History of Islam in Sri Lanka

Islam in Sri Lanka is practiced by a group of minorities. The Muslim community is divided into three main ethnic groups: the Sri Lankan Moors, the Indian Muslims, and the Malays, each with its own history and traditions. The attitude among the majority of people in Sri Lanka is to use the term '"Muslim" as an ethnic group, specifically when referring to Sri Lankan Moors. History of Islam in Sri Lanka

With the arrival of Arab and Somali traders in the 8th century, Islam began to flourish in Sri Lanka. The first people to profess the Islamic faith were Arab and Somali merchants and their native wives, whom they married after converting to Islam. By the 15th century, Arab traders had controlled much of the trade on the Indian Ocean, including that of Sri Lanka's. Many of them settled down on the island in large numbers, encouraging the spread of Islam. However, when the Portuguese arrived during the 16th century, many of their descendants- the Sri Lankan Moors- were persecuted, thus forcing them to migrate to the Central Highlands and to the east coast of the country.

During 18th and 19th centuries, Javanese and Malaysian Muslims bought over by the Dutch and British rulers contributed to the growing Muslim population in Sri Lanka. Their descendants, now the Sri Lankan Malays, adapted several Sri Lankan Moor Islamic traditions while also contributing their unique cultural Islamic practices to other Muslim groups on the Island. The arrival of Muslims from India during the 19th and 20th centuries has also contributed to the growth of Islam in Sri Lanka. Most notably, Pakistani and South Indian Muslims have introduced Shia Islam and the Hanafi school of thought into Sri Lanka, however although most Muslims on the island still adhere to the traditional practices of Sunni Islam. In modern times, Muslims in Sri Lanka are handled by the Muslim Religious and Cultural Affairs Department, which was established in the 1980s to prevent the continual isolation of the Muslim community from the rest of Sri Lanka. Today, about 10% of Sri Lankans adhere to Islam; and there are approximately 5,000 mosques, with every mosque having a committee to look after the community affairs. Muslims of Sri lanka, mostly from the Moor and Malay ethnic communities on the island with smaller numbers of converts from other ethnicities, such as the Sinhalese. The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community was established in Sri Lanka in 1915. But the other Muslim Communities consider Ahmadiyya as a separate non-Muslim religion. Sri Lankan Moors

The Sri Lankan Moors make up almost 92% of the Muslim population and 9.23% of the total population of the country. They are predominantly Sunni Muslims of Shafi School. The Moors trace their ancestry to Arab traders who settled in Sri Lanka sometime between the eighth and fifteenth centuries. The Arabic language brought by the early merchants is no longer spoken, though various Arabic words and phrases are still employed in daily usage. Until the recent past, the Moors employed Arwi as their mother tongue, though this is also extinct as a spoken language. Currently, the Moors in the east of Sri Lanka use Tamil as their primary language which includes many loan words from Arabic. Moors in the west coast are fluent in Sinhala, an Indo-European language spoken by the Sinhalese majority in Sri Lanka, but use English within the community. Thus, the Moors are a multilingual ethnic and religious group, lacking linguistic cohesion.

The Sri Lankan Moors lived primarily in coastal trading and agricultural communities, preserving their Islamic cultural heritage while adopting many Southern Asian customs. During the period of Portuguese colonization, the Moors suffered from persecution, and many moved to the Central Highlands, where their descendants remain. Education There are 749 Muslim Schools in Sri Lanka and 205 madras’s which teaching Islamic Education, and there is an Islamic university in Beruwala (Jamiya Naleemiya). In early 20th century there are few Muslim professionals in Accounts, Medical, Engineering, etc. But at present they are exceeding the national average. Due to lack of opportunity in Sri Lanka, many Muslim professionals are migrating to get jobs abroad, such as the Middle East, United States, Canada, Australia, and Europe. East Coast Moors On the eastern province of the country Muslims are predominant. East coast, Sri Lankan Moors are primarily farmers, fishermen, and traders. Their family lines are traced through women, as in kinship systems of the southwest Indian state of Kerala, but they govern themselves through Islamic law. West Coast Moors

Many moors in the west of the island are traders, professionals or civil servants and are mainly concentrated in Colombo, Kalutara and Beruwala. Moors in Puttlam and Mannar predominantly make a living as prawn farmers, and fishermen. Moors in the west coast trace their family lines through their father. Along with those in the Central Province, the surname of many Moors in Colombo, Kalutara and Puttlam is their fathers first name, thus retaining similarity to the traditional Arab and middle eastern kinship system. The Malays of Sri Lanka originated in Southeast Asia and today consist of about 50,000 persons. Their ancestors came to the country when both Sri Lanka and Indonesia were colonies of the Dutch. Most of the early Malay immigrants were soldiers, posted by the Dutch colonial administration to Sri Lanka, who decided to settle on the island.

Other immigrants were convicts or members of noble houses from Indonesia who were exiled to Sri Lanka and who never left. The main source of a continuing Malay identity is their common Malay language (Bahasa Melayu), which includes numerous words absorbed from Sinhalese and the Moorish variant of the Tamil language. In the 1980s, the Malays made up about 5 % of the Muslim population in Sri Lanka and, like the Moors, predominantly follow the Shafi school of thought within Sunni Islam. Indian Muslims (Memons, Bhoras, Khojas) The Indian Muslims are those who trace their origins to immigrants searching for business opportunities during the colonial period. Some of these people came to the country as far back as Portuguese times; others arrived during the British period from various parts of India. Majority of them came from Tamil Nadu and Kerala states, and unlike the Sri Lankan Moors, are ethnically related to South Indians and number approximately 30,000. The Memons, originally from Sindh (in modern Pakistan), first arrived in 1870; in the 1980s they numbered only about 3,000, they mostly follow the Hanafi Sunni school of Islam. The Dawoodi Bhoras and the Khojas are Shia Muslims came from north-western India (Gujarat state) after 1880; in the 1980s they collectively numbered fewer than 2,000. These groups tended to retain their own places of worship and the languages of their ancestral homelands. http://www.srilankaheritages.com/islam.html

Marakkala: the Sri Lankan Moors

By Dr. S. K. Vadivale

www.tamilnet.com

The Arabs who came for trade did not settle down in Ceylon. They were in fact a floating population along the Western and Southern coasts. On seeing the Portuguese they got so scared that they left their lucrative trade, their wives/concubines and children to the mercy of the Portuguese and fled, swearing not to come back. Yes, to this day they have not come back.

From 1311 to 1330, under orders from Ala-u-din, the Sultan of Delhi, Makik Kaffoor, Ghiyathu-d-din Dhamaghani, Khusuru Khan and other generals, demolished and devastated Hindu temples in the South and carried away the loot (gold, silver etc) to Delhi. The Southern region however, did not go under Muslim rule until 1330. In 1380 a powerful Tamil King, Kumara Kampan attacked the Muslim ruler Sikander, killed him in battle and drove the Muslim army out of Tamil country. As in the North, in the South too, Muslim conquerors, at the point of the sword, compelled Hindus, Jains and Buddhists to embrace Islam.
(Ref: History of India by Elliot, History of Tamil Nadu by Pro. N. Subramaniam).

It may be interesting to observe that while Christian missionaries converted non-Christians all over the world by persuasion, Muslim conquerors converted people of other faiths to Islam, at the point of the sword. With the fall of Muslim rule in the South in 1380, there was a renaissance among the Hindus and in the latter part of the 14th century, the converts were prosecuted until they fled the Tamil country in Marak Kalams (Wooden Boats) and landed on the coasts of Ceylon. Because they came in Marak Kalams the Sinhala people called them Marakkala Minissu. Yes, to this day, the Sinhalese call them Marakkala Minissu. Tamils in South India and Sri Lanka call them Sonahars, (Ref: Yarlpana Vaipava Malai 1736 by Mailvaganar Pulavar).

Arabs came to Ceylon in the 15th century not as conquerors or missionaries but as traders. The Arabs, the Portuguese, the Dutch and the British did not bring their women folk with them. It is surprising that while the Europeans had taken Sinhala and Tamil women as wives/concubines, the Arabs had taken only Tamil women for their comfort and pleasure. That is, I believe the reason why there are no Sinhala Muslims in Sri Lanka. The reason why the Arabs were not interested in Sinhala women is not far to seek. The Arabs were keen on having as their companions only women who professed Islam.

Arabs would not have come to Ceylon in thousands. A couple of hundreds would have come with each expedition at intervals of say 12 to 24 months or so. The Arab factor would not therefore, have altered the ethnic or demographic pattern of the Tamil Muslims who had come from Tamil Nadu in the 14th century.
The Portuguese came to Ceylon in the 16th century as conquerors. They dubbed the Tamil Muslims `Moors', because as in Morocco, the Muslim of Portugal and Spain were called Moors. (Ref: The Story of Lanka by E. L. Blaze).

(a) Whereas the descendants of the Europeans (the Burghers) resemble their forefathers very closely, the Tamil-speaking Muslims who vociferously claim to be descendants of Arabs, do not have the slightest resemblance to an Arab in stature or complexion.
(b) The mother tongue of the Muslims is Tamil.
(c) The Muslims bear Tamil names e.g. Periya Marikkar, Sinna Lebbe, Pitchai Thamby, Hajira Ammah, Razeena Amma, etc.
(d) Unlike Arab women, local Muslim women bore their noses and put studs, use anklets and gold jewellery.
(e) Adult women wear sarees while teenagers wear Paa Vadai and Thaavani.
(f) Brothers' and sisters' children marry as first choice.
(g) The bride is given dowry which is contrary to Muslim Law. A Pakistani who was in Sri Lanka last year for Thableeq, condemned the dowry system practised by local Muslims.
(h) The bride-groom puts a Thali round the neck of the bride. This custom prevails only among Tamil Muslims and Tamil Christians of Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka.
(i) In local Muslim houses Gingelly oil is included in the diet of girls who have attained maidenhood.
(j) Muslim physicians of Ceylon brought their medical literature from Kayal Pattanam in Tamil Nadu. (Ref: Avicenna 1967. Journal of the Unani Medical Students Union.)
(k) Tamil Nadu-type houses can still be seen in Muslim colonies of Mannar, Puttalam and Jaffna.

Muslims of Northern India belong to the Aryan stock, and are by ethnicity Rajputs, Gujeratis, Maharashtras, Punjabis, Kashmiris etc.. The inhabitants of West Bengal, Bangladesh and Orissa do not claim to be Aryans. They are Mongoloid Dravidians. The indigenous Muslims of Andhra, Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil-Nadu, Maldives and Sri Lanka are Dravidians to the core. Sir P. Ramanathan, a scholar and statesman of international repute asserted in unequivocal terms that the Muslims of Ceylon were Tamils by ethnicity. Ethnicity does not change with change of faith. Ethnicity cannot be changed by Cabinet decisions or with the stroke of the pen. Can a leopard change its spots?

The name `Yawanas' first used to denote foreigners, was derived from the word Ionians (Greeks), with whom the Hindus first became acquainted. In the ancient Sanskrit and Tamil period, it denoted the Greeks but in subsequent times when the Greeks were succeeded by the Mohamedans, it was the Mohamedans who were denoted by that name. In later Sanskrit of the Vishnu Purana, we are to understand by Yavanas, not the Greeks but the Mohamadans.

The word Sonahars by which the Mohamadans are known in Tamil Nadu is merely a corruption of the Sanskrit word `Yavanas' Ref: Tamil Studies by M. Srinivasa. The words, Mohamedians, Muslims, Moors, Yonahars, (Sonahars) are synonyms for those professing Islam, irrespective of the ethnicity to which they belong. The sonahars of Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka Tamils by ethnicity.

In the late 1950s, the late Gate Mudaliyar Kariapper, while addressing voters of the Eastern Province in support of the Federal Party, said ``None can dispute the fact that Tamil speaking Muslims of Ceylon are descendants of Tamil Hindus who embraced Islam in the latter part of the 14th century when South India was under Muslim rule. It is only religion that divides the Tamils and Muslims. By ethnicity Tamils and Muslims are one''.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lkawgw/marakkala.html

Sri Lankan Muslims Are Low Caste Tamil Hindu Converts Not Arab Descendants

By Rifat Halim -

The recent execution of Rizana Nafeek in Saudi Arabia  has underlined the bogus claim of Arab ancestry by Sri Lankan Muslims (formerly known as Ceylon Moors). Ms. Nafeek, a domestic worker from a poor family in the East of Sri Lanka, spoke no language but Tamil. She requested a Tamil translator but was provided with a Malayalam-speaking minor employee whose command of the Tamil language was said to be insufficient. The Saudi authorities showed no clemency. Also, they refused to recognize her as a person of Arab descent. Her status was indistinguishable from that of any foreigner in that country.

Ponnanbalam Ramanathan in 1906 with his future wife, Ms. Harrison (right)

A fierce controversy has been raging for many years in the country about the origins of the Tamil-speaking Muslims.  In 1885, Sir Ponnambalam Ramanathan stated in a speech to the Ceylon Legislative Council that the Tamil-speaking Muslims are low caste Hindus who converted to Islam. Ramanathan’s thesis was that the Ceylon Moors, as the Sri Lankan Muslims were then called, were Muslim by religion and Tamil by ethnicity. Therefore, they did not deserve a separate seat in the Legislative Council.

In a paper presented to the Royal Asiatic Society in 1888, Ramanathan said the Tamil-speaking Muslims share more than just a language with the Tamils. He provided clinching evidence of the Tamil cultural features of the Tamil-speaking Muslims in the island.  He pointed to Tamil  customs such as tying the Tali , the eating of Patchoru, and the use of Alatti, that were prevalent among the Tamil-speaking Muslims. Many Sri Lankan Muslim names such as Periya Marikkar and Sinna Lebbe are clearly Tamil. Also, he said that the Tamil Hindus and the Tamil-speaking Muslims were physically indistinguishable.

Ramanathan later became the first elected leader of the country. He defeated Sir Marcus Fernando in the famous battle for the Educated Ceylonese Seat in 1911.

Over 128 years after Ramanathan’s speech, his thesis is intensely relevant. In every part of the Indian subcontinent, the Muslims claim South Asian descent except for the Tamil-speaking Muslims of Sri Lanka. The Tamil-speaking Muslims in India identify themselves as Tamils.  The former President of India Abdul Kalam, a nuclear scientist, unequivocally calls himself a Tamil. AR Rahman, the Grammy award-winning musician states considers himself a Tamil.

Other leaders of Indian subcontinent have similarly embraced their South Asian ancestry. In India, many Muslims identify themselves as Kannadigas, Gujaratis, Kashmiris, Tamils and Malayalees. MA Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, said he was a Gujarati. ZA Bhutto always said that he was a Sindi. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman stated that he was a Bengali. The vast majority of Bangladeshi say they are Bengalis. The largest ethnic group in Pakistan are the Punjabis. There is even a small Tamil Muslim community in Karachi.

Tamil is the mother tongue of over 99% of the Sri Lankan Muslims. The Islamic sermons are overwhelmingly delivered in Tamil even in the Sinhalese majority districts of Kandy, Matara and Galle. Gujarati Muslims in Sri Lanka like myself cannot follow the Islamic sermons in that inpenetrable Dravidian language.

The Sri Lankan Muslim claim of Arab ancestry is not corroborated by the Arabs themselves. They treat the Sri Lankan Muslims as lowly converts speaking a strange tongue. Many Tamil-speaking Muslims from Sri Lanka have gone to the Middle-East looking for a homecoming. But, the homecoming was not forthcoming, as the cruelty inflicted on Rizana Nafeek shows.

There can be no greater endorsement of Ramanathan’s view than the hysterical response of the Sri Lankan Muslims.  Massive tomes consisting of fake geneology and spurious theories have published to support the Arab origins.  Ramanathan has been angrily vilified well into the 21st century.  Anger often follows an uncomfortable truth.

The angry authors include ILM Abdul Azeez, the President of the Moors Union, who claimed in the Muslim Guardian in 1907 that “Most of the ancestors of the Ceylon Moors were, according to tradition, members of the family of Hashim.” He did not explain how the vast majority of the Ceylon Moors do not speak a single word of Arabic, but overwhelming speak Tamil. Other specious claims have been made by irate academics such as Qadri Ismail and Mirak Raheem. These include the curious claim that the Arab traders spoke Tamil because they married Tamil women.

The anti-Halal campaign of the Bodhu Bala Sena has put the Muslims of Sri Lanka back in the spotlight. Former Ambassador Izeth Hussain has written in the Island recently that the Sri Lankan Muslims are the most servile minority in the country.

Izeth Hussain is  correct. Sri Lankan Muslims have prostrated themselves in front of the communal Sinhalese politicians. Sir Razik Fareed voted for Sinhala to be made the sole official language in 1944 and 1956. In 1948-9, Dr. MCM Kaleel and Dr. TB Jayah, who were both in the Cabinet, supported the disenfranchisement of the Indian community. In August 1983, Dr Kaleel, then President of All Ceylon Muslim League, justified the massacre as a legitimate response to the Tamil demand for separate state. He objected to the walkout in the Indian Parliament by the Indian Muslim League, who were protesting against the anti-Tamil pogrom. Dr. Kaleel was blind to the fact that many Muslims were killed in the 1983 as they were mistaken for Tamils.

The Sri Lankan Muslim are neither fish nor fowl. The Arabs have rejected them. The Sinhala Buddhists and Tamil Hindus are aghast at their specious claims.

Hence, it is high time that the Sri Lankan Muslims embrace their Tamil ethnicity. Tamil is the oldest spoken language in the Indian subcontinent. Islamic Tamil literature has a thousand year heritage. Tamil is the most secular language in this region. There is a vast body of Tamil literature that embraces Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Jainism and Islam.  Ramanathan was an apostle of peace and unity. Following him will bring unity to this island and end the misgivings of this complexed minority.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 6, 2013 | Filed under: Colombo Telegraph,Opinion,Popular | Posted by: COLOMBO_TELEGRAPH
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/sri-lankan-muslims-are-low-caste-tamil-hindu-converts-not-arab-descendants/

The myth of a traditional Tamil Homeland unmasked

The myth of a traditional Tamil Homeland unmasked

Secession is not a remedy for every ethno-religious conflict in the world. It is certainly not the solution for the armed conflict in Sri Lanka, which is viewed by some as an ethnic conflict. However, the roots of the conflict lie in poverty and underdevelopment.

Sri Lanka Ambassador in the U.S., Bernard Goonetilleke, explained that Sri Lanka Tamils’ cause was later hijacked by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), in aiming to establish a mono-ethnic fascist state in the North and the East of Sri Lanka, through violent means.

STATEMENT

He was referring to a statement by U.S. constitutional lawyer, Bruce Fein, published in the website of Tamils for Justice, a front organization of the LTTE. For a stiff fee of $90,000 for the first three months of his services, Fein cannot but play the piper’s tune, albeit, most unconvincingly and inaccurately.

In a deeply flawed article titled “Tamil Statehood,” in the Washington Times of January 28, 2008, Fein said, “To deny the statehood right - sought by the Tamil people since 1976 - would mark one of the United States’ most ill-conceived hours.”

Ambassador Goonetilleke pointed out that the Vaddukkodai Resolution of 1976 has been skilfully exploited by the Eelamists to distort history, geography and demography, to mislead the world on a dubious claim of a traditional Tamil homeland.

His reflections reached another plateau as he referred to the 1977 Election Manifesto of the Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF), which had laid the initial false claim for Tamil Eelam.

The Ambassador quoted from the manifesto, “Even before the Christian era, the entire island of Ceylon was ruled by the Tamil kings Senan, Kudditan and Elara (Ellalan), and thereafter, for over a thousand years, as a result of a struggle for supremacy between the Tamil kings and the Sinhalese kings, the capital of Sinhalese kings was gradually shifted southwards, away from Tamil centres.

These are facts of recorded history. It is also a fact that the entire island was under sway of Tamil kings at times, and the Sinhalese kings at other times.

POLITICAL FACT

From this background of altering fortunes emerged at the beginning of the 13th century, a clear and stable political fact. At this time, the territory stretching in the western seaboard, from Chilaw through Puttalam to Mannar, and thence to the Northern Regions, and in the East, Trincomalee and also the Batticaloa region and extended southwards up to Kumana or the northern banks of the river Kumbakhan Oya, were firmly established as the exclusive homeland of the Tamils. This is the territory of Eelam.”

Thus, Ambassador Goonetilleke explained, how the TULF deceptively used the fallacious Minute made by the first British Colonial Secretary, Hugh Cleghorn in 1799 in his ignorance, to argue that Tamils occupied the land from Walawe River in the south east to Chilaw, in the north west of the island.

Through fascinating insights into history, the Ambassador exposed the deception of the Eelamists, with unassailable facts from the annals of the past. For instance, through alluding to the management of the country’s lands during colonial times, he explained that from 1801 to 1833, no changes had been made by the British to the composition of the former Dutch territories.

However, in 1833, following the Colebrooke and Cameron reforms, the island was divided into 5 provinces, which resulted in the former Kandyan territories of Nuwara Kalaviya, (present day North Central Province), being annexed to the Northern Province, while Thamankaduwa (Polonnaruwa), to the Eastern Province, along with large tracts of land from the Kandyan Kingdom comprising Bintenna, Uva and Panama.

The Ambassador quoted Lenox A. Mills, from his publication ‘Ceylon Under British Rule,’ where he says that the British stratagem was “intended to weaken the national feelings of the Kandyans.”

Other documented information point to the fact that, contrary to the TULF claims of “an exclusive homeland of the Tamils,” Tamil settlements in the north and the east were of recent historical origin. Professor Karthigesu Indrapala of the Jaffna University, who, in his article titled ‘Early Tamil Settlements in Ceylon,’ makes a significant observation.

“Looking back on the body of evidence that is available to us, we have to conclude that there were no widespread Tamil settlements before the Tenth Century.”

His conclusions are redolent with powerful implications against Tamil Eelam, when he says, “However, the majority of the settlers appear to have migrated to that region (i.e. to the Jaffna Peninsula), in the latter half of the 13th Century.”

I listened, fascinated, as Ambassador Goonetilleke pulled out information from his fount of knowledge, with the professionalism of a seasoned intellectual.

As he presented the facts with unfaltering precision, I could see the claim of “Tamil Eelam” eroding before my very eyes. The facts speak for themselves with the clarity of truth. Portuguese historian De Queyros in his publication titled ‘Temporal and Spiritual Conquest of Ceylon,” says that in the 16th century, Jaffnapatnam was a “sub-kingdom under a sub-ruler,” under the authority of the King of Kotte.

SUB-KINGDOM

If Jaffna was a sub-kingdom in the 16th century, where was the independent Tamil Kingdom of the 13th century, the Eelamists speak of De Queyros also makes the point that when the Portuguese expelled the Moors (i.e. Muslims), from their territories in 1626, King Senarath of Kandy resettled some of them in the east, and, “4000 were settled in Batticaloa alone by the idolatrous King.”

The King of Kandy could resettle people in Batticaloa because that area was under his suzerainty, just as much as the other areas of the east coast of the island. When Robert Knox, an English doctor, natural scientist and traveller, reached the eastern shores of the island in 1660, and landed at Kottiar Bay, he was captured, not by the soldiers of the then ruler of Jaffna, but by the soldiers of King Rajasinghe of Kandy. If the eastern coast of the island had been under the ruler of Jaffna, how could King Rajasinghe’s soldiers have had any authority in the area?

The records left by the Dutch missionary, Phillipus Baldeus, who had been in Jaffnapattnam in 1658, reveal that the King of Jaffna had jurisdiction over a limited area of the north, including Jaffnapattnam, the adjacent isles and the island of Mannar. However, the major part of the Vanni, which encompasses present day Mannar, Kilinochchi, Vavuniya and Mullaitivu districts, and the entire Eastern Province, came under the authority of the Kandyan Kingdom.

WREST CONTROL

This is the reason for Dutch Governor, Ryckloff Van Goens, to report, in 1663, as Kandyan kings held sway over the east, “The country between Waluwe and Trinquenemale (Trincomalee), mostly stretches East and South East, as far as Jale (Yala in the south east). I have not been able to visit this District as it is entirely inhabited by the King’s people.”

Ambassador explained that it took over a century for the Dutch, to the time of Governor Flack in 1766, to wrest control of the coastal areas in the east from the Kandyan King. Governor Flack coerced King Keerthi Sri Rajasinghe of Kandy, to cede a small strip of land four miles wide, along the eastern seaboard of the island.

If, as the Eelamists claim, the east was under the King of Jaffna, Ambassador Goonetilleke asked, why did Governor Flack sign a treaty with the Kandyan King, and why did Governor Goens report that the Kandyan King’s subjects live along the eastern sea coast? Then again, why did Tamil scholars such as Mudliyar C. Rasanayagam and Prof. Karthigesu Indrapala claim that Jaffnapattnam, was first inhabited by the Sinhalese and subsequently, by the Tamils, toward the “latter part of the 13th century”? It is against this factual backdrop that Ambassador Goonetilleke asks, “When the Eelam lobby speaks of the north and the east being ‘a traditional homeland of the Tamils,’ when did this tradition begin exactly?” Yes, when exactly ? Was it since “time immemorial” as the TULF Election Manifesto of 1977 states ? Or was it since 1987, when the government of Sri Lanka was forced to accept such a concept with the signing of the Indo-Lanka Peace Accord ?

LTTE leader, Vellupillai Prabhakaran, in his Heroes’ Day speech in November 2007, unwittingly unmasks the reason for the deception about a traditional homeland.

The myth of a traditional Tamil Homeland unmasked - Page 2

QUESTION

He lamented, “...although 80 million Tamils live all around the globe, the Tamils do not have a country of their own.” How many of these 80 million Tamils does Prabhakaran hope to settle in his mythical “Tamil homeland” in the North and the East?

The question that immediately springs to mind is whether Prabhakaran is seeking to establish a “Greater Tamil homeland” beyond the shores of Sri Lanka. If he is seeking a homeland for 80 million Tamils around the world, this would certainly appear to be the case. Remember the separatist struggle of the Tamils in Tamil Nadu in the 1950s, until secession was forbidden by the central government of India in 1963? Ambassador Goonetilleke recalled the statement by Thamilendhi, the financial czar of the LTTE, on March 18, 2008,”In ancient times, the whole of India was a Tamil land. And the Chola kings (from Tamil Nadu), ruled over Sri Lanka for 70 years. Today, the Tamils are slaves in India, and are fighting for their liberation in Sri Lanka.” On the same subject, the Ambassador whizzed me off to a flashback, to 1939, when the Tamils in India were demanding a separate state, to the first “Tamil Nadu for Tamils” conference, where Mr. C.N. Annadurai was the principal speaker.

This was the time that the Dravida Kazhagam (DK), and its offshoot, Dravida Munnetra Khazagam (DMK), had as their primary goal, an independent Dravida Nadu. Subsequently, with the Central Government enacting a law banning parties and individuals from demanding independence from India, DMK abandoned its demand, and those who supported secession were eventually forced to demand something short of total independence from India.

EMBRYONIC

This brought to life an embryonic ‘Tamil Nation,’ within India, with maximum devolution of powers. Due to the crackdown by the Indian central government, the ‘Tamil Nation,’ concept went underground in India and resurfaced in 1976, in a less hostile environment in Sri Lanka. Is Bruce Fein, unaware of the diabolical plans of the Eelam lobby? Has he any idea of the history behind the dubious claim for Tamil Eelam? May be not, for his ignorance becomes more apparent each time he attempts to assert his opinion. For instance, he tries to justify the separatist demand of the Tamil lobby, by bringing in the recent unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo.

“The reason why the Kosovo independence is so significant is because it addresses an issue that’s prevalent throughout the world...” continues Fein, “But surely I think the Kosovo independence should shine a spotlight on these areas of the world, because I think in the long run separate statehoods create greater stability,” and gives the example of the breakup of former Yugoslavia, unmindful of the carnage that ensued. He seems to ignore the ethnic mix in the Eastern Province, and the greater number of Sri Lankan Tamils, who have made other areas of the island their home, since fleeing the Tigers’ den in the North and the East.

Ambassador Goonetilleke observed that Fein appears to be desirous of drawing a parallel between Sri Lanka and Kosovo. However, he seems to have overlooked statements made by the countries, which hurriedly recognized the unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo. For example, on February 18, 2008, U.S. Secretary of State, Condolezza Rice, said, “The unusual combination of factors found in the Kosovo situation — including the context of Yugoslavia’s breakup, the history of ethnic cleansing and crimes against civilians in Kosovo, and the extended period of UN administration — are not found elsewhere and therefore make Kosovo a special case.” She emphasized, “Kosovo cannot be seen as a precedent for any other situation in the world today.”

Similarly, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband, in an interview with BBC Radio 4 Today programme, on February 19, 2008, said of Kosovo’s declaration of independence, “What makes it unique is that for nine years, there’s been a UN protectorate within the independent country of Serbia. That does mean that this is a unique case and I think it’s not one that can be equated to the Basque issue or some of the other issues that have been raised.”

That was not all. When the EU members met in Brussels recently, they agreed that Kosovo should not set a precedent for other states, with Spain and others, concerned about separatism stalking their countries. However, such principled positions are not expected to deter a hardnosed lawyer of the ilk of Fein.

NOT FAMILIAR

Ambassador Goonetilleke pointed out that although Fein, on February 24, 2008, confidently referred to, “Sri Lanka in particular, with which I am familiar,” his article in the Washington Times on January 29, 2008, reveals that he is ignorant about even the basic facts on Sri Lanka - such as the difference between Sri Lankan Tamils and Indian Tamils. Fein says in his article, “Immediately upon independence, the Sinhalese denied citizenship and disenfranchised a staggering 1 million Tamils, ...” He appears to believe he is referring to Sri Lankan Tamils, but in reality he is talking about Indian Tamils. I find it presumptious that he should boast of his familiarity with the Sri Lanka situation, when he is ignorant of this basic distinction between Sri Lankan and Indian Tamils.

Doesn’t he know that Sri Lankan Tamils were citizens of Ceylon, and therefore the issue of denying them citizenship at the time of independence does not arise? “Disenfranchisement” was with reference to Indian Tamils, who were brought in as temporary workers by the British in the 19th century, to work as bonded labourers on the tea plantations.

Ambassador Goonetilleke illustrated with a contemporary example. “Today, Sri Lankans by the hundreds and thousands are working in the Middle East, as temporary workers. Can they claim citizenship in the Middle Eastern countries on the basis that they worked and lived there for many years?” he asked.

RIGHT TO DECIDE

Furthermore, he maintained that any newly independent country has the right to decide who should form or has a claim to be the citizens of that country. The Ceylon Citizenship Act of 1948 provided for those born in Ceylon, prior to November 1949, of a father born in Ceylon, to be recognized as a citizen of Ceylon.

That Act was followed by the Indian and Pakistani (Residents) Citizenship Act of 1949, which sought to grant Ceylon Citizenship to people, who were able to satisfy residence in Ceylon for a period of 7 years from 1st January, 1939, in case of married persons, and for a period of 10 years (from 1st January, 1936) for unmarried persons.

NEGOTIATIONS

This arrangement enabled about 145,000 persons of Indian Origin to acquire citizenship of Ceylon leaving approximately 700,000 whose citizenship had to be determined through negotiations with India. As the Ambassador explained, the matter was sorted out after negotiations with India in 1964 and 1974 with other local administrative and legal arrangements, ending up with the ‘Grant of Citizenship of Persons of Indian Origin Act (Act No. 35 of 2003). Ambassador Goonetilleke has a question for the Eelam lobby.

“Can they explain why G.G. Ponnambalam (Sr.) voted in favour of the Indian Pakistani Residents (Citizenship) Act of 1949, having voted against the Ceylon Citizenship Act of 1948?” And why S.V. J Chelvanayakam voted against both Acts and broke away from the ACTC and established the Federal Party in 1949? As the Ambassador explained, Ponnambalam founded the first Tamil political party, the All Ceylon Tamil Congress (ACTC), and stood for the principle of minority representation. He then referred to a quote by G.G. Ponnambalam (Jr.), referring to a press statement made by the Ceylon Workers Congress (CWC) in the “Daily News” of 23rd June 1962..... “Had the TC been given an additional portfolio, as earlier agreed, it is a matter for conjecture as to whether Mr. Chelvanayakam and his followers would have been in a position to vote against the Bill”.The CWC represents the Indian Tamils on whose issue the Federal Party claims it split from the ACTC! However, Premier D.S. Senanayake, for reasons best known to him, refused to accept Chelvanayakam to his cabinet, thereby leading to the establishment of the Federal Party by the latter. The rest is history.

If the decision taken by the newly independent government was a treacherous act, did not the Tamil leadership of the day, collude with such policies? However, G.G. Ponnambalam (Jr.) disagrees that his father’s decision in 1949 was wrong. Referring to V. P. Vittachi’s letter to the Editor in “The Sunday Times” of October 6, under the headline “G.G. Ponnambalam and the Indian Tamils” he said on 13th October 1996, “Yes, I do not deny that G.G. Ponnambalam (Sr.) voted for the Indian and Pakistani Residents (Citizenship) Act No. 3 of 1949, and the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Act No. 48 of 1949, and see no wrong in having done so. In fact, I would go so far as to say that was the correct thing to have been done, under the circumstances. Perhaps, what he did was endorsed by the voters of the Northern Province in 1952...” Before resting his case, Ambassador Goonetilleke admitted that the tragedy of Sri Lanka was punctuated by missed opportunities and acts, the result of political greed of many.

OPPORTUNITY

What is needed is a tiny window of opportunity to demonstrate that Sri Lankans are able to leave the past behind and forge a new unity for the common good of future generations. He sees the recent decision of President Mahinda Rajapaksa to implement in full, the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, as a first step in that direction. Despite the small size of the country, the Ambassador believes the island is large enough for all of its citizens of all ethnic groups. There is no need for unacceptable myths and erroneous minutes.

So, pray tell me, where are the historical, archaeological and epigraphical evidence to prove the existence of a traditional Tamil homeland in the north and the east? Where does the tradition begin?

Rizana GAZZALI

~ dailynews.lk ~ 

Myth & Reality of Tamil Homeland

Myth: Northern and Eastern Provinces are the Traditional Tamil Homeland

Reality: There is no Tamil Homeland in any part of this island.

Northern and Eastern Provinces were administrative divisions initially created by the British. The criteria for demarcating these provinces were

1. Easy access from the coast.
2. Administrative convenience
3. Cartographic convenience (Southwestern border of Eastern Province)

Thus we have several long and parallel-to-the-sea provinces. Subsequently, the borders of these provinces were changed several times by the post-Independence Sri Lankan governments for various administrative reasons. There is no record by anyone anywhere to claim that the British were demarcating a Tamil Homeland when drawing the boundaries of Northern and Eastern Provinces.

Thus it is extremely insensible and unthoughtful for the Tamil ethnonationlists, this include even known Tamil academics (e.g. S.J. Tambiah, A.J. Wilson and S. Arasartnam) and lesser known academics (e.g. C. Manogaran) and self-appointed "academics" (e.g. Satchi Ponnambalam), not to mention all the Tamil politicians and of course LTTE to accept the administrative boundaries as that of Tamil homeland. The Tamils ethnonationalists must be eternally grateful to the British colonial masters for their visionary favour!

For a geographical area to be a defined as a homeland of a particular group of people certain prerequisites must be met.

1. A distinct civilization must have emerged from that region.
2. The existence of a politically autonomous entity over a significant length of time.
3. A long continued habitation by the same people
4. The concept of a homeland must have historically evolved in the minds of the people.
5 The cultural landscape must reflect the culture of the people All these should have objectively acceptable credible evidence.

The areas of Northern and Eastern Provinces do not satisfy any of these prerequisites and Jaffna peninsula which is predominantly inhabited by the Tamils are most numerous satisfies only the last of the above conditions. (Tamilnadu of course satisfy all these conditions). Thus it is not only factually incorrect but also a disgrace for the Tamils to consider a piece of earth that does not satisfy the above requirements as Tamil homeland. On this basis anyplace with a sizable Tamil population can become a Tamil homeland!

Myth: Sinhala Buddhist civilization did not extend to Northern and Eastern Provinces where a Tamil civilization existed.

Reality: No distinctive Tamil civilization existed in any part of the island but the Sinhala Buddhist civilization spread all over the island.

First of all, the present distribution of Tamils (the maximum spatial spread of Tamils in the history in the island) in the Northern and Eastern Provinces is limited to a few definite areas. This includes Jaffna Peninsula and the adjacent lands in the mainland, Batticaloa and the vicinity and a few littoral areas in Trincomallee. Thus to say that the entire Northern and Eastern Provinces came under a Tamil civilization is nothing but a blatant lie.

Second, the toponymy (place names) in the Tamil areas indicate that most of the current place names are Tamil translations of the original Sinhalese names. Third, there are over 600 ancient Buddhist shrines big and small distributed all over the Northern and Eastern Provinces. Archaeology Department has identified them on the ground and mapped them. However the civiliztion-cleansing and cultural-cleansing programs which TULF started and perfected by the LTTE have almost totally destroyed the evidences of most of these ancient shrines.

Fourth, in spite of these sacrilegious activities of the Tamil extremists, a large number of scared Buddhist places of worship (e.g. Nagadipa, Seruwila, Dighawapi) remain in these two provinces. Fifth, many a evidences of Sinhalese-Buddhist hydraulic civilization is abound in these two provinces. There are numerous stone inscriptions of Sinhalese-Buddhist kings are found in these two provinces. Sixth, the official records and communications of Portuguese, Dutch and English amply prove that these two provinces remained under the suzerainty of the Sinhalese Kings.

It is only in the 12th century that permanent Tamil settlements emerged in Jaffna and thereafter Hindu Tamil culture has spread outward. But it did not create a distinctive and a unique Tamil-Hindu civilization distinctly different from that of Tamil Nadu as the Sinhalese did.

Tamil People

Myth: All Tamils supports Eelam

Reality: All Tamils do not support Eelam

Yes, all LTTE supporters and sympathizers here and abroad support Eelam. Some of the Tamil people who have been treated brutally by the LTTE and other Tamil terrorist organizations that have supposedly entered into democratic politics oppose Eelam. Some of the former terrorist organizations now with representatives in the Parliament and support the government openly opposing Eelam.

Another group of Tamils specially the middle class and wealthy also oppose Eelam as their livelihood is totally dependent on the country at large and among the Sinhalese and not on an exclusively Tamil Eelam. Further they fear that if Eelam is ever realized that they would be the first to loose as it might compel them to leave their present jobs and status and settle inside Eelam. More than anything else they fear to live under LTTE which is authoritarian, undemocratic, brutal, unpredictable and intolerant of traditions of Hindu culture and society. The number of Tamils killed by the LTTE (a rough estimate is around 4000) is far greater than those who died as a result of the war. Those Tamils whose children were forcibly conscripted or abducted by the LTTE to fight for Eelam. A large number of Tamils in the East also opposes Eelam.

Unfortunately, those Tamils who have left for greener pastures, including academics, who live comfortable lives in Western Capitals extend unreserved support to Eelam and thus LTTE. Obviously, they may be trying to pay in dollars for the guilt of enjoying western standard of living while their brethrens are suffering under brutality of LTTE. A large number of Tamils have refugees as a result of LTTE attacks and strategy.

One of the sorry ironies in this saga is the support extended by Tamil political parties to Eelam and LTTE. What this means in real terms is nothing but endorsing and legitimizing terrorism, assassinations, destruction, and all the miseries directed against not only the Sinhalese but also the Tamils themselves. The Tamil political parties in Sri Lanka thus become unique in the world as representatives who assures not the welfare of their people but their destruction.

Myth: All Tamil speaking people supports Eelam
Reality: Tamil speaking Muslims oppose Eelam

The concept of a "Tamil speaking people" was devised as a strategy by the early Tamil political parties e.g. Illankai Tamil Arasu Kadchi (Lanka Tamil State Party erroneously translated as Federal Party) to co-opt Muslims into Tamil political strategy of separation. However, Muslims realizing the covert intention of the Tamil political parties and subsequently the Tamil terrorist movements, disassociated with this concept and rejected Eelam altogether. Muslims have openly declared that they do not want to become a minority within a minority. The fate of the Muslims at the hands of the LTTE has galvanized the Muslims to openly oppose Eelam and LTTE. The Muslims fearing the extremist Tamil claim of homeland, have resorted to demand the southern Eastern Proavince as a Muslim region pausing a direct challenge to Tamil homeland.

Myth: Tamils are one of the two majority communities in Sri Lanka.
Reality: Tamils are a minority in Sri Lanka.

Tamils in Sri Lanka considered them to be one of the two majority communities (other being the Sinhalese) under British dominance. The British themselves nurtured this position for their own reasons during the colonial rule. Thus the Tamils elites were reluctant to accept that they were a minority in Sri Lanka. They then cultivated this mentality among the ordinary Tamils as well. They tried all tricks in the bag to artificially remain a majority. First by opposing universal adult franchise and second by demanding 50% of the seats in the Parliament for the minorities they tried to cling on to the artificial majority status they enjoyed under British. The British at the time, however, rejected this by arguing that any artificial measure to reduce a majority to a minority and eleveate a minority to majority is bound to fail. The pathological inability of the Tamils to accept the fact that they are a minority was expressed by the dictum proposed by S.J. Tambiah -a Tamil academic living in the West, as a "minority with a parity claim".

Tamils are and will be a minority under the democratic system in Sri Lanka. This is not the fault or a conspiracy of the Sinhalese. It is the plain fact. In fact current fate of the ordinary Tamils in this country at large and in Jaffna and the East in particular is a result of the continuing inability of their extremist political leaders to accept the fact and the reality that they are a minority. When the parity cannot be achieved through democracy, the Tamil leaders have resorted to violence and terrorism. What a leadership!