Origins of Sinhalese and Sri Lankan Tamils

[Razor]

Just admit it, you're mentally retarded.

Okay, a little bit.
Can I join your retard club now. Pleeese.

 

[Sword]

Anti-Indian sentiment in Sri Lanka



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Indian_sentiment#Sri_Lanka

lol an you use wiki....what a dumbass

 

[Dreamhunter]

Interesting thread.
There is actually a huge difference between Sri Lanka Tamil culture and Tamil Nadu culture because of
several reasons. The major part of the Tamil preople from Sri Lanka are from the elite Vellalar caste which
is one of the main reasons why they were able to dominate northern Sri Lanka for more than 1000 years.
On the other hand the Tamil people from Tamil Nadu are descendants from different castes and communities
who obviously follow different cultures and customs.

The Vellalar rule of northern Sri Lanka started in the 11th century when Sri Lanka was conquered by
the Chola Dynasty. Later northern Sri Lanka was conquered by the Pandya Dynasty in the 13th century
which led to the establishment of the Jaffna Kingdom. This led to the migration of even more Vellalar
people. The Vellalar rule continued even during the British rule as most of the officials in northern
Sri Lanka were from the Tamil Vellalar caste.

 

[Bornubus]

What is Sri Lankan culture ?

I mean Lankans took their religion from present day India even their names are in corrupt Sanskrit.

Mahinda Rajapaksha is Mahendra Rajya Paksha.

 

[HeinzGud]

What is Sri Lankan culture ?

I mean Lankans took their religion from present day India even their names are in corrupt Sanskrit.

Mahinda Rajapaksha is Mahendra Rajya Paksha.

So what is your point? You think language and religion can't be borrowed?

 

[Bornubus]

So what is your point? You think language and religion can't be borrowed?

Nah just curious about the indigenous contribution of Lankans.

But due this commonality Indians feel more closer to Lankans than a Paki or Bangladeshi and relate to your land even though Lanka is a sovereign country.

 

[HeinzGud]

Interesting thread.
There is actually a huge difference between Sri Lanka Tamil culture and Tamil Nadu culture because of
several reasons. The major part of the Tamil preople from Sri Lanka are from the elite Vellalar caste which
is one of the main reasons why they were able to dominate northern Sri Lanka for more than 1000 years.
On the other hand the Tamil people from Tamil Nadu are descendants from different castes and communities
who obviously follow different cultures and customs.

The Vellalar rule of northern Sri Lanka started in the 11th century when Sri Lanka was conquered by
the Chola Dynasty. Later northern Sri Lanka was conquered by the Pandya Dynasty in the 13th century
which led to the establishment of the Jaffna Kingdom. This led to the migration of even more Vellalar
people. The Vellalar rule continued even during the British rule as most of the officials in northern
Sri Lanka were from the Tamil Vellalar caste.

I agree with you on the oddity of Jaffna's caste system. In Tamilnadu the highest caste is the Brahmin caste. But in Jaffna the highest caste is the Vellalars. If Tamils migrated and dominated the Jaffna for 1000 years there is no reason for the omission of the Brahmin caste from the Jaffna society. I think even you agree with me on the importance of the Brahmin caste in relation to the ruling elites of the society under the monarchy.

However, in Jaffna the elite caste is the Vellalars. The reason is that Dutch brought these people from the Coromandal coast around 18th century for the tobacco plantation in Jaffna. Those are the ancestors of the modern Tamil people in Jaffna peninsula.

There is no archaeological or historical record to suggest that there were indeed a independent Tamil kingdom in Sri Lanka. The only instance of any powerful kingdom in the Jaffna was during the 13th century. But that also were subdued by the Kotte kingdom.

Portuguese, Dutch and Britons never recognized Jaffna as a separate independent kingdom. Hence further reinforcing the Sinhalese claim to the island.

 

[HeinzGud]

Nah just curious about the indigenous contribution of Lankans.

But due this commonality Indians feel more closer to Lankans than a Paki or Bangladeshi and relate to your land even though Lanka is a sovereign country.

What you mean indigenous contribution? Sinhalese have a different language, life style, religious customs and so on which cannot be found anywhere else in the world. That is the Sinhalese culture.

Sri Lanka and India is like France and England or Germany and England.

 

[Dreamhunter]

I agree with you on the oddity of Jaffna's caste system. In Tamilnadu the highest caste is the Brahmin caste. But in Jaffna the highest caste is the Vellalars. If Tamils migrated and dominated the Jaffna for 1000 years there is no reason for the omission of the Brahmin caste from the Jaffna society. I think even you agree with me on the importance of the Brahmin caste in relation to the ruling elites of the society under the monarchy.

However, in Jaffna the elite caste is the Vellalars. The reason is that Dutch brought these people from the Coromandal coast around 18th century for the tobacco plantation in Jaffna. Those are the ancestors of the modern Tamil people in Jaffna peninsula.

There is no archaeological or historical record to suggest that there were indeed a independent Tamil kingdom in Sri Lanka. The only instance of any powerful kingdom in the Jaffna was during the 13th century. But that also were subdued by the Kotte kingdom.

Portuguese, Dutch and Britons never recognized Jaffna as a separate independent kingdom. Hence further reinforcing the Sinhalese claim to the island.

Not really. The plantation workers do not have anything to do with the Vellalar caste.
The plantation workers were mostly from lower caste and even today they are treated like outcastes by the elite Vellalar caste. The Vellalar domination of northern Sri Lanka started in the 11th century with the Chola rule and was further strenghtened during the Pandya and Jaffna rule.

It is also not true that Brahmins were the highest caste in Tamil Nadu or any other part of southern India.
Brahmins enjoyed privileges because they were responsible for Temple duties. But in terms of political
and economical power the Vellalar and later the Nayaks were the highest caste in Tamil Nadu. In
Telangana and Andhra Pradesh the most dominant castes were the Reddys and Nayaks. In Karnataka
the Bunts and Nayaks were some of the highest castes.

Even in north India the most dominant castes were not the Brahmins but the Rajputs and Jatts.

 

[HeinzGud]

Not really. The plantation workers do not have anything to do with the Vellalar caste.
The plantation workers were mostly from lower caste and even today they are treated like outcastes by the elite Vellalar caste. The Vellalar domination of northern Sri Lanka started in the 11th century with the Chola rule and was further strenghtened during the Pandya and Jaffna rule.

It is also not true that Brahmins were the highest caste in Tamil Nadu or any other part of southern India.
Brahmins enjoyed privileges because they were responsible for Temple duties. But in terms of political
and economical power the Vellalar and later the Nayaks were the highest caste in Tamil Nadu. In
Telangana and Andhra Pradesh the most dominant castes were the Reddys and Nayaks. In Karnataka
the Bunts and Nayaks were some of the highest castes.

Even in north India the most dominant castes were not the Brahmins but the Rajputs and Jatts.

Plantation workers have everything to do with the vellar caste. But do not mistake them with the tea plantation workers. Vellars were brought in by the Dutch for the tobacco plantation in Jaffna.

Is their any reason for the Vellar dominance during the Chola rule. Did Cholas were vellar? Why not the so called higher caste of the Tamilnadu does not represented in Jaffna society?

Moreover there are no archaeological or historical record to suggest that there were independent Tamil kingdom in the Jaffna peninsular. Saying Tamil dominance started with the Chola is a shallow argument when Portuguese, Dutch and British paid no respect towards a independent Tamil kingdom in the North. These western powers have always recognized Kotte and then Kandy as the true ruler of the island.

 

[Dreamhunter]

Plantation workers have everything to do with the vellar caste. But do not mistake them with the tea plantation workers. Vellars were brought in by the Dutch for the tobacco plantation in Jaffna.

Is their any reason for the Vellar dominance during the Chola rule. Did Cholas were vellar? Why not the so called higher caste of the Tamilnadu does not represented in Jaffna society?

Moreover there are no archaeological or historical record to suggest that there were independent Tamil kingdom in the Jaffna peninsular. Saying Tamil dominance started with the Chola is a shallow argument when Portuguese, Dutch and British paid no respect towards a independent Tamil kingdom in the North. These western powers have always recognized Kotte and then Kandy as the true ruler of the island.

Your assumption does not make much sense. The Vellalar were the dominant caste during the Chola period and this is the main reason why they were appointed as officials in southern India and Sri Lanka by the Chola rulers.
The Jaffna Kingdom was also mentioned by several travelers like Arabs and Portuguese. In fact one of the earliest foreign description of the Jaffna Kingdom was made in the 14th century by the Arab traveler Ibn Batuta. He described the kingdom as a powerful state which controlled northern Sri Lanka.

The Vellalar were also appointed by the British as officials in northern Sri Lanka because they were the officials of northern Sri Lanka before the arrival of the British. Why would the British appoint plantation workers as officials.
The policy of the British was always to appoint high caste people as officials. This was also the case in India. Because lower caste poeple did not have the experience and knowledge to establish a proper administration.

 

[k murali]

Secondly you say there were Tamils in Sri Lanka for 2000 years. Again you should come up with evidence to support that theory.

This article have the information'
Ilankai, Eelam and Yazhpanam
http://www.tamiltribune.com/99/0301.html

 

[HeinzGud]

Bro, As per Ramayana, The Ravana Vaishrava clan descended from Creator God Brahma by his son Pulatsya Prajapati and hence half demi Gods themselves.

Anyway, After Ravan, the benevolent Vibheeshan and his descendants are said to have ruled over Lanka.

Hence, even if present day Lankans don't believe in Hindu epic, the past is nothing to be ashamed of.

Lankans can be proud of the glorious cultural heritage of Ancient Sri Lanka and capitalize it for rich dividends from tourism revenue.

Well first off, the Lanka mentioned in Ramayana is not the island of Ceylon. All right. The name "Lanka" is attributed to the island by the Cholas. We have got nothing to do with it. It's all just hogwash

 

[porky_kicker]

Well first off, the Lanka mentioned in Ramayana is not the island of Ceylon. All right. The name "Lanka" is attributed to the island by the Cholas. We have got nothing to do with it. It's all just hogwash

And who are you ?

keep your opinions to yourself

 

[porky_kicker]

This post has been Moderated.

Early history recorded in Buddhist scriptures refers to three visits by the Buddha to the island to see the Naga Kings, snakes that can take the form of a human at will

Now what ?
Buddha is lying :biggrin2:

And buddha himself claimed that in his previous life he was lord Ram

And learn to respect your ancestors

Sinhalese are nothing but descendents of North Indians who migrated or rather conquered Lanka.

And you dare lecture us on our history.

Whatever Sri Lanka has culturally and traditionally now is a gift from India. Sri Lanka for the major part of its existence was part of India one way or the other from Ravan's Lanka to modern day Sri Lanka.

Go read your history and watch your mouth here.

If you don't like something keep quiet , you don't get to rewrite history here and talk crap.

 

[HeinzGud]

Early history recorded in Buddhist scriptures refers to three visits by the Buddha to the island to see the Naga Kings, snakes that can take the form of a human at will

Now what ?
Buddha is lying :biggrin2:

And buddha himself claimed that in his previous life he was lord Ram

View attachment 45553

And learn to respect your ancestors

Sinhalese are nothing but descendents of North Indians who migrated or rather conquered Lanka.

And you dare lecture us on our history.

Whatever Sri Lanka has culturally and traditionally now is a gift from India. Sri Lanka for the major part of its existence was part of India one way or the other from Ravan's Lanka to modern day Sri Lanka.

Go read your history and watch your mouth here.

If you don't like something keep quiet , you don't get to rewrite history here and talk crap.

Well in fact yes. Buddha never visited Sri Lanka. It's just another story concocted by Sinhalese out of shear faith. Buddha had no reason to visit Sri Lanka to solve petty disputes.

Sinhalese are not just the decedents of the North Indians but the South Indians as well. That does not make us chums.

Sri Lanka was never part of India. Some bits were lost to petty Indian kings but those were also reclaimed back. We like to keep the status quo.

 

[IndianHawk]

Well in fact yes. Buddha never visited Sri Lanka. It's just another story concocted by Sinhalese out of shear faith. Buddha had no reason to visit Sri Lanka to solve petty disputes.

Sinhalese are not just the decedents of the North Indians but the South Indians as well. That does not make us chums.

Sri Lanka was never part of India. Some bits were lost to petty Indian kings but those were also reclaimed back. We like to keep the status quo.

LMAO singhlese are literally descendents of indians you may not be part of modern Indian nation. But that land was always inhibited and ruled by Indian even it's religion is Indian.

It's like asamese claiming we are not indian because we had ahom kingdoms. Ya but ahom were Indian too. Lol.

Chola conquered most of Sri Lanka too. They could only be removed by the help of pandya. Who used to intermarry with singhly just as most Indian kingdoms used to do.

I understand the need for distinct identity. But that doesn't change history.

 

[HeinzGud]

LMAO singhlese are literally descendents of indians you may not be part of modern Indian nation. But that land was always inhibited and ruled by Indian even it's religion is Indian.

It's like asamese claiming we are not indian because we had ahom kingdoms. Ya but ahom were Indian too. Lol.

Chola conquered most of Sri Lanka too. They could only be removed by the help of pandya. Who used to intermarry with singhly just as most Indian kingdoms used to do.

I understand the need for distinct identity. But that doesn't change history.

This is simply like asking just because white Americans are the decedents of European people so that America is inhabited and ruled by Europeans. Do you see the error here? Moreover, the original India which had strong ties with Sinhalese is no more. It died around 7th century CE. So the country you called India today has no connection what so ever with Sri Lanka or Sinhalese.

The notion of India is a pretty modern one. It wasn't the case always. So I don't think it is fair to call Assamese was always Indians. I mean just look at them. They are more like Chinese from the outset.

Chola conquered Sri Lanka so what? Sinhalese also conquered Madurai and sacked it.

 

[IndianHawk]

This is simply like asking just because white Americans are the decedents of European people so that America is inhabited and ruled by Europeans. Do you see the error here? Moreover, the original India which had strong ties with Sinhalese is no more. It died around 7th century CE. So the country you called India today has no connection what so ever with Sri Lanka or Sinhalese.

The notion of India is a pretty modern one. It wasn't the case always. So I don't think it is fair to call Assamese was always Indians. I mean just look at them. They are more like Chinese from the outset.

Chola conquered Sri Lanka so what? Sinhalese also conquered Madurai and sacked it.

American openly accept that Europe is their father civilization. Same goes for srilanka. Your culture your languages your religion , food , thought everything originated from India. Why deny this.

India is a continuous civilization since before the written history. Specifically south India was never conquered by muzzies. And even in North India Turks only succeded in 12 th century even then they couldn't defeat rajputs fully were forced to share power.

Your madurai argument just proves my point . Same family fued nothing special.

 

[HeinzGud]

American openly accept that Europe is their father civilization. Same goes for srilanka. Your culture your languages your religion , food , thought everything originated from India. Why deny this.

India is a continuous civilization since before the written history. Specifically south India was never conquered by muzzies. And even in North India Turks only succeded in 12 th century even then they couldn't defeat rajputs fully were forced to share power.

Your madurai argument just proves my point . Same family fued nothing special.

Obviously, Sinhalese do too. Sinhalese have never denounced their links with India in the past. Sinhalese are not like Tamils who were recent migrants with stronger attachments to their kith and kin in South India. Sinhalese are very ancient race that Indians should acknowledge with due respect.

Your argument on India being a continues civilization is full of errors. One is that South India only do not represent the concept of India. It has mostly formed out of North India people and their ideologies. As we know North India has not remained the same continuously. Modern North Indian mindset and attitude is strongly influenced by Persian/Mughal cultures. It's not even the original vedic when you look at it more closely.