First of all just read the Kandyan convention. It is irrelevant to this discussion that K.C was terminated after 3 years. What matter to this discussion is the words written in K.C and what meant of them.
There was no one to object for the K.C. was because there was no legitimacy to Tamils or any one to do so. K.C. was a legitimate contract between two parties. I bet even you agree. If Tamils were the legitimate rulers on Jaffna then Brits, Dutch, French or Portuguese would not have any need to sign an agreement with the Sinhalese king. Nor there is any evidence that Tamil kingdom passed it's authority to the Sinhalese kingdom.
The lowlands were transferred to Brits from Dutch and also from French. However both Dutch and French inherited those lands through written agreements with the King of Kandy. Both AFAIK in 1765 and in 1780s. Which reinforce my point further that the whole country was the property of the Sinhalese king and the national language was only Sinhalese. Therefore how can Dutch, French or Portuguese inherit any land through K.C.?
Read and comprehend…
The kandyan convention was put to disuse in 1818 and after that many many changes has happened in SL. Kandyan convention will have significance as a source of history but that is not a document to base our future policying, for the simple reason SL has undergone many changes that cannot be undone. It was the attempt to go back from 1815 that made problems and ultimately disaster for SL.
The Kandyan convention was actually between kandyan kingdom and brits. The low lands do not come under this even if kandyan nobels thought so. Kandyan kings did not have power over these region though they thought they were the owners of it. Brits would not have cared to amend that because whatever they wanted was whole island under them.
You cannot say tamils have no legitimacy. According to today’s ideals none of the kingdoms in ancient history will be legitimate because almost all kingdoms were started by people who came from different regions. Just because Sinhala kingdoms did not have capacity to secure their northern front you cannot dismiss a 400 year old tamil kingdom. But we can straighten the history by proving eelam theory as wrong. But we cannot dismiss a tamil kingdom that existed 400 years.
The official language of the court was the national language not any regional language.
and where have I said otherwise?
Tamil didn't have the legitimate right to be equal with Sinhala language in Sri Lanka. It was done on the basis of morality and Indian intervention.
so historical realities are overtaken by current realities. That is what I have been telling from the beginning dumbo.
When they rejected to accept Sinhalese as the national language in 1956.
They did not reject that. Where did they reject? They asked for equal status for tamil language.
It's not me who are reluctant to acknowledge the wrongs.
Of course a man who is cheering and happy about killing minorities and burning their property is the one to point at others about wrongs..
It's Jaffna kingdom was a vassal kingdom to the Kotte kingdom just as Seethawaka, Kandy and Raigama was vassal kingdoms to the Kotte.
That was for a brief period of time for the nth time idiot.
It had being going under Sinhalese banner till 1948. Was there any problem?
Kandyan regime had gone under Sinhalese banner not Jaffna kingdom. Then certain parts of SL went under dutch and portugese banner and finally under English banner.
If you are trying to bring the childish argument that meaning of Ceylon was in fact Sinhalese, I can only pity you.
The idea of how 75% Sinhalese country cannot be called a Sinhala land comes with secularism. Secularism is actually a failed ideology. It is proven in India, Briton and even in America. If not sure ask our Indian member.
First learn what secularism is. “
Secularism is the principle of the separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the state from religious institutions and religious dignitaries” Secularism does not mean multi culture or multi religious. It means religious nut cases cannot poke into policing matters.
Even a country with an ethnic or religious identity can be secular. For example Britian gives prominence to its Anglican background where kings and queens are coronated in church. But it is a secular country. Like most things problem with you is you open your mouth without knowing anything.
Brition and US are secular countries when it comes to policing. Almost all successful countries are secular countries. I don’t see US, Brition or even India in chaos because of secularism. But what is practices as secularism in India has problems because it is not properly implemented but it will in the future.
Yes there are current realities and there are historical realities. We cannot just neglect historical realities. If we do that we fail in dealing with current realities. Current realities are based on history. Without that there is no future. Understand?
current realities are not based on history most of the time matto. You yourself said because of indian intervention tamil was made a national language. Where did your historical realities (rather incorrect) went against current realities? The reality that your irrational mind cannot grasp is historical matters are insignificant at the face of current realities. When geo politics are against us (which is a part of current reality) and social cohesion is needed for the advancement of SL and internal stability your so called historical reality can be shoved in where sun doesn’t shine.
Then what ideology do you accept?
An exclusive Tamil homeland?
That is what I have already been telling. The problem with the likes of you is lack or comprehension ability if I am to put it in a nice way. Those are two extreme positions. Both are harmful to the country and unreasonable. It is wrong to say SL is exclusively Sinhala and eelam theory is wrong as well. But there is a middle ground.
That is what I am saying.
Indeed it is wrong to say. However what is actually wrong is that thinking Tamils had an independent homeland for 1000 of years.
Who thought that tamils had an independent homeland for 1000s of years?
Sri Lanka's official stance is to being a Socialist state. You and I both know it is not true in practice. The same is applicable to India or any other country also. I do understand that India is basing it self on the idea of being secular but that ideology is fading faster. India is as always identified as the land of the Hindus.
1. Secular and religious identity are two different things. Don’t make decisions going by the radical hindutva fellows here who are out of their senses now after Modi’s victory.
2. Yes multi religious tag for india is much like socialist tag in SL. The purpose of the multi religious tag in India is diplomacy in international scale and stabilization in an internal scale. You need rationality to understand these. Don’t wear out your brain thinking about it. And I am saying the same. SL too needs a multi religious identity for the same two reasons. It does not change who we are as a country in character which is Sinhala and Buddhist.
Ok. I'm at cross roads here. Define the national character and identity. I think both are same.
There is something called google. Use it I can’t help you every time.
This is very lame excuse. By doing that you are comparing the Tamil subjects of Jaffna kingdom to mere brainless zombies or robots. Don't say there was not any one who can stand on behalf on Tamils. Things won't happen like that. No group of people are left leaderless. The real answer is that the Tamils had no authority to the land and they didn't consider it theirs. The authority was with the Sinhalese king of the Kotte. If not why didn't Portuguese turned to the Tamil rulers in Tamilnadu? Those were much closer to the Jaffna kingdom in both distance and ethnicity.
Brits signed a legal contract with the Dutch which signed a similar legal contract with the Sinhalese king. But in 1796 Dutch has lost it's claim to the Sinhalese lands through their contract with the Brits. The Brits made a contract with Sinhalese in 1815 and they ended it in 1948 reinstating the Sinhalese claim to the land prior to the agreement with the Portuguese. Based on those agreements no one can say no Sinhalese kingdom existed or anyone has any authority to the Sri Lanka other than Sinhalese king or President of Sri Lanka.
Ohh the love for the tamils…andenava…
Yes it is a lame excuse because it used your same excuse regarding kandyan kingdom.
The reason Tamils had no authority was because their king was defeated and killed by the Portugese. They could not over power the Portugese. Do you really think Portugese would be wasting their time on contemplating with whom they sign the pact whether it is the SI or kandyan king? Kandyan king did bring his war to Jaffna as well.
Because Sinhalese was the national language of the country until Brits conquer it.
except Jaffna kingdom….and no it was not a vessel state of Sinhalese by the time brits conquer Kandy. The Jaffna kingdom operated much independently.
So government cannot sponsor settlement in so called Tamil areas? Settling Sinhalese in Wanni forests would Sinhalize the country? What a wonderful theory. You comment imply that government should not have to do things in those so called Tamil areas. Who would have the authority in those areas then?
I personally support settling Sinhala people in the dry zone for practical reasons. But my point is the government should have done that minimizing resistance rather than acting like a thug.
That Jaffna kingdom was independent for a breif period too.
400 years is not a mere brief period. Even before that Jaffna region always passed between SI tamil kings and Sinhala kings. So that must have given to a tamil presence. The thing is we cannot erase this presence and create a Sinhala identity for all.
Sinhalese are the majority and it is not practical to let them learn Tamil. More over many Sinhalese won't be using Tamils for their life because the chance of interacting with a Tamil person is smaller.
However being the minority Tamils have a clear advantage in learning Sinhalese. They are the ones that will inevitably have to interact with the Sinhalese. Therefore it is more rational that Tamils should learn Sinhalese. Moreover Tamils would get a clear strategic advantage in learning Sinhalese that it will enable them to work in any part of the country without much trouble. Also it is more practical to teach Tamils Sinhalese than the vice verse due to the numbers.
Where did I suggest that Sinhalese should learn tamil? This is a classic example of how much you lack comprehension. I replied to you in a certain context relating to your comment on reducing gap. Actually I treat gover’s trilingual policy as a useless one.
Of course more practical way would have been tamils learning Sinhala, which was happening in pre 56 before Sinhala stupid leaders made a mess of everything. That is what I am always saying. Had SL leader made both Sinhala and tamil official language and kept English as an official language as well, due to practical necessity tamils would have learnt Sinhala on their own. That trend was already there. It was the forced imposition that made things worse. Just like how TN students learn Hindi because of the obvious advantage of it. As I said before imposition doesn’t work only diplomacy.
Actually it is your government suggesting that Sinhala ppl should learn tamil which is stupid (almost all the things of this gov is stupid, that is a different matter). Had the Sinhala leaders back then were practical this need would not arise. First Sinhala goes to force Sinhala on tamils now Sinhala asks fellow Sinhalese to learn tamil for reconciliation
what a facepalm moment for Sinhala racist idiots!
Ok agree. But still I'm not much convince about the word imposition because words can be bent to suit the agenda.
There is no conspiracy behind this word. It means බලහත්කාරයෙන් දෙයක් පටවනවා. I asked you to use a dictionary because i know i will have to repeat the same point to you and it happens again.
Valid or not the K.C. was a legal document. That is what counts.
what is the point of a invalid legal document? Lets say like this. When you were about to be born your mother bought both girl’s and boys dresses. But now you are a boy. Now that girl’s dresses are not valid anymore even if you like to wear it.
KC is important but in a historical sense. We cannot base our constitution on that.
Indo-Lanka accord was enacted in 1985-1986. I do not know how it has anything to do with this.
Tamil was made an official language by the 13th amendment to the constitution .
If the land is belong to the state. State can do anything in that land. Do you think that if government decided to settle Tamils in Sinhalese areas for any reason it is wrong?
Yes I will treat it as wrong.
What I said was federalism leads to separatism and ultimately to a separate state.
No, that is why US has not separated and india is not (quasi federal). Between I said I do not support federalism. My point was the inaction to implement 13A properly and carrying out a Sinhala majoritarian ideology and supporting BBS would certainly lead SL into a federal state.
Another face palm moment for the Sinhala racist idiots like you
Because North and East is part of Sri Lanka and it is mandatory to have a provincial councils in those provinces. Earlier it was impossible due to the LTTE threat. Moreover it was a good massage to the world that democracy and normalcy has returned to the country.
But provincial councils is an unnecessary foreign intervention ne. In this very forum when I said gover will have to implement 13A, you said gover will not do so and if they attempt to do so you people will drag MR away
but I didn’t hear even the sound of a fart during northern election from your ilk.
Yeah I know you were waiting for LTTE to finish to implement 13A. aney palayan bang yanna.
Then why did MR waited for 5 years to implement 13A?
The reason is idiotic wimal weerawansa and gota dragged the gover from doing so making the gover lose its leverage on north. But MR promised every time to indian gov they will but did not. When commonwealth came indian gover used it as a bait to have elections which SL gov ultimately did.
The reason your ilk always chest thumping here that no devolution is required and will dump 13A is because you have absolutely NO idea about the current realities this country faces. And another example that current realities is what matters and what decides the future.
Because doing that was more rational and right. However Tamil was accepted as the second national language before the 1980s even though it was not legally accepted by the constitution. In 80s it was given the legal states also.
Yes tamil was accepted as second language after many protests and issues had emerged.
On the bold part,
why is it rational? Answer this
Actually I didn't fled. I accepted your point there. However I wanted to ask you how India preserved the togetherness through the constitutional act.
India did not preserved the togetherness by a mere constitutional act. If people in TN took into arms and every one took to streets constitution means nothing. It is the rationality and diplomacy that works.
Even SL has such a law banning separatism in SL constitution. Refer to 6th amendment.
what a joke... and what a joker! entertaining though.. Thats why PDF is interesting, full of character! keep going !
