The importance of history

By Nalin de Silva

(July 29, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) It is not necessary to quote others giving chapter and verse in the Biblical tradition to show that history whether of a country, nation, ethnic community, discipline or even an individual is important. I prefer the ehi passiko tradition of "come and see for yourself" once the basic "facts" and arguments are given. I am not a western Christian modernist and my nationalism as Malinda Seneviratne has noted is indigestible to many nationalists themselves. History is important and after all even the westerners are interested in evolution (revolution) whether of the universe, the species including the naked ape of Morris, and of mankind. The first is dealt in cosmology, the second in biology and third in Marxism. In none of the cases the explanations, theories or even concepts are adequate but it shows that to understand the present the past is important. The present does not float in air but sits on the "bedrock" of past. Even individuals are not presented to the world in a finished form and people evolve and there are explanations, though not general theories, for such evolutions though again there may be different interpretations of the explanations.

What is interesting is that the evolutionary theories presented by the west are linear and move from a starting point to a point in the future. Though there may not be a creator in western knowledge systems there is a point of creation that the westerners cannot do away with. The westerners, especially the rationalists have no answer to the question as to how the universe began. They are happy to assume that the universe began without a reason and no explanation is given for this most important event. The universe is supposed to have begun some 13.7 billion years ago, and the humans trace their origin to a common grandmother Lucy who has happened to live in Africa though no word is said of the common grandfather. Perhaps the westerners are convinced that the males are a redundant lot with or without mitochondria and stem cells, and that the latter are useless by products of evolution. Marx is no different from the other western intellectuals, and as all the mainstream and minor stream (in Sinhala I would have used the term sulu diya daharawa) theorists in the west are influenced by the linear theories (stories) of the Old Testament they fall back on linear evolutionary theories when compared to the cyclic theories of the east especially before the Aryans came to this part of the world. At Kelaniya we are developing a cosmology without a big bang (with no beginning with or without a Creator), and we are inspired by the sanvatta kuppa and the vivatta kuppa concepts as described in the Buddhist literature. At least for once we would like to break away from the linear stories and get on with cyclic stories.

However, we do not have to go back to the big bang or even to Lucy to discuss the so called ethnic problem in Sri Lanka but nevertheless it is not a problem presented to us only yesterday. The problem itself has a history just as much the SLFP policy on the thirteenth amendment has a history. After all the thirteenth amendment is a by product of the so called Indo Lanka agreement imposed on us by the might of India to which J R Jayewardene succumbed, even with the undated letters of resignation by the MPs in his pocket. The Indo Lanka "agreement" (it is not an agreement though signed by two governments as one party had no say at all – again in Sinhala we may call it the Indo Lanka Parippuwa and not givisuma) proclaimed of historical habitats (or words to that effect) of the Tamils. It is obvious that there cannot be historical habitats without a history and it is unfortunate that we do not have any of the main actors JRJ, Dixith, Gamini Dissanayake, Rajiv, and Prabhakaran to find out what was meant by historical habitats. Perhaps Vardharaja Perumal the Chief Minister of the minister Dayan Jayatilleke in the provincial council of the northern and eastern provinces, whose administration was involved with UDI could tell us what was meant by historical habitats in provinces demarcated arbitrarily by the British as late as 1889. It may be that history began with the creation of the provinces in 1889 by the British and not with the big bang or Lucy. In a sense it is good that it so happened, I mean the beginning of history according to the British and the Tamil racists, in 1889, otherwise as I have mentioned in "An introduction to Tamil racism in Sri Lanka" (translation of Prabhakaran ohuge seeyala baappala ha massinala), had the British stuck to their first demarcation into five provinces Anuradhapura would have belonged to the northern province, and even that city or town would have been a historical habitat of the Tamils. Thank God for creating British inspired Sri Lankan history in 1889!

For the umpteenth time we have to say that the present eastern province belonged to Ruhuna if we go back to a history before the British came (is there anybody disputing that) ignoring the British inspired history of Sri Lanka, and that after the 1817-1818 independence struggle by the Sinhalas the humanitarian British massacred all the males over 13 years in Uva Vellassa (I am reminded of the Anglican or Lanka Sabha Bishop who said Prabhakaran was humane – I am not sure who was more humane the British or the LTTE – shall we request the Swedish ambassador to decide that before he leaves) that included part of the present eastern province, and after almost depopulating the area settled down labour that was brought from South India along the coastal belt of east. Many grama niladhari divisions in the interior of the eastern province had overwhelmingly Sinhala majorities in spite of the British policy even in the fifties, and simply because the British settled down Tamil labourers along the coastal belt after 1820 the entire eastern province does not become a historical habitat of the Tamils. This is where history becomes important at least as far as historical habitats are concerned and the thirteenth amendment and the Indo Lanka "agreement" that rests on these so called claims by the Indians and the Tamil racists is not worth the paper it was printed. In fact as we have said previously the Sri Lankan government should commence negotiations with India either to abolish the Indo Lanka "agreement" or to amend it as the context has changed since the defeat of the LTTE.

The thirteenth amendment was opposed by the SLFP, and if I remember correct Mr. Mahinda Rajapaksa and the other SLFP members voted against the relevant bill. It was passed under emergency laws with the UNP MPs having "submitted" their letters of resignation. I am not trying to argue that the thirteenth amendment is illegal but the massive opposition to it outside the parliament was not reflected inside the house. Subsequently the SLFP policy was also changed rather undemocratically by Chandrika Kumaratunga who was imported by interested parties to lead the SLFP and convert it to a SLMP the party led by her late husband Vijaya Kumaratunga. This project is gradually weakening now with Mangala Samaraweera forming another trishaw party if I may use Anura Bandaranaike’s terminology though there are some old Janavegaya boys still haunting in the SLFP after coming back from the UNP. Many people forget that a version of thirteen plus had come before the parliament in the form of the "package" of C. Kumaratunga and G. L. Peiris and that it had to be thrown to the dustbin due to objections from the Sinhala people. The Tamil racists would say that it was a handful of extremists who opposed the "package" but we are fed up of this argument as no government would listen to only a handful of "extremists" if the vast majority of the people are with it. What is forgotten is that when the package was introduced Mr. Mahinda Rajapaksa did not approve it and thus he has a history whether, one likes it or not, of opposing the thirteenth amendment as well as a version of thirteen plus. If the Indians and the west think that the Sinhala people would agree to a thirteen plus now having rejected a version of it when the LTTE was kicking with western money, then they are mistaken. It is true that Mr. Rajapaksa is under pressure from India to implement the thirteenth amendment but if my memory is correct though Mahinda Chinthana speaks of devolution it does not say that the thirteenth amendment would be implemented. There can be devolutions and devolutions and the fate of our country should be decided by us and not by the electorate in Chennai. If we had allowed the others to decide our fate Prabhakaran would be still living and the so called international community would be running the show.

The history of the Tamils in Sri Lanka is important, as part of the argument for devolution of powers, meaning legislative and executive, to the northern and the eastern provinces rests on so called historical habitats or "traditional homeland" of the Tamils in those two provinces. This is one of the reasons that made me interested in the history of the Vellalas and what we have to decide is whether the present Tamil population of the Jaffna peninsula has a continuous history going back to the fifteenth century.

(To be continued)

-Sri Lanka Guardian