The question of group ideology among the Sinhala people has
engaged the attention of scholars in recent times. How did the
Sinhala identity originate? What were its transformations in the
course of history? What factors influenced it through time and
change? Only a few original studies have been made in this field.
Among them R. A. L. H. Gunawardana's "The People of the
Lion: The Sinhala Identity and Ideology in History and
Historiography" stands out as a detailed exposition on the
subject and it has become an important point of reference in this
regard. The present study is an attempt to evaluate some of
Gunawardana's conclusions in the light of historical sources and
other studies on the subject.
Gunawardana argues that the Sinhala identity in the very early
stages was only the identity of the ruling dynasty of
Anuradhapura. At a second stage it was extended to cover the
dominant social strata in society, deliberately excluding
"the service castes" and the common agriculturists,
thus assuming a class-character. He believes that it was only at
a third stage, as reflected in the Dharmapradipikava of the 12th
century, that the Sinhala identity encompassed all the
Sinhala-speaking people in the island.
For Gunawardana the Vijaya myth represents the embodiment of a
state ideology which sought to unite the dominant elements in
society and to bring them under a common bond of allegiance to
the ruling house. Chronicles such as eh Mahavamsa served as media
for the propagation of this myth. But during _______________
*This paper has an unusual origin. I had submitted a monograph on
the Sinhala language an the development o nationalism in modern
Sri Lanka to a publisher abroad, His "reader" had
commented that I seemed to have either ignored Gunawardana's
article in my work or to have taken a totally different view from
him on the themes of his paper. In the course of my response I
had to explain why I rejected many of Gunawardana's conclusions
in his essay. My criticisms were so many an so far reaching in
rejecting his views that I thought it best to write an
independent critique of these. Hence this essay.
I take this opportunity to thank the friends and colleagues of
mine who have helped me with critical comments and observations.
They are too many to be named here. The views expressed here are,
however, entirely mine.
1. In the Sri Lanka Journal of the Humanities Vol. Vnos
1&2, (1979)pp.1 - 36. the early stages there were tensions
within the dominant social group, as reflected by four different
versions of the "colonization myth".
According to Gunawardana, the period after the 12th century up
to about mid 19th century was characterized by a cosmopolitan
culture, where the Sinhala ideology, although it existed among
certain sections of literati (such as the authors of Pujavaliya
and the Culavamsa), was not propagated by the state. Nor did it
possess a specific class-character as during the preceding
period. Thus, the anti-Tamil invective found in works such as the
Kirala Sandesaya and the Vadiga Hatana at the tail end of Sinhala
kingship (1815), does not reflect an ideological current which
existed in Kandyan society at the time.
Gunawardana argues that the Sinhala identity underwent a
radical transformation and began to assume its current form in
the 19th century under the influence of intrinsically racialist
linguistic theories which originated in Europe. The most
influential figure in this field was the great German Indologist,
Max Muller. According to Gunawardana, scholars in late 19th
century Sri Lanka took up Max Muller's theories and injected a
racialist content into Sinhala nationalist thinking. Gunawardana
believes James de Alwis as the most significant embodiment of
this transformation, and he contrasts de Alwis's
"hesitant" presentation on the origin of the Sinhala
language in the Sidat Sangarava (1852) with his strident
assertion of the Aryan theory in a later work, the "On the
Origin of the Sinhalese Language" (1866).
Like most revisionists, Gunawardana has many original and
interesting things to say. but, as with many revisionists, the
question that needs to be posed is whether the theories
propounded could be sustained on the basis of the evidence
available.
I The use of the term "Sinhala" has been discussed
at length by Gunawardana. Firstly, he refers to three words,
Kaboja, Milaka and Dame da found in the earliest inscriptions in
Sri Lanka, which seem to denote group-identities. He is keen to
point out that "the term Sinhala is conspicuous by its
absence" - inferring thereby that the Sinhala identity had
not emerged by the time of these inscriptions, ie. circa 3rd
cent. B.C. to 1st cent. A.C. He also points out that the earliest
occurrence of the term Sinhala (Pali : Sinhala) is in the
Dipavamsa (4th -5th cent. ) and that even in the Mahavamsa
(assigned to the 6th cent, but, according to Gunawardana,
possibly of a later date)it occurs only twice. With regard to the
terms Kaboja and Milaka, he believes that they were possibly
"tribal groups" and the term Dameda, according to him,
means "Tamil" . He adds: "Whether the term was
used in this period to denote a tribal linguistic or some of the
group deserves careful investigation". We are not told why
the same should not apply to the other two terms - Kaboja and
Milaka. Indeed Paranavitana, who first drew our attention to
these teams, listed three others, Muridi, Meraya and Jhavaka, and
argued that they referred to "ethnic groups".( He gave
reasons for thinking so. ( Gunawardana does not give us any
reasons why Paranavitana's interpretation should be rejected.
When we come to the term Sinahala we have two problems. One
concerns the numerical aspect raised by Gunawardana. He has
highlighted the fact that the world is absent in the earliest
inscriptions in the island. Here we must remember the fact that
Paranavitana himself had made this observation in the University
of Ceylon History of Ceylon and given a plausible explanation for
this, viz. "for the very good reason that there was no need
to distinguish any person by referring to him as such when the
people as a whole were entitled to that name".( Gunawardana
seems to have overlooked this. In fact the very absence of the
term Sinhala can be used as an argument to show that only the
"out-groups" Kaboja, Milaka and Demeda - were
distinguished by specific reference to their group-identities,
and that the identity of the "in-group", Sinhala, was
taken for granted. (This, we may add here, further strengthens
Paranavitana's opinion that these were "ethnic"
labels). It should interest us to know that Paranavitana had
identified Kaboja as Kamboja - a group of people in the Rajori
region to the south of Kashmir.( Milaka, according to him, was
derived from mlechcha, and referred to the autochthonous
inhabitants of the island, ( Dameda meant
""Tamil";(7) Muridi was from skt. Murunda, Meraya
from Skt. Moriya, and Jhavaka form Skt. Jhavaka.(8) In this
context Paranavitana was keen to point out that "Where a
donor named in an inscription belonged to an ethnic group other
than Sinhalese, we find the ethnic name associated with his
personal name".(9)
Gunawardana would have helped his readers greatly if he had
only given them an indication of how many published inscriptions
of the period 3rd century B.C. up to the 1st century A.C. there
are. Let me supply the answer. It is a very substantial number -
one thousand two hundred and thirty four in all. Only a person
conversant with this very specialised field would know this, We
can see the problem in its correct perspective if we ask how
often, or in how many inscriptions the words Kaboja, Milaka,
Dameda, Muridi Meraya. And Jhavaka occur. The answer is very
illumination. Kaboja occurs in only five of these. Milaka in tow
and Dameda in four. Muridi, Meraya and Jhavaka each occurs only
once.(10) Had Gunawardana revealed this, as he should have done,
the flimsiness of his argument would have been immediately
obvious to the reader. The vast majority _________ 2. S.
Paranavitana, Inscriptions of Ceylon, Vol. 1, Colombo, Dept of
Archaeology (1970) p. 1xxix. 3. See the discussion below. 4. UCHC
Vol. I, pt. i (1959) Chapter VI "The Aryan Settlements: The
Sinhalese", p. 67. 5. "Inscriptions of Ceylon"
Vol. 1, p. xci. 6. "Used without any stigma of
inferiority", op.cit., p. xci. 7. op.cit., p. xc. 8.
op.cit., pp. xci - xcii. 9. op.cit., p. 1xxxix. 10. op.cit.,
1xxxix - xcii. of the donors referred to in the inscriptions were
Sinhala ethnics, and , as Paranavitana pointed out years ago,
there was no need to proclaim their identity.11 That was taken
for granted. On the very few occasions when somebody who was not
a Sinhalese made a donation, the distinct "ethnic"
identity of the donor was indicated in the inscriptions.
The second problem with the term Sinhala is its meaning.
Gunawardana himself has provided us with references to the
occurrence of the term and its derivatives in Chinese, Javanese
and South Indian sources, even going as far back as the 1st or
the 2nd century of the Christian era. We know that there are so
many Indian sources, northern as well as southern, including the
epic Mahăbhărata, where the people of this island are called
Sinhala.(12) As Paranavitana has pointed out, "it is by the
name 'Sinhala' or its dialectical forms, that this island are
generally referred to in classical Sanskrit literature"(13)
The question is, what did it meant? Did it refer to the people of
the island in general? Gunawardana does not think so; not at
least until a clear reference to that effect in the
Dharmapradďpikăva in the 12th century.
He believes that only a specific group among the island
population, namely, the royal family of Anuradhapura, was
referred to by this term initially. At a second stage, he thinks,
the term reference was extended to cover the notables- "the
most influential and powerful families in the kingdom".
Gunawardana finds this dominant social stratum being referred to
as Măhajana in the Vijaya myth. We infer from his conclusions
that this period where the term Sinhala assumed a caste/class
connotation, if we are to go by his conclusion.
To support his contention that the term Sinhala referred
initially to the royal family of Anuradhapura, Gunawardana cites
evidence from the Cülavamsa, where even as late as mid 10th
century the term Sihalavamsa was used as a referent to the royal
family. Let me quote the relevant extract from Gunawardana's
article:
After describing the matrimonial alliance that Mahinda IV
formed with Kalinga and his elevation of members of his lineage
to high positions in t he Kingdom the Cülavamsa states that he
thereby strength ended the Sinahala lineage (Sinhalavamsam)
Gunawardana's conclusion, following on this, is that obviously
the term was being used here to denote the dynasty. ____________
11. UCHC, Vol. I, pt. i, (1959) p. 67. 12. The Mahabharata of
Krishana Dwaipaana Vasa, tr. into English by Pra tap Chandra Roy,
Calcutta, Baharata Press, (1899) pp.61,100,155, 503, . The epic
is believed to have assumed the pre-sent shape by about the
fourth century A.D. See Krishana Chaitanaya, A New History of
Sanskrit Literature, London, Asia Publishing House (1962) pp.
200-1. 13. UCHC Vol. I, pt.i, p.82 I find it difficult to agree
with him. Since he has left out certain pertinent facts, let us
get the complete story on this episode direct from the
Cülavamsa:
vijjamanepi lankayam khattiyanam naradhipo
Kalaingachakkavattissa vamse jatam kumarika
anapetvana tam aggamahesim attanovaka
tassaputta duve jata dhita eka manorama
adipade aka putte dhitaram voparajinim
iti sihala vamsam ca patthapesi sa bhupati (ed. H.
Sumangala and Batuvantudave, 1977, (54: 9-11)
"Although there were ksatriyas in Lanka, the Lord of men
brought and made his chief queen a princess born in the lineage
of Kalinga Chakravarti. And she begot two sons an one beautiful
daughter. He appointed the sons as Adipadas and the daughter as
Deputy Queen. The Sinhala lineage too was thus made secure by the
Lord of the Earth."
The reference here is to Mahinda IV (956-972). He is known as
the first Sinhala king to have contracted a matrimonial alliance
with the Kalinga kingdom. The results of this move most probably
a political alliance with the Kalinga kingdom. The results of
this move most probably a political alliance as an extension of
the Sinhala -Panday front against Cola, were far-reaching. It led
to the establishment of a Kalinga faction in the Sinhalese royal
family.(14) Sena V (972-982), one son of the above marriage,
brought the country to chaos. The Culavamsa records how "the
Damilas plundered the whole country like devils" during his
reign.(15) Mahinda V (982-1029), another son of the same
marriage, claimed to have descended from the Kalinga dynasty.(16)
As recorded by the Culavamsa his was an inglorious reign. He
himself was addicted to intoxicating drinks and behaved
"like a wild beast gone mad" when drunk(17) He was the
unfortunate ruler with whom ended the long line of Anuradhapura
kings. He himself was captured by the Cola armies along with the
queen and the royal treasures, and he died a captive of the Cola
king.(18)
When one considers these background factors, it seems very
unlikely that the author of the Culavamsa saw in the Kalinga
marriage alliance a strengthening of the Sinhala royal family.
The meaning of the word Sinhalavamsam in the above account has to
be derived from the context in which it occurs. It is stated
beforehand that this marriage with Kalinga was contracted in
spite of the availability of Ksatriya maidens in Lanka. Thus, the
author of the Culavamsa is keen to point out that the Sinhala
lineage had not suffered as a result. It is eagerly reported that
the security of the Sinhalavamsa had been guaranteed. The
reference is thus to Sinhalavamsa as distinct from the foreign
vamsas. Note the conjunctive particle ca after Sinhalavamsa. It
is the ethnic affiliation of the royal line that is emphasized,
not its exclusivism from the general populace, as suggested by
Gunawardana. Indeed, as I shall presently ___________ 14. Sirima
Wickermasinghe. The Kalinga Period of Ceylon History: 1186 -1235
A.D., M. A. Thesis, University of Ceylon (1956) unpublished, pp.
7-8 15. Culavamsa. tr. by Wilhelm Geiger, Colombo, Gove. Press
(1953) 54: 66 16. Epigraphia Zeylanica, Vol.IV, pp, 61-2. 17.
Culavamsa, 54:71. 18. Culavamsa,55:15-19,33. show, there is
irrefutable evidence to support the exact opposite of
Gunawardana's view. The Sinhala identity was considered as
encompassing all the Sinhala-speaking inhabitants of the island
long before Mahinda IV came to the Anuradhapura throne.
According to Gunawardana, evidence for the broad-based Sinhala
identity, encompassing all the Sinhala-speaking people of the
island, appears only by the 12th century. To support this view he
refers to a passage in the Dharmapradipikava where he says
"the view of dynasty > island > inhabitants > their
language sequence indicates this stage in the evolution of the
Sinhala identity". Gunawardana is either ignorant of , or
completely ignores, other Sinhala sources which would place this
convergence long before the 12th century.
Firstly, I would like to cite a passage from the Dhampia Atuva
Gatapadaya, written by King Kassapa V (914-923).(19) This reputed
work bears unmistakable testimony to the fact that, by the time
of its compilation, the Sinhala identity in its widest
implications was an accepted fact. Kassapa paraphrases the Pali
word dipabahsaya, meaning "in the language of the
island", as helu basin, which in Sinhala means "in the
helu (Sinhala) language."
Next he proceeds to explain the origin of this term: "How
do (we) obtain (the term) in the helu language? That is from the
fact that the island people are helu. How does (the word) Helese
(helaha) come about? King Sinhabahu having killed a lion was
named Sihala... Since prince Vijaya was his son, he (too) was
named Sihala... The others since they were his (Vijaya's) retinue
(pirivara) (they too) came to be called Sihala"(20)
There is no mistaking here that "the island people"
(dipa vasin) as a whole are identified as helu(Sinhala). The
linguistic group is the same as the "ethnic" grouping.
The reference is to all the island people and no sub-category,
caste or class is excluded. This is irrefutable evidence that by
the time of its writing the Sinhala identity encom-passed all the
inhabitants of the island, except of course the Damila, the
Veddas and any others who were by definition ruled out. The
Dharmapradipikava, quoted by Gunawardana, was recording the same
tradition two centuries later.
Moreover, it is very likely that there were other works,
Sinhala and Pali, extant in the tenth century, which had similar
things to say on this subject. Possibly the author of the Dhampia
Atuva Gatapadaya was repeating something found in earlier works
as well. Judging groom the Vamsatthappakusini, the commentary to
the Mahavamsa, written during the eighth or the ninth century,
there were many such historical works extant at the time. For
example, the Uttara Vihara Mahavamsa, the Vinayatthakatha, the
Dipavamsatthakatha, the Simakatha, the Cetiyavamsatthakatha, the
_________ 19. There is general agreement on the authorship of the
Dhampia Atuva Gatapadaya. See D.E. Hettiarachchi (ed), Dhampia
Atuva Gatapadaya, Colombo, Sri Lanka, University Press Board;
(1974) , pxviii; P.B. Sannasgala, Sinhala Sahitya Vamsaya,
Colombo, Lake House (1960) o,65, G,E. Godakumbura, Sinhalese
Literature, Colombo, Apothecaries, (1955)p. 31. 20. Hettiarachchi
ed.p.6. Maha Bodhivamsakatha, the Sumedhakatha and the
Sahassavatthu Atthakatha, all of which contained historical
material.(21) In any case, we know for certain that the author of
the Vamsatthappakasini, who used "Lanka",
"Tanabapanni" as well as passage in the Dhatu Nidhana
Paricceda" (The Chapter Dealing with the Enshrining of the
Relics in the Mahathupa). Here the Buddha prophesying the
construction of the Mahathupa. is recorded as telling one of his
devotees,
Tvam Nanda anagate mayi parinibbute Sihaladipe Dutthagamini
nama ranna Karapita Maha Thupasssa parahattthagatam Nagahavanao
mama saririkam donappamanam dhatum aharitva dassasi(22)
"In the future, when I have attained Parinibbana, when in
the Sihaladipa the king named Dutthagamini builds the Mahathupa,
my relics amounting to about a drona, which are meant for it,
will be in others' hands; and you, Nanda will bring them forth
form the Naga Bhavana"
It is very significant that the author of the
Vamsatthappakasini imputes the use of the word
"Sinhaladipa" to Buddha himself. It can be taken as a
clear indication of the coalescing of the Sinhala ethnic identity
with the Buddhist religious identity.
Be that as it may, Gunawardana's contention that even by the
time of Mahinda IV (956-972) "there is still no evidence to
suggest that the service castes were now being considered members
of the group" is baseless, since the Dhampla Atuva
Gatapadaya was written several decades previously by king Kassapa
V (914-923) and we have word from the head of state himself that
the hela group included all dipavasin.
As suggested earlier, Kassapa no doubt was putting on record a
fact which had been well established in his time. Hence, the
question may be posed "How old are these identifications,
Kihala (Hela) and Sihala bahsa (Helu basa)"? The available
evidence would appear to suggest that the earliest reference to
"the Sinhala language" is in early 5th century.
Buddhaghosa, the famous Indian scholar, who translated the
Sinhala commentaries to Pali, refers to Sihaladvipa as well as to
Sihalabhasa. referring to the Buddhist commentaries he says that
they were
"brought to Sihaladipa by Maha Mahinda (who was) endowed
with self-mastery , and were made to remain in the Sihala bhasa
for the benefit of the inhabitants of the island". (23)
It is generally agreed that Buddhaghosa worked in Anuradhapura
during the reign of Mahanama (406-428).(24) Apart from
identifying the language as Sihala bhasa, he pays tribute to it,
calling it manoramabhasa "a delightful language".(25)
___
____________ 21. See G.P. Malalasekera (ed.),
Vamsatthappakasini, London OUP (1935), pp.lvi-Ixxii. 22. op.cit.
p.563. 23. See the prologues of Sumanagalavilasini (ed.)
Dharmakirti Sri Dhammananda, Colombo (1923); Papancasudani ed.
Dharmakirti Sri dhamananda, Colombo (1933)l Saratthappakasini,
(ed.)Widurupola Piyatissa, colombo (1924). 24. For the date of
Buddhaghosa see G.P. Malalasekera, The Pali Literature of Ceylon,
London RASGB(1928), p 76; B.C. Law, A History of Pali Literature,
London, Kegan-Paul (1933) 389. 25. See the eighth verse in the
prologue of the work cited in. fn.23.
Thus we may say that the identity of the Sinhala language was
acknowledged by the fifth century. This is corroborated by
linguistic evidence. We note that by t eh time the earliest
inscriptions appear, i.e circa 3rd cen. B.C. to 1st cen. A.C.,
the "Sinhala Prakrit" , as the earliest form of the
language is called, had certain individual features, making it
distinct form the Indian Prakrits, devoting much more from the
norm of Sanskrit that any of them.(26) By about the third or the
fourth century these peculiarities are more marked, leading to
what language historians call "Proto-Sinhalese".(27) As
the history of Sinhala literature indicates, there were many
books written in it by the fifth century. We hear of a
Sihalatthakatha Mahavamsa, Maha Atthakatha, Maha Paccariya
Atthakatha, Kurundi Atthakatha, Sihala Dhammapadatthakatha, a
Sinhala translation of the Buddhist Sutras, a Sinhala Dalada
Vamsa and a Sinhala treatise on medicine. In fact adikaram lists
no less than twenty eight works, mainly in Sinhala, which served
as sources for Buddhaghosa.(28) Thus we see that by the fifth
century Sinhala had emerged as a distinct ethnic identity. It is
in that context that the statement in the Dipavamsa that the
island was called Sihala "on account of the lion"(29)
becomes significant as being suggestive of that identity.
Furthermore. the fact that even people of a kingdom as far away
as that of the Guptas in North India referred to the island as
Sinhala(30) indicates how well established this identity was by
the fifth century.
Gunawardana's opinion that at a certain stage the Sinhala
identity encompassed only the dominant stratum in the island
society, thus assuming a class character, is also peon to doubt.
To support his view Gunawardana uses two arguments: (a) that
there was at this stage a dominant social class who were known as
Mahajana and (b) that the Mahavamsa and its commentary, the
Vamasatthappakasini, "specifically exclude" the lower
social strata from the group denoted by the term Sinhala. These
two assertions need careful examination with reference to the
sources in question.
Gunawardana tells us that the word Mahajana "In the
ancient texts did not carry the meaning that its phonetic
equivalent Mahajanaya conveys today, but denoted "great
men". By "great men" he means a "ruling
class." He proceeds to assert that "while the great men
of non-ksatriya status may force the ruling family to govern
___________ 26. See K.R. Norman, "The Role of Pali in Early
Sinhalese Buddhism" in Heinz Bechert(ed.) Buddhism in Ceylon
and studies on Religious Syncretism in Buddhist Countries,
Gottingen, Vanderhock and Rupert (1978)pp.28-47, esp.pp.30-31.
Norman has a different view about the phrase manorama bahsa. But
I agree with N.A. Jayawickrama, The Inception of Discipline and
the Vinaya Nidane, Secred Books of the Buddhists, Vol.XXI,
London, Luzac & Co.(1962) p,xx. 27. D B. Jayatilaka, The
Sinhalese Dictionary Colombo, Govt. Press (1937).pp.ix. 28. E W.
Adikaram, Early History of Buddhism in Ceylon, Colombo, Gunasena
(1953) o,78; D. E. Hettiarachchi, "Sinhalese
Literature" , in University of Ceylon History of Ceylon,
Colombo, Ceylon, University Press (1959) p.394; P.B. Sannasgala,
op-cit.p.35-6, 29. dipavamsa, ed. H. Oldenberg, London, Williams
and Norgate (1879) ch.9,v.12, 30. The Allhahabad Inscript on of
Samudragupta, J.F. Flcet, Inscriptions of early Gupta Kings and
their Successors, Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum Vol. !!!,
Varanasi, Indological Book House (1963) p.8.
justly without harassing them they may not aspire to
kingship". Next he cites different versions of the"
colonization myth" to arrive at the conclusion that
"the discrepancies between different versions of the myth,
reflecting probable their different social origins, points to the
tensions within the dominant social group and the problems of
political power in the country at the time".
This contrived picture of ancient Sri Lankan society seems to
rest on one crucial factor: the interpretation given to the word
mahajana as it appears "in the ancient texts". What
these texts are has not been specified, nor have we been given
reasons for attaching the meaning 'great men", connoting
social dominance, to the word. In any ease , the two most
important texts, the Mahavamsa and the Vamsatthappakasini, do not
seem to be of any avail in this interpretation. For example, note
how the Mahavamsa records the arrival of the Madura princess and
her retinue