Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East SOUTH ASIA BULLETIN Vol. VI No. 2 Fall 1986 zyxwvut Nationalism: Sinhala and Tamil Myths Radhika Coomaraswamy The intensification of the Sri Lankan ethnic conflict in the 1980's has led to the development of "morbid symptoms" not only in our political process, as evidenced by the creation of a national security state, but also in our scholarship and political writings. The purpose of this paper is t o highlight some of these writings and to point to their relationship t o nationalist ideology. As Romila Thapar writes in "Communalism and Ancient History" Historical interpretation is integrally related t o a people's notion of its culture and nationality. This in itself makes historical writing one of the most sensitive intellectual areas with wide repercussions on popular nationalism and political beliefs (Thapar, 1977:lO). This preliminary inquiry will be divided into two parts. The first will take a look a t two recent and important works on Tamil nationalism - a book by Satchi Ponnambalam (1983) entitled the "National Question and the Tamil Struggle", and an article by N. Satyendra (1985) called "Legitimate Expectations." The second part of the inquiry will be directed a t one aspect of the latter day reiteration of past myths by Sinhalese ideologues. Writings in this category a r e numerous, emanating from official sources such as the Ministry of S t a t e and also from various unofficial groups and individuals. Some of the more blatant of these publications such as Kauda Kotiya? (Who is the Tiger?) Sinhalayage Adisi Hatura (The Invisible Enemy of the Sinhalese) have already been analyzed and debunked by some Sinhala scholars who have also examined the mythic background common to these writings in separate as well as joint volumes. Kumari J ayawardena's Ethnic and Class Conflicts In Sri Lanka; The Social Scientist Association's Ethnicity and Social Charge; The Committee For Rational Development's Sri Lanka's Ethnic Conflict, Myths and Realities, as well as individual articles by scholars such as K.M. De Silva, and C.R. De Silva, have provided the backdrop for a critical assault on some of the myths relating to Sinhala nationalism. I do not therefore propose to deal with all aspects of Sinhalese nationalist myth making. However, there has recently been a spate of writing which uses archaeological and settlement history as a means of reiterating Sinhala myths about the Sri Lankan nation-state. In this regard, I propose t o look a t one of these, a more scholarly article by G.H. Pieris on "An Appraisal of the Concept of a Traditional Tamil Homelands" which has been widely disseminated and references t o which have appeared even in our daily newspapers. ernments motivated by a Sinhala nationalist ideology. Though Tamil culture and creative writing witnessed a renaissance in Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka a f t e r the rise of the DMK, Tamil political discourse in Sri Lanka in the 50's and the 60's was characterized by a sense of grievance and political oppression. The rhetoric and language of Tamil politics was "developmental" - i.e., grievances with regard to education, employment and land. In addition, it was "democratic" - i.e. against laws that appeared t o discriminate against the Tamil language and for political structures which would allow for autonomy in predominantly Tamil areas. Consciousness was centered around language and economic rights. This has been analyzed by Professor Sivat hamby as being the discourse of the Federal Party, which represented for the most part the interests of the Tamil middle classes (Sivathamby, 1984). In June 1985 a t Thimpu, the Tamil groups put forward four principles as a framework for resolving the present crisis a) recognition of the separate national identity of the Tamils, b) respect for the integrity of the traditional Tamil homeland, c) recognition of the right to self-determination of the Tamils d) Citizenship rights for all Tamils. These principles a r e of course the expression of a people who have moved away from the concept of Tamil rights t o an ideology of Tamil nationalism. It can be said that nationalism in any form has both progressive and regressive aspects as part of its core. Tamil nationalism, like its Sinhala counterpart in the 1950's is no exception. Tamil nationalism has had a positive impact on Sri t a n k a n Tamil society. With its rise, for the first time Tamil politics is actively speaking out against distinctions of class, caste and gender. Sri Lankan Tamil society which was conservative and hierarchical is finally being challenged from within. The discourse contains a mixture of democratic, populist and leftist ideologies. Tamil political awareness, as reflected in the writings of those committed to a Tamil nationalism, has within it seeds of social liberation. At the same time, like Sinhala nationalism of the 1950's, the discourse of Tamil nationalism, especially as expressed in certain types of expatriate literature, appears t o contain the same communalism, which if unchallenged will lead us further into the modern era of neo-tribalism. Sinhalese intellectuals in the 1950's who attempted t o straddle both the progressive and negative aspects of nationalist ideology, ended up in the 1980's as sad apologists for ethnic chauvinism. If they were analyzing any other part of the world but their own, their approach would have been different. But, bogged down by an ideology which had a built-in zyxwvutsrqpo zyxwvutsrq DISTURBING TRENDS IN TAMIL NATIONALIST WRITING Until the 1970's Tamil politics a t the national level was rights oriented, a reaction against measures taken by gov- 21 Published by Duke University Press Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East zyxwvutsr ethnic bias, their conscience failed. The imperatives of tribe and religion prevailed over abstract philosophies, so much so that many ended up justifying the 1983 riots, or resisting any attempts to dispel the racial hysteria of the times. Some spent their efforts constructing international conspiracy theories or recreating past myths, refusing t o come t o terms with their own chauvinism and intolerance. The few Sinhalese who attempted to fight this regressive nationalism were castigated in the media as betrayers of the Buddha, halfcastes and generally traitors to race and religion. Many others just remained silent, hostage to the "mass consciousness'' which, ironically, may have been of their own creation. It may be argued that Tamil intellectuals cannot afford t o make the same mistake. Political ideologies which further the cause of social justice, which fight oppression and exploitation must be distinguished from those which find their sustenance only in tribe, race and ethnicity. The right of ethnic groups to political expression, t o political autonomy and even to a separate s t a t e may be justified in "political" terms of the right t o self-determination or the right t o be free from oppression or exploitation. It poses difficult problems if it is justified in terms of the discourse of a chosen people. Many progressive scholars will however, argue that the nationalism of the oppressor must be distinguished from the nationalism of the oppressed. But, experience, especially in Sri Lanka, has shown us that even if this type of discourse is marginal during the period of dissent, it becomes more legitimate when movements acquire political power. Unless there is a deliberate attempt to counter this consciousness, it may emerge as the dominant force in Tamil political thinking. The discourse of a chosen people, which is a familiar and important part of Sinhalese nationalism, has become a new and disturbing phenomenon in Tamil political writing. In surveying some of the books and articles, which have come out since 1983, there appears to be an alarming and rapidly growing process of myth creation about Sri Lankan Tamils. It is important that these myths be dispelled now, before they receive ideological vigor. Where does this discourse come from? The rise of the DK in Tamil Nadu and its version of anti-Brahmin, populist nationalism had an important effect on Sri Lankan Tamil consciousness in the 1950's and 1960's. Tamil pride in culture and language had been an important part of Tamil identity, but there was no automatic spillover into Tamil political discourse and political writing. Even as early as the 1950's, C. Suntheralingam spoke in terms of a Dravida, Saiva Siddhanta consciousness as part of the Sri Lankan Tamil identity. However, his writings were on the fringe of the movement and were, therefore not reflected in the consciousness of other Tamil political leaders, especially S.J. V. Chelvanayagam who was a Christian with little affinity for this type of political consciousness. In the 1970's when the demand for a separate s t a t e was made, there was much writing which pointed t o a sense of pride in Tamil history; but again, Tamil political discussion and discourse, whether among moderate Tamils, or in the publications of Tamil militant groups, centered around Tamil grievances based on linguistic and territorial rights and their sense of oppression. It was this discourse that gave birth t o the concept of a Tamil linguistic region. The riots of 1983, however, had a major qualitative impact not only in terms of the increasing radicalization of the Tamil population, but also in the type of language and discourse used to present the Tamil cause. Certain Tamil nationalist myths which had been politically latent began t o be openly expressed; there was a deliberate and conscious attempt t o c r e a t e a Dravida, Saiva Siddhanta political identity. The main thrust of this campaign appears t o come, not so much from Madras or Jaffna, where every day issues of survival point t o a different type of political situation, but from the expatriate community, who have begun t o write extensively on Tamil history and ideology. Their writings a r e circulated widely and have an important effect on Tamil consciousness. Many Tamil social scientists have argued in private that this new phase in Tamil nationalist writing is an attempt by the middle-class, expatriate population t o capture momentum and give ideological direction t o t h e Tamil nationalist movement which for the most part has relied on general concepts of freedom from oppression and the right t o selfdetermination. However, impugning motives t o expatriate scholars, and thereby dismissing the influence of such writing may under-estimate the power of such ideology which draws sustenance only from ethnic loyalty. There is no doubt, that these writings have become an influential part of the ideological debate and it is therefore necessary t o analyze the political implications of such myth dissemination. The evolution of these nationalist myths can only be understood in the context of Sinhala nationalist ideology t o which it is a political response. Sinhalese social scientist Gunawardena, and such as Kumari J ayawardena, R.A.L.H. Gananath Obeyesekere among others have outlined these Sinhalese myths in detail. Drawn from Sinhalese chronicles, Sinhala nationalism sees Sri Lanka as the home for the Sinhala, Aryan race and the Buddhist religion. This identity has with time become a pan-class identity. Though i t has been pointed out that social analysis which attempts to understand nationalism only in terms of myths and symbols is inadequate, the experience of Sinhala nationalism points t o t h e fact that a nationalist ideology which appears t o incorporate certain types of myths and symbols has a powerful internal dynamic which cannot be understood by analyzing material forces of production alone. Tamil myths as currently espoused by some Tamil expatria t e scholars appears t o have the following elements. Firstly, Tamils of Sri Lanka a r e the heirs t o an old and ancient civilization which has its roots in Mohenjadaro and Harappa, civilizations which had been destroyed by less developed Aryans from West Asia. Secondly, Tamils are the original inhabitants of Sri Lanka and the Sinhalese are actually Tamils who came later t o the island and became Sinhalese a f t e r adopting Buddhism as their religion. Thirdly, the Tamil language spoken in Sri Lanka is its purest form; it is Tamil as spoken during the Sangam renaissance of the ninth century. Fourthly, Saiva Siddhanta is the religion of the Tamil people and has a special homeland in Sri Lanka because of the teachings of Arumuga Navalar. There a r e many aspects t o the creation of this Dravida, Saiva Siddhanta identity which a r e rather disturbing. In the first place, the sources used t o argue the Tamil case, especially with regard t o ancient times, a r e the very same sources that have been proved t o be historically unreliable by critical Sinhalese scholars. Generally most Tamil scholars accept the Mahavamsa only a s a source of legends. S. Ponnambalam in fact calls some Mahavamsa stories "nothing but a tangled web of cleverly contrived fiction" (Ponnambalam, 1983:lO). However, this does not prevent a few Tamil scholars from using the Mahavamsa as a source when convenient. For example one of the arguments put forward t o prove that t h e Sinhalese are of Tamil descent is a quotation from the Mahavamsa that Prince Vijaya, after rejecting Kuveni, married a princess from Madurai, and his courtiers married zyx zy 22 Published by Duke University Press Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East Tamil women of nobility. Writes Satyendra (1985:85): The Sinhala chronicle, the Mahavamsa, also records that a few years a f t e r his arrival in Sri Lanka, Prince Vijaya and his followers married Tamils from the Pandyan 'kingdoms in South India. It is therefore asserted that from the beginning the Sinhalese were a mixed race. The fact that most ethnic groups as they exist today are mixed races is perhaps correct, but using the Mahavamsa as a historical source, whether by Tamils or Sinhalese, poses major problems of interpreting historical reality. In some cases, Tamil writers have used the Ramayana and the Mahabharata as sources t o show an early Tamil presence in Sri Lanka: The Mahabharata and Ramayana the two great Indian epics written in Sanskrit before the Sixth Century B.C. mention the Naga kingdoms and their conquest by Ravana, the Tamil Yaksha King of Sri Lanka (Ponnambalam, 1983:17). This type of history, which uses legend as empirical fact, must be challenged and discredited, regardless of the author or text. dipa in the north of Sri Lanka was an actual kingdom known to historians and the people who occupied i t were all part of an immigrant tribe from South India. The conclusions that Tamil people called Nagars could validly be drawn from the new historical data clearly establish that the ancestors of the present day Tamils were the original occupiers of the island long before 543 B.C. which the Pali chronicles date as the earliest human habitation of Sri Lanka. Ironically, the assertion of the rights of one ethnic group results in the need t o delegitimize the other. Latter day Sinhala nationalists, using the Mahavamsa, delegitimize Tamil claims by portraying them as foreigners and invaders (1bid:PO). The Tamil response t o this allegation is t o assert that there is no such thing as a Sinhalese. While the Tamils are "the lineal descendants of the original inhabitants of the island", the Sinhalese lack pedigree, "no m a t t e r what the racial origin, little remains of the original stock, except belief in it." Finally, the king who accepted Buddhism for Sri Lanka is described as Devampriya Theesan, a Tamil Hindu King of Lanka (Ibid.). It is perhaps time that both Tamils and Sinhalese accept the findings of such researchers as Senake Bandaranayake who have clearly pointed t o the fact that Tamils, Sinhalese, and Muslims in Sri Lanka are a racially mixed group. Waves of immigration and internal migration have obliterated any claims t o racial exclusivity. Sinhala and Tamil may be products of ethnic and religious consciousness but there is no racial basis for differentiation whether as noble Aryans or glorious Dravidians. Senake Bandaranayake (1984) writes: It is becoming increasingly clear, however, that the peopling of Sri Lanka and the formation of its ethnic variety have been an extremely complex process Again, it is which we do not fully understand yet important t o keep in mind that the ethnic composition of the Sinhalese both in cultural and also bioethnic and demographic sense was not the product of a single historical period or a unilinear process, but, one that took place through-out a long history the same methodology can be applied t o other nationalities. ... zyxwvutsrqpon zyxw zyxwvutsr THE DRAVIDIAN RACE AND MYTHS OF ORIGIN Ashis Nandy (1983) in his recent book on colonialism outlines two forms of contemporary dissent. The first accepts the world view of the oppressor and dissents from within the value framework. The second accepts the oppressor's definition of the other but glorifies the very values which a r e anathema to the oppressor. Tamils living in Sri Lanka have been constantly subjected to the Sinhalese version of the "Aryan" myth; Anagarika Dharmapala's noble Aryan race has been rammed down their throats ever since independence was achieved. As a reaction t o glorification of the "Aryan", there is an increasing Tamil tendency t o speak of the noble Dravidian past. Mohenjadaro is said t o be the world's oldest civilization which was destroyed by less than civilized Aryan hordes. The remnants of this old and majestic Dravidian civilization can only be found in Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka... so the argument goes: It The Tamils of Sri Lanka a r e an ancient people was a Dravidian civilization which traced its origins to the people of Mohenjadaro in the Indus valley around 2,500 years before Christ (Satyendra, 1985:85). A concept of Aryan a s a racial category has been dismissed by scholars from around the world. Max Muller accepted in the end that he used the term "Aryan" t o describe certain languages. The extension of this linguistic concept to convey a sense of race was a contribution of the German nationalist movetnent, especially in its Nazi phase. R.A.L.H. Gunawardena in his article on "The People of the Lion" shows that the term Aryan was not used in the traditional chronicles of Sri Lanka (Gunawardena, 1979). Aryan as denoting Sinhala racial identity is therefore false. The cry of Dravidian is equally mythical. Dravidian is a linguistic category, not a racial one, and it is highly unlikely that the Tamils living in Sri Lanka are the lineal descendants of the citizens of Mohenj adaro. The Sinhalese have always claimed that they were the original inhabitants of Sri Lanka, with the Tamil presence always being that of invader. The Sinhalese chronicles, the Mahavamsa and the Dipavamsa, are used as evidence of this claim t o priority. To combat this myth of origin, Tamil scholars such as Ponnarnbalam (1983:18) have this to say: According t o tradition, the Tamils of India and Sri Lanka are the lineal descendants of the Naga and Yaksha people. (According to Harry Williams) Naga- ... ... ... W A SIDDHANTA The notion that saivaism was the original religion of the Tamil people from pre-Aryan days and that being Tamil is synonymous with the practice of Saivaism has also t o b e challenged: And though through the vehicle of the Tamil language came Saivism a religion which the Oxford scholar G.U. Pope called the most elaborate, influential and undoubtedly the most intrinsically valuable of Many have regarded Saivaism and all religions Tamil as being almost synonymous and that one cannot exist without the other. It is rightly said "Thamilum Saivamum, Saivamum Thamilum" (Satyendra, 1985:89). It must be said in all fairness that not all a r e agreed on this approach t o Tamil identity. Satchi Ponnambalam for example strongly believes that the Tamil identity has no religious base and that religion for Tamils is a matter of conscience (Ponnambalam, 1983:33). But, any attempt t o link religion and community can lead t o exclusive tendencies and has chauvinist potential. Saiva Siddhanta appears to have two sources with regard t o its philosophy. Shivapadasunderam in his book on the Saiva School of Hinduism states that the authoritative works on ... 23 Published by Duke University Press Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East zyxwvutsrqp Saivaism are the twenty eight Sivagamas which a r e originally in Sanskrit. 4 chapter of the Raurava Agama, called Sivagnanabodham and consisting of twelve couplets said t o have been revealed t o Saint Nandi, as the essence of Agamas, was translated into Tamil in t h e twelfth century by Meikandar who also added t o it a commentary. This was expanded by his disciples and later saints into what is now considered the Saiva Siddhantha doctrine. It is also said that some of the thoughts on Saivaism were drawn from t h e original works in Tamil such as the Thirumanthiram of Thirumalar written in the first century. The philosophy of Saiva Siddhanta became an important part of Tamil identity in Sri Lanka when Arumaga Navalar, the great nineteenth century reformer, revived the doctrine in Jaffna and South India (Shivapadasunderatn, 1934). It is, however, a grave mistake to think that Hinduism, let alone Saiva Siddhanta is synonymous with Tamil. Tamil Nadu was the center of Buddhist and Jain learning until the tenth century. In fact, it is argued that the great Hindu revival of the ninth and tenth centuries was a reaction t o the powerful intellectual influences of Suddhism and Jainism. Some great Tamil works such as the Silappadikaram and the Manimekalai were Buddhist and Jain texts. Tamil religious history has thus been pluralistic and cannot be confined t o one specific doctrine. Saiva Siddhanta as it exists today is an erudite philosophy which supposedly explains the essence of Silva worship. Sir Ponnambalam Arunachalam (1937:87) summarizes this essence as follows Saiva Siddhanta postulates three entities - Cod (Pati), the Soul (Pasu) and Bondage (Pasam). The scheme of the Universe has for its aim the removal of the Souls' impurity and its union with the Lord Silva so as to destroy duality and maya (illusion). The devotional aspects of Bhakti worship a r e combined with the more philosophical tradition of the Vedanta. Saiva Siddhanta is said t o be extremely rnetaphysical and it is claimed that some of the concepts such as the term for primordial energy can only be communicated in the Tamil language. However, i t is unlikely that the refined doctrine of Saiva Siddhanta is the basis of the religiosity of the majority of Tamil people in Sri Lanka. Popular religion is rarely found in this abstract form. The vast majority of Hindus in the North are Bhakti worshippers, devout followers of Lord Muruga, Ganesha, Amman and Shiva. To claim that all Tamils are followers of Saiva Siddhanta is an artificial attempt to construct a monolithic religious doctrine t o unite the Tamil people. This is not only unusually doctrinaire but goes against the essence of Hindu philosophy which has had a strong tradition of syncretism, drawing from all religions and popular traditions. The use of Saiva Siddhanta as a gospel for the Tamil nationalist movement also poses major problems. This gospel of Saiva Siddhanta, as a part of Tamil nationalist political discourse must be as alienating to the non-Hindus as Buddhism was €or a pan-Sri Lankan identity. If the Tamil movement is t o be seen as being historically progressive in the Sri Lankan context, then it must be a movement which is secular and which accepts the multi-ethnic character of our society. Tamil language a s spoken in Sri Lanka which provides an identity t o the Sri Lankan Tamil distinctive from his or her Tamil Nadu counterpart. Even before the current ethnic conflict? Sri Lankan Tamils have expressed pride in their Tamil language in no uncertain terms: Tamil is one of the oldest languages of the world and it flowered both in South India and Sri Lanka. It is a language that has given the world t h e distilled wisdom of the Kural (Satyendra, 1985:88). Since 1956, the Tamil language has lost status in Sri Lanka, from "rights" value to "use value". Legislation such as t h e Sinhala Only Act struck a t the heart of Sri Lankan Tamil identity. Though denial of language rights is an aspect of political oppression, in asserting these rights one must be aware of the pitfalls of linguistic nationalism. Recent works by such writers as Benedict Anderson point t o the fact that linguistic nationalism is often the most virulent form of nationalism. Sinhalese nationalism as articulated by vernacular speaking elites is a classical example of this type of virulence. Critical social scientists must however ask the question as to what group or class benefits from this type of nationalism. Benedict Anderson researching forms of nationalism throughout the world comes t o the conclusion that is the ideology of the elites educated in the vernacular, harboring tremendous resentment against races and classes which have prevented their upward social mobility. This class is radical with regard t o imperialism and international capitalism but conservative with regard t o its own nationalism and ethnic pride. Anderson points t o the fact that this ideology is particularly powerful because the vernacular speaking elites usually control the communication system in any given society. The fact that the Tamil language has been discriminated against since independence can be well substantiated by historical fact. However, it may be necessary t o see whether Anderson's thesis is relevant with regard t o Tamil nationalism. Sri Lankan Tamil writing, due t o the recent diaspora, is no longer dependent on the Sri Lankan s t a t e for publication and dissemination. Self-criticism? in line with Anderson's thesis, may therefore have t o become an essential part of Tamil social science. zyxwvutsrqp zyxwvutsrqpon ... LINGUISTIC NATIONALISM TRADITIONAL HOMELANDS AND SINHALESE MYTHS Even as we critically assess myth creation on the part of Tamil writers, we have t o be watchful of the continuing process of myth reiteration on the part of Sinhalese scholars. Given the fact Sinhalese nationalist ideology has State backing this type of enterprise may have disturbing consequences. A s mentioned earlier, myths with regard t o "Aryan", and "Sinhala" and "Buddhist" have been under scrutiny from critical Sinhalese scholars since the 1960's. However, there have been a series of recent articles on archaeology and settlement which in an indirect way reinforce Sinhalese myths about history. Though many writings have appeared, I would prefer t o concentrate on what appears t o be a genuine scholarly attempt to deal with the relationship between settlement history and ethnic conflict. This is a paper by Professor G.H. Pieris, presented a t a Workshop on the Economic Dimensions of the Ethnic Problem a t Kandy in 1985 - references t o which have appeared in the national press, and which is entitled An Appraisal of the Concept of a Traditional Tamil Homeland in Sri Lanka". In his paper G.H. Pieris s t a t e s that the Sinhalese and "Sinhala purana" villagers were the original settlers of the Eastern province. Whether the Nagas were Tamil and whether they were the first inhabitants of Sri Lanka or whether Sinhala purana villagers were zyxwvutsr The Tamil language has been one of the most important rallying points of the Tamil movement. The demand for the recognition of a Tamil Linguistic Region is a product of this consciousness. Given the fact that Tamil grievances gathered momentum in Sri Lanka after the passage of the Sinhala Only Act, it is not surprising that the Tamil language should be a focal point of Tamil identity. In addition, it is the 24 Published by Duke University Press Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East the original settlements in the eastern province may be of interest to historians and geographers but is this really relevant to the current political debate? G.H. Pieris cannot even argue that his paper is a balanced non-political, piece of writing because he presents his argument in no uncertain terms as a polemic against Tamil political demands: Among the various exemplifications of Tamil nationalism in Sri Lanka, those related to claims over territory have acquired increasing prominence during the recent past. These claims are based on the perception that certain parts of the country belong exclusively t o the Sri Lankan Tamils. ..The present study is an attempt t o place this perception under critical scrutiny (Pieris, 1985:l). Some scholars may contest Professor Pieris' empirical findings but to do so is t o return t o the debate on myths of origin - who came first to the eastern province etc...the type of debate which has characterized our research and accentuated the ethnic conflict. I prefer, instead t o contest his premises and assumptions. One could argue that scholars who analyze Sri Lanka's ethnic conflict are divided into two schools; those whose approach comes from a desire for modern solutions to contemporary problems of justice and democracy and those who argue from a vantage point of historical right. The former use modern sources usually from comparative history; the latter draw their inspiration from history and archaeology. A theory of social justice which primarily or exclusively rests on an analysis of historical research and historical right has enormous pitfalls. For example: i t may be interesting to ask G.H. Pieris whether if independent, convincing research were t o really show that the Tainils came first t o the Northern and Eastern province and had a historical presence there, would Tamils therefore have the right t o a separate state? If it is proved that the Nagas were in fact Tamil, does this mean that the Tamils have the right t o rule the whole island even in areas where the Sinhalese are a majority? And what about the Muslims? What claims do they have in this era of competing historical rights? The reverse type of questions could be asked of Satchi Ponnambalam and N. Satyendra. Any claitn t o modern justice based on an analysis of early history, must be treated with extreme skepticism. However in refuting the historical claims of one ethnic group, say the Tamil, many scholars end up reiterating the historical right of the other ethnic group, say the Sinhalese. As a result they get trapped by the subject of inquiry into the discourse of land claims and land rights. These a r e selfperpetuating debates that a r e somewhat escapist especially during times of crisis and confrontation. The current debate on traditional homelands and archaeological settlement is one such exercise in futility. Another problem is that scholars such as G.H. Pieris treat the concept of "traditional homeland" as a geographical concept rather than a political one and in doing so construct an elaborate argument on who lived where and when. Though there is a claim t o objectivity, his own political bias comes into evidence when he quotes E.B. Denham as part of his resume - "among the races that are most numerous in Ceylon, only one race can regard Ceylon as the home of the nation and the shrine of its national traditions" (Ibid:34). Why this quote? One must seriously consider whether articles such as these which object to the concept of Tamil traditional homelands come from an understanding, of the political concept of traditional homelands or froin a belief that Sri Lanka is the ancestral property of the Sinhalese. Professor Tieris attempts to tear down Tamil claims to traditional homelands not with the critical scientific intention of scoff- ing a t all political enterprises which mystically connect land with people but with the seeming purpose of legitimizing the profoundly Sinhala myth that Sri Lanka is a nation-state, a land which historically belongs t o the Sinhalese, even though some parts have been "Tamilised" There is indeed a mass of evidence which shows that upto about the 13th century the more powerful Sinhalese rulers did exercise sovereignty over the entire land (Ibid:8). But is this the historical norm? K.M. De Silva seems t o think otherwise: Indeed one had t o look further back into the past to find a period when Sinhalese rulers had control over the whole island t o the second half of the 11th century and the first half of the twelfth. But, even this has been in effect an interlude of indigenous rule sandwiched between two phases of South Indian domination (K.M. De Silva, 1981). In f a c t K.M. De Silva argues that British rule was a turning point with regard t o the effective administration of a centralized state. Using the framework of a Rajarata Region which has been subsequently Tamilised, G.H. Peiris goes on to imply that the presence of Sinhala purana villagers in the Eastern Trovince in ancient and medieval times justifies modern day s t a t e aided colonization schemes which a r e altering the ethnic power balance of the province a t the time of independence as it exists today. It may be convenient t o caricature political problems associated with state-aided colonization schemes as a primordial struggle over ancestral property. To do so, however, is t o miss the point. Tamil claims against land settlement policies result from their present fears, and destruction of their political power and economic security. Their claims a r e against the post-Donoughmore Sinhala dominated s t a t e which held out the promise of a Sri Lankan nation. The problem of colonization is a modern problem of ethnic minorities who a r e alienated from a s t a t e which reflects the interests of a seemingly hostile ethnic majority. These a r e sensitive political issues that surely cannot be conceptualized as a simple quarrel over ancestral lands. In addition G.H. Pieris' concept of settlement and of history in the North and the East is unilinear. In terms of settlement as well as political history he assumes that the Sinhalese and the iiajarata civilization came first and then around the twelfth century the region was "Tamilised". This unilinear approach t o ethnic settlement has rarely been accepted by social scientists who see settlement as a complex dynamic process, autonomous from the forces of political and dynastic history. This autonomy provides for a different type of process leading t o what is now termed "subaltern studies". One of the accepted premises of this understanding is that history of archaeological settlement cannot be analyzed using modern political categories as they exist in modern nation states. R.A.L.H. Gunawardena writes for example: The disparate nature of the early settlements in the island, with each village clustering around a small reservoir would not be conducive to the development of strong group identities...it will be evident froin the preceding survey that the nature of Sinhala identity as well as the relationship of the group brought together by this identity with other groupings based on religion, ritual status and languages varied in different periods of history (Gunawardena, 1979:43). In fact, one has t o ask what is "Tamilised" and what is "Sinhalised" and which came first? Gananath Obeyesekere writes: zyxw zyxwvutsrqponm zyxwvuts ... zyxwvutsr 25 Published by Duke University Press Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East zyxwvutsrqp zyxw zyxwvutsrqponmlk Except perhaps for the oldest stratum of settlers prior to 500B.C. almost all subsequent settlers in Sri Lanka came from South India, mostly from Tamil Nadu, Orissa and Kerala and quickly became Sinhalised (Obeyesekere, 1984: 10). Michael Roberts has a similar view of migration of some of the Sinhalese castes: In common with such castes as the Salagama and the Durava, the Karava (were) made up of relatively recent Dravidian migrants. Nevertheless they slotted into the structure of caste-regulated corvee service and came t o be regarded as Sinhalese castes (Roberts, 1982: 1). Of what real significance are the modern political identities of "Tamil" and "Sinhalese" and t h e modern political debate on land policy to studying settlement patterns of ancient and medieval Sri Lanka? How relevant were they t o the group identities and self-perceptions of those dots in settlement maps? The history of settlements and the political history and ideology of s t a t e s cannot be collapsed into one research realm. Scholars have long ago come t o terms with differences which exist between political history and political discourse on the one hand and migration and settlement patterns on the other. In addition, t o try and read the past through present controversies is often an unnecessary and misplaced enterprise, such an approach t o the present conflict will only compound existing problems. The failure t o distinguish between the actuality of settlement and the imperatives of ideology also poses problems for the understanding of the concept of traditional homelands. In his haste to treat traditional homelands as a geographical concept, G.H. Pieris does not attempt t o come t o terms with the concept of traditional homelands as it is actually used in anthropological literature with attempts t o describe the lifestyle of tribal groups. In political science the term, "traditional homelands" has become a part of t h e arsenal of liberal, democratic discourse and is used in situations where a territorial ethnic minority which does not control s t a t e power asserts its rights against the State, especially when the s t a t e attempts t o dilute the political power of the ethnic group or to alter its social and economic life-style. It is in this context that the Tamil claim t o traditional homelands can be best understood. Ironically, t h e concept of traditional homelands in an aspect of political discourse which attempts to find solution of ethnic conflict within the framework of a nation-state. In f a c t in South Africa the term is anathema precisely because of its collaborationist connotations. In the Sri Lankan context, the term traditional homelands has been "primitivized" into a primordial debate over territory, history, claims and counter-claims. It must be accepted that the concept of traditional homelands differs from the notion of promised land, a chosen piece of territory for a chosen people. The concept of Sinhadvipa is a variant of this type of political discourse. I t is true that some aspects of Tamil nationalist writing also speak in these terms and in terms of an exclusive homeland for Tamils. In his article, Professor Pieris presents us with some quotations of this type of Tamil nationalist claims. In such a context, i t is vital that these attempts a t creating mystical connections between land and people be confronted and criticized, but not from a vantage point of attempting t o stake a superior claim for a particular ethnic group but from the perspective that all claims t o promised land always lead to ethnic chauvinism and a desire for territorial expansion. With the intensification of the present ethnic conflict, we, as a society have forgotten, or have chosen t o forget, the deeply humane aspects of our respective traditions. Instead, many writers and ideologues froin various com munities continue t o emphasize those aspects of our culture and history which accentuate differences and which see ethnic loyalty as the supreme human value. Modern political categories a r e used as mirrors into t h e past and history is used a s a weapon in an ethnic war of words. The issues of justice and oppression get lost in a discourse of historical f a c t and counter-fact. Ironically, in this struggle for the "correct" historical interpretation, other more universal social values a r e often forgotten. Perhaps, a t times such as these i t is best t o remember Ashis Nandy's famous truism, "that knowledge without ethics is not so much bad ethics, as inferior knowledge" (Nandy, 1983: 113). Note: This article will appear in the forthcoming volume Facets of Ethnicty in Sri Lanka published by t h e Social Scientists Association. An earlier version appeared in Lanka Guardian Mayl-June 15, 1986. REFERENCES Anderson, B. 1983. Imagined Communities, London. Arunachalam, P. 1937. Studies and Translations, Philosophical and Religious writings, Colombo. Bandaranayake, S. "The Peopling of Sri Lanka: The National Question and Some Problems of History and Ethnicity," SSA ed. Ethnicity and Social Change. De Silva, K.M. 1981. "Sri Lanka: The Dilemmas of Decentralization", Cross-National Workshop on Structural Arrangements, Taita Hills, September. 1979. "The People and the Lion: Gunawardena, R.A.L.H. Sinhala Identity and Historiography", Sri Lanka Journal of t h e Humanities, Colombo. Nandy, Ashis. 1983.The Intimate Enemy: The Self Under Colonialism, New Delhi. Obeyesekere, G. 1984. "Political Violence and the Future of Democracy in Sri Lanka, Toronto, Lanka Review. Pieris, C.H. 1985. "An Appraisal of the Concept of a Traditional Homeland" Paper presented a t a Workshop on the Economic Dimensions of the Ethnic Problem, ICES (International Center for Ethnic Studies) Kandy. Ponnambalam, S. 1983. Sri Lanka: The National Question and the Tamil Struggle, London. Roberts, Michael. 1982. Caste Conflict and Elite Formation: The Rise of a Karava Elite, Cambridge. Satyendra, N. 1985. "Legitimate Expectations" in SIM ed. Ethnic Violence, Human Rights & Development, Utrecht. Shivapadasunderam, S. 1934. The Saiva School of Hinduism, London. Sivathamby, K. 1984. "Some Aspects of the Social Composition of the Tamils of Sri Lanka", in SSA ed. Ethnic Conflict and Social Change, Colombo. Thapar, Ti. 1977. "Communalism and Ancient History" in R. Thapar et. al. ed, Communalism and the Writing of Indian History, New Delhi. zyxwvu 26 Published by Duke University Press