lanka as well.
I reserve this subject for better days.
Prof. Nalin de Silva referred to Sinhala Buddhism, Asokan Buddhism, Bodhi Vandana, Western Christian Culture, Christian colonisation, Thesavalamai, Roman-Dutch Law, Muslim Law and a host of other matters that are unrelated to the specific issues raised by me. I do not want to waste my time over these non-sensical issues. I do not wish to respond to any future articles by him through The Island, unless and until he replies to my four primary and fundamental issues.
*This article from 21th June 2006 "The Island" news paper.