<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->PART â II
<b>Anti-Mahavamsa movement in Sri Lanka</b>
<b>The humiliation of native Sinhala-Buddhist culture began after1505, until a resistance movement slowly emerged by way of revival of Buddhism in the 1840s-1880s of which the Great Panadura Debate in 1873 was a climax event. </b>An anthropology guru of HLS, Gananath Obeysekara, called this âProtestant Buddhism.â <b>The behavior of Christian colonial masters and their local supporters, the Christian-born/converted local elites, adversely affected the Sinhala-Buddhist heritage in the island, </b>but one cannot say there was an organized anti-Mahavamsa movement in Ceylon at that time. White rulers and white archeologists did not have any reason to distort islandâs history. But with the introduction of universal franchise and the territorial representation to the State Council in 1931, replacing communal representation which began in 1832, the majority Sinhala-Buddhists gained voting strength after 450 years of discrimination and oppression.
<b>When the Legislative Council debated the motion presented by a Hindu Tamil (P. Ramanathan) to make Vesak a public holiday in the colonial Ceylon (1885), with the backing of an American Olcott, the Sinhala representative A. L. de Alwis, a Christian, opposed it. </b>The Governor Gordon who was for the motion said he was embarrassed by de Alwisâ behavior. Colombo ruling families opposed the grant universal franchise, free education, labour rights and other welfare measures, but 1931 was the end of 100 years of communal governance.<b> Those who held power under colonial patronage began to orient and emerge themselves as an anti-Mahavamsa movement in the soon-to-be-freed colony. </b>The constitutional coup of the English-educated locals and the governor Manning in 1923-24 and the Christian GG Ponnambalamâs demands were the early tips of this iceberg. A long-awaited reaction to this arose in the 1960s as Buddhist National Force (BJB) spearheaded by the late L. H. Metthananda who focused on an official church document titled âCatholic Action.â <b>By the early 1970s traces of a theory of Sinhala Buddhist Chauvinism began to appear, first in the writings of Mrs. Vishaakaa Kumaari Jayawardhana (daughter of an English mother). It spread like wild fire all over the world after the government blunder in1983 when the president of the country told the people to defend themselves. Thus, Prabakaran and his web sites could talk about the Mahavamsa mentality.</b>
Eelam politics and Boston-area professors
As a follower of HLSâ political anthropology works in print, I am not surprised by his new theory. HLS, his principal guru S. J. Tambiah, the late political science professor A. J. Wilson, history professors C. R. de Silva and Michael Roberts (Australia), (K. Indrapaala is a recent addition), could be grouped as <b>a network of Boston area professors who âsuppressedâ historical facts in their professorial public writings. </b>For example, SJT in his Buddhism betrayed book mentioned in detail the1967 Dodampe mudalali coup and 1968 Colvin-Leslie Kollupitiya march against the Tamil Language Reasonable Use Regulations, but ignored completely the real coup by the Chritian-Tamil police and navy officers in 1962 and the infamous Imbulgoda march by JRJ in 1958 against the Reasonable Use of Tamil Language Bill. To give another example, in his book âthe work of kingsâ (which he dedicated to his guru SJT) HLS alleged that the mess of ethnic clash in Sri Lanka was due to the actions of two solitary monks, Vens. Yakkaduwe Pragnaraama, and Walpola Raahula. HLS thanked WR for help given in writing his book, but did not give WR an opportunity to respond to his âresearchâ opinions. <b>The Boston group was influential enough to convince the Massachusetts Legislature to pass a resolution against the government of Sri Lanka for allegedly oppressing the Tamils </b>(Massachusetts House Journal for 1979, page 977 reads: ⦠âResolution memorializing the President and the Congress to protest and utilize the powers of their offices to rectify the gross injustices which have been inhumanely inflicted on the Tamils of Sri Lankaâ).
Colombo black-whites (coconuts- white inside, brown outside)
The most culpable conduct of these professors and their Colombo contacts was their hiding of the fact that the problem in Sri Lanka was a problem of mismanagement by the Colombo ruling families, who created and later benefited from a clash between Tamil and Sinhala languages. If in India, Gandhi was for a unifying language despite Hindi was spoken by 30-40% of the people, making Sinhala the unifying language could not be a disaster for Tamil-speaking people in the island. By 1948 there were two countries in Ceylonâthe English-speaking Colombo country and the Sinhala-Tamil-speaking village country. The ruling elites and their officer agents made sure the continued existence of this division by converting English versus Swabhasa clash into a Sinhala-Tamil conflict. Ironically, Col. Karuna finally exposed this game by a simple demandâGive us what Colombo gets. He did not ask for a homeland. <b>The late Kumar Ponnambalam, a Christian, on the other hand felt that Tamils have âaspirations.â </b>The destruction of Sri Lanka since 1948 could be explained not by a Sinhala-Buddhist chauvinism paradigm but by a Colombo black-white paradigm. Because the professors, officers, peace mudalalis, UN agency officers, foreign ambassadors in Colombo and the human rights INGOs are predominantly, if not 100%, Christians they failed to understand that a Sinhala Buddhist cannot be a violator of human rights. Unlike faith-based Christian and Islam where human life is uni-directional (linear) in Buddhism life is cyclical and everything is impermanent (sabbe sankaara aniccaa). This was the basis for a harmony of different faiths at the Buddhist village level. This was why 50% of the Tamil population in Sri Lanka lives among Buddhists.
<b>With the church organization run like a corporate business, and the last Popeâs desire to âconvert Asia into Christianity in the 21st century,â</b> I am pointing out the behavior of Christian politicians, the powerful and the Colombo ruling families. I am not blaming in this essay the average Sinhala or Tamil Catholic or Christians who have suffered along with the Sinhala Buddhists in the Non-Colombo country of the island.<b> For example, the Marxists brains at least from 1935 to 1964 were active in anti-Mahavamsa affairs irrespective of their ethnicity. </b>A section of the JVP is still struggling to overcome its anti-Mahavamsa mind set.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>Anti-Mahavamsa movement in Sri Lanka</b>
<b>The humiliation of native Sinhala-Buddhist culture began after1505, until a resistance movement slowly emerged by way of revival of Buddhism in the 1840s-1880s of which the Great Panadura Debate in 1873 was a climax event. </b>An anthropology guru of HLS, Gananath Obeysekara, called this âProtestant Buddhism.â <b>The behavior of Christian colonial masters and their local supporters, the Christian-born/converted local elites, adversely affected the Sinhala-Buddhist heritage in the island, </b>but one cannot say there was an organized anti-Mahavamsa movement in Ceylon at that time. White rulers and white archeologists did not have any reason to distort islandâs history. But with the introduction of universal franchise and the territorial representation to the State Council in 1931, replacing communal representation which began in 1832, the majority Sinhala-Buddhists gained voting strength after 450 years of discrimination and oppression.
<b>When the Legislative Council debated the motion presented by a Hindu Tamil (P. Ramanathan) to make Vesak a public holiday in the colonial Ceylon (1885), with the backing of an American Olcott, the Sinhala representative A. L. de Alwis, a Christian, opposed it. </b>The Governor Gordon who was for the motion said he was embarrassed by de Alwisâ behavior. Colombo ruling families opposed the grant universal franchise, free education, labour rights and other welfare measures, but 1931 was the end of 100 years of communal governance.<b> Those who held power under colonial patronage began to orient and emerge themselves as an anti-Mahavamsa movement in the soon-to-be-freed colony. </b>The constitutional coup of the English-educated locals and the governor Manning in 1923-24 and the Christian GG Ponnambalamâs demands were the early tips of this iceberg. A long-awaited reaction to this arose in the 1960s as Buddhist National Force (BJB) spearheaded by the late L. H. Metthananda who focused on an official church document titled âCatholic Action.â <b>By the early 1970s traces of a theory of Sinhala Buddhist Chauvinism began to appear, first in the writings of Mrs. Vishaakaa Kumaari Jayawardhana (daughter of an English mother). It spread like wild fire all over the world after the government blunder in1983 when the president of the country told the people to defend themselves. Thus, Prabakaran and his web sites could talk about the Mahavamsa mentality.</b>
Eelam politics and Boston-area professors
As a follower of HLSâ political anthropology works in print, I am not surprised by his new theory. HLS, his principal guru S. J. Tambiah, the late political science professor A. J. Wilson, history professors C. R. de Silva and Michael Roberts (Australia), (K. Indrapaala is a recent addition), could be grouped as <b>a network of Boston area professors who âsuppressedâ historical facts in their professorial public writings. </b>For example, SJT in his Buddhism betrayed book mentioned in detail the1967 Dodampe mudalali coup and 1968 Colvin-Leslie Kollupitiya march against the Tamil Language Reasonable Use Regulations, but ignored completely the real coup by the Chritian-Tamil police and navy officers in 1962 and the infamous Imbulgoda march by JRJ in 1958 against the Reasonable Use of Tamil Language Bill. To give another example, in his book âthe work of kingsâ (which he dedicated to his guru SJT) HLS alleged that the mess of ethnic clash in Sri Lanka was due to the actions of two solitary monks, Vens. Yakkaduwe Pragnaraama, and Walpola Raahula. HLS thanked WR for help given in writing his book, but did not give WR an opportunity to respond to his âresearchâ opinions. <b>The Boston group was influential enough to convince the Massachusetts Legislature to pass a resolution against the government of Sri Lanka for allegedly oppressing the Tamils </b>(Massachusetts House Journal for 1979, page 977 reads: ⦠âResolution memorializing the President and the Congress to protest and utilize the powers of their offices to rectify the gross injustices which have been inhumanely inflicted on the Tamils of Sri Lankaâ).
Colombo black-whites (coconuts- white inside, brown outside)
The most culpable conduct of these professors and their Colombo contacts was their hiding of the fact that the problem in Sri Lanka was a problem of mismanagement by the Colombo ruling families, who created and later benefited from a clash between Tamil and Sinhala languages. If in India, Gandhi was for a unifying language despite Hindi was spoken by 30-40% of the people, making Sinhala the unifying language could not be a disaster for Tamil-speaking people in the island. By 1948 there were two countries in Ceylonâthe English-speaking Colombo country and the Sinhala-Tamil-speaking village country. The ruling elites and their officer agents made sure the continued existence of this division by converting English versus Swabhasa clash into a Sinhala-Tamil conflict. Ironically, Col. Karuna finally exposed this game by a simple demandâGive us what Colombo gets. He did not ask for a homeland. <b>The late Kumar Ponnambalam, a Christian, on the other hand felt that Tamils have âaspirations.â </b>The destruction of Sri Lanka since 1948 could be explained not by a Sinhala-Buddhist chauvinism paradigm but by a Colombo black-white paradigm. Because the professors, officers, peace mudalalis, UN agency officers, foreign ambassadors in Colombo and the human rights INGOs are predominantly, if not 100%, Christians they failed to understand that a Sinhala Buddhist cannot be a violator of human rights. Unlike faith-based Christian and Islam where human life is uni-directional (linear) in Buddhism life is cyclical and everything is impermanent (sabbe sankaara aniccaa). This was the basis for a harmony of different faiths at the Buddhist village level. This was why 50% of the Tamil population in Sri Lanka lives among Buddhists.
<b>With the church organization run like a corporate business, and the last Popeâs desire to âconvert Asia into Christianity in the 21st century,â</b> I am pointing out the behavior of Christian politicians, the powerful and the Colombo ruling families. I am not blaming in this essay the average Sinhala or Tamil Catholic or Christians who have suffered along with the Sinhala Buddhists in the Non-Colombo country of the island.<b> For example, the Marxists brains at least from 1935 to 1964 were active in anti-Mahavamsa affairs irrespective of their ethnicity. </b>A section of the JVP is still struggling to overcome its anti-Mahavamsa mind set.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->