by J.L. Devananda
Please click here to read part of of this series of articles
2. The British and the Mahavamsa
(February 01, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) It was only in the 19th century AD, the British re-discovered the Mahavamsa. The first printed edition and English translation of the Mahavansha was published in 1837 by George Turnour, an historian and officer of the Ceylon Civil Service. A German translation of Mahavansha was completed by Wilhelm Geiger in 1912. This was then translated into English by Mabel Haynes Bode, and the English translation was revised by Geiger. English historians who wrote on Sri Lankan history are also responsible for the misrepresentation of Sri Lankan history as Sinhalese history.
Prof. K. Indrapala says in his book, ‘The evolution of an Ethnic Identity: The Tamils in Sri Lanka C. 300 BCE to C. 1200 CE’, it was in the nineteenth century, under the British rule, that the British officials adopted a keen interest in the history of the island. The European discovery of the Pali chronicles, the publication of early translations of the Mahavamsa and the acquisition of information relating to the ancient ruins lead to the first serious British attempt to write the early history of Sri Lanka in the middle of the nineteenth century.
2.1. Aryans and Dravidians
The colonial Orientalist ‘scholars', who were enthusiastic to invent Indo-Aryan cousins in this part of the world, created enough myths in that process for Brahmanism in India and Sinhala-Buddhist elitism in Sri Lanka. It was in these early colonial writings, largely based on the uncritical acceptance of the local chronicles, that a new perspective of the ancient history of the island began to develop. The view that the Sinhalese were the ‘proper inhabitants’ of the island in ancient times and that the Tamils were invaders came to dominate colonial historical writings. In addition, since the Sinhala language was more of Indo-Aryan in nature, the British declared that the Sinhalese were Aryans from North India and the Tamils were Dravidians from South India. In recent years, several anthropologists and historians have shown how this perspective came to be developed in the colonial writings. It was only in the 19th century AD, the Sinhalese started to believe the myth that they are Aryans from North India and the proper inhabitants of Sri Lanka where as the Tamils are Dravidians and outsiders.
It is important to note that the Aryan theory was not merely something imposed from above by Orientalist ‘scholars'. It was eagerly welcomed by most Sinhala scholars who found the Aryan theory flattering in that it elevated them to the ranks of the kinsmen of their rulers. The combined result of the forces at work was the mischievous oversimplification of Sri Lankan History that the Sinhalese are Indo-Aryans who came from North India in the 6th century BC and the Dravidian Tamils are later migrants who came as invaders, traders and mercenaries to snatch a part of the promised land of the Sinhalese away. Influenced by the colonial historiography, the Sinhalese declared that they were indigenous to the island (first arrivals/natives), and that the Tamils were invaders (came later) from South India. The above facts and the non-existence of Tamil Buddhists during the colonial period (due to the aftermath of the 10th century Chola invasion) led the 19th century European Pali ‘scholars' to assume and subsequently the present day Sri Lankans to believe that the ancient Buddhists and the Buddhists Kings of Sri Lanka were none other than Sinhalese. In Sri Lanka, any person who adopts Sinhala as mother tongue ipso facto is an Aryan. Most of the Sinhalese cannot even think/believe that there were Tamil Buddhists in the early period. If there were Buddhist remains in any part of Sri Lanka, by default it belonged to Sinhalese (only) and if there were Hindu remains it belonged to Tamils (only) whereas the Sinhalese worship most of the Hindu Gods.
2.2. Sinhala Buddhist Nationalism
The most influential figure in this field was the great German indologist, Max Muller. According to Prof. Leslie Gunawardana, scholars in late 19th century Sri Lanka took up Max Muller’s theories and injected a RACIALIST content into Sinhala nationalist thinking. One such scholar was Anagarika Dharmapala (Aka Don David Hewavitarana). Through publications such as the ‘Sinhala Bauddhaya’, ‘Sinhala Jatiya’, and the ‘Mahabodhi Journal’ during the period 1909 to 1915, he propagated the Mahavamsa as the Orthodox Theravada Buddhist doctrine of the Sinhala Buddhists. He called the Sinhala Buddhists as the only unique race (Arya-Sinhala) with a pure Aryan blood.
Today, the Maha Sangha and the Sinhala-Buddhist monks are NOT the disciples of Buddha; they are the disciples of Anagarika Dharmapala who believed in the Mahavamsa as an Orthodox Theravada Buddhist doctrine of the Sinhala Buddhists. In 1908, Dharmapala declared that Buddhism was “completely identified with the racial individuality of the people.” As Peter Schalk states: “This is probably one of the most conflict creating public statements made in the 20th century. It is also a statement that is detrimental nationally and internationally to the reputation of Buddhism. He stated explicitly that Lanka belongs to the Buddhist Sinhalese and for the Tamils there is South India.”
2.3. Buddhist monks and Politics
In 1946, the faculty at the Vidyālankara monastery approved without dissent a resolution declaring that monks should become politically active. The Vidhyālankara monks moved the Dharmapalite revolution from nonsectarian social action in the villages to a political ideology that fused language, religion, and state. The radical monks formed the Lankā Eksat Bhiksu Mandalaya, the United Bhikku Organization of Śri Lankā. The seeds of a highly politicized Sinhalese Buddhism were now sown. As Seneviratne states, “By the mid 1950s it turned into a hegemonic Sinhala Buddhist chauvinism.”
It should be noted that none of those European Orientalist ‘scholars' who translated and brought to light (or rather misinterpreted) the Sanskrit texts and Pali canon/chronicles ever attempted to do the same to the ancient Tamil texts and the writings on ola/palmaryh leaves which are believed to be destroyed when the Jaffna library was burnt. Some of them which were translated by Arumuga Navalar, Thamotharam Pillai and Saminathaiyar still wait for a comprehensive translation. The partiality in historiography by the British colonial rulers brought in new social gaps, confrontations and competition. With that started the Sinhalese-Buddhist nationalism spanning from Anagarika Dharampala's revivalist movement through 1956 "silent revolution to Jathika Chinthanaya and Sinhala Urumaya in the 1990s is interpreted as a teleological linear history, at the end, intending the ethnic crisis at present.
2.4. History further Twisted
Continuing what was written by the English, the Sinhalese historians twisted and misrepresented and misappropriated the civilization achievements of the ancient Sri Lanka as the history of the newly conceived Aryan Sinhala race.
MAHAVANSAYA – Sinhala version was edited by Ven. Hikkaduwe Sumangala thero (aka Don Niculas Gunawardhana). Ven. Hikkaduwe Sumangala along with Don Andris de Silva Batuvantudave have amended, modified, added and edited the Mahavamsa to suit the Sinhala race.
In the Trustworthiness of the Mahavamsa by Wilhelm Geiger the author says, I do not consider the final chapter 101 which has been added by Sumangala and Batuwantudawa, the authors of the edition princeps.
2.5. Sinhalese Confused
Most probably due to misinformation or lack of clear information, during the last few decades, the Sinhala Buddhists Nationalists were concocting many different versions of their history, some of them contradicting each other.
There is one group that totally believes in the Mahavamsa, that about two thousand five hundred years ago, Vijay and 700 men (Aryans) came from North India, took Tamil Pandya wives (Dravidians) from South India and formed the Sinhala race.
Another group, the followers of Anagarika Dhammapala believes the same but without the Tamil connection, that is, the Sinhalese are pure North Indian Aryans and did not mix with anybody.
Then there is another group known as the Jaathika Chinthanaya (national consciousness) movement founded by Gunadasa Amarasekera (Sinhala writer/poet and dentist) that believes, about two thousand five hundred years ago, Vijaya Singh and his clan (Aryans) came from North India and landed in Hela Diva and mixed with the Hela tribes that lived in Sri Lanka and formed a Sinhala Nation under king Pandukabhaya. From that cross breeding the name Sinhala came to all the progeny of these immigrants (Singh + Hela = Sinhala), and the Sinhala race/nation already existed during king Tissa’s period when Mahinda Thero brought Buddhism to Sri Lanka and during King Devanampiya Tissa’s period the Sinhalese became Buddhists and the Sinhala-Buddhist society was established.
Today, another group of Sinhalese-Buddhists by the name Hela Havula (Sinhalese literary organization founded by Munidasa Cumaratunga) have created a new theory (Siv + Hela = Sinhala) linking Ravana to the Sinhalas and totally contradicting the Mahavamsa to say that the Sinhalas are the original natives of Sri Lanka (even before Ravana) from the four tribes known as Siv-hela (Deva, Naga, Yakka, & Rakhsasa) and not migrants from India as mentioned in the Mahavamsa. Their theory is purely based on the Indian epics Ramayana and Mahabaratha. Some of them even want to add the Mahayana Buddhist text Lankavatara Sutta which is based on Ramayana to Sinhala-Buddhism.
None of the above versions have any archeological/epigraphic evidence in Sri Lanka or India and the present day historians do not accept any of the above as true. Till now, the actual history of Sri Lanka (Sinhalese and Tamils) is not likely to be concluded and we still have to wait for more archeological discoveries for any breakthrough.
To be continued...
Post a Comment