Lankan Tamils to break coconuts for Hillary

[Joe Shearer]

Tamils should just go back to Tamil Nadu in India.

Some allowance can be made for rank ignorance, but do try to educate yourself. This is not a forum where only one nationality posts.

The Jaffna Tamils are known to have been there for the last 2,000 years, some authorities say more. It is possible that they were in the island earlier than the Sinhala, who have an origin myth of immigrating from Bengal or Kalinga.

Maybe your advice should have been to the Sinhala: to go back to Kalinga. It would have been just as insensitive, and just as ignorant as the statement that you did make.

Please take the trouble to learn these small things before you comment.

China should use her hyper power influence to do so

After all according to pdf Chinese Sri Lanka is Chinese ally now and will allow China to do anything against India

You should have just told him the facts, and let him figure out what a ridiculous statement he had made.

In general, they have done nothing but kill, destroy, steal, murder and massacre. Not happy with Tamil Nadu which is twice the size of Sri Lanka they invaded the island and are trying to steal 2/3 of the coastline and 1/3 of the land area for less than 12% of island's population.

You too need to bone up on your own history. It is the Sinhala who have claims to having immigrated. Not just the Tamils.

******* and ********** of Sri Lanka

A totally uncalled for and sweeping generalisation.

You need to read about the abrupt conversion of a multi-cultural country into a majority-dominated and oppressive caricature, soon after independence. It is shocking that these comments are made without the slightest knowledge or background of the situation.

when i thought of Sri Lanka and its minority problems, the divided island of Cyprus immediately came to mind.

i believe similar clandestine foreign state-sanctioned support and conspiracies exists

My humble request is that you cease to think in such global political categories and learn the specifics of the situation first. It is stupid, downright stupid, not to mention odiously condescending, to compare the situation to the situation in Cyprus. Both are difficult and extremely complicated. Your comment about state-sanctioned support and conspiracies might raise eyebrows in several quarters.

@Sinan @T-123456

Tamils are the natives of Lanka (ex Nagas . Yaksas etc ) If any one should go back it should be the Sinhalas, who colonised Lanka around 1000 yrs from present Bangladesh. The island was usurped from the native queen by Sinhala thugs banished from their Bangladesh homeland .

Apply the scenario to Singapore - Chinese majority asking Singapore Malay minority go back to Malaysia



if you think its India , you be disappointed , India's support is with Buddhist Sinhalas - due to Aryan racial - cultural similarities. India is anti Tamil, the fight has been always between Dravidian Tamil and Aryan Indians/Sinhala coalition. FYI, Tamilnadu was the first state to fight for secession from India

Thank you for the first sensible post on the subject, although I don't think much of your racist partitioning

Being from Bengal, as the Sinhala claim to be, you might say that I have a vested interest, more than other north Indians, in supporting the Sinhala. But that isn't a good enough reason not to state the bare truth.

Tamils are natives of T***** Nadu, not Sri Lanka. They have nothing to show for any 'civilisation' in the island. They are thieves who invaded the island and are now trying to claim large parts of it as theirs.

On the contrary, they were contemporary with the Sinhala.

And watch your language.

How can you say Tamils are native to Lanka? They haven't originated in the island itself for sure. Besides If Sinhala's are from Bangladesh. Where are the rest of the Sinhala's in Bangladesh lives now?

Look at the Sinhala language. It is an Aryan language, there in Sri Lanka after a few thousand kilometres, a few thousand square miles filled with Telugu, Kannada, Tulu, Tamil, Kodava, Malayalam and some other smaller Dravidian languages. Unless you believe that parachutes were invented in 2500 BC, there is no escaping the evidence that the Sinhala came from parts where Aryan languages had spread. That is India from the Punjab through to Assam, and down to the Narmada river, roughly speaking.

We don't claim that the Sinhala are from Bangladesh, you do. So why don't you ask yourselves that question? Why do we need to prove or disprove YOUR origin myth?

are you ashamed to admit your Bangla history ? I have debunked your racist Sinhala distorted history on numerous occasions (refer Mahavamsa ) There's no need for Tamils to invade as they were the natives unlike thugs banished from their homeland in Vanga - Bangla

ABOUT 10,000 YEARS AGO INDIA & SRI LANKA WERE CONNECTED BY LAND
https://www.geni.com/discussions/113230



you should start by asking where are Lanka's 'natives' Yakkas , Nagas, Veddas ? What was their original language, culture , religion etc



http://mahavamsa.org/2008/05/princess-vanga-sinhabahu/

The land connection is debatable.

The Sinhalese didn't come from anywhere. The identity, language and the people originated entirely in Sri Lanka. You will not find anything Sinhalese in the landmass that is India. Because the Sinhalese are native to Sri Lanka. It's the Sinhalese who give Sri Lanka its uniqueness.

The Tamils on the other hand are remnants of invasions to the island. They have nothing to show for any ancient civilization in the island. They are simply trying to steal Sinhalese land and claim it as theirs. The Tamils have contributed nothing but death and destruction to the island.

But they got taught a lesson. Just like in the past.

The trouble is that your jingoism is clashing with your cultural narrative.

It is no one but the Sinhala who claim that they came from outside, from Bengal or perhaps Kalinga, not the people of Bengal or of Kalinga. As for their getting taught a lesson in the past, until Duttu Gamini, Sri Lanka was under Tamil rule.

 

[HeinzG]

The Jaffna Tamils are known to have been there for the last 2,000 years, some authorities say more. It is possible that they were in the island earlier than the Sinhala, who have an origin myth of immigrating from Bengal or Kalinga.

There are no evidence like such. Not even Cholas has acknowledged this so called Tamil Kingdom in Jaffna that existed for 2000 years.

At least Sinhalese have a myth of arrival. But Jaffna Tamils don't even have that. That is another clear evidence for the recent origins of Jaffna Tamils.

You too need to bone up on your own history. It is the Sinhala who have claims to having immigrated. Not just the Tamils.

There is no claim of Sinhalese had migrated. Only the Vijaya and his clan has migrated. They are not Sinhalese.

Being from Bengal, as the Sinhala claim to be, you might say that I have a vested interest, more than other north Indians, in supporting the Sinhala. But that isn't a good enough reason not to state the bare truth.

What happened to the Sinhalese who lived in Bengal? As a Bengali have you got anything to say?

 

[Joe Shearer]

There are no evidence like such. Not even Cholas has acknowledged this so called Tamil Kingdom in Jaffna that existed for 2000 years.

The evidence, ironically, is primarily Sinhala.

At least Sinhalese have a myth of arrival. But Jaffna Tamils don't even have that. That is another clear evidence for the recent origins of Jaffna Tamils.

Read your own annals. There are records of Sinhala efforts at achieving freedom. Sinhala history is laden with examples. I can only conclude that you know nothing about your own history and culture. A Sinhala would; there are other ethnicities who would not know.

There is no claim of Sinhalese had migrated. Only the Vijaya and his clan has migrated. They are not Sinhalese.

They are represented as the bearers of culture and civilisation. They are supposed to have injected the Aryan language into Sri Lanka.

What happened to the Sinhalese who lived in Bengal? As a Bengali have you got anything to say?

Of course! The original inhabitants continued, the emigrants carried with them memories of their original homeland. The Parsis know they came from Iran; the Iranian hardly knows about Parsis, at best, what they do know is about their own Zoroastrians. The Turks of central Asia know nothing about the Nizam's family in Hyderabad; that family knows that they are originally Turkish.

It should be useful for you to remember that Bengali is an Aryan language, just like Sinhala.

 

[HeinzG]

Look at the Sinhala language. It is an Aryan language, there in Sri Lanka after a few thousand kilometres, a few thousand square miles filled with Telugu, Kannada, Tulu, Tamil, Kodava, Malayalam and some other smaller Dravidian languages. Unless you believe that parachutes were invented in 2500 BC, there is no escaping the evidence that the Sinhala came from parts where Aryan languages had spread. That is India from the Punjab through to Assam, and down to the Narmada river, roughly speaking.

Sinhala is a based on the Pali language which is ultimately based on the Sanskrit.

It is said to have brought to Sri Lanka with Buddhism and along with Buddhism got the royal patronage and flourished in the island. There is no magic of how Sinhalese language got Aryan origins. If royal patronage is giving to Tamil it sure had become the state language.

We don't claim that the Sinhala are from Bangladesh, you do. So why don't you ask yourselves that question? Why do we need to prove or disprove YOUR origin myth?

We don't claim it either. But it was you who has brought it up here. Therefore it is your duty to explain why it is related to the discussion.

It is no one but the Sinhala who claim that they came from outside, from Bengal or perhaps Kalinga, not the people of Bengal or of Kalinga. As for their getting taught a lesson in the past, until Duttu Gamini, Sri Lanka was under Tamil rule.

Sinhalese has not came from anywhere else. Their culture has originated in the tiny island of Sri Lanka.

I think the lesson was taught to the rest of the world. Tamils, Bengalis, Malays, Portuguese, Dutch and English all tried to conquer this land by force but all were repulsed by Sinhalese. Only treachery could make us slaves for 100s of years.

So anyone who invades this land is driven out with heavy losses.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Do you believe Mahanwansa? First tell me that.

How can you distinguish the culture of 10,000 year old people as Tamils? Any source to back your claim up?

LOL.

2000 to 2500, not 10000.

You didn't answer my question even in the last time. Where are the Sinhalese in Bangladesh? What happened to their homeland in Bangladesh?

It is right there where it was. The Sinhala were emigres from Bengal. They carried the racial memories; the people who did not leave can hardly be expected to remember that some families set out on a great adventure. There are hundreds of thousands of people of Afghan (=Pashtun, specifically) extraction in India; do their counterparts in Afghanistan even know that they left?

Yakka, Naga, Deva and Veddhas had a primitive culture they worshiped rocks and trees and deities. There is no evidence to suggest they are Tamils,

You must learn - this is very important, so please pay attention - to read carefully. Or just read.

The reference was to races who pre-dated BOTH Tamils and Sinhala. Not that they were themselves Tamil.

So you take it as granted?

Not the Tamils. Nobody but the Sinhala.

You have problems with that, take it up with the Sinhala.

It is a myth. A confirmed myth.

Your myth......

There is no genetic or linguistic connection to suggest Sinhalese came from North India.

An extremely silly statement. The Sinhala language is part of the Aryan languages.

If Sinhalese came from North India, where have they come from? Where are the place that Sinhalese lived in Bangladesh? What happened to them? Please answer these questions.[/quote]

What do you expect, a colony of Sinhala-speaking aboriginals in Bengal? The emigrants from Bengal took their language and emigrated. Since then, Bengali - and the other languages descended from Magadhi Prakrit - have evolved enormously. Do you seriously expect to see, for instance, people speaking Lithuanian in the vicinity of the Caspian Sea? That is the route that the Lithuanian language is supposed to have taken.

Only the Vijaya and his clan came from India. They were not Sinhalese. They intermingled with the exisiting local tribes which had obviously came from South India close to 30000 years ago and had developed independent from the mainland tribes. The combination of the Indian and the local tribes are what constitute to the Sinhalese race.

There is no known migration 30,000 years ago from south India, unless you are referring to the original migration out of Africa.

Lankan envoy is mislead by the popular myths. He's not a academic but a statesman. He has no wide knowledge of the history of the Sinhalese.

Are you an academic? A Sinhala academic? Who gave you the authority to certify the Lankan envoy?

Sinhala is a based on the Pali language which is ultimately based on the Sanskrit.

EVERY Aryan language in north India is based on Prakrit, which, contrary to the garbled impressions of the ill-read, was contemporaneous to Sanskrit, not a descendant. Pali was a sacerdotal language.

It is said to have brought to Sri Lanka with Buddhism and along with Buddhism got the royal patronage and flourished in the island. There is no magic of how Sinhalese language got Aryan origins. If royal patronage is giving to Tamil it sure had become the state language.

You do remember that Sanskrit and Prakrit on the one hand, and Tamil on the other hand, were contemporaneous.

We don't claim it either. But it was you who has brought it up here. Therefore it is your duty to explain why it is related to the discussion.

Your myth, your culture, your narration, and WE have to explain it to YOU? What's next?Do we need to explain Dutch history to Burgers?

Sinhalese has not came from anywhere else. Their culture has originated in the tiny island of Sri Lanka.

Sinhalese the language clearly came from outside. Unless it is your theory that the Aryan languages all originated in Sri Lanka. In which case, please step up to the dais and accept your DPhil, and your Nobel.

The culture was obviously rooted in the island.

There is a distinction.

I think the lesson was taught to the rest of the world. Tamils, Bengalis, Malays, Portuguese, Dutch and English all tried to conquer this land by force but all were repulsed by Sinhalese. Only treachery could make us slaves for 100s of years.

At different times, yes.

So anyone who invades this land is driven out with heavy losses.

What a pathetically jingoist statement and how laughable. You didn't drive out the Jaffna Tamils. You didn't drive out the Portuguese, just survived in the highlands. You didn't drive out either them or the Dutch, the English did that. And finally you didn't drive out the English, they left.

 

[HeinzG]

The evidence, ironically, is primarily Sinhala.

So why the hell Tamils come up with a claim that don't even have evidence to support it? You want us to give them part of our country just because they want it solely for themselves.

Read your own annals. There are records of Sinhala efforts at achieving freedom. Sinhala history is laden with examples. I can only conclude that you know nothing about your own history and culture. A Sinhala would; there are other ethnicities who would not know.

What are you talking about?

They are represented as the bearers of culture and civilisation. They are supposed to have injected the Aryan language into Sri Lanka.

No they are not represented as to the bearers of culture and civilization. Rather they are viewed as plain invaders.

Of course! The original inhabitants continued, the emigrants carried with them memories of their original homeland. The Parsis know they came from Iran; the Iranian hardly knows about Parsis, at best, what they do know is about their own Zoroastrians. The Turks of central Asia know nothing about the Nizam's family in Hyderabad; that family knows that they are originally Turkish.

It should be useful for you to remember that Bengali is an Aryan language, just like Sinhala.

So the original emigrants were Bengalis; if they emigrated, not Sinhalese. That is my sole point.

 

[Joe Shearer]

If they came from North India they would be wheatish colour instead of the black skinned. They are not North Indians. They are probably some aboriginal race like the Sentinelese from the Andaman Islands who adopted an Indian language and religion.

Genetically, no. They have some genes from north India, many more from south India.

As for colour, even Afghans settle in India from roughly 1100 AD are several shades darker than their counterparts in Afghanistan.

They do not speak just any old Indian language, their language is linguistically part of the Aryan language family. No Aryan language could have leap-frogged the entire Dravidian belt.

So why the hell Tamils come up with a claim that don't even have evidence to support it? You want us to give them part of our country just because they want it solely for themselves.

There's tons of evidence that supports their contention, but I don't expect those not familiar with their own history and culture to know that. The evidence is thick on the ground. No academician of any worth would have any difficulty with the proposition.

I obviously don't expect people posting on PDF to be academicians.

What are you talking about?

If you are Sinhala, you should know all this. If you don't know all this, one wonders.

No they are not represented as to the bearers of culture and civilization. Rather they are viewed as plain invaders.

Yes, from the days of Sir John Kotelawala. Look him up and his destructive influence on Sri Lankan politics.

So the original emigrants were Bengalis; if they emigrated, not Sinhalese. That is my sole point.

No, they were not.

I will say this once only; please try to follow:

1. There was nothing called Bengali in 2500 BC; there was Prakrit, Magadhi Prakrit (the western Indian languages were derived from Sauraseni Prakrit);
2. There was no region known as Bengal; until several centuries ago, the area today known as Indian Bengal and Bangladesh were divided into
   1. Harikela
   2. Samatata
   3. Vanga (after which the others got named and from which came the common name Banga, hence Bangla, hence Bangladesh
   4. Rarh
   5. Varendra
3. In the epics, they were known as Anga (Bihar), Vanga (more or less Vanga above) and Kalinga. It is not known whether Vijaya and his companions came from Vanga or from Kalinga; the two regions were fairly close together.
4. In foreign geographies and histories, the region was known as the land of the Prasii (from Sanskrit/Prakrit prachya, east) and the Icthyophagi (fish-eaters; guess who?)

We cannot pinpoint the point of departure of these emigrants; one possibility is the former great port of Tamralipti, modern day Tamluk, roughly half-way between Kalinga and Vanga, situated in Rarh. Today that great seaport is many miles inland, surrounded by sand-dunes and mud-flats which are now cultivated extensively.

Trying to spot their exact point of departure is more or less equivalent to trying to find out where the Langobards were in say 1500 BC.

 

[ohmrlobalobayeh]

Some allowance can be made for rank ignorance, but do try to educate yourself. This is not a forum where only one nationality posts.

The Jaffna Tamils are known to have been there for the last 2,000 years, some authorities say more. It is possible that they were in the island earlier than the Sinhala, who have an origin myth of immigrating from Bengal or Kalinga.

Maybe your advice should have been to the Sinhala: to go back to Kalinga. It would have been just as insensitive, and just as ignorant as the statement that you did make.

Please take the trouble to learn these small things before you comment.



You should have just told him the facts, and let him figure out what a ridiculous statement he had made.



You too need to bone up on your own history. It is the Sinhala who have claims to having immigrated. Not just the Tamils.



A totally uncalled for and sweeping generalisation.

You need to read about the abrupt conversion of a multi-cultural country into a majority-dominated and oppressive caricature, soon after independence. It is shocking that these comments are made without the slightest knowledge or background of the situation.



My humble request is that you cease to think in such global political categories and learn the specifics of the situation first. It is stupid, downright stupid, not to mention odiously condescending, to compare the situation to the situation in Cyprus. Both are difficult and extremely complicated. Your comment about state-sanctioned support and conspiracies might raise eyebrows in several quarters.

@Sinan @T-123456



Thank you for the first sensible post on the subject, although I don't think much of your racist partitioning

Being from Bengal, as the Sinhala claim to be, you might say that I have a vested interest, more than other north Indians, in supporting the Sinhala. But that isn't a good enough reason not to state the bare truth.



On the contrary, they were contemporary with the Sinhala.

And watch your language.



Look at the Sinhala language. It is an Aryan language, there in Sri Lanka after a few thousand kilometres, a few thousand square miles filled with Telugu, Kannada, Tulu, Tamil, Kodava, Malayalam and some other smaller Dravidian languages. Unless you believe that parachutes were invented in 2500 BC, there is no escaping the evidence that the Sinhala came from parts where Aryan languages had spread. That is India from the Punjab through to Assam, and down to the Narmada river, roughly speaking.

We don't claim that the Sinhala are from Bangladesh, you do. So why don't you ask yourselves that question? Why do we need to prove or disprove YOUR origin myth?



The land connection is debatable.



The trouble is that your jingoism is clashing with your cultural narrative.

It is no one but the Sinhala who claim that they came from outside, from Bengal or perhaps Kalinga, not the people of Bengal or of Kalinga. As for their getting taught a lesson in the past, until Duttu Gamini, Sri Lanka was under Tamil rule.

Yayayaya n r u saying i have to let you dictate on what my personal opinion i should be- regardless of how well-informed i am or whether there's even any evidence of what i suspect there is?

If so, then whats the point of a forum for discussions? U cant brush me aside n tell me what to think n not think- just becos my opinion is different from yours.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Sri Lankans are people of all kinds of colors and shape. Even if Swedes were to move to Sri Lanka and stay there for thousands of years, they too would look like Sri Lankans after the lapse of so many years. The human skin adapts to its environment and climatic conditions. It is no coincidence that dark skinned people are all clustered around the equator.

You don't need to stretch too much. Just think of the Scandinavian descendants who ruled Sicily. The Hautevilles, from whom Robert Guiscard was descended, contemporaries of the Plantagenets, closely allied in ethnic terms. Or Turks or Persians or Afghans in India.

Yayayaya n r u saying have to you dictate on what my personal opinion is- regardless of how well-informed im or whether there's any evidence of what i suspect there is?

If so, then whats the point of a forum for discussions? U cant brush me aside n tell me what to think n not think- just becos my opinion is different from yours.

This is not about opinion; this is about knowledge. I brush you aside (what you have quoted was addressed to someone else, not to you in the first place) because of ignorance and arrogance in not recognising your ignorance, not because our opinions differ.

And, if you want to discuss something with you, stop making animal noises.

Just face it , the early Tamils were in Sri Lanka only because the British brought them them to work on the cash crop plantations there.

However, as can be seen from the fair wordings in the slides(e.g Tamils were driven out of their homeland- their 'homeland' in Sri Lanka, that is), our textbooks painted a neutral picture of Sri Lanka's situation- siding with neither the Sinhalese nor the Tamils favorably. It is instead, heavily focused on the cause and the consequences- so that Singaporeans can learn to avoid what happened in Sri Lanka

Would you be offended if I called you a nincompoop and an ill-read idiot, and if I said that your Singapore text-books are singularly stupid?

There are two types of Tamils on Sri Lanka, the Jaffna Tamils of thousands of years ago, and the plantation Tamils, who were imported by the British only in the past two hundred years.

It is sad that you have the gall and presumption to challenge students of south Asian history based on your reading of a badly-written school textbook.

Sad to see Sri Lankan disowning 12% of their population. They are as much citizen of Sri Lanka as anyone else.

Ignorance. Racism. Bigotry. Nothing very novel.

 

[HeinzG]

An extremely silly statement. The Sinhala language is part of the Aryan languages.

If Sinhalese came from North India, where have they come from? Where are the place that Sinhalese lived in Bangladesh? What happened to them? Please answer these questions.

What do you expect, a colony of Sinhala-speaking aboriginals in Bengal? The emigrants from Bengal took their language and emigrated. Since then, Bengali - and the other languages descended from Magadhi Prakrit - have evolved enormously. Do you seriously expect to see, for instance, people speaking Lithuanian in the vicinity of the Caspian Sea? That is the route that the Lithuanian language is supposed to have taken.[/QUOTE]

So clarify me on this one.

Bengali emigrants according to you emigrated with their language to Sri Lanka and settled. Then how come,

"The oldest Sinhalese Prakrit inscriptions found are from the third to second century BCE following the arrival of Buddhism in Sri Lanka,[6]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinhalese_language

Did they Bengali migrants forgot to write inscriptions till the arrival of Buddhism?

There is no known migration 30,000 years ago from south India, unless you are referring to the original migration out of Africa.

Maybe you don't know that. But that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Are you an academic? A Sinhala academic? Who gave you the authority to certify the Lankan envoy?

I don't take history lessons from statesmen. Maybe you do that. Hence your lack of knowledge on the subject.

Your myth, your culture, your narration, and WE have to explain it to YOU? What's next?Do we need to explain Dutch history to Burgers?

If it is a myth and we don't even claim that happen. Please don't use that argument to back up your claims.

Sinhalese has not immigrated from India. I think you agree with me now.

Sinhalese the language clearly came from outside. Unless it is your theory that the Aryan languages all originated in Sri Lanka. In which case, please step up to the dais and accept your DPhil, and your Nobel.

The roots of the Sinhalese language came from outside. Not the entire language.

What a pathetically jingoist statement and how laughable. You didn't drive out the Jaffna Tamils. You didn't drive out the Portuguese, just survived in the highlands. You didn't drive out either them or the Dutch, the English did that. And finally you didn't drive out the English, they left.

Jaffna Tamils were no needed to be driven out becuase they were brought in by the Dutch as Tobacco planters.

Portuguese was driven out of the island with the help of the Dutch who was brought in by the diplomatic missions of the Sinhalese kings.

Dutch was driven out by the English who in turn couldn't capture the Kandyan Kingdom even with force. They had to resort to conspiracy to capture the Kandyan Kingdom.

 

[Joe Shearer]

This is a stupid joke. I used to have a maid from Sri Lanka when i was a kid and her name was Inoka. I rememebered her complexion was of a different lighter brownish tone than the Tamils in Singapore(who is of the same stock from those in Tamil Nadu and who's complexion were close to charcoal black or very dark brown)

something like this:

Sinhalese women

Tamil women

Local Tamil men and women in Singapore:

Tamil girls in Singapore:

Back to the racism of the Sinhala, who claim to be 'Aryans', a racist claim that has been discredited and abandoned by all reputable ethnographers, and contrary to the modern position that Aryan is a group of languages, not an ethnicity.

Back to the racism that saw (relatively) fairer Sinhala, speaking a 'superior' language, professing a 'superior' religion, as of higher status than darker Tamils, speaking a Dravidian language, professing either Hinduism or Christianity (many of the Jaffna Tamils are Latin Christians - Prabhakaran was a Christian).

Shameful in the original, shameful in the way that it is picked up and misused by the ignorant.

What do you expect, a colony of Sinhala-speaking aboriginals in Bengal? The emigrants from Bengal took their language and emigrated. Since then, Bengali - and the other languages descended from Magadhi Prakrit - have evolved enormously. Do you seriously expect to see, for instance, people speaking Lithuanian in the vicinity of the Caspian Sea? That is the route that the Lithuanian language is supposed to have taken.

So clarify me on this one.

Bengali emigrants according to you emigrated with their language to Sri Lanka and settled. Then how come,

"The oldest Sinhalese Prakrit inscriptions found are from the third to second century BCE following the arrival of Buddhism in Sri Lanka,[6]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinhalese_language

Did they Bengali migrants forgot to write inscriptions till the arrival of Buddhism?

Asoka's inscriptions were stunning precisely because inscriptions (epigraphs) were rare at that time. They were rare as far as pre-Buddhist times were concerned throughout India. Please check it out for yourself. There is no extant epigraph pre-dating the Buddhist era.

So, yes, the migrants, whether Bengali or Kalinga, did not write inscriptions until the arrival of Buddhism.

Precisely so.

Maybe you don't know that. But that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Unfortunately, I do know this.

Genetic studies have shown that south Asia was populated around 40,000 BC

There was an emigration, out of India into the steppes, around 10,000 BC.

Apart from these, nothing disturbed the genetic composition, which settled into two groups called ANI and ASI: Ancestral North Indian, and Ancestral South Indian.

What you said didn't happen.

I don't take history lessons from statesmen. Maybe you do that. Hence your lack of knowledge on the subject.

You are welcome to think so.

For the record, my master was Ashin DasGupta, an Oxford Don who came down and taught us in later life; his teacher was Susobhan Sircar, the famous historian who taught almost all eminent east Indian historians, and the father of the renowned Sumit Sircar; his teacher was Kuruvilla Zachariah. My own grandfather was Professor of History in Dhaka University. Both my father and I were students of Presidency College (now University), in History, and won distinctions before we started our careers, both of us in government service before moving to teaching.

If your impertinence were not so laughable, it might have been irritating.

If it is a myth and we don't even claim that happen. Please don't use that argument to back up your claims.

Sinhalese has not immigrated from India. I think you agree with me now.

We must then conclude that it swam across the seas from Greece, the closest other point where the Aryan languages were to be found, or climbed across the Caucasus, crossed Turkey and took to swimming again, from Armenia. One last possibility is (further) swimming from Iran.

The roots of the Sinhalese language came from outside. Not the entire language.

Do we now have to drag you kicking and screaming through linguistics? How many academic disciplines do you wish to brutalise in the pursuit of your jingoism?

Jaffna Tamils were no needed to be driven out becuase they were brought in by the Dutch as Tobacco planters.

<sigh>

Colonialist wrong - British, or English, not Dutch.
Crop wrong - Tea, not Tobacco.
Location wrong - Kandy and the uplands, not Jaffna.

Why do I have suffer the ignorance of idiots?

Portuguese was driven out of the island with the help of the Dutch who was brought in by the diplomatic missions of the Sinhalese kings.

Dutch was driven out by the English who in turn couldn't capture the Kandyan Kingdom even with force. They had to resort to conspiracy to capture the Kandyan Kingdom.

Right.

It wasn't a fair fight. Got you.

 

[HeinzG]

They do not speak just any old Indian language, their language is linguistically part of the Aryan language family. No Aryan language could have leap-frogged the entire Dravidian belt.

They could have come by boat if they wanted. No needing of leap frogging.

There's tons of evidence that supports their contention, but I don't expect those not familiar with their own history and culture to know that. The evidence is thick on the ground. No academician of any worth would have any difficulty with the proposition.

I obviously don't expect people posting on PDF to be academicians.

Give me one evidence, just one.

No, they were not.

I will say this once only; please try to follow:

1. There was nothing called Bengali in 2500 BC; there was Prakrit, Magadhi Prakrit (the western Indian languages were derived from Sauraseni Prakrit);
2. There was no region known as Bengal; until several centuries ago, the area today known as Indian Bengal and Bangladesh were divided into
   1. Harikela
   2. Samatata
   3. Vanga (after which the others got named and from which came the common name Banga, hence Bangla, hence Bangladesh
   4. Rarh
   5. Varendra
3. In the epics, they were known as Anga (Bihar), Vanga (more or less Vanga above) and Kalinga. It is not known whether Vijaya and his companions came from Vanga or from Kalinga; the two regions were fairly close together.
4. In foreign geographies and histories, the region was known as the land of the Prasii (from Sanskrit/Prakrit prachya, east) and the Icthyophagi (fish-eaters; guess who?)

We cannot pinpoint the point of departure of these emigrants; one possibility is the former great port of Tamralipti, modern day Tamluk, roughly half-way between Kalinga and Vanga, situated in Rarh. Today that great seaport is many miles inland, surrounded by sand-dunes and mud-flats which are now cultivated extensively.

Trying to spot their exact point of departure is more or less equivalent to trying to find out where the Langobards were in say 1500 BC.

Ok they weren't have being Bengalis. But we call them "X" group. They sure wasn't Sinhalese.

If they were Sinhalese. What happened to the rest of the group called Sinhalese who lived in those original Indian lands?

 

[Peaceful Civilian]

Stupid people. Killary has killed so many dark skinned people in Libya, Trump, although a nutty narcissistic egomaniac, has been harmless in comparison. But it doesn't matter anyway, if the deep state wants war against the dark skinned, both of them will execute.

Hillary has nothing to do with libya. This is france which attached them first and used state of art Rafale fighters there. While, U.S.A want peace in the world, but rising terrorism and extremism is big threat for peace in the world.

 

[HeinzG]

Unfortunately, I do know this.

Genetic studies have shown that south Asia was populated around 40,000 BC

There was an emigration, out of India into the steppes, around 10,000 BC.

Apart from these, nothing disturbed the genetic composition, which settled into two groups called ANI and ASI: Ancestral North Indian, and Ancestral South Indian.

What you said didn't happen.

Then care to explain how this happened.

The island appears to have been colonized by the Balangoda Man (named after the area where his remains were discovered) prior to 34,000 BP. They have been identified as a group of Mesolithic hunter gatherers who lived in caves. Pahiyangala Cave has yielded the earliest evidence (at c. 34,000 BP) of anatomically modern humans in South Asia.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory_of_Sri_Lanka

We must then conclude that it swam across the seas from Greece, the closest other point where the Aryan languages were to be found, or climbed across the Caucasus, crossed Turkey and took to swimming again, from Armenia. One last possibility is (further) swimming from Iran.

Why swimming. Aryan Language would have obviously come from a boat from India along with Buddhism.

<sigh>

Colonialist wrong - British, or English, not Dutch.
Crop wrong - Tea, not Tobacco.
Location wrong - Kandy and the uplands, not Jaffna.

Why do I have suffer the ignorance of idiots?

You obviously don't know the history of Jaffna.

The "assertive" situation of the people of Jaffna commenced with the "inferiorisation" and exclusion by the newly arrived Vellalas, who were brought in by the Dutch for expanding the tobacco cultivation in the 18th century, of the local population of Jaffna peninsula, the majority of whom then were Sinhalese. The Dutch even encouraged the newly arrived Jaffna Tamils to write a chronicle of Jaffna, and they began with none other than the Vijaya of the Sinhalese legend! The situation reached its peak towards the end of British colonial phase with the "Fifty: Fifty" demand of early 1940s.

http://www.island.lk/2006/04/01/satmag1.html

 

[Götterdämmerung]

Hillary has nothing to do with libya. This is france which attached them first and used state of art Rafale fighters there. While, U.S.A want peace in the world, but rising terrorism and extremism is big threat for peace in the world.

ORLy … Heaven … the entrainment works really well with low IQ people.