I HAVE TO CRITICIZE THIS ARTICLE BECAUSE I FEEL THAT THE INTENTION OF THE WRITER IS NOT CLEARLY TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM IN SRI LANKA AND GIVE A LASTING SOLUTION BUT TO MAKE SRI LANKA ALIGNED TO India so that they can have a claim to the resources in the indian ocean if the need arises in the future.Me being a sri lankan was appalled by the intentions of the article.Come on sri lanka is not a state where every power can come in and meddle with it. You people are only interested in your gain not sri lankas gain.I know that the Tamil problem should be addressed and the solution the author gives is a feasible option.Thats the only point i saw in the article that was worth praising,Otherwise the other parts were related to how can india make sri lanka its pariah.(sorry for my tone in the article because i feel really hurt by most parts of this article-next time when the author writes something maybe he can rephrase his stuff)
RE:Sri Lanka is not India's pariah
by on Jan 13, 2008 06:45 AM Permalink
eelam is not just because its about Elara, in the bible, eelam is a prosporous and fertile land found during the wondering through the desert. Looks like the tamil home land is more about the catholic church than the Tamil people.
afterall, hinduism and hindu Gods have a special place in the buddhist mindset. eg Murugan or Katharagama devio.
RE:Sri Lanka is not India's pariah
by sethu madhavan on Jan 14, 2008 11:47 AM Permalink
There is no way you can find a peace ful solution to the problem when you have two groups professing the same kind of ethics . Populist tamil extremism on one hand and the lankan hegemony on the other . The only thing that is very clear is that the nature of conflict is definitely different from the ones witnessed during medieval and ancient times. The change in demography has definitely some thing to do(Most "tamils" of present era being the one who came from deccan during the rule of vijayanagar dynasty).
RE:Sri Lanka is not India's pariah
by Edwin Navaratnam on Jan 14, 2008 02:42 PM Permalink
Sethu Madhavan. The Tamils in Tamil Nadu may be from the Deccan. BUt not the Eelam Tamils. They are predominanlty a mixture of Cholas(Vellalar) and older native Tamils, who are closely related to the Chera inhabitants of present day Kerala. This is the reason they are culturally, like the Sinhalas closer to Kerala amd at times tp partes of Southern Tamil Nadu (where this Deccan influence and origin is negligible), than to present day Tamil Nadu. The is why the Eleam Tamils are strongly Saivaite. Their culture very matriarchical ( copmared to the Patriarchical culture of present day Tamil Nadu). Their spoken Tamil is vary archaic far more purer has far less Sansrit word and is much closer to the Changam Tamil. The place names of present day Tamil Nadu is very Sanskrtised, whereas the Tamil plcas names in Sri Lanka are derived from Old Tamil.( including many Sinhala plce names). The DMK is largely made up and started by Tamilians of Telugu ( Deccan ) origin. That is the reason. The most DMK members do not like the elite of the original Tamils. The Vellalars and teh Tamil Brahmins. The Telugu Nayakas took over the lands of the Vellalar land owners especially in northern Tamil Nadu. Other than pets of southern Tamil Nadu. Lots of these Vellars were made destitute and many came to the Jaffna region to be amongst their fellow Vellalar. Jaffna is a Vellalar stronghold. These Vellalar refugees by inermarrying with the local Vellalars infused their hatred into the local Eelam Tamils
RE:RE:Sri Lanka is not India's pariah
by Edwin Navaratnam on Jan 14, 2008 03:13 PM Permalink
Against the new elite amongst the south Indian Tamils. The Tamil Nayakas( the people to whom they liist their land and power). This is the reason The native Sri Lankan Tamils especially the Vellalars who make up around 50% of their population, derisively call the South Indian Tamils as Vadakkathaiyan and generally refues to marry in to South Indian Tamils. They always state these are not real Tamils unlike us, Once when I was a saml boy I questioned my Aunty asking her how are so sure that we are ful blooded Tamils and teh south Indian Tamils arnt, She scolded me and stated not be cheeky and stated yes we all know lots of them are Vaduvas.It has been told to us by the elders. This were her words not mine.Later as agrown up I realised her Vaduva meant Vadugan another word for a person of Telugu origin and the Jaffan or native Sri Lankan Tamil word for an Indian Tamil Vaddakataiyan means two meanings one literraly means the person from the North. The other subtle meaning is a corruption of the word Vaddugan ( meaning someone of Telugu origin whose orgin is also north of the historic Tamil country not just north of the Tamil areas of Sri Lanka). The other thing amongst the native Tamils in SAriLanka being largely Vellalar they have nevr been anti Brahmin as the Vellalars and the Vrahmins are very closely allied. These were the two old elite Tamil castes< Teh iriginal Cholas Pandyans and CHera Kings had a Vellalar origin. It si ironic that most Indian Tamil Brahmins are taking
RE:RE:RE:Sri Lanka is not India's pariah
by Edwin Navaratnam on Jan 14, 2008 03:31 PM Permalink
their revenge on these Unfortunate Sri Lankan Tamils who have noting to with their predicament in Tamil Nadu in the 60s and 70s. These original Tamils largely of Vellalar descent are also suffering from the same source like the SOuth Indian Tamil Brahmins. The DMK is l;argely made up of these Tamil Nayakas ( originaating from the Vijaya nagar empire) they made teh Vellalar pwerless at teh beginning f their rule by taking away their land. The other elite caste amongst the old Tamils the Brahmins were not touched much at that time as the were mainly the temples teaching or in similar professions. Really not much of a danger to these new elite. However during the British rule the Brahmins got educated and became powerful Iam not defendng the dsicriminatory caste practices of Brahminism etc . But these Brahmins became a threat to these new Tamielite. So through their newly formed Dmk which was largely made up of Tamilians of Telugu heritage they started to turn th elargely poor and opressed Tamil masses aginst the Tamil Brahmins, sone of teh discriminatory practices practised by the Tamil Brahmins againstthe lower non Brahmin caste helped this. The irony is many of the Sinhla aristoracy which are spearheading the Tamil Genocide are also of this Nayaka heritage, They are the Tamil Nayakas of the VIjayanagar empire, The Bandaranaikes Ratwates,Jayawardenes, Wickremesinhes. SO the Tamil BRahmins are ironically supporting the same people who screwed them to Kill the Eela, Tamils
RE:RE:RE:RE:Sri Lanka is not India's pariah
by sethu madhavan on Jan 14, 2008 04:59 PM Permalink
The nature of wars in medieval ages were different. During those days,the buddist srilankan kings ruled in a very unjust and duplicitous manner. The invading imperialist cholas and pallavas were of a kingdom which was cosmopolitan and very just and truthful. Even as they invaded srilanka and brought it under their control, they did not try to convert the buddists there, nor did they try to divide the island ethnically. They just created a fair and democratic form of governance and held it so. Also some sinhalese wilfully helped the cholas and pallavas , where as quite a large number of tamilians who were supporters of pandyan kings helped the sinhalese kings. Thereby the nature of conflict THEN was not ethnic(Sinhalese.Vs.tamils etc).
After the end of their rule the incoming vijayanagar dynasty brought a lot of people from deccan and they belonged not only to nayak caste but also to others(brahmins etc.). The race of nayak kings were also different from that of cholas etc.The vijayanagar people were not good rulers like cholas and pallavas etc. They created artificial divide between tamil and sanskrit. They created a divide between "shaivas" and "vaishnavas".They created and skillfully exploited confusion. They were not at all good administrators. Even in wars they were not gallant soldiers, but miserable cowards and cunning crooks who employed guerrilla and terrorist tactics. The LTTE ways resemble more the ways of nayak/vijayanagar chiefs.
RE:Sri Lanka is not India's pariah
by sethu madhavan on Jan 14, 2008 04:30 PM Permalink
Mr.Edwin, good insights. Here's my analysis. I do not hold any hatred against any caste or people without reason.But i know too well that cholas, pallavas,cheras and pandyans definitely belonged to the royal race of kshatriyas.Velalars did mean farm owning and mercantile communities during their time(during time of cholas etc.). during that period they were also referred to as Ay, Velir etc and of them we are told that they belonged to the yadava race which gave birth to Lord Krishna and that they ruled dwaraka in gujarat long ago.I do not think the present day velalars descended from the ones mentioned in that chola/pallava literature. No distinction between tamil and sanskrit was made by rulers of those dynasties(that ruled from times immemeorial in epochal ages). This distinction and parochialism came into being only during vijayanagar period.
After the chola/pallava period by 1300 A.D, there was a lot of migrations into south causing a change in demography. This change also affected srilanka , as many of the colonizers coming alongwith the telugu/kannada chieftains also proceeded from madurai and rameswaram onto jaffna and triconamalee.For all practical purposes they identify themselves as tamils.
The nature of conflict during medieval ages was different from that now.I do agree that there is partisanship with sinhalese, but that is never to say that the tamil movements led by LTTE and co are not terrorist and partisan.
RE:RE:Sri Lanka is not India's pariah
by sethu madhavan on Jan 16, 2008 11:25 AM Permalink
Before things get out of hand we do like to act. If the LTTE and other terror groups are not finished off by the ongoing offensive, we will have to use nuclear weapons against terrorists and we will do so .
RE:RE:Sri Lanka is not India's pariah
by LION on Jan 24, 2008 04:36 PM Permalink
whatever you have narrated here is partially right but atlast only sinhalas are after extremism been blinded folded by their rulers and before looking at any liberation movement be it ltte or other you need to have a look at its 'opponents'. The liberative movements are ON right path and may initially being as small armed groups they might have demonstrated their sight hardly.
RE:Sri Lanka is not India's pariah
by LION on Jan 24, 2008 04:28 PM Permalink
The portal seems to be worried over the crocadile tears of a sinhala where no lankan sinhala media is worried about indias concerns. And their media do needful to their people and government by creating timly required 'image' for themselves.
