What's new

Another uprising brewing in Tamilnadu

. .
Wrong

Wrong again

Are you denying that the seeds of the conflict were not sown by reminiscing the historical strife between Dhuttagamani and Elara? Wasn't Dhuttagamani's war against Elara motivated by religion and encouraged by Buddhist monks? Didn't the modern day monks glorify Dhuttagamani and were inspired by Mahavamsa?
 
.
Are you denying that the seeds of the conflict were not sown by reminiscing the historical strife between Dhuttagamani and Elara?

Yes. Bringing the Dhuttugamunu's liberation of Sri Lanka to the Eelam war is beyond ignorant and stupid. It has NOTHING to do with it. The LTTE used his name on one their units but the Navy also named a navy base after Elara thats all
@Gibbs @Saradiel
Wasn't Dhuttagamani's war against Elara motivated by religion and encouraged by Buddhist monks?
Its Duhuttugamunu's duty to reclaim what rightfully belongs to him and unify Sri Lanka and chase away foreign invaders. Buddhist monks did not encourage him in anyway but played a role of mediator between Gamunu and his brother and also as some thing close to Chaplains in his army. Dhuttugamunu was always angry about his father's inaction to reclaim Sri Lanka since he was small
Sinhala Buddhist nationalism did not exist before the European rule. Its a negative influence from the Colonial era
Not sure where you got this BS but its entirely your imagination
Didn't the modern day monks glorify Dhuttagamani and were inspired by Mahavamsa?

Mahavamsa also praises Elara for being just and modern sources consider him as a Sri Lankan king superior to King Vijaya
 
Last edited:
. .
Tamil nationalism and Hinduism are unrelated topics. One is nationalism another is religion.

Read this

Hinduism and Tamil Nationalism

No. It was a national liberation movement. Independence war. Don't twist everything into your religious fanaticism

In simple term - Tamil nationalism is "Liberation of Tamilnadu from Indian Occupation"

Hindutva TN terror cells are hell bent in playing the Tamil Muslim vs Hindu 'religious' card to divide and rule. Tamil Muslims (whether they accept it or not) have equal stake in Tamil's heritage / culture / religion not Hindutva brigade or Indians.

There are more atheist (and Christians) in TN , who reject Tamil gods ( Siva, Mururgan et al), so why isn't the loony Hindutva agitator questioning their Tamil religion affiliation ?

Kulashekara (Tamil saint/king from Kerala), descendants (Cheraman Perumal) converted to Islam - so can one deny the Kerala Muslims of their contribution to Tamil spiritual heritage ?

A Musical Tribute - Save Neduvasal

 
.
Assam,Gujarat , Orissa have 10 times more methane/ HC reserves than TN , why target TN agriculture land ?

upload_2017-3-2_11-49-42.png


after 15 yrs , no technical expertise to clear / dispose HC sludge, posing serious environmental/health hazards to Tamils n their farm land

C51khNDWYAAOKcf.jpg:large
 
Last edited:
.
Yes. Bringing the Dhuttugamunu's liberation of Sri Lanka to the Eelam war is beyond ignorant and stupid. It has NOTHING to do with it. The LTTE used his name on one their units but the Navy also named a navy base after Elara thats all
@Gibbs @Saradiel

All i know is the LTTE was financed and backed by the Catholic church especially the diocese in Madras, and almost all of it's leadership Including Prabhakaran and LTTE diaspora leaders such as Rev Rajuppu Joseph, Rev. S. J Emmanuel and ma y other Catholic priests were in the forefront of the LTTE movement.. Even the more radical Tamil Nadu separatists and LTTE supporters like Semen :lol: are Catholics

The war in Lanka had little to do with religion especially because anyone who has been to the island would know how intertwined Buddhism and Hinduism is practiced there
 
.
The war in Lanka had little to do with religion especially because anyone who has been to the island would know how intertwined Buddhism and Hinduism is practiced there

I was a bit confused and wondering the reason behind your first para of this post.... But then when i read your second para i got the answer..... :)
 
.
Yes. Bringing the Dhuttugamunu's liberation of Sri Lanka to the Eelam war is beyond ignorant and stupid. It has NOTHING to do with it. The LTTE used his name on one their units but the Navy also named a navy base after Elara thats all
@Gibbs @Saradiel

Its Duhuttugamunu's duty to reclaim what rightfully belongs to him and unify Sri Lanka and chase away foreign invaders. Buddhist monks did not encourage him in anyway but played a role of mediator between Gamunu and his brother and also as some thing close to Chaplains in his army. Dhuttugamunu was always angry about his father's inaction to reclaim Sri Lanka since he was small
Sinhala Buddhist nationalism did not exist before the European rule. Its a negative influence from the Colonial era
Not sure where you got this BS but its entirely your imagination


Mahavamsa also praises Elara for being just and modern sources consider him as a Sri Lankan king superior to King Vijaya

Where I got this was from pro-Tiger Tamil nationalist writers who were critical of the Buddhist monks roles in fanning the flames of majoritarian supremacy. It doesn't have to be a legitimate grievance. But the fact that one of the parties in the conflict (or their propagandists) believed that there is a religious element to it, and your admission too that there indeed existed a Sinhala Buddhist Nationalism (yes, even if it did after European colonialism) does indicate there was a religious element to the conflict. It may or may not have gotten blurred later and evolved into a purely language-centric conflict, given how the LTTE leadership was mostly Marxist/atheist and SL govt., being a democratically elected secular govt., cannot have any religious affiliation. But are you denying that there never existed a Buddhist supremacist view promoted by the monks? What about Dharmapala's views?

And when you talk about how Mahavamsa praises Elara (or Ellalan), it also does justify the war on Tamils by Duttagamani, does it not? It isn't even about whether Mahavamsa was good or bad. But whether Mahavamsa used by Sinhalese nationalists to assume their superiority or not? And if they did, wasn't there a religious element to it?

Look here. I am not saying that the SL govt. was waging a crusade against the Tamil Tigers or that the Tamil Tigers fought for the supremacy of Hinduism. All I am saying is that some of the seeds of the conflict also included Buddhist supremacist beliefs. They could have fizzled out. But they were there.

All i know is the LTTE was financed and backed by the Catholic church
I have always deemed that to be a conspiracy theory propagated by some loonies. But when a Burgher like you is saying the same thing, I would expect some objectivism about all this, given how your are/were probably a Christian/Catholic . Can you point out to some real research? I would be glad to read about it.
 
.
I have always deemed that to be a conspiracy theory propagated by some loonies. But when a Burgher like you is saying the same thing, I would expect some objectivism about all this, given how your are/were probably a Christian/Catholic . Can you point out to some real research? I would be glad to read about it.

I'm born protestant but irrespective of religious affinities, Those are the facts, If you study the history of the conflict or and i forgot to mention a very important character here, The LTTE theologian Dr. Anton Balasingham another prominent Catholic

Look.. What i think is Sinhala Buddhist nationalism always existed in the fringe but it came in to the mainstream because of the conflict, Not before.. Religion was not a reason for it

And we need to differentiate the religion or the philosophy that is Buddhism and what is know as Sinhala Buddhism which is a nationalist movement that was primarily created by Dharmapala as you rightly said as a anti colonial weapon but ultimately evolved in to a more sinister movement created by politicians for thier own ulterior motives

From what i feel Buddhism itself is under threat in the island by those who call themselves Sinhala Buddhists ironically
 
.
Brahmi...The script in which Prakrit was written.
I asked you the first ever script in tamil language.

Also, the war in SL, was very much a Buddhist-Hindu conflict as much as it was a Sinhala-Tamil conflict. It was the Buddhist monks who first insisted on oppressing the Tamils on the basis of their religion. The language issue came after that. But that can be discussed later.
Sri Lankan conflict has nothing to do with religion.

Are you denying that the seeds of the conflict were not sown by reminiscing the historical strife between Dhuttagamani and Elara? Wasn't Dhuttagamani's war against Elara motivated by religion and encouraged by Buddhist monks? Didn't the modern day monks glorify Dhuttagamani and were inspired by Mahavamsa?
NO. The seeds of the conflict is Tamil political elite's opposition for democracy. In 1920s Tamil political elite held power more than their numerical strength. And when universal suffrage was introduced to Sri Lanka they feared they will lose the minority rule over majority they had. Hence they worked against granting universal suffrage to Sri Lankans.

It is this political project to keep political power in a section of Tamil elite that created the this so called civil war.

Does history play a section? Of course it does...

1920s 30s were the age of archeological discoveries in Sri Lanka and irked by the construction of Sinhala history by British historians and archeologists, the Tamil politicians ( who happens to be lawyers) sprang into action and a process of insulting Sinhala people, history and their culture began.

As you have rightly pointed out Tamil nationalist elements have a tendency to MANUFACTURE history and indulge in fantasies then fueled it. According to Tamil eelamist historians Sri lanka is a tamil country and Sinhalese are Tamils or some imported low caste telugus.
All kings in Sri Lankan history are Tamil. For example we have a king who build Sigiri called Kashyapa in Sinhala. In Sanskrit it is Kashyap and in Pali it is Kassapa. Tamil lawyers turned historians then said it is not Kashyapa but he is a Tamil king called Kasi appan. This is an example of manufacturing of history by Tamil fake historians which created and maintained the war.
 
.
Where I got this was from pro-Tiger Tamil nationalist writers who were critical of the Buddhist monks roles in fanning the flames of majoritarian supremacy. It doesn't have to be a legitimate grievance. But the fact that one of the parties in the conflict (or their propagandists) believed that there is a religious element to it, and your admission too that there indeed existed a Sinhala Buddhist Nationalism (yes, even if it did after European colonialism) does indicate there was a religious element to the conflict. It may or may not have gotten blurred later and evolved into a purely language-centric conflict, given how the LTTE leadership was mostly Marxist/atheist and SL govt., being a democratically elected secular govt., cannot have any religious affiliation. But are you denying that there never existed a Buddhist supremacist view promoted by the monks? What about Dharmapala's views?

And when you talk about how Mahavamsa praises Elara (or Ellalan), it also does justify the war on Tamils by Duttagamani, does it not? It isn't even about whether Mahavamsa was good or bad. But whether Mahavamsa used by Sinhalese nationalists to assume their superiority or not? And if they did, wasn't there a religious element to it?

Look here. I am not saying that the SL govt. was waging a crusade against the Tamil Tigers or that the Tamil Tigers fought for the supremacy of Hinduism. All I am saying is that some of the seeds of the conflict also included Buddhist supremacist beliefs. They could have fizzled out. But they were there.

End of the day it has all to do with power, From both sides of the conflict, The Tamil leadership did not want to loose the influence they enjoyed under the Brits in a apartheid system, The Sinhala leadership wanted to take back thier control and more not considering the impact majoritarianism would have on a multi ethnic multi religions nation, And the wolfs around in the region got an opportunity to exploit a fragile situation

The rest is history
 
.
from pro-Tiger Tamil nationalist writers

25997987.jpg


Some monks were bad its true and fanned the flames (for own personal gain - totally against Buddhist ideology mind you), but they were not instrumental in creating and expanding Sinhalese nationalism....and the Tamil reaction-ism (and sheer stubbornness that predated it).

Many Tamils in SL overall got duped into joining an extremist church based movement as they fled from these flames....this group simply "out-extremed" all the other ones that were forming and swallowed them up, all the while disguising its core doctrine's origin (and purpose). In this immediate fit of reactionary rage, so many Hindu Tamils joined this organisation that razed so many of their greatest temples under the portuguese....they were not even educated on it or they forgot about it....or worst chose to ignore it in their delusion.

They were all so indoctrinated that they forget about Thirukonamalai koneswarar (mentioned so reverently in our ancient hymns)...was it the sinhala buddhists that did that?...even at times of warring rival kings that were both Hindu and Buddhist? No one bothered to ask why two people's living together so long suddenly changed in such short space of time....how they just went with the flow of the river of hate and ignorance unflinchingly like good sheep. No concept of empathy from either side and like Khrushchev said, it was like blind moles meeting and they started to mutually annihilate.

A very horrendously sad sequence of events and totally unnecessary. The cost can never be counted. I can only hope enough people have learned the lessons.
 
.
Where I got this was from pro-Tiger Tamil nationalist writers who were critical of the Buddhist monks roles in fanning the flames of majoritarian supremacy. It doesn't have to be a legitimate grievance. But the fact that one of the parties in the conflict (or their propagandists) believed that there is a religious element to it, and your admission too that there indeed existed a Sinhala Buddhist Nationalism (yes, even if it did after European colonialism) does indicate there was a religious element to the conflict. It may or may not have gotten blurred later and evolved into a purely language-centric conflict, given how the LTTE leadership was mostly Marxist/atheist and SL govt., being a democratically elected secular govt., cannot have any religious affiliation. But are you denying that there never existed a Buddhist supremacist view promoted by the monks? What about Dharmapala's views?
Religious elements started appearing years after the war started and there were many Christians in the LTTE and many Hindu Tamils supporting the government.
And when you talk about how Mahavamsa praises Elara (or Ellalan), it also does justify the war on Tamils by Duttagamani, does it not? It isn't even about whether Mahavamsa was good or bad. But whether Mahavamsa used by Sinhalese nationalists to assume their superiority or not? And if they did, wasn't there a religious element to it?

Look here. I am not saying that the SL govt. was waging a crusade against the Tamil Tigers or that the Tamil Tigers fought for the supremacy of Hinduism. All I am saying is that some of the seeds of the conflict also included Buddhist supremacist beliefs. They could have fizzled out. But they were there.

The Mahavansa never says anything about waging war against Tamils.,Only against Elara. Tamils fought on both sides. Sri Lankan Kings had Hindu Tamil queens ,Tamil ministers etc. Modern day Sri Lankan Tamils are mostly descendants of those invasions ,Mercenaries that came to fight on the Sri Lankan side or Tamil merchants that settled here. There was no discrimination against them
 
Last edited:
.

Latest posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom