Separatist myth vs. facts: “Sri Lanka was never under unified rule during the time of the Sinhala kings”

Lies and damned lies

After the crushing defeat of LTTE terrorists last year, the overseas supporters of the terrorists have shifted into overdrive in spreading the outragoeous argument that Sri Lanka was never under unified rule during the time of the Sinhala kings. Whether it is LTTE's Tamilnet propaganda outlet last month(1) or supporters of separatism from days gone by, such as Dharini Rajasingham-Senanayake(2), the claim is that British unified the administration of Lanka for the first time in 1833, and, upon granting independence to the inhabitants of the island, handed this unitary state to a Sinhalese controlled government in the year of 1948.

We as patriots and defenders of integrity of our motherland should always be aware of the true facts with regards to the history of Sri Lanka. The history of the ancient period of Sri Lanka is the history of monarchical rule. Here is historian S. Pathmanathan on the subject of the Sinhalese monarchy(3):

An outstanding feature of the Sinhalese monarchy is its almost unbroken continuity lasting for nearly two thousand years and its close connections with Buddhist institutions. No dynastic state has ever had such a continuity and stability in the neighboring Indian subcontinent from where the culture and political ideas of the ancient Sinhalese were mostly derived. Nor could any of the kingdoms in some of the countries of South-East Asia-Burma, Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam — where Buddhism exerted a profound influence, lay claim to such a long continuity and historical experience. The long and unbroken continuity and stability in the political and cultural tradition of the Sinhalese kingdom (s) was partly the result of the protection, provided by the island's insularity, the island's manageable territorial dimensions and the physiographic features which permitted control over a major part of it from a single dynastic centre before the thirteenth century. Another contributory factor was probably the absence of social classes able to challenge dynastic authority

To examine this concept of territorial integrity and unified rule by Sinhalese monarchs we need to examine how the Sri Lankan state came to be formed during earliest period of its history, how it evolved, and the nature of it leading up to the arrival of European powers, the Portuguese, the Dutch, and the British.

Early State Building

According to Mahavamsa, the story of man in Sri Lanka begins with the arrival there, sometime in the 5th century BC, of Vijaya the legendary founder of the Sinhalese. Beneath this charming exercise in myth-making lurks a kernel of historical truth – the colonization of the island by Indo-Aryan tribes from northern India(4). These settlements were established and developed in several parts of the island from about the fifth century BC. The earliest settlers were those on the west-central coast who pushed inland along the banks of Malvatu Oya and founded a number of riverbank settlements. Their seat of government was Upatissagama where the first ‘Kings’ of the Vijayan dynasty reigned. The settlers on the east coast would have moved inland along the Mahaveli River. Somewhat later, there was an independent band of immigrants who settled in Rohana in the south-east, on the mouth of Valave River. The settlers came in numerous clans or tribes. Among these clans were families of nobility, the Lambakannas, Moriyas, Kalingas, Tarachchas, Balibhojakas and others. By 250 BC, there is evidence of a recognizably literate culture in the main areas of settlements – a contribution of early Indo-Aryan settlers – even though the outlaying communities may have remained pre-literate(5).


According to historian K.M. DeSilva it is not possible to draw a firm conclusion on the process of political evolution that led to the emergence of a kingdom unifying the whole island under its sway. The inscriptional evidence points to a situation where Anuradhapura kingdom, which was founded by Pandukabaya, the third king of the Vijayan dynasty, as merely the strongest, among several in the northern plains and in the Malaya and Rohana regions. This structure had not changed substantially during the rule of Devanampiya Tissa, though he held a consecration ceremony, and assumed the title Devanampiya Tissa maharaja. In spite of this, other rulers on the island did not readily acknowledge his sovereignty. The influence he had in the southern kingdom of Rohana was minimal despite the establishment of the Kingdom at Mahagama by Mahanaga, his brother. This collateral branch of the royal house at Anuradhapura eventually unified Rohana and thereafter established control over the whole island as well. It took them a century and a half to achieve it. The key figure in the unification of the south was Kavantissa, during whose rule the authority of Mahagama began to be felt throughout Rohana. His son and successor Dutthagamani took the offensive against Elara, the Dravidian usurper of the northern kingdom, and established control over the whole island. It was, in fact, the first significant success of centripetalism over centrifugalism in the island history.(6)


The classical Sinhalese kingdom of Anuradhapura

The kingdom of Anuradhapura, the classical Sinhalese kingdom, lasted nearly 1,500 years and the city of Anuradhapura lasted as long as the capital city. It was the capital of the island kingdom since the time of King Dutthagamani (161-137 BC) to the end of the 10th century, longevity unmatched by any other capital city in south Asia. The political history of the kingdom can be divided into three distinct phases or periods.

The first phase is the early Anuradhapura period, the kingdom’s first seven centuries to the reign of Dhatusena in the 5th century, the principle feature of which was the rise and consolidation of power. The middle period saw considerable instability, particularly in the 7th century, and the regular entry of Tamil mercenaries brought to the island by Sinhalese kings to help prop up their power, or by the aspirants to the throne.(7) The late Anuradhapura kingdom saw two centuries of political stability, the 8th and 9th centuries, followed by century of increasing stress and instability as the Sinhalese kingdom struggled to cope with external threats from south Indian kingdoms. Those threats became more formidable in the 10th century and culminated in the absorption, if not the kingdom itself, of at least most of it, under the Chola empire(8), while the great city of Anuradhapura ceased to be the capital city.


The Polonnaruva Kingdom

The expulsion of the invading Cholas from the kingdom happened after a long war of liberation and the restoration of a Sinhalese dynasty on the throne of Sri Lanka under King Vijayabahu I. The return to order and authority became solidified under King Parakramabahu I, the remarkable king who achieved such a tremendous amount of constructive achievement in administration, economic rehabilitation(9), religion and culture. After him the only Polonnaruva king to rule over the whole island was Nissanka Malla, who gave the country a brief decade of order and stability before the speedy and catastrophic break-up of the hydraulic civilization of the dry zone. The collapse of the ancient Sinhalese kingdom of the dry zone is one of the major turning points of Sri Lankan history.(10) The Magha’s invasion and the orgy of destruction in which his cohorts indulged is regarded as the main cause in the disintegration of Sri Lanka’s hydraulic civilization.


The Fragmentation of the Sri Lankan Polity and Arrival of the Portuguese

In the quest for safety against invasion from south India, Polonnaruva was abandoned after Magha’s rule and the next three kings ruled from Dambadeniya. One ruler made Yapahuva his royal residence and another Kurunegala. Sinhalese power again shifted from Kurunegala to the central mountains further to the south, a region that has never in the past been a center of civilization. It was in the 14th century that a kingdom was set up in Gampola on the Mahaveli River as its capital. In the second half of the 14th century, the fortunes of the Sinhalese reached their nadir. The writ of the Gampola kings appears to have run in Rohana as well as the western sea board(11), but for a short period in the 14th century, Jaffna under the Aryacakravartis was the most powerful kingdom on the island. They seemed poised for establishment of Tamil supremacy over Sri Lanka, but were foiled in this by the defeat inflicted by the forces of the Gampola kings in 1380(12).


The Jaffna kingdoms’ expansion southwards had been checked, but the Sinhalese had no reason to believe that this had been halted for good. The capital of the Sinhalese kingdom was moved once more, this time from the mountains to the west coast near Colombo, to Kotte. In 1411, Parakramabahu VI began what was to be a very long reign of fifty-five years founded what came to be called the Kotte kingdom(13). His greatest achievement was to check what seemed to be a well-nigh irreversible trend – the break-up of Sri Lankan polity. He was the first Sinhalese king since the days of Parakramabahu I and Nissanka Malla to bring the whole island under his rule, the last ever to do so. Within forty years of his death, the Kotte kingdom, weakened by internal disputes, faced the formidable challenge of the Portuguese in the first phase of Sri Lanka’s long encounter with western colonialism, an encounter that lasted till the middle of the 20th century.


Conclusion

It is not possible to say that Sri Lanka was ruled as united country for a straight 2500 years. No country in the world can boast of such an achievement. However, neither was Sri Lanka always ruled as multiple polities by multiple sets of kings, as implied by the Tamil separatist movement. Certainly, the territory under the ancient Sinhala kings did not remain constant. Some kings gained territory, others lost parts of it. There were bouts of civil war. Subordinate rulers tried to take advantage of this. But Sri Lanka has been viewed as a unified whole during ancient times. That unity may have been in some cases conceptual more than territorial. It may have included only a formal recognition of the sole consecrated ruler, but this signifies an understanding of the concept of territorial unity. It is up to us, the die-hard patriots, to counter this vile separatist claim whenever and wherever we encounter it.


Notes:
1. Myth of Sri Lankan state and the historic responsibility of Tamil leadership, http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=31246
2. Dharini Rajasingham-Senanayake, Pravada vol 5 (2) 1997 P-17
3. S. Pathmanathan, Sri Lanka Journal of Humanities Vol 8(1) 1982 p 122
4. Basham, ‘Prince Vijaya and the Aryanisation of Ceylon’, pp. 172-91 and Mendis, ‘Pali Chronicles’, pp. 56-71
5. K. M. DeSilva, A History of Sri Lanka, pp. 8-9
6. K. M. DeSilva, A History of Sri Lanka, pp. 14-17
7. Kiribammune, ‘Tamils in Ancient and Medieval Sri Lanka’, pp. 14-15
8. On the Cholas and Sri Lanka see Spencer, ‘The politics of expansion’
9. Nicholas, ‘The irrigation works of King Parakramabahu I’, pp. 52-68
10. See Indrapala, ‘The Collapse of the Rajarata Civilization'
11. On Gampola kings see Abeyasinghe, 'The History of the Kandyan Kingdom', pp. 429-47
12. Kulasuriya, 'Regional Independence', pp. 136-55
13. Somaratne, 'Political History of the Kingdom of Kotte'

Ethnic Separatism, the great evil of late 20th century

Ethnic Separatism is the advocacy of a state of cultural, ethnic, tribal or linguistic separation from the larger group with demands ranging from greater political autonomy to full political secession and the formation of a new state.

Sri Lanka Coastguard and the Greatest Challenge before the Nation

March 4, 2010 is a very special day for Sri Lanka. Sri Lankan capital changed from the North Central towards the South West since Polonnaruwa fell in 1215 following Kalinga Magha’s invasion. This exposed the North, North-East, North-West and the East to outside invasion and trespassing. As a result, a very large number of people from Tamil Nadu came to Sri Lanka. To make matters worse, since 1505 to 1948 Sri Lanka’s Maritime Provinces were under European colonialists and they paid no regard to Lankan borders. Even mythical tales of an ancient Tamil kingdom in Sri Lanka don’t go beyond 1215 suggesting the enormous threat that emerged since Lankans gave up defending their North-East sea boundaries. Interestingly the landmass claimed as ‘Tamil homelands’ in Sri Lanka are areas closest to Tamil Nadu clearly suggesting strong Tamil Nadu influence and creation of the Tamil separatist movement. Even after Independence illegal migration from Tamil Nadu continued. Illegal migration was identified as the biggest threat to national security and national economy in the 1950s and remained so until late 1970s.

Scientific reasons for this are found in the disparities in the economy and population density. GDP per capita (nominal 2008) for Sri Lanka and Tamil Nadu are $2,020 and $1,105 respectively. The difference is a huge 83% or $915. Population density of Tamil Nadu is a staggering 480 persons per square kilometre whereas it is 304 in Sri Lanka. The difference is 56%. These two factors drive poor people in Tamil Nadu to illegally migrate to Sri Lanka. At one point Tamil population excluding Muslims was over 26% of the population threatening to exacerbate existing problems.

There is another hidden dangerous development. As time passes Sri Lankans naturally integrate with each other and this harmonises the society. However, unhindered influx of people from Tamil Nadu reverses this process of natural integration by artificially and unsustainably increasing the Tamil population. This is evident from the censuses of 1971 and 1981. Though illegal immigrants were despatched in 1964 and 1974 back to Tamil Nadu, a large number of them managed to evade it. Sinhala and Muslim population growth rates from 1971 to 1981 were 20% and 26% respectively whereas the Indian Tamil population decreased by 30%. However, ‘Sri Lankan Tamils’ showed a massive increase of 33%. Surely this cannot be a natural increase. It is the result of ‘Indian Tamils’ becoming ‘Sri Lankan’ Tamils.

The war saw the emigration of 1.3 million Tamils. Though unintended this opened up better avenues for ethnic integration. It also reduced the bargaining power of racist political parties such as the TULF, TNA, ACTC and ITAK. Unless the borders are tight, the benefits of demographic changes that naturally eased tribal demands and aspirations over the past 30 years will not help Sri Lanka. It is a must in this regard to safeguard the coastline.

Those who are citizens of this country at the moment are equal citizens of Sri Lanka like any other; however, there should be no room for any more illegal immigrants. Major tasks of the Sri Lanka Coastguard would be to deter, prevent and detect illegal immigration from Tamil Nadu. Curbing illegal migration out of Sri Lanka will also be a task. Australia and Italy suffer unbearable influxes of Tamil illegal migrants from Sri Lanka. As such they would be keen to contribute to this project. It will benefit both parties.

It didn’t take long for drug dealers and illegal importers to exploit the illegal immigration channel between Sri Lanka and Tamil Nadu. By the early 1970s this illegal channel had grown into a multi-million rupee illegal import industry. Criminals also used this channel to escape Sri Lankan authorities. Before long, the Tamil separatist movement had detected this as a gold mine to launch their armed uprising. A very large number of guns, ammunition, bombs and other war material found their way to Sri Lanka’s north. It is not rocket science that an effective navy would have put a complete stop to the LTTE. LTTE leaders travelled to and from Vanni to Tamil Nadu while Tamil Nadu leaders travelled to Vanni without any fear. This fuelled the concept that ‘Tamil Elam’ and Tamil Nadu are a grand nation unhindered by Sri Lanka and India. Peaceful Tamil Elam circles refer to this as ‘Tamil demographic contiguity’. At one point LTTE could muster its control over 66% of Sri Lankan coastline and resources. After a long battle Sri Lankan claimed it’s coastline in 2009. Hard fought territorial victories must be protected. The Tamil Elam movement although homeless, is not dead. It is taking its time to launch the next round of terror. Sri Lanka Coastguard (SLC) along with the security forces must put up a formidable frontline against these elements.

Although coming under the Ministry of Defence, SLC will be manned by civil officers. Their tasks are not confined to defence. Preventing illegal fishing/gathering pearls in Sri Lankan waters is also a task that can be supported by the SLC. Protecting other Sri Lankan economic interests closer to shore will also fall on it. Although piracy is not common around the waters of the island, there is a strong possibility of it emerging as shipping volumes increase. SLC must keep a close watch over signs of trouble and swiftly move in with the navy to crush all attempts to introduce piracy in presently safe waters around the country.

If efficiently carried out, the tasks of the SLC will be able to deliver this once peaceful and prosperous nation from a 800 year old vicious cycle of ethnic disharmony, threats to sovereignty and violence. Severing unwanted, unchecked and non-state links with Tamil Nadu is the stepping stone to lasting peace.