Sunday, February 19, 2006

Where were the Sinhalas? by Tissa Devendra

Denis Fernando’s articles on "Portuguese Encounter..." [Island 11 & 12 Feb] are intriguing and raise quite a few questions of demographic and linguistic relevance.

[1] "Parakramabahu VI recruited mercenary forces comprising the Kaurava Suriyawansa clan of warriors with nine generals, 7,740 soldiers, supporting staff of native physicians, surgeons, barbers, washers, carpenters, smiths, tom-tom beaters and kapuralas who arrived in ships and boats".

The questions that concern me are: (i) From which area of South India did this IPKF of yore come? (ii) In which army did these generals and warriors gain their martial skills? (iii) By what name was this clan called in its birthplace? (iv) What was their mother-tongue? (v) Is there any written record in their ‘traditional homeland’ of the departure of this large army and camp-followers?

[2] "[these] troops were settled in Yapapatuna and Mannar while others were settled along the Western seaboard South of Puttalam along the Aluthkurukorale which was named after them (Kuru... referring to the Kaurava warriors). These new settlers also functioned as warriors, coastguards and chiefs southwards of Kotte up to Dondra".

My questions are: (i) Were the areas settled by these doughty warriors so devoid of Sinhala people that they had plenty of ‘lebensraum’ to settle there without problems? (ii) Were the indigenous Sinhala so devoid of warriors, coastguards and chiefs that these newcomers had, perforce, to fill such positions? (iii) Were these newcomers such linguistic geniuses that in the short reign of one king (Parakramabahu VI who hired them from India) these ‘warriors’, barbers, carpenters, etc. unlearnt their native language (leaving no linguistic footprints among their descendants) and re-invented themselves as Sinhala?

If one accepts the historical accuracy of Denis Fernando’s thesis it does seem that Western Sri Lanka had been a depopulated region devoid of indigenous Sinhalas leaving it free to these doughty mercenaries to colonise. Were there no Sinhalas here? I look forward to this scholar’s responses to the problems raised above.

Friday, February 10, 2006

The Discovery and Conquest of Ceylon by Portuguese by Deepthi Anura Jayatunge

The Temporal and Spiritual Conquest of Ceylon written by Farther Fernao~ De Queyroz ( 1687) had been declared to be second only to Mahawansa in his value for the history of Ceylon. The Mahawansa documented mostly the achievements of Ceylonese Kings towards spreading Buddhism and this book documents similar effort taken by Portuguese, to spread Christianity in Ceylon. Queyroz was a vigorous preacher, and was the Deputy Inquisitor of Goa His object of writing this book, as he says repeatedly, is to animate Portuguese to recover Ceylon. Father Queyroz was born in Portugal in 1617, lived in India for 53 years, and died in Goa, in 1688, with out ever been able to publish his book. The manuscript found its way to the Royal Library and then to Brazil, in to the National Library of Rio de Janeiro and after 146 years a copy was made in 1834 AD. Father S G Perera did an excellent translation of this book from Portuguese to English: after passage of 240 years; since the manuscript was ready for the press.

Father Queyroz never visited Ceylon, but based his book on valuable contemporary writing and from very lips of eyewitnesses; just before that generation passed away. He also refers to the works of Barros, Couto, Menezes, Negrao~, lomba, Barboza, Silva and Faria y Souza in his manuscript

Though his strong commitment to his faith did not warrant him to believe, he was aware of the theory of Trans-Migration- Of –Souls, and promptly observed the strong similarities between ‘ The sermon on the mountain’ made by the Christ and ‘Panchaseela’ of Lord Budddha. Father Queyroz wrote to Viceroy on India ‘One of greatest services which Your Excellency can render is to the divine and human Majesty is to persuade Portugal to recover India and especially Ceylon.’ Like every good Portuguese he believed that it was the mission of Portugal to spread the faith in East, forgetting the fact that in the process they were wiping out great civilisations that were over 2500 years old.

Queyroz had correctly identified the intention of Sinhalese, when they supported the Dutch in their war with Portuguese stating ‘Dutch were partly mistaken for the Sinhalese did not call the Hollander at this time to make him the Master of Ceylon, but only to check the invasions of the Portuguese and to get the possession of the lowlands by counterpoising the forces of the two European nations so that the mutual opposition of the two, might enable him to enjoy the fruits of the Island.’

His observations on senior government officials apply even to date:’ Those who bring the state to ruin and destruction Sir, are the Viceroys and Governors; and this is not much so because of what they rob, but because of what they mismanage; for as they presume that war is a court, they do not seek for it experienced persons but courtiers, where by enemies surrender by words, while bullets alone can subdue them.’

He also observed that, when it comes to politics, it is difficult to say whether from nature proceeds habits or habits become nature. Those who pretend to be good men while canvassing, find it difficult to be moderate in the exercise of power.

Queyroz had a very good understanding on the ‘theory of surplus value’, of Karl Marx as he noted: "They had little powder for balls and many of a calibre different from guns. There was not even a little of public money or money of the King in the( Galle) fort, as the work has been done at the cost of the inhabitants, and had not cost the Portuguese king even a measure of rice to built it"

His observations on conduct of Portuguese had been extremely correct as he said, ‘We could have been masters of India, if we had been masters of ourselves. What purpose do we defy if we cannot give them life? We should have come with faith and commerce free to all, and our principals are wrong.

Ceylon 1500 AD

Ceylon was known as ‘delightful land’, unknown land , hidden land , known only for its fertility, and earlier Geographers gave erroneous figures of the Islands circumference , sometimes of 900 leagues , at other time 360, but according to Portuguese 150 leagues only. They are to be excused by the crudeness of the information at that time. With Ceylon were united the low lands of the Maldives, which the sea has since devoured for the most part, dividing them into innumerable Islands, now seen at a distance 70 leagues from Point de Galle. Nor does it seem a surprise thing that the sea has swallowed up such and extent of Low Countries. ‘For an example one could point out Atlantis, a great island west of the Pillars of Hercules, opposite mount Atlas, and the legend of its destruction, in a day and a night, is given by Plato, in Timeus.’ No other island in known for its fertility than Ceylon, and the more so when the low lands of the Maldives were united to it, for it was of a remarkable size .Further Rjavaliya (27) says that the guardian deities of Lanka having become indignant eleven twelfths of Lanka were submerged by great sea, during the life time of Viharamahadevi.

Land submerged on 125BC

Son of Gotabaya Prince named ‘Kakawannatissa’, married ‘Viharamahadevi’ and had a son named ‘Dutugamunu’ (101 BC- 77 BC) at the time a Tamil of noble descent ‘Elara’ (145 BC-101 BC) from Cola country of south India, who seized the Kingdom & was ruling; with even justice towards friend & foe, from Aunradhapura (Anu~- Raja- Pura or Mansion of 90 Kings) according to Mahawansa.

The ruler of Kelaniya was a King named Kelani Thissa who had banished his own brother, guilty lover of his queen. His brother sent a man disguised as a monk to send a letter to queen, on a day the King was offering food to an Arahath monk. This man (disguised as a monk) dropped the letter (Ola leaf) in side the palace, so the queen who was near could pick it. King hearing the noise of the Ola being dropped collected it: outraged slew both Monks and had their bodies thrown to the sea. The wroth at the killing of innocent Arahath (enlighted) monk, Sea gods made the sea overflow the land, submerging eleven twelfth of Lanka, notes Mahawansa.

Sri Lanka

Name Lanka was given by the first king, on seeing the beauty of the land, the mildness of the climate, the abundance of fruit, the excellence o the waters, the fragrance of the woods, the wealth of the mountains, the riches of the gem lands and the variety of animals. Other nations in conformity with the information they had for its fruits and wealth, by the word ‘Sri Lanka’ called it paradise.

Taprobane

Vasco Da Gama (1497-1499) wrote to his King: Taproban concerning which Pliny wrote so fully was not known to the Pilot, for it must be quite out at sea, far away from the mainland. But King Manuel was advised better as he wrote to Cardinal Protector in August 1499; The Island of Taprobane which is called Ceilan is 150 leagues from Qulalicut. He was informed by N Olas De Canerion in 1502 AD that; The Island called Taprobane is the largest Island in the world and very rich in other things. Such as gold, silver, pearls, precious stones and rubies of large size and fine quality, all kinds of spices, silks, and brocades. The Inhabitants are idolaters and well disposed and take much merchandise abroad, and bring back other kinds not to be found in the island.

Alexander the Great, Dionysius & Marco Polo

The first information about Ceylon was brought in to Europe by Nearchus and Onesicritus who directed the helm of the ship which Alexander the great himself sailed.

Dionysius the geographer mentions Taprobane is famous for its breed of elephants. In the 13 Th Century Marco Polo a Venetian visited Ceylon: claimed it is the finest Island in the world.

Ibn Batuta 1344 AD

In 1344 AD Ibn Batuta came to Ceylon, from Maldives, and landed on the Northern Coast, to a province where Arya Chakrawarthi, a Tamil King practicing Saivism, having a large fleet for trading in the Indian Ocean. At this time King Buwaneka Bahu the 4th was ruling from Gampola and Parakrama-Bahu the 5th at Dadigama. He visited Galle finding it a busy trade emporium, with Chinese Junks stopping on their way to Malabar. In Devinuwara (town of Gods) he found a large temple served by thousands of priests and 500 dancing girls, containing an image of Gold with Ruby eyes. Colombo he said was largely inhabited by Muslims and its active foreign trade controlled by a certain "Prince of the Sea".

Sinhalese

Kings of Ceylon style them selves as ‘Suriya-wansa’, which is equivalent to ‘the race of the Sun’. ‘We cannot deny some kinship with the sun, considering the scorched colour of his descendants, and of other Sinhalese. It is more reasonable to suppose this nation took its name ‘‘, ‘Le’ for blood and Sinha a Lion; whence they formed the word ‘Sinhale’ and in plural ‘Sinhalese’, according to Queyroz.

Prince Vijaya came from India 2200 years ago (Documented in 1636 AD)

In a petition submitted to Diogo de Melo in 1636 Sinhalese claimed a Prince named Vijaya Raja came to the port near Mannar with 700 persons from the kingdom of Thelingu or Kalinga, of the king, which he was a son. He was sent as punishment for grave offences he committed against his father. He styled him self Emperor of Ceylon and married from mainland ‘ Poeni ( Kuweni). And the Asiatic heathen believe other grater fables. The ancient Kings took the title Bahu which means lions tail (?). This pretension about their origin obtained the title Emperors, though their dominion never exceeded the narrow limits of the Island. This also made them think that they are the best blood of the East; on account of this other Princes of India especially Heathen, deem is a great fortune to give their daughters in marriage, to become related to Sun.

Trade with Romans

In the time of Claudius Emperor of the Romans, between the years of Christ 42 and 56 ( 56 AD) , Pliny relates that a freedman of Anneus Proclamus , while sailing along the coast of Arabia was carried away by a North Breeze, and after 15 days he came upon the Island of Taporobane. (Ceylon) , and being well received, by the king there of, was by him , after some months, sent back with his ambassadors to Rome, where was made an agreement about in dealing and trade; of which some find a confirmation in that as Laguna relates, in the time of Pope Paul ( iii ). There was found in Rome a piece of cinnamon wood kept from the time of Arcadius the son of Theodosius 261 years after Claudius. And Joao~ Melo de S Payo , Captain of Mannar in the year 1575, ordering the destruction of some old building, found in their foundations some coins of gold and copper with the letters C.L.R.M.N. which seems to mean: Claudius Romanorum : according to their wonted abbreviation.

Sinhalese and their character according to Queyroz (Before the Arrival of Portuguese) 1505 AD

As for the character of Sinhalese they are generally proud, vain and lazy, the first on account of their celestial descent, especially, those who are of blood royal : the second because of the antiquity of their kingdom, and nation, and the liberty in which they were always brought up; third on account of the position, climate and riches of the land, which being so fertile both as regards what springs from it and what entrusted to it, they have no care for agriculture , nor do they care to acquire riches, being content with little. Even the poorest wear a cloth decently adjusted below the knees. As they all are Pythagoreans and believe in transmigration of souls, they bury their treasures in their life time to escape the Maralas or confiscations at death, and they hide them even from their children, keeping them for their rebirth.

Sinhalese and their character according to Ribeiro (After the Arrival of Portuguese) 1685 AD

The Captain Jaoa Ribeiro ( 1640-1685) notes that Sinhalese are like ‘Spaniards greedy of money and this make them treacherous and ready to acknowledge Christianity, but they return to their own religion with the same ease and whenever our men had to withdraw to the city, they hasten to worship their images’.

Sinhalese and their character according to Militant Groups up North (Year 2000 AD)

As long as the Sinhalese nation is buried in the mud of racist politics, we cannot expect fair and reasonable solution from Sinhalese rulers.

(http://www.island.lk/2005/12/14/midweek7.html)

Portuguese Encounter in Retrospect by Bandu de Silva

Some Thoughts on the International Conference

As the year 2006 begins it is time to reflect on the demi-millennium that passed which witnessed many changes in the Sri Lankan society. Some attributed the change to the coming of the Portuguese to whom others attributed a global role as purveyors of the civilization across the four continents. One former Sri Lankan academician turned politician who had lost perspective even asked if the country wanted to go back to the pre-Portuguese era as if this land was a wild country earlier,

Others who saw it differently and met the oft made claim that the Portuguese brought the civilizations of four continents together asked how there could be a coming of civilizations together when the Ibero expansion of the 15th to 17th centuries saw the annihilation of an entire civilization of the single continent of the two Americas alone where over 30 million people were put to the sword or consumed by gun fire and new cities were built on their ancient settlements which were raised to the ground and cathedral were built on their pyramidic structures, and new people were imposed on that land whose nomenclature came to be changed to "‘NEW WORLD."

In Africa, the Portuguese missionaries said the cannibals understood nothing but the rod which was the method used in their conversion. What was used in the Fisheries coast of India by Francis Xavier and repeated in Mannar, if any less harsh, it was because of the intermingling of miracles with the missionary method. But, on the whole, in Asia, they found a different situation.

Speaking of Sri Lanka, or Ceilao, the Portuguese Jesuit chronicler, in a harsh remark on the method used by the first Franciscan Superior missionary, Joao de Villa de Conde, wrote that the Father ought to know that "Chingalaz’ are also a people with values and a culture". This is the theme that contemporary writers like Prof. C. R. Boxer and Fr. M. Qiuere, O.M.I. have developed to point out that the Portuguese, both the nobility and the missionaries were obsessed by the exaggerated superiority of their culture and religion.

The response of the Sinhalese was exemplified by King Bhuvanekabahu’s questioning Francis Xavier’s replacement who continued on the theme of the Hell used by the apostle to convert the King, when he asked Monis Baretto if he had experience of it. The latter was so annoyed with the King for questioning his stupidity that he dashed his bonnet on the ground upon which the King remarked that the Christian Hell must be a rigorous place indeed, if the souls that go there receive the suffering which Antonio Monis Baretto had caused him. That explained the difference between the culture that the Portuguese brought to Sri Lanka and that of the Sinhalese!

The two day International Conference organized on 10th and 11th December 2005 by the Portuguese Encounter Group in Sri Lanka on the occasion of the quincentenary of the arrival of the Portuguese in Sri Lanka was not Portuguese bashing all the way as some may have expected. It was a serious conference which brought together a wide group of researchers who presented their results to an equally varied and large audience drawn from all walks of life. That every seat was occupied despite the inclement weather caused by a cyclone that morning as if to remind one of the storm that brought Lorenzo de Almeida to our shores towards the end of 1505 or thereabouts, was a pointer to the public enthusiasm.

What did every one come to hear and see on those two days? Was it to remind themselves of the negative side of the Portuguese encounter like the devastation caused to our land, our age old traditional culture and religion by these purveyors of the Western civilization? That is what they had hitherto heard by word of mouth or oral tradition, and the mute remains of the physical monuments of ancient buildings or the churches with their rising spires which came up in their places like the new cities and cathedrals which the Crotes built on the old pyramids of the glorious Aztec empire of Montezuma which they submerged?

Or, was it to hear of the opposite point of view that the Portuguese brought as some say, the civilizations of the four continents together; and introduced a culture about which both their nobility and the clergy possessed exaggerated ideas of superiority, of a mobility and an urban civilization and transmission of styles, mores and ideas, some thrown up during the European renaissance, some the Portuguese themselves had evolved through their contacts with the Arab world and Asia, to the midst of a decadent old island civilisation which was only awaiting to be salvaged from the depth of cultural abyss. These were, as one might think, the so called more of positive gains of the Portuguese interaction.

Whatever one may have expected, no one could have gone disappointed. There was enough to fire one’s imagination and stimulate further research on all these counts.

Portuguese View Point

One could say that the Portuguese point of view was not represented at the Colombo conference. This is what the agents of the Gulbenkian Foundation have been saying for a long time about the presentation of the story of Portuguese encounter globally. They point out that Portuguese history has been examined from Sri Lankan national point of view which is but the reversal of the truth. How could this be when what we have learnt all along from the school text books onwards written by Fr. S. G. Perera to later researchers that the Portuguese came for the peaceful purpose of trade, a distortion of facts if one examines the situation closely? If it was trade, it was a different type of trade, not the free trade that the East was accustomed to but a Portuguese monopoly with unfavourable terms and many other tricks like introducing larger measures when buying. Fernao de Queyroz, the Jesuit chronicler was perhaps, the first in line to put across the idea of negative thinking in this country about the Portuguese. He remarked that the hatred of the Sinhalese against the Portuguese was not put to an end by the death of Viceroy Noronah who was responsible for causing the murder of King Bhuvanekabahu and for the pillage of his kingdom later for its treasure and that remembrance of evil was more powerful in "ungrateful minds than the recollection of benefits’ although many of these excesses were made up for, it did not succeed in diminishing the memory of this tragedy’.

How could one say that Portuguese history has been presented from a nationalistic point of view when even now a number of Sri Lankan scholars who had obligations to the Portuguese organizations even avoided contacts with the Sri Lankan Portuguese Encounter Group for fear of losing patronage!

It is true that the Portuguese point of view has been side-tracked not in Sri Lanka but globally. I have pointed out earlier, and now I find that Russel-Wood making the same point, that the Portuguese found no place in the Columbus tercentennial celebrations in 1792 nor in the quincentenary of 1992 which was usurped by the Americans. Portuguese -American debate has an older history as the Admiral Professor S. E .Morison and the Portuguese cartographic-historian Armando Cortisao’s debates point to.

At the Colombo conference the Portuguese contribution was not altogether ignored. There were some presentations on Portuguese contribution like the contribution to architecture presented by one of the leading architects with a cultural bent; ‘thoughts on the spatial and architectural impacts’ presented by another leading architect, "Portuguese role in introducing plants to Sri Lanka’, "numismatic changes resulting from Portuguese encounter’, "currency in Sri Lanka during Portuguese encounter’, "influence of Portuguese on Sinhala and Tamil languages’, and ‘music links between today and the Portuguese encounter period’. The conference missed a contribution of the Portuguese to keeping land and revenue records, though these were very rudimentary and were based on the country’s own ancient system of keeping "Lekam — miti.’ Interesting as these contributions were, they are what one may call "transmission of styles, mores and ideas’, still not the most essential but the superficial elements of Portuguese interaction.

Civilisational Dialogue

The more important consideration should have been a study of the more fundamental point of the claimed role of the Portuguese as purveyors culture, particularly, the western culture to the rest of the world. This is where a contribution from those who make such claims could have been useful to start a dialogue. Unfortunately, those who could have made such contributions were not present. Understandably, they decided to hold their own conference in another part of the globe with the participation of a few Sri Lankan or ex-Sri Lankan academics. The Conference organizers here did not have the material resources to provide the material benefits to attract their participation. Very few are ready to extend scholarship today without pecuniary or personal benefits! They could even go to the extent of bashing one’s own country and telling the world that Sri Lankans were without a culture or an economy until the Portuguese introduced everything!

The issue if the Portuguese introduced a civilisational dialogue was taken up by me in one of the papers I presented on the theme of "‘Converting a Heathen King - Bhuvanekabahu’s response to the missionaries." I would have expected a corresponding response but that was not forthcoming. Fr. S. G. Perera, S.J., had taken up the issue to some extent from the Christian point of view in a paper entitled "Portuguese Missionary

Method" which he wrote in the last century. While he observed that there was very little recorded on the Portuguese missionary methods and said he was not speaking or approving or defending their methods, or criticizing them he went on to defend them later. In the chronicled dialogue between the Franciscan Superior Joao de Vila de Conde and King Bhuvanekabahu there is ample evidence of the missionary method which Fr. S. G. Perera said was lacking in the documents. I leave the discussion on this issue which I introduced in the context of that dialogue again at the 10th International Conference on Sri Lankan Studies at the Kelaniya University (17th December 2005) for a later occasion for the benefit of readers and as a starting point of a discussion provided the newspaper editors would be generous with their printed space.

Balanced Presentation

Back to our subject, at the Portuguese encounter International Conference, naturally, there was concentration on missionary activities, and evangelisation including the policy and missionary methods, which provided a contrast to what Fr. S. G. Perera wrote, not rhetoric as he submitted but presentations of a very high academic standard. The presentation ‘Spiritual conquest; baptism or conversion’ met Fr. S. G. Perera’s position adequately and convincingly though it was not intended to be a reply to Fr. S. G. Perera but an independent study on the missionary methods and the shortcomings.

There were presentations of the nature and evidence of destruction of Buddhist, Hindu and Islamic religious places derived mainly from Portuguese sources supported by oral tradition, literary and archaeological and physical evidence, placing the objectives in the global context of Bulls issued by the Popes, Orders of the King of Portugal to the Viceroy in Goa, the Orders of the Goa Councils and the Inquisition. The physical splendour of the places destroyed was reconstructed using local literary sources, Portuguese references, and chronicled accounts while their excellence as intellectual centers was portrayed through references to literary evidence and foreign observations. Oppression of Buddhist, Hindu and Muslims of Sri Lanka, with emphasis on the south, west and Jaffna, and also Malabar and how Goa resisted culturally for 500 years also received emphasis.

To balance these there were presentations on the global scene, such as "Shadow of 500 Years,’ the background to Portuguese expansion -the global scene, and the ideology of violence [under the Portuguese].

The second day of the Conference was devoted to detailed examination of such subjects as the impact of currents and wind systems in the Indian Ocean, Sri Lankan Water crafts in the Pre- Portuguese and post Portuguese period, Sinhalese weapons and armour-response to European style warfare, Kandyan war strategies in the resistance to Portuguese invasion, Sinhala Manuscript sources: ‘Hatana poetry’, Sitwaka Rajasinhge’s leading General, converting a ‘heathen’ king or Kotte’s response to missionaries, baptism or conversion, resistance movements against the Portuguese, sources and status of scholarship, Portuguese epigraphic evidence, contentious issues in the interaction between Kotte and the Portuguese, exploitation of Sinhala royal youth for Portuguese expansion, legal validity of Dharmapala’s donation of the kingdom to the King of Portugal, introduction of Sri Lankan biota to the Western world and reverse process, reverse transfer in the early colonial period Sinhala Jewellery in the Portuguese and European courts, Sri Lankan travelers during the Portuguese period, the world of learning in Sri Lanka during pre-Portuguese period, spatial and architectural impact, Portuguese contribution to architecture, currency in during Portuguese occupation, and numismatic changes in post Portuguese times, spread of Muslim settlements in the East, Portuguese words in Tamil and Sinhala, Musical links, the issue of apology and compensation and others.

High Academic Order

All these presentations were of a very high academic order. Special mention should be made of the presentations on Sri Lankan Water Crafts of the period, Sinhalese wapons and armour response to European style warfare which was on a class of its own, Kandyan resistance, weapons, tactics and strategy, reverse transfer in the early colonial period- Sinhala Jewellery in the Portuguese and European courts, the world of learning in Sri Lanka during pre-Portuguese period, resistance movements of the littorals against the Portuguese, the spiritual conquest: baptism or conversion and exploitation of Sinhala royal youth for Portuguese expansion. It is not that the other presentations were of any lesser order.

Carriers of Disease

Some who may be still familiar with the situation in our country when people did not move out of their villages and touch food or water fearing contacting that deadly disease Parangi even in the last century (I saw the disease in epidemic proportions in the deep-jungle villages of Matale districts in mid 1950s) or browsed through the Legislative Enactments of the British government of the last two centuries deposited in our National Archives which refer to the seriousness of this scourge which swept through the island depopulating it, may have been disappointed that the topic of the Portuguese as carriers of disease was not discussed. Even Russel-Wood who wrote under the auspices of the Calouste Gulbenikian Foundation could not avoid a reference to the Portuguese as disease carriers when he said that the people who moved around the Portuguese seaborne empire were also carriers of diseases. They were carriers of European pathogens; they were both victims and carriers of malaria, stagnant water in their carracks and caravels providing ideal breeding conditions. One new disease they introduced to Eurasia and Africa was syphilis which Columbus’ sailors are said to have brought from America in 1453 and Vasco da Gama’s men introduced to Calicut in 1497 and to Canton in 1505. Other old world diseases they introduced to other parts were, plague, thyphus, tuberculosis, malaria, yellow fever, influenza, measles, smallpox and mumps. (Russel-Wood). Smallpox was lethal to Amerindian people.

The Calouste Gulbenikian Foundation of Portugal which along with the Portuguese government was looking for an opportunity to commemorate the event of the arrival of the Portuguese in Sri Lanka should feel happy that Portuguese Encounter Group really took over the task which they failed to promote with the Sri Lankan government and the participation of Sri Lankans at large, though no "tamashas’ could have been expected of them. Those Sri Lankan leaders who expected to promote the idea should also feel happy that the occasion did not go without a marked significance here one way or the other and it turned out to be a well balanced affair. The Gulbenikian Foundation should, however, regret that its energy was misdirected in organising rival events by its agents by holding separate workshops and enlisting those who were actively participating in the Portuguese Encounter Group’s work, rather than seeking away to work with the local group.

30th December 2005

(http://www.island.lk/2006/01/04/midweek1.html)

Wednesday, February 08, 2006

Portuguese forced conversions? by Gaston Perera

Soon half-a-millenium would have lapsed since the advent of the Portuguese but it is remarkable how despite the passage of time what they did here should still continue to excite attention. To be interested in and speak of what they did is fine, but for heaven’s sake, if we must, then when we do let us also speak the whole truth.

This is what one would like to see in a Mr. R.M.B.Senanayake’s recent foray into Portuguese Missionary Activity where he dismisses as an "oft-repeated lie" that the Portuguese converted by force. He says T.K.Abeysinghe (!) "wrote a book" (!) in 1965 (!) and cites him as authority and even quotes a sentence or two from what is the late Tikiri Abeysinghe’s (TA) doctoral thesis, "Portuguese Rule in Ceylon, 1594-1612", published in 1966. But while he cites him as authority what is puzzling is the queer reluctance displayed to quote TA in full so that the whole truth about his views be made known.

For instance he quotes the reference TA makes to the First Council in Goa that laid down missionary policy -

"—— it is not licit to bring anyone over to our faith and baptism by force with

threats and terrorism."

There he stops abruptly. Why? Why does he not continue? Why does he not also quote the very next sentences of TA which contains the telling comment of TA himself on this decree, which reads as follows -

"But this was not a declaration of religious toleration and merely eschewed the use of force to induce conversion. The same Council approved the use of force to prevent the worship of other religions in Portuguese territories —- . Thus the renunciation of the use of force for conversion was little more than a piece of quibbling sophistry."

The same strange halt to his reading process occurs later where he triumphantly quotes from TA what he has convinced himself is the crowning argument against forced conversions-

"At the outset it may be stated quite categorically that there is no evidence that conversion by force or at the point of the sword was attempted. The policy laid down in the Council of Goa was adhered to."

(The operative word here is "evidence", but of that later.) But in this instance too why does Mr. S apply the guillotine here and abruptly stop reading any further and, as it were, close the book. Why does he not continue and expose in full and without fear TA’s real and expressed views? Why especially does he not reproduce in full the conclusion of that passage, which reads -

"In such circumstances, both to raise the question of force and to attempt to rebut it is to unduly simplify the psychology behind the acceptance of a new religion. If one must raise this question then it should be framed differently: not whether Catholicism was propagated by force, but whether force was employed against Buddhism and Hinduism."

I wish I could stop there, but there is more. There is the issue of the attraction of Christianity to the fisher caste. One of the reasons TA offers in explanation of this is that their livelihood conflicted with Buddhist doctrine. This Mr. S quotes with alacrity. But TA has offered another and "simple" explanation where he says -

"The livelihood of the community depends on the sea over which the Portuguese had mastery. They believed, if they became Catholics, the Portuguese would protect them and more important, would not harass them. Even Francis Xavier was aware of the value of this factor in inducing the fishermen of South India to become Catholics and did not hesitate to exploit it."

Why is this "simple" explanation completely omitted?

But the most telling symptom of the affliction is the last. The topic now is the attacks on Cathlolic churches and priests. "Here’s what Abeysinghe says," announces Mr. S. triumphantly and quotes-

"The Catholic priest and the church became the first target of the rebels such as —."

Here’s what Abeysinghe actually says -

"Thus it is seen that the fortunes of the church during these years were inextricably interwoven with those of Portuguese power and the hatred evoked by that power in the minds of the Ceylonese reacted adversely on the fortunes of the former. THAT IS WHY the Catholic priest and the church became the first target of the rebels such as — ."

When a writer is quoted for authority - especially an eminent, respected and utterly unbiased scholar who is now no more - it is a pity that a reader is denied the whole truth about his views. There are words to describe this kind of selective quoting but one refrains from using them. Just as one should refrain from imputing motives.

At one point Mr. S. ceases relying on TA’s authority and launching on his own makes this assertion -

" —then as even now it was considered all is fair in love and war. The combatants destroyed what was sacred to the enemy. So the Portuguese destroyed temples and the Sinhalese destroyed churches and killed missionaries."

The destruction of Buddhist temples was therefore an act of war. They were destroyed in the course of fighting by "combatants". Forsaking the authority of TA and making an assertion like this can only emanate from his own in-depth study of Portuguese history. It is a pity he does not state the sources and authority he has discovered in the course of his study for this pronouncement. It is a great disadvantage to scholar and layman alike because the sources and authority lesser mortals have access to reveal that the destruction of Buddhist temples was the direct result of expressed official State and religious policy, not war. Some of those sources and authority are -

The Decrees of the first Council in Goa; The Royal Decree on Pagan Temples of 25th February 1581; Queroz ( pp 666, 714, 715, 717 ); Father S.G. Perera ( Historical Sketches-p 169 ); Father Martin Quere ( Christianity in Sri Lanka - p 196 ).

In fact some of the sources reveal that the destruction and vandalism was done sometimes by the missionaries themselves -

"The Catholic Church in Sri Lanka: the Portuguese Period" - Fr. V. Perniola (Vol. II, pp 321,434, 437); "Historical Gleanings" - Fr. W.L.A. don Peter (p 13); "Ceylon, the Portuguese Era" - Paul E Pieris (Vol. II, p149)

But never mind all these. The authority Mr. S. himself cited earlier and now abandons, the authority he would have us go "to learn about history" - TA himself has this to say on the subject -

"The same Council [i.e. the first council of Goa] —— laid down that heathen temples must be demolished, all non-Christian priests and teachers must be expelled and their religious literature destroyed."

—(Portuguese Rule in Ceylon, p.206)

It would be interesting therefore to know the sources for this view that the destruction of Buddhist temples was merely the result of war. Or is it that we should recall that admonition of Alexander Pope in his couplet about the "Pierian spring."

This debate on the question of forced conversions by the Portuguese is not of recent origin. Many others have discussed it; men of eminence and learning, that is. The most bravura performance occurred nearly 75 years ago. Professor G.P. Malalasekera had just published his "Pali Literature in Ceylon" in the preface to which he had referred to the instructions the Portuguese king had given the missionaries as recorded by Faria Y Souza in his Asia Portugueza - "to begin by preaching but that failing to proceed to the decision of the sword." (Faria Y Souza was also a historian, the kind of man we are advised to go to "to learn about history."). At about the same time a Professor Hussey had published a history text book for schools in which it was stated, Sinhalese were baptized at the point of the sword." The Catholic establishment was up in arms. This was still the time it was in its confrontationist mode. The echoes of the Kotahena riots where a Catholic mob had broken up and mauled a Buddhist procession had not quite died down - vide "The Kotahena Riots and their Repercussions" by K.H.M. Sumathipala in the Ceylon Historical Journal, Vol. 19, p.65. A powerful response was therefore indicated and the heavy artillery was brought up for the counter-attack. Father S.G. Perera was the chosen champion and in characteristic polemical style he came out all guns blazing. A public meeting was organized and there he delivered a lecture on "Portuguese Missionary Methods". This was later published in 1962 together with some of his other articles in book form by the Colombo Catholic Diocesan Union under the title, "Historical Sketches".

In his lecture he made two points among others -

1. Despite all his wide reading among Portuguese authorities he had not "ever read of any person converted at the point of the sword" and "I never found any proof of force." (Historical Sketches -p.157)

2. The need for extreme caution in coming to any conclusion because of the paucity of information - "I hesitate to assert it too emphatically and say that you will find absolutely nothing; not because I fear that anything will be found but because I know that it is never safe to make a sweeping statement in matters of history. I will put it cautiously and conditionally--. (Ibid. p. 156)

TA is not alone therefore in declaring there is no evidence of forced conversions. Father S. G. Perera too confirms there is no proof. So do many other eminent historians. Sir Emerson Tennent in his "Christianity in Ceylon" agrees at p.8. Father W.L.A. don Peter also agrees -

"—— there is no evidence that conversion to Catholicism was ever made by force

—(Franciscans and Sri Lanka - p151)

Father Martin Quere says "an unbiased study —— does not warrant such a simplistic picture." (Christianity in Sri Lanka under the Portuguese Padroado -p. 185).

But at the same time the popular belief is and has been the very opposite. How could this be? How could a belief prevail so doggedly? How could it persist down the ages and be so widespread? But this is the oral tradition and it is easy to dismiss it as an "oft-repeated lie."

The oral tradition is certainly irreconcilable with the categorical and unconditional assertions of scholars and historians. What they have emphatically laid down is that there is no proof or evidence of forced conversions. They have to say so. They must say so precisely because they are historians and scholars, trained in the historical discipline who will never compromise their academic integrity with statements that cannot be substantiated with irrefutable proof and evidence. And for forced conversions by the Portuguese there is none such. But having said that one should also, perhaps, bear in mind the difficulty of finding such evidence. We are familiar nowadays with arguments about the difficulties of proving unethical conversions. Acceptable evidence would be such evidence as is recorded somewhere or deduced from records. In the case of Portuguese conversions where would the evidence be but in documents recorded by Portuguese missionaries? There are none from the Sinhala side (vide Fr. S.G. Perera, for instance - HS, p. 154). Would they record something which is contrary to their given instructions?

But how could such a vigorous oral tradition originate and spread so widely and persist so undiminished through the centuries? To say there is no smoke without fire is as cheap as calling it an "oft-repeated lie". I think two reasons could be identified why it should flourish so strongly.

Firstly, there are traces in Portuguese records that hint at a dark side. How else would one explain the Portuguese King’s instructions to his missionaries recorded by the Portuguese historian Faria Y Souza in his Asia Portugueza - "begin by preaching but that failing, proceed to the decision of the sword". What do these words mean? It was Professor Malalasekera’s reference to it that sparked off Fr. S.G. Perera’s famous lecture. But nowhere in that whole lecture did he explain or counter this statement. (In a footnote to the published version he suggests it only authorizes force against those who prevent preaching. (HS p. 168). Then there is a letter a Jesuit priest, J. Salanova, sent to his superior where he actually argues for the use of force in conversion. He writes -

"The principal cause why conversions are so few is ——- it is not enough to invite ——; it is necessary to compel them——."

—(Fr.V. Perniola The Catholic Church in Ceylon - Vol.II, p.94)

Perhaps, it is the existence of such traces that is at the root of the caution and hesitation Fr. S.G.Perera expressed in that lecture about coming to any firm conclusions about forced conversions and his admonition not "to make sweeping statements in matters of history". But Fr. Martin Quere is more open and less cagey. He says -

"There were occasions when the pressure exerted by the civil authorities to induce their subordinates to become Christians was such that we would consider it today tantamount to the use of coercion and force."

—(Christianity in Sri Lanka - p. 191)

The occasions referred to relate to the missionary drive in Jaffna, first by don Braganza and, after its conquest, by de Oliveira where those who were unwilling to, or did not, attend the preaching of the Gospel were either imprisoned or exiled. There is thus many a seed of truth to make the oral tradition about forced conversions to flourish.

The second reason why the oral tradition has flourished has to do with the semantic jiggery-pokery on which Portuguese missionary policy was based. When forced conversion is solemnly condemned there is a massive equivocation in the use of the word "forced". The casuistry originated at the First Council in Goa where the policy was laid down. Don’t use force, it said with a straight face. And immediately went on to define what is not force. Smashing the infidel’s temples, destroying his statues, burning his religious literature, hounding out his priests, building churches on the ruins of shattered temples, expropriating temple lands and revenue - no, this is not force. Luring the infidel with material blandishments and office and preferential tax and judicial treatment - no, this is not force. In other words, don’t drive him to baptism him at the actual sword-point, but make it impossible for him to practise his religion. It is the chicanery in this decree that gave the green-light to missionary and soldier alike to go on the rampage and launch a brutal and ruthless persecution and destruction of Buddhism. It is the jesuitry behind this missionary approach that TA identified when he asserted the real question is -

"whether force was employed against Buddhism."

Father Martin Quere himself is not unaware of the equivocation. In a letter published circa January 1991 in the Daily News (?) under his name on the question of Portuguese Conversion he himself distinguishes two meanings in the word "force". One is "physical force", of which he says he has found no instance in Portuguese conversions. The other meaning is "moral force". The example he gives of the latter is that Jaffna missionary drive referred to earlier.

No wonder the oral tradition flourishes!

Half-a-millenium, as I said at the beginning. It is easy to condemn the practices of a past age, perhaps, looking at it from our modern outlook and judging it by our present liberal standards. Apologists for Portuguese practices often say that and certainly there is much truth in that.

The Catholic Church of today does not advocate the destruction of Budhhist temples. It has set its face even against what is described as unethical conversions today. Besides there were practices among the Sinhala people that today would be described as unsavoury. So forgiving the past is not a bad idea. Not forgetting, no.

But, please, for heaven’s sake, if we must speak of it, we must speak the whole truth.

(www.island.lk/2004/02/04)

Forced Conversions by the Portuguese? by R.M.B. Senanayake

Goebbels said that a lie oft repeated becomes accepted as the truth. So it is with regard to the view that the Portuguese made conversions to Christianity by force. Even a Christian Editor of a Sunday newspaper has in his editorial stated so in the most matter of fact way.

But what are the facts? To learn about history we have to go to historians. T.K Abeysinghe wrote a book on the history of the Portuguese period titled "Portuguese Rule in Ceylon published in 1965.He has a separate chapter on Missionary Activity. He states that missionary activity in Ceylon began with the arrival of the Franciscans in response to the invitation by the king of Kotte Bhuvanaka Bahu VII. The official policy with regard to conversions was as stated in an official document of the Church "it is not licit to bring anyone over to our faith and baptism by force with threats and terrorism".

On page 209 of his book he specifically addressed this issue of forced conversions. Here is what he says " These facts should enable us to resolve the vexed question whether conversions in Ceylon were effected by ‘force’ or at the point of the sword. —At the outset it may be stated quite categorically that there is no evidence that conversion by force or at the point of the sword was attempted. The policy laid down in the council at Goa was adhered to."

Of course all conversions were not genuine and with the tide of war the number of converts rose and fell as explained by Abeysinghe. He refers to the criticism of the Portuguese historian Queyroz that the ‘Sinhalese make religion a matter of convenience’. This was particularly applicable to the refugees who fled war and battle and moved under the Portuguese. But all were not political converts. He explains the attraction of Christianity to the fishing caste ( who were the largest number of converts) as follows:

"A community whose occupation involved the violation of the first precept of Buddhism" and "The fishing classes would be beyond the pale of traditional society. But in Christianity they found acceptance. Hence the appeal of Christianity to those whom the old society for religious and cultural reasons was not willing to accommodate within its fold."

The Portuguese were involved in continual war with the Sinhalese kings and then as even now it was considered that all is fair in love and war. The combatants destroyed what was considered sacred to the enemy. So the Portuguese destroyed temples and the Sinhalese destroyed churches and killed missionaries.

After the revolt of 1603, priests were killed and churches destroyed by the Sinhalese. Here’s what Abeysinghe says "The Catholic priest and the church became the first target of rebels or enemies such as Edirille Bandara, Kangana aratchi or Nikapitiye Bandara".

Many converts reverted to their old faith after the territories were captured by the rebels.

Abeysinghe refers to documents of the missionaries which refer to ‘converts were living in the manner of the gentiles-that is to say they had virtually gone back to the older faith" So Citizen D’s claim that once a convert by force will continue to be a convert, is not correct.

The converts really became established in their faith only after the departure of the Portuguese and during the Dutch occupation when the Catholics were persecuted. This point too was made by Abeysinghe. He says "If they (the converts) had all embraced the new faith from motives other than those of sincere conviction, there is no explanation for their loyalty to Catholicism during the years of the Dutch persecution" So if the Christians continue to hold to their faith it is not because of force or material inducement as stated by critics.

(www.island.lk/2004/02/14)

Did Portuguese Missionaries wear Swords? by GASTON PERERA

Once again R. M. B. Senanayake has come forth to enlighten us on things Portuguese. The last time he did so (Island of 14/1/2004) was on their methods of conversion and then his own methods were exposed (Island of 4/2/2004) as quite questionable. He deliberately half-quoted, misquoted, distorted and twisted what the real historian of Portuguese times, Tikiri Abeysinghe, had said to suggest falsely that he supported RMB’s views - methods that could also be described in more unpleasant words.

Now writing on this burning question of whether Portuguese missionaries wore swords he seems to have learnt the lesson and is more circumspect. He does not name names this time. He relies on the unknown. He cites the authority of a ‘historian’ who is nameless, unidentified, and anonymous `F1

‘According to a historian of the Portuguese period,’ he says, ‘there are no instances referred to in the historical records where priests carried swords, except on one occasion —- ‘

(He goes on to describe that occasion, of which more later.)

But who is this historian? What is his name? Why can he not be identified? Why cannot the title of his historical work be mentioned? Why cannot the precise citation be provided with page reference? What are this ‘historian’s’ sources?

If, as RMB says, his concern is ‘for your readers to get a correct perspective’ is this information not important? If information is verifiable, then readers will be confident that it is not a figment of imagination and ‘questionable methods’.

If indeed this is an issue of earth-shattering importance, it would be quite correct to say that missionaries of the time did not regularly wear swords as a part of their religious habit. That is not practical, nor would even a regular soldier do so. But the fact of the matter is that, when the need arose, the missionaries not only wore swords but used them. The real historical record is replete with such instances and, what is more, those instances are recounted, quite candidly and frankly, by none other than the very missionaries themselves.

For instance, when it is said

‘—- they unite piety with a warlike spirit. They assist at the Mass with swords at their side to show that virtue is compatible with the use of

the sword —-,’

it is no imaginary ‘historian’ writing. This is none other than the Father Superior of the Jesuits in Ceylon making his report in his Annual Letter of 15th December 1564. It is reproduced in full by Fr. Vito Perniola (hereafter VP) in his monumental ‘The Catholic Church in Ceylon `F1 The Portuguese Period’ in volume 3 at page 487 and in Fr. S.’G.’Perera’s article in the Ceylon Antiquary and Literary Register, Volume 5 and 6.

In the above instance it could be stated these priests wore swords for demonstrative purposes. But there are innumerable other instances in the real historical record where priests not only carried swords and weapons but actually used them and played an active part in fighting. These instances too are recounted by priests themselves.

At a siege of Colombo Paulo Trinidade, a Franciscan himself, says of the Franciscans -

‘ —- our Fathers, taking up arms, went to defend the walls and bastions.’

And again -

‘Nor did they abstain from military duty ——-. They stood as sentinels on the walls, by day and by night, they repelled the invading army.’

(Conquista Spiritual do Oriente, pp 112 etseq.)

It was not only the Franciscans who wore swords, carried and arms and fought. The Jesuits were equally at the forefront when it came to that. In another Annual Letter, that of 3rd December 1632, the Father Superior reports that the Jesuit fathers guarded a rampart

‘ —- which they defended bravely’

(VP, Vol. 3, p 231)

Nor was it only in defence and sieges that the Catholic priests of those times wore swords and carried arms and proved themselves doughty warriors. They were equally ready to fight in any armed encounter on the field. A Portuguese adventurer, M. Fernandes, reporting his expedition to Kandy to the Viceroy in Goa relates how in an affray ‘ —- a friar who was going with me had to come to the rescue and it fell to his share to kill three persons.’

(VP, Vol. I, p. 177)

These are just some instances in the real historical record of priests wearing and using swords and weapons. These could be multiplied in any reading of Queyroz, Gonzaga, Trinidade and the missionary reports in Fr. Perniola. If therefore any imaginary historian asserts that ‘there are no instances referred to in the historical record’, the sad and only conclusion is a monumental ignorance on the part of the imaginary historian and, of course, on those who cite him.

This imaginary historian has, as referred to above, pronounced that there is only ‘one occasion’ in his historical record where a Portuguese priest wore a sword. This ‘one occasion’ is described as a priest leading Portuguese troops across a river ‘with the sword at his side’. Now, if any further proof is required that ‘monumental ignorance’ is not an exaggerated description, this is it. There are two, independent Portuguese sources that relate this incident - Trinidade at page 89 and Queyroz at page 613. The appalling irony is that neither anywhere make any reference whatsoever to a sword. Both sources clearly and distinctly state that Friar Gaspar da Magdalena stepped into the river bearing only a Cross. (Of course, Queyroz adds that ‘a beautiful Woman, clad in white’ appeared and preceded the father, but then that is Queyroz.). To pontificate that this was ‘the one occasion’ in the historical record that a Portuguese priest ever wore a sword is, therefore, simply hilarious.

The fact of the matter is that when the need arose, Portuguese missionaries did not hesitate to wear a sword and even use it. The fact of the matter is that in the real historical record the Portuguese missionary played many parts, as the need arose. Apart from their role as Religious, their Administrators in Kandy also functioned as informants, spies and agents for their Captain-General; they functioned as ambassadors, sometimes for Kandy and sometimes for the Portuguese; they even functioned as marriage-brokers at times. They themselves did not see or record that this multi-faceted role was in any way discordant or had contradictions. For behind any such apparent contradiction or disparity there was one over-riding unifying purpose to which they were committed `F1 the evangelization of Ceylon. Sometimes it had to be done by converting the infidel, sometimes by fighting him. That was how the missionaries of the time saw things. As Queyroz says,

‘To arms, to arms, to arms and let not Catholic hearts bear to see Heresy reigning in Ceylon.’

That was how the missionary of the time too saw his role. The missionary of the time! That was the ethos of the times, the mind-set of period. Why, then, should anyone 500 years later feel uneasy when it is uncovered and exposed? Does it somehow arouse a sense of guilt? And therefore a compulsion to do a white wash job?

The thing about white-washing the Portuguese - or bashing the Portuguese, for that matter - is that such an approach is based on emotion. It is not founded on hard evidence. It is not objective. It is not dispassionate. And when it is accompanied by an ignorance, in the monumental league, one can only dismiss it as trivia. Why cannot those who wish to make pronouncements on things Portuguese, and I mean Portuguese-lovers and Portuguese-bashers alike, study the real historical record first so that a discussion could be meaningful. Till such time one can only refer them to the advice of a sage (Kierkegaard, I think) - ‘Whereof one is ignorant, thereof one must be silent.’

(http://www.island.lk/2006/02/05/features8.html)

The truth about the ‘Tamil Kingdom’ of Jaffna Peninsula by D. G. A. Perera

Efforts have been made in the recent past to show that there was a separate Tamil Kingdom in Sri Lanka from ancient times. One of the first writers on this subject was Mudaliyar C. Rasanayagam who published the book ‘Ancient Jaffna’ in 1926. However he was forced to admit that the population of Jaffna from the earliest times was one of Sinhala speaking people. It became a Tamil one only after the Sinhala people living there had been wiped out in the middle of the l6th century. Therefore he says "That Jaffna was occupied by the Sinhalese earlier than by the Tamils is seen not only in the place names of Jaffna but also in some habits and customs of the people." (p.384) Then, he proceeds to describe those habits and customs. Despite this. Prof. S. Pathmanathan published another book on the same subject in 1978. Such writings have helped to fan the burning issue today. Not only Jaffna Peninsula but also the area covering the Northern and Eastern (N&E) Provinces have been claimed as the "traditional homelands" of the Tamils. All this proceeds from the erroneous belief that there had been a Tamil Kingdom in Jaffna in the past. It is important to come to know the real facts about the Jaffna part of the issue for Prof. K. M. de Silva has already blasted the N&E theory in his book "Myth of the Tamil Homelands".

Mudaliyar C. Rasanayagam has shown how according to the local tradition in Jaffna that the first Sinhala Kingdom was established by Prince Vijaya in the Jaffna Peninsula. The Sinhala people who lived there since the first colonization in the 6th century BC had passed on this tradition to the Tamil population who settled there after the 14th century. The Tamraparni Pond (Tambapanni Sara or Tamben Vila) was no other than the peculiar geological feature called the Keeramale Pond today. It is only here that even a large company of bathers can disappear from view and hide in a slow flowing underground river, as Vijaya’s followers are said to have done. It is there that Vijaya is said to have also built the Tambapanni City later. Only 38 years after that, the capital city was shifted further south to Upatissa Nagara near modern Pooneryn and shortly thereafter to Anuradhapura. Anuradhapura continued to be the capital of Sri Lanka over the next 1500 years or more. (i.e. up to the 12th century). During this long period of time a provincial ruler appointed by the King, administered Jaffna Peninsula. According to one of the Pali Commentaries, be bore the title ‘Diparaja’ or ‘Ruler of the Islands.’ A cave inscription discovered at Mihintale (U.C.H.C. Vol I, p.229) has confirmed this. Therefore, the Portuguese historian Fr. F. Queyroz was correct in saying that Jaffna was a part of the Sinhalese Kingdom throughout the Anuradhapura Period. However, on the arrival of the Portuguese he says that Jaffna was one of the fifteen sub-kingdoms under the King of Kotte who was therefore, known as the Emperor of Ceylon (The Conquest. p.32). How did that happen?

In the l3th century, Magha of Kalinga invaded this island. He came with an army of mercenaries from Cola and Kerala. While he occupied Polonnaruwa, Candrabhanu from the Malay Peninsula (which was Buddhist at that time,) occupied Jaffna Peninsula. His capital was at modern Chavakachcheri. Thus before the 13th century there was no separate Jaffna Kingdom and that first separate kingdom was also a Buddhist one. Because the Sinhala King from Dambadeniya could not fight two invaders at the same time he had to get help from the Pandya. Both Candrabhanu and Magha were driven out of the country by about the year, 1262 AC, but the Pandyan help led to the occupation by Arya Cakravartis of Madura in the 14th century.

That happened, when Muslim invaders like Malik Kafur invaded Madura, the capital of Pandya in the 14th century. "Dishonour and loss of prestige and caste to themselves and their women were the only forces which could have made them leave the country of their birth," says Rasanayagam (p.335). These high caste Vellalas were of the same social group as the Govigama Sinhalese people living in Jaffna Peninsula at that time and their influx here did not create any social conflict. If some Tamils who were displaced by the Muslim invasion also followed them, and the latter half of the 14th century would be earliest date for a Tamil settlement in Jaffna Peninsula. Any who had come here before that had adopted Sinhala culture and become naturalized. After some time, the Arya Cakravartis became powerful enough to be a threat to the dwindling power of the Sinhala kings in the south at that time. However, the kingdom of the Arya Cakravartis as their name implies, cannot be considered to be Tamil. After Prince Sapumal evicted the Arya Cakravartis in 1449, he ruled Jaffna Peninsula for a period of 17 years, on behalf of King Parakrama Bahu VI of Kotte (1412-1467). When he left Jaffna to become King of Kotte as Bhuvaneka Bahu VI, he left as his proxy one Pararasa Sekaran of the Pandya line to administer Jaffna. The annual tribute he had to pay to Kotte was ten tusker elephants for the Esala Perahera. He also had a Tamil concubine in addition to his high caste wife from Madura.

This illegitimate son from that Tamil concubine was called Sankili. In 1519 Sankili killed his father and assumed power as the sub-king of Jaffna, forcing the legitimate son and successor to flee to the Portuguese in Goa. Therefore, Sankili appears to have been the first Tamil sub-king of Jaffna. He was as much an enemy of the Portuguese as Mayadunne of Sitawaka, or Vidiye Bandara (father of Don Juan Dharmapala) who became the regent of Kotte after the death of Bhuvaneka Bahu in 1551.

When the Portuguese settled some 700 fisher folk who had been converted to Catholicism, in Mannar, Sankili saw it as a threat to his position in Jaffna. He asked them to renounce their new faith and become Hindus again. When they refused to do so, he got all of them massacred in 1544. He also became paranoid when Vidiye Bandara (who had fallen out with Mayadunne, the King of Kandy, as well as the Portuguese who had him imprisoned,) escaped to Jaffna and became his guest. He feared Vidiye Bandara because the latter was known to be a power to be reckoned with Besides that, Vidiye Bandara had carried with him part of the treasure of the King of Kotte and also a replica of the Tooth Relic, both of which would help Sankili to claim kingship of Jaffna Peninsula if he could procure them.

For a man who had murdered his own father, it was not too difficult to devise a way of getting rid of Vidiye Bandara. He got him killed in an attack at a religious ceremony, making it appear to be an accident. This was about the year 1556. This atrocity enraged the Sinhala population of Jaffna which was considerably large at that time. Many Tamils also hated him for his excesses. These two parties got together and drafted a petition, which they sent to the Viceroy in Goa. They asked him to oust Sankili, and replace him with one of the Sinhala Princes who were in Goa at that time. (But the Sinhala princes died of small pox soon after.) The reason they gave was that Sankili had no legitimate right to rule Jaffna as it rightfully belonged to the Kingdom of Kotte. This enraged Sankili, who planned to rid the peninsula of all the Sinhalese people who had lived there from the beginning. He launched the first campaign for Ethnic Cleansing in this country’s history and massacred the Sinhala people in the same way as he had the Christians of Mannar. A short account of this massacre was written down afterwards, in the Yalpana Vaipava Malai. Quoting that document, Rasanayagam says:

"After the massacre of the Christians Sankili’s insane fury longed for more victims and he fell upon the Buddhists of Jaffna who were all Sinhalese." (He continued to slaughter them, and when the Portuguese force led by Braganza invaded Jaffna in 1560 they came across more than fifty mutilated bodies of Sinhalese people in their path.) "He expelled them [who escaped the slaughter] beyond the limits of the country [i.e. Jaffna Peninsula,] and destroyed their numerous places of worship. Most of them took to the Vannis and the Kandyan territories."

That was the work of the man who staked a claim to be the first Tamil King of Jaffna, because he possessed what was thought to be the real Tooth Relic and the treasure of the King of Kotte taken from Vidiye Bandara. That ‘Kingdom’ however lasted only for about four years from 1556-1560. He had to submit to the Viceroy of Goa in 1560, and agreed to become a vassal of the King of Portugal. He also undertook to send to the Portuguese the annual tribute of 10 tuskers, which were earlier paid as tribute to the King of Kotte. He also surrendered most of the treasure that he seized after killing Vidiye Bandara and (that replica of) the Tooth Relic. "These terms written in the Portuguese and Chingala languages were signed and authenticated." (Queyroz p.371) Note: Sinhala, the language of the ruling monarch, was used for this purpose instead of Tamil, because it had to be sanctioned by the King of Kotte who owned Jaffna, to become a legal document. This proved that Sankili’s claim to be the King of Jaffna was baseless.

The Viceroy also took Sankili’s elder son as a hostage to Goa. Shortly afterwards, Sankili was killed by one of his other sons, in 1561. He took over Jaffna as Puviraja Pandaram. The last of the Sub-kings of Jaffna, also called Sankili. He was deposed and sent to Colombo with two of his nephews in 1619, "as Olivera explained: ‘everything that smacks of royalty is best sent away from here" (U.C.H.C Vol. 11 p. 118). This second Sankili was later taken to Goa, tried for treason, and executed, even though he consented to become a Catholic. Jaffna continued to be an integral part of Sri Lanka, whose king was addressed as the de jure "Emperor of Jaffna" by the Portuguese, the Dutch and the British, right up to the Kandyan Convention of 1815.

Historians who suppressed facts about Genocide and Destruction of Buddhist Shrines in Jaffna: Rasanayagam did not conceal the truth about the massacre of the Sinhala people of Jaffna and the destruction of Buddhist Shrines, by Sankili. Although the Tamil author of the Yalpana Vaipava Malai recorded this, our own historians have suppressed the fact. Fr. S.G. Perera does not mention it, although he admitted that Sinhala people occupied Jaffna Peninsula up to the l6th century. S. Natesan, had excused, himself by saying: "The events connected with the rule of Sangili fall beyond the scope of this chapter" (U.C.H.C. Vol. 1, p. 107). Professors C. R. de Silva and S. Pathmanathan had no excuse whatsoever (see U.C.H.C. Vol. 11, Ch. IV published in 1995). This can only be attributed to absolute irresponsibility and/or bias in reporting the facts of history.

(http://www.island.lk/2006/02/05/features9.html)