Anti Hindi storm brewing in Tamilnadu

[Lord ZeN]

Dont know where u guys get these sort of stupid ideas? Khalistan, Maoist and comparing TAMILs with that? Poor fellow

I didn't say these things. Some Pakistani did. Please get your replay corrected.

 

[illuminatidinesh]

I didn't say these things. Some Pakistani did. Please get your replay corrected.

Source: Anti Hindi storm brewing in Tamilnadu | Page 29

Sorry I quoted him but some mistake

 

[Lord ZeN]

In Dubai Malayalam and Tamil is also the street language.

Nope ... Most commonly used Indian languages in UAE are Hindi/Urdu , Malayalam. Bengali comes next not Tamil.

 

[Saradiel]

What? Then Sinhalese learning Tamil is not bad? Do we loose our language and culture if we learnt Tamil? So likewise Tamils should not loose their language and culture just because they learnt Sinhalese. Look how many Tamils in Colombo area and in the plantation areas know Sinhalese. Have they lost their language and culture? I bet they didn't.
However minority should always learn the majority language. That is how they always progress. That is the same reason why we learn English. I do not think any English speaker would like to learn Sinhalese or Tamil unless absolutely necessary.
WTF? Then what is the use of the majority. Back in the days of the British Raj there were equal representation in the governors office. That was for 1 representative each for Sinhalese, Tamils, Moors and Burghers despite the actual population representation. I bet you like that system too.

I did not say tamils should not learn Sinhala, what I said was there should not be any forced Sinhala imposition. These are two things. One willingly the other with force. Prior to 56, tamil schools started teaching Sinhala as a language and tamil parents started private tutoring for their kids for Sinhala language. After 56 it all stopped.
Sinhala ppl do not lose Sinhala by learning tamil simply because Sinhala is the majority and you need Sinhala to survive in major parts in SL. SL is overwhelmingly Sinhala, in such a case learning tamil does not erase one’s identity. It is like claiming Hindi speakers in India lose Hindi if they learn basic tamil. But for a minority that is different.
Minority ‘should not’ learn majority’s language but eventually will due to advantages and practical realities. Nothing can be gained by sheer force it is the diplomacy that matters.
In 56 SL forced Sinhala on Tamils and Tamils stopped learning Sinhala and eventual conflict that started in mid 70s. In 60s tamils in India had anti hindi agitation and Indian govern did NOT force tamils. But with bollywood, economic opportunities in north indian tamils willingly learn Hindi. See the difference, imposition vs diplomacy.
What is the use of majority to you? The rest of 30% should bow to 70% just because numerically superior? The point is a national language can be decided upon approval of the both. That is what equality is.

Great ... We will make Tamil our national language. U happy now.


Since when did Tamils start worshipping Jesus ? Troll harder dear Sri Lankan Muslim who claims to be a Tamil.

he is not SL muslim

 

[HeinzG]

I did not say tamils should not learn Sinhala, what I said was there should not be any forced Sinhala imposition. These are two things. One willingly the other with force. Prior to 56, tamil schools started teaching Sinhala as a language and tamil parents started private tutoring for their kids for Sinhala language. After 56 it all stopped.

Have you even read the Sinhala only act? If not here read it. Official Language Act (No. 33 of 1956)
Official Language Act, 1956

And I quote;

2. The Sinhala language shall be the one official language of Ceylon: Provided that where the Minister considers it impracticable to commence the use of only the Sinhala language for any official purpose immediately on the coming into force of this Act, the language or languages hitherto used for that purpose may be continued to be so used unit 1 the necessary change is effected as early as possible before the expiry of the 31st day of December, 1960, and, if such change cannot be effected by administrative order, regulations may be made under this Act to effect such change.

Where is the persuasion? Who forced it? The act clearly state that if it is impractical to commence the use of Sinhala language for any official purpose then the languages used before should be continued to be used. Until of course necessary changes is made as early as possible. And the act was meant on official government work only. Even so if Tamils were affected by the act they should have simply made their suggestions to amend it before staging fiascoes such as the one in Galle face. No Tamil leader made any suggestion.

Sinhala ppl do not lose Sinhala by learning tamil simply because Sinhala is the majority and you need ntity. It is like claiming Hindi speakers in India lose Hindi if they learn basic tamil. But for a minority that is different.
Minority ‘should not’ learn majority’s language but eventually will due to advantages and practical realities. Nothing can be gained by sheer force it is the diplomacy that matters.

What Tamils has lost by learning Sinhalese for the last 50 years? Has they lost anything other than gaining many things?

If minority does not learn the language of the majority language how can they survive in that country? It doesn't matter they should or not. They have to learn it to survive in most cases.

In 56 SL forced Sinhala on Tamils and Tamils stopped learning Sinhala and eventual conflict that started in mid 70s. In 60s tamils in India had anti hindi agitation and Indian govern did NOT force tamils. But with bollywood, economic opportunities in north indian tamils willingly learn Hindi. See the difference, imposition vs diplomacy.
What is the use of majority to you? The rest of 30% should bow to 70% just because numerically superior? The point is a national language can be decided upon approval of the both. That is what equality is.

In '56 SL didn't forced Sinhalese on Tamils. But Tamil leaders showed to their subjects that it did happened. That's where the conflict started. Tamil elite did not wanted live in a unified country from the time that they realized that they won't get any executive power in Sri Lanka.

In India only Tamils resisted the Hindi imposition. However the other ethinicities who embraced Hindi as the official language didn't loose their identity. They are as vibrant as Tamils. In both countries it was the Tamils that ignited the language issue. Actually our Tamil politicians inspired by their Tamil counterparts.

If equality is taking decision upon approval; why not Tamils ask Sinhalese opinion about land acquestation in Jaffna or Sinhalese settlements in Wanni? Is that opinion is valid only to the Sinhalese related matters? Do Sinhalese only have to make concessions?

 

[Saradiel]

Have you even read the Sinhala only act? If not here read it. Official Language Act (No. 33 of 1956)
Official Language Act, 1956
And I quote;
Where is the persuasion? Who forced it? The act clearly state that if it is impractical to commence the use of Sinhala language for any official purpose then the languages used before should be continued to be used. Until of course necessary changes is made as early as possible. And the act was meant on official government work only. Even so if Tamils were affected by the act they should have simply made their suggestions to amend it before staging fiascoes such as the one in Galle face. No Tamil leader made any suggestion.
What Tamils has lost by learning Sinhalese for the last 50 years? Has they lost anything other than gaining many things?
If minority does not learn the language of the majority language how can they survive in that country? It doesn't matter they should or not. They have to learn it to survive in most cases.
In '56 SL didn't forced Sinhalese on Tamils. But Tamil leaders showed to their subjects that it did happened. That's where the conflict started. Tamil elite did not wanted live in a unified country from the time that they realized that they won't get any executive power in Sri Lanka.
In India only Tamils resisted the Hindi imposition. However the other ethinicities who embraced Hindi as the official language didn't loose their identity. They are as vibrant as Tamils. In both countries it was the Tamils that ignited the language issue. Actually our Tamil politicians inspired by their Tamil counterparts.
If equality is taking decision upon approval; why not Tamils ask Sinhalese opinion about land acquestation in Jaffna or Sinhalese settlements in Wanni? Is that opinion is valid only to the Sinhalese related matters? Do Sinhalese only have to make concessions?

It is obvious any argument with you is in vain, but as I hope for a better and a successful sri lanka I wish to try.
The act said the only official language is Sinhala, that itself is an insult to a non Sinhala speaking people which were more than 25% of the whole country. And it made Tamils to learn Sinhala to conduct the day to day acts in their lives which is the biggest thing that triggered the whole issue. That should not have been done even if the tamils spoke Sinhala.
The act required Tamils to learn Sinhala to pass examinations to enter employment and even to get promoted. I personally know how tamils were made victims of it. The subsequent laws and how the state reacted violently did made tamils victimized.
The very notion Sinhala is the only official language means tamil is an outsider and should not have parity with Sinhala. The very thinking you share even after seeing decades of bloodshed.
And read history before spewing your racism, Tamils protested against the official act. They were not waiting for a chance to hold protests (the fiascos you call) in galle face to spend some evening there. Tamil leaders had very well articulated their objection towards it. Sinhala leaders wanted to do it in spite of objections and push their way of doing things down tamils’ throats.
And read what you yourself posted. Are you saying people can continue using the language they used before dec 1960 is a sign of no persuasion? Is that what you are suggesting? And the so called ‘language’ that can be continued to be used until Dec 1960 is English and not tamil, because English was the language in use. Actually asking why didn’t tamil leaders object but did fiascos is rather an insult to a people who have been treated unfairly. Shame on you on that!
‘No tamil ever made a suggestion’
Yeah yeah Sinhala xenophobes like you were waiting until tamils show displeasure personally. So continuous protests, sathyagraha, letters, suicide bombs and ultimately military action have not still conveyed to you tamils do not like Sinhala only?
Did I say Tamils lose by learning Sinhala? First read slowly if comprehension is difficult for you. Tamils ‘feared’ they will lose with a Sinhala imposition (which is exactly what Sinhala leaders expected with such an imposition) just like BBS and fellow islamaphobes like you fear today Sinhala people will vanish. The fear can be irrational, but when a people are besieged with a fear, imposing them the very thing they fear is dangerous. Which is exactly what happened in SL and will happen if the likes of you continue.
Yeah yeah in 56 sinhala only was not pushed on tamils. That is why tamils had to learn Sinhala to get a job and even have a successful future. Tamils’ ID, education certificate, marriage certificates, birth, and death certificates all were in Sinhala. Till today letters sent from gover institutions to tamils are sent in Sinhala. That is imposition, which is in other words “learn Sinhala if you want to stay in SL or get lost!”.
Yes tamils can resist Hindi imposition, there is nothing wrong in it. Why should tamils accept hindi imposition if they don’t like? That is only if they like. But India has successfully managed tamil separatism and forged ahead as a united country, while SL because of stupidity and lack of foresight (displayed by likes of you) instead of forming a united country started sinhalising tamils. Sinhalese idiots should understand they cannot sinhalise tamils and it would rather drag tamils, Sinhalese and whole country to a mess (which is now it is). For a small ego centric idea, idiots of the likes of you, destroyed a whole future in front of SL. Had not Sinhala leaders hastily bring language policies and made Sinhala only SL would have been a developed country now, where Sinhalese would not need to apply PR where their language is not spoken.
SL tamil leaders were not influenced by TN. The issues in SL started much earlier than anti Hindi agitation in india
“If equality is taking decision upon approval; why not Tamils ask Sinhalese opinion about land acquestation in Jaffna or Sinhalese settlements in Wanni? Is that opinion is valid only to the Sinhalese related matters? Do Sinhalese only have to make concessions?” what is the meaning of this? What are you trying to say?
To make things sweet and short to you.
Everybody (like you sinhala) love their language, culture and identity. If they fear it will be taken away from them or something else is imposed upon them they will counter attack to protect it. So if you want to make peace you have to make sure you are not here to destroy their identity and ethnicity. That is the basic decency of forming a nation or even any human relationship.
And idiot though you always get tangled on what I say without understanding it, I first said Sinhala should not be imposed (look at this word carefully and use a dictionary because I cant repeat) on tamils, rather sinhala language learning should be encouraged by subtle steps.

 

[Sriram]

we chose to spoke South indians in Hindi. They are perfect in Hindi, We never found any hurdle in communicating in hindi be it locals, Pakistanies, bangladeshies or southindians. All are perfect in Hindi.

those are poor laborers, not white collar job people..

yes..but you have no problems with china made mobile phones or eating Persian khababs..
There is nothing wrong in accepting the good aspects even if its from an alien culture....Accept the good ones,leave the bad ones..Communal blinds like you would view each and every thing in religious angle...its not my problem...
..

chinese phones are atleast cheap .. how do you sell a thing like hindi that has zero selling point??

TN is one of the top preforming states without hindi, tell me , what has Andra or Assam or Kerala achieved more than TN with hindi.. surely with hindi UP and Bihar must be the best right?

 

[abjktu]

those are poor laborers, not white collar job people..



chinese phones are atleast cheap .. how do you sell a thing like hindi that has zero selling point??

TN is one of the top preforming states without hindi, tell me , what has Andra or Assam or Kerala achieved more than TN with hindi.. surely with hindi UP and Bihar must be the best right?

Neenga solrathu unmai thaan..
Ungala yaarum hindi nitchayama kaththukanmu compell pannala..appadi compell panna urumai yaarukum kidaiyathu.viruppum irundhuchuna kaththuko.illaina vidunga....ava ava viruppathukku vidunga...yethukku indha maari piratchinai??

 

[Sriram]

Neenga solrathu unmai thaan..
Ungala yaarum hindi nitchayama kaththukanmu compell pannala..appadi compell panna urumai yaarukum kidaiyathu.viruppum irundhuchuna kaththuko.illaina vidunga....ava ava viruppathukku vidunga...yethukku indha maari piratchinai??

It is forced sir... why is non hindi speaking states teaching hindi as third language when they can teach useful languages.. why that special concession for hindi..

 

[abjktu]

It is forced sir... why is non hindi speaking states teaching hindi as third language when they can teach useful languages.. why that special concession for hindi..

appadi solla mudiyathu..nammoda yethir kaalathula hindi thevai paduma padathaa nu kurippaa theriyadu...oru vela illaina kooda tharaalama hindi padam paarka koodatha??
ippa additionalaa hindi kaththukittina namma thaayi mozhi marandhiduma??..

 

[HeinzG]

It is obvious any argument with you is in vain, but as I hope for a better and a successful sri lanka I wish to try.
The act said the only official language is Sinhala, that itself is an insult to a non Sinhala speaking people which were more than 25% of the whole country. And it made Tamils to learn Sinhala to conduct the day to day acts in their lives which is the biggest thing that triggered the whole issue. That should not have been done even if the tamils spoke Sinhala.

Sinhala was the official language of Sri Lanka. That is why British made the 1815 Kandyan convention in Sinhala and English only. Even then British was well aware that there was only one official language in Sri Lanka. Tamils on the other hand couldn't grasp the idea about Sinhalese excelling over them. That is why they were ready to accept English as the official language over Sinhalese.

As for your understanding there were mere 5% of English speaking Tamils in SL. Were there any agitation over English being the official language in Tamil areas? Did Tamils learnt English to conduct there day to day activities before 1956? If Tamils were capable to run there lives with foreign language why this sudden rejection over a cousin language?

The act required Tamils to learn Sinhala to pass examinations to enter employment and even to get promoted. I personally know how tamils were made victims of it. The subsequent laws and how the state reacted violently did made tamils victimized.

Before 1956 Tamils were required to learn English to get to higher job opportunities in the society, didn't Tamils were victimized by English? If Tamils were really onto a meaningful coexistence they should have cooperated with the Sinhalese governments. But they turned to violence from the day one. Do you reject that? Sinhalese were only reacting to what Tamils were doing.

The very notion Sinhala is the only official language means tamil is an outsider and should not have parity with Sinhala. The very thinking you share even after seeing decades of bloodshed.

Well before 1956 Tamils would have felt outsider too because there were no parity with English. But Tamils didn't turned to bloodshed. Did they? They welcomed the British. Where was the agitation? outsider feeling?

And read what you yourself posted. Are you saying people can continue using the language they used before dec 1960 is a sign of no persuasion? Is that what you are suggesting? And the so called ‘language’ that can be continued to be used until Dec 1960 is English and not tamil, because English was the language in use. Actually asking why didn’t tamil leaders object but did fiascos is rather an insult to a people who have been treated unfairly. Shame on you on that!

If Tamils used there language before 1956. They faced exams before 1956. They got jobs before 1956. Why would they worry about the 1960. The official language was to merely changed from English to Sinhalese.

If Tamils were really treated badly by English and then Sinhalese Tamil leaders should have made that protest in 1948. Did it happened?

Did I say Tamils lose by learning Sinhala? First read slowly if comprehension is difficult for you. Tamils ‘feared’ they will lose with a Sinhala imposition (which is exactly what Sinhala leaders expected with such an imposition)

Oh they feared. By what examples they feared that Sinhalese will conduct an ethnic cleansing? Did UNP tried to cleanse the Tamil ethnicity? There were nothing to fear. If they were afraid they should have protested against the British.

just like BBS and fellow islamaphobes like you fear today Sinhala people will vanish.

BBS has not just sprung out from nowhere. There are reasons behind that. If you cannot see it. I can't help.

Yeah yeah in 56 sinhala only was not pushed on tamils. That is why tamils had to learn Sinhala to get a job and even have a successful future. Tamils’ ID, education certificate, marriage certificates, birth, and death certificates all were in Sinhala. Till today letters sent from gover institutions to tamils are sent in Sinhala. That is imposition, which is in other words “learn Sinhala if you want to stay in SL or get lost!”.

Before that was "Learn English or get lost". Was that better?

Yes tamils can resist Hindi imposition, there is nothing wrong in it. Why should tamils accept hindi imposition if they don’t like? That is only if they like. But India has successfully managed tamil separatism and forged ahead as a united country, while SL because of stupidity and lack of foresight (displayed by likes of you) instead of forming a united country started sinhalising tamils.

Yeah India introduced the 16th amendment that banning any separatist acts.

In 1963, on the recommendation of the Committee on National Integration and Regionalism of the National Integration Council, the Indian parliament unanimously passed the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which sought to "prevent the fissiparous, secessionist tendency in the country engendered by regional and linguistic loyalties and to preserve the unity, sovereignty, and territorial integrity" of India. This was essentially in response to the separatist movement demanding a sovereign Dravidistan

Dravida Nadu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote.

....enabling the State to make any law
imposing reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the rights
conferred by sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of clause (1) of that
article in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India.
It is also proposed to amend articles 84 and 173 and forms of oath in
the Third Schedule to the Constitution so as to provide that every
candidate for the memebership of Parliament or State Legislature,
Union and State Ministers, Members of Parliament and State
Legislatures, Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts and the
Comptroller and Auditor-General of India should take an oath to uphold
the sovereignty and integrity of India.

THE CONSTITUTION (AMENDMENT)

That is how India kept it's integrity.

In Sri Lanka this didn't happen.

“If equality is taking decision upon approval; why not Tamils ask Sinhalese opinion about land acquestation in Jaffna or Sinhalese settlements in Wanni? Is that opinion is valid only to the Sinhalese related matters? Do Sinhalese only have to make concessions?” what is the meaning of this? What are you trying to say?

Do Sinhalese only need to share what they posses. Won't Tamils do the same?

 

[Saradiel]

Sinhala was the official language of Sri Lanka. That is why British made the 1815 Kandyan convention in Sinhala and English only. Even then British was well aware that there was only one official language in Sri Lanka. Tamils on the other hand couldn't grasp the idea about Sinhalese excelling over them. That is why they were ready to accept English as the official language over Sinhalese.

Then what about Jaffna kingdom? Tamils can say their official language was Tamil and not Sinhala. Present day SL is not a continuation of kandyan kingdom. Present day SL is a country which includes both Jaffna and Kandy with both Sinhala and non-Sinhala speakers in it. And SL is a new country born after 1948 which was subject to many changes for 500 years. We cant go back to 300- 400 years back and negate the changes at that time. We have new communities and new realities to face in 1948 and it is the same today.
And you were wrong on Kandyan convention as well. Many Sinhala leaders signed in tamil in Kandyan convention as well.
Tamils did not want to accept English, they were a conquered people like Sinhalese. When we replace English with only Sinhala, for a tamil they have just replaced their masters from English to Sinhala. And Tamils did not have anything with Sinhalese excelling over them, it was rather they did not like Sinhala imposition on them. And like I said Tamils feared a numerically superior Sinhala will erase their identity and language. They still have that fear and actions of Sinhala leaders and nationalists reaffirm that fear.
Even if we forget the tamil factor, Sinhala only was a disastrous policy. Because many English educated civil servants (including sinhalese) had to leave SL because they did not know the language. It was the disastrous psychotic urgency of the Sinhalese to make changes. What followed was Sri Lanka lost a good educated and professional bunch of civil servants, educationists because of that. S’pore which was behind SL snatched the opportunity and got the support of these people and built their country. SL’s loss was S’pore’s gain.
There is no question English needs to be replaced. But we need to be practical and sensitive in dealing such issues. SL leaders were not so. Hastiness leads to wrong decisions and wrong actions. The classic case what SL was and is.

As for your understanding there were mere 5% of English speaking Tamils in SL. Were there any agitation over English being the official language in Tamil areas? Did Tamils learnt English to conduct there day to day activities before 1956? If Tamils were capable to run there lives with foreign language why this sudden rejection over a cousin language?

Tamils did not want English as the state language or the language to work with. What tamils were against was making ‘only’ Sinhala the official language. They have no problem with replacing English instead they wanted both Sinhala and tamil to be recognized as official languages.
As far as I know tamils in Jaffna were the first to call for independence of Ceylon. Unlike Sinhala, tamils were very much exposed to indian liberation struggle and they wanted to do the same in SL.
Before 1948 tamils and Sinhalese were conquered people they HAD to use English. In 48 BOTH were freed. And BOTH were citizens of the same country. When that country is forming a nation after independence that nation should represent BOTH that is the meaning of BOTH gaining independence. So when that nation decide on a national and official language BOTH parties have to agree with each other and linguistic traditions of BOTH should be respected.
Your question, if tamils can live with English why can’t with Sinhala is a stupid question. English is the language of conqueror they had to put up with anyway. After 48 sinhala and tamils are EQUAL partners not a conquer/conquered relationship like English/Tamil or English/Sinhala...Got it?

Before 1956 Tamils were required to learn English to get to higher job opportunities in the society, didn't Tamils were victimized by English? If Tamils were really onto a meaningful coexistence they should have cooperated with the Sinhalese governments. But they turned to violence from the day one. Do you reject that? Sinhalese were only reacting to what Tamils were doing.

Yes tamils were victimized by English, Sinhalese too were, that is why we fought and got independence in 48. Are you saying Tamils should play victim after 48 as well just switching English to sinhala?
Sinhala only was brought in 1956, violence started in 1972. Do you see that as ‘turning to violence from day 1’? If you are talking about ‘sathyagraha’ that is not violence. It is tragicomic when a person who lived through a civil war call sathyagraha as violent. Sathyagraha is a Ghandian method to win rights not using violence. It was the state which responded to sathyagrahas violently. Do you think tamils sitting in Galle face with boards to protest as violence? To you mad monks calling “we will destroy anybody who touch a monk” is peaceful while a man holding a board and protesting is violent.
Tamil leaders talked with Sinhala leaders several times and came to agreements. But none of them could be put into action because of racist lunatics like you today. Diplomacy and rationality are alien things to you.

Well before 1956 Tamils would have felt outsider too because there were no parity with English. But Tamils didn't turned to bloodshed. Did they? They welcomed the British. Where was the agitation? outsider feeling?

How did tamils welcome English? The first independence movement in Ceylon started in Jaffna. You don’t learn these things in school. You still do not realize tamil/Sinhala relationship is not the same as tamil/English relationship. Latter was of conqueror and conquered white Sinhala/tamil are equal partners. It is this equal part you fail to realize. Both tamils and Sinhala had the oppressed feeling it was just that they could do nothing about it but tried getting independence.

If Tamils used there language before 1956. They faced exams before 1956. They got jobs before 1956. Why would they worry about the 1960. The official language was to merely changed from English to Sinhalese.

Because idiot, a person who learnt and worked in English for all his life cannot switch to Sinhala. If anyone asked you to do your exams in Spanish and not in Sinhala/English how can you do that? You were trained in one language and you were asked to adopt a new language. You cannot simply do that.
And the other thing is if Sinhalese have the opportunity to work in their language after independence why tamils do not have the SAME privilege after independence. Did only Sinhalese get independence?
And it is not only work. Tamils got their birth, marriage, death and educational certificates in Sinhala a language they had no idea about.

If Tamils were really treated badly by English and then Sinhalese Tamil leaders should have made that protest in 1948. Did it happened?

Actually that is a point brought by tamils nowadays. Because Sinhala leaders and hollow Sinhala racists were not sane and realistic and that tamil leaders should have asked for separation from Suddhas like Pakistanis did. I guess tamil leaders did not think Sinhala leaders would be that bad.
And idiot tamil leaders like chelva to amirthalingam actually said that since 1956. That is why sathyagraha, protests started in SL by tamils. That is why banda-chelva pact, Dudley-chelva pact came into being. Sinhala leaders and tamil leaders always debated on that. Refer to shredder’s new thread about post-colonial SL. There is a pic of SL newspapers then with the heading ‘Settle the language issue now’. Only a person with zero knowledge on SL will say tamil leaders did nt show their objection towards Sinhala leaders.

Oh they feared. By what examples they feared that Sinhalese will conduct an ethnic cleansing? Did UNP tried to cleanse the Tamil ethnicity? There were nothing to fear. If they were afraid they should have protested against the British.

It does not matter whether there are anything to fear or not.
1. Minorities are naturally fearful of a majority. Because majority can dominate them and erase them.
2. Sinhala leaders imposed Sinhala on them. That is the first step in destroying their language tradition.
3. There were Sinhala settlements in what used to be tamil villages like in Gal oya scheme. So their fears were strengthened. They feared Sinhala are going to erase their identity. The very claim SL is the Sinhala Buddhist country makes that fears even more strengthened.
When Sinhala goons killed tamil protesters and tamil civilians in 58 to 83 no state police or state army or state intervened and stopped it. They took Sinhala goons’ side and did not even punish the wrong doers.
So when you have to learn others language to survive, to educate, get a job and you don’t get due protection as a citizen, what not to fear? Are you seriously saying tamils had nothing to fear?

BBS has not just sprung out from nowhere. There are reasons behind that. If you cannot see it. I can't help.

Yes LTTE has not just sprung out from nowhere. There are reasons behind that. Tamils say that and they are correct on that.
I see the reasons BBS came about. I am not a narrow minded person like you. But BBS reasons are not 100% fair given that we have a Sinhala Buddhist dominated government. If Sinhala Buddhists have genuine grievances there is a government to correct it. Are you saying 68+ years of Sinhala Buddhist government (including MR) has not served Sinhalese?

Before that was "Learn English or get lost". Was that better?

No that is why we fought and got independence. As I said before you don’t realize Sinhala-tamils are equal partners in SL govenance. English were an illegal participant, an invader whom we rightly kicked out.

Yeah India introduced the 16th amendment that banning any separatist acts.
Dravida Nadu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote.
THE CONSTITUTION (AMENDMENT)
That is how India kept it's integrity.
In Sri Lanka this didn't happen.

JR brought the same thing. That is the 6th amendment in SL constitution. When india took actions to legally prohibit asking for or even talking about separatism they made sure genuine fears of tamils are well managed. Indian central government did not settle hindi speakers in TN, did not make only hindi the official language, devolved power to Tamil Nadu and did not impose Hindi on tamils. So tamils in india have no reason to fear hindi speakers. Legal provisions means nothing if realities are not managed.
Diplomacy works not force, especially in this century.
You cannot rule a population no matter how strong military you have. You need peoples’ support. Do you understand that Sri Lankan government HAS to win the hearts and minds of Tamil people?

Do Sinhalese only need to share what they posses. Won't Tamils do the same?

What is the only Sinhala thing that they have to share with tamils?
If you are trying to talk about land in South, Sinhala can buy land in north it is the Sinhala settlements and sinhalising that they object. The reason tamils live in Colombo is because Colombo is OUR (both Sinhalese and tamils’) capital. In any country capital is a multi-ethnic place. Actually tamils living in South is one reason separatists find it hard to carve out a eelam.

@HeinzG,
I answered you in Elakiri. go and check and answer...

 

[HeinzG]

Then what about Jaffna kingdom? Tamils can say their official language was Tamil and not Sinhala.

Jaffna kingdom was a vassal state of the Sinhalese king. Every one recognized it at that time. No one objected to it. Not even the so called Jaffna Tamil kings.

Present day SL is not a continuation of kandyan kingdom. Present day SL is a country which includes both Jaffna and Kandy with both Sinhala and non-Sinhala speakers in it. And SL is a new country born after 1948 which was subject to many changes for 500 years. We cant go back to 300- 400 years back and negate the changes at that time. We have new communities and new realities to face in 1948 and it is the same today.

Present day Sri Lanka is a continuation of Kandy kingdom. The king of Kandy were called the ruler of the three kingdoms or the ruler of the entire island. Even British accepted it. Tamils also didn't objected to it. Do not mix Sri Lanka with Pakistan or India. Sri Lanka was one unified country before the British and was a unified country after the British.

It is this fact that you should remember. So we can negate many of your points here after.

Yes, we are a new community after 1948 but as always every one should realize what is the history of the country and what has brought it to the present. Simple ommitions of history for political gains won't make any thing better. That should be understood by everyone.

And you were wrong on Kandyan convention as well. Many Sinhala leaders signed in tamil in Kandyan convention as well.

Many people sign in English nowadays. Does that make them English? Tamil was the language of the court of Nayakkar kings so the Sinhalese noblemen used that language in court. Even the ones who signed in Sinhalese knew Tamil. Monarawila Kappetipola was a clear example.

S’pore which was behind SL snatched the opportunity and got the support of these people and built their country. SL’s loss was S’pore’s gain.

The Singapore case was much different. Singapore got ahead of Sri Lanka because of our mismanagement specially in Colombo port. There is no clear connection between language policy and Singapore miracle.

There is no question English needs to be replaced. But we need to be practical and sensitive in dealing such issues. SL leaders were not so. Hastiness leads to wrong decisions and wrong actions. The classic case what SL was and is.

There is issues with practicality, procedure and timing. But the reason for choosing Sinhala as national language is mentioned earlier.

Tamils did not want English as the state language or the language to work with. What tamils were against was making ‘only’ Sinhala the official language. They have no problem with replacing English instead they wanted both Sinhala and tamil to be recognized as official languages.

The Tamil concept of equality comes from the idea of Tamil homeland which was actually a hoax. If Tamil leaders were more cooperative they should have made Tamil population realize the fact that Sri Lanka was the country of the Sinhalese and they can coexist if they acknowledged this. Instead they pushed the Tamils to carving out a separate state. Which was the notion of Tamil politics from the early 20th century and the cause of our national issue.

As far as I know tamils in Jaffna were the first to call for independence of Ceylon. Unlike Sinhala, tamils were very much exposed to indian liberation struggle and they wanted to do the same in SL.
Before 1948 tamils and Sinhalese were conquered people they HAD to use English. In 48 BOTH were freed. And BOTH were citizens of the same country. When that country is forming a nation after independence that nation should represent BOTH that is the meaning of BOTH gaining independence. So when that nation decide on a national and official language BOTH parties have to agree with each other and linguistic traditions of BOTH should be respected.
Your question, if tamils can live with English why can’t with Sinhala is a stupid question. English is the language of conqueror they had to put up with anyway. After 48 sinhala and tamils are EQUAL partners not a conquer/conquered relationship like English/Tamil or English/Sinhala...Got it?

Well the linguistic tradition won't be disrespected by making Sinhalese the only national language. Only the Tamil pride might get hurt emanating from their bogus claim. Nothing to be done for that.

If you say Tamils and Sinhalese should respect each others language why can't Tamils realize the fact that Sinhalese was the national language of Sri Lanka before 1815. Why can't they respect that?

Do Sinhalese only need to respect others while other do not do the same?

Yes tamils were victimized by English, Sinhalese too were, that is why we fought and got independence in 48. Are you saying Tamils should play victim after 48 as well just switching English to sinhala?
Sinhala only was brought in 1956, violence started in 1972. Do you see that as ‘turning to violence from day 1’? If you are talking about ‘sathyagraha’ that is not violence.

Well there were violence in Jaffna after the Satyagraha incidents in Colombo. No Tamil leader tried to stop that. That's why the term violence from day one term was used. Moreover are you trying to forget the violence of 1958 which was started in Jaffna instigated by Tamils?

It is tragicomic when a person who lived through a civil war call sathyagraha as violent. Sathyagraha is a Ghandian method to win rights not using violence. It was the state which responded to sathyagrahas violently. Do you think tamils sitting in Galle face with boards to protest as violence?

Oh you do not know what happened that day, go and read some books.

And the other thing is if Sinhalese have the opportunity to work in their language after independence why tamils do not have the SAME privilege after independence. Did only Sinhalese get independence?
And it is not only work. Tamils got their birth, marriage, death and educational certificates in Sinhala a language they had no idea about.

Well Tamils have that privilage in Jaffna and other Tamil majority areas. But it is simply unreasonable to say that Tamils were marginalized in Tamil minority areas because they didn't knew Sinhalese.

Tamils got their birth, marriage, death and educational certificates in English before 1956.

Actually that is a point brought by tamils nowadays. Because Sinhala leaders and hollow Sinhala racists were not sane and realistic and that tamil leaders should have asked for separation from Suddhas like Pakistanis did. I guess tamil leaders did not think Sinhala leaders would be that bad.

Well Tamil leaders did. First before granting the universal suffrage to Sri Lanka and then in 1948 by asking for a federal policy. They turned to separate state mentality because they failed in earlier two attempts.

When Sinhala goons killed tamil protesters and tamil civilians in 58 to 83 no state police or state army or state intervened and stopped it. They took Sinhala goons’ side and did not even punish the wrong doers.

Learn some history mister. I cannot type everything here.

I see the reasons BBS came about. I am not a narrow minded person like you. But BBS reasons are not 100% fair given that we have a Sinhala Buddhist dominated government. If Sinhala Buddhists have genuine grievances there is a government to correct it. Are you saying 68+ years of Sinhala Buddhist government (including MR) has not served Sinhalese?

BBS is not standing up to Sinhalese grievances. They just oppose the islamic radicals groups. A simple counter balancing effort.

What is the only Sinhala thing that they have to share with tamils?
If you are trying to talk about land in South, Sinhala can buy land in north it is the Sinhala settlements and sinhalising that they object. The reason tamils live in Colombo is because Colombo is OUR (both Sinhalese and tamils’) capital. In any country capital is a multi-ethnic place. Actually tamils living in South is one reason separatists find it hard to carve out a eelam.

So Sri Lanka is not both Sinhalese and Tamils country. Can't Sinhalese go and settle in anywhere in this country in groups or alone? Why this Colombo theory is not being applied by you to the whole island?
Tamils come and settle in Colombo by groups. No Sinhalese object to that.

@HeinzG,
I answered you in Elakiri. go and check and answer...

I saw that but couldn't reply. subscribe to that thread.

 

[Saradiel]

Jaffna kingdom was a vassal state of the Sinhalese king. Every one recognized it at that time. No one objected to it. Not even the so called Jaffna Tamil kings. .

Jaffna kingdom became a vassal state of sinhala kings only for a brief time period. At the time of colonial occupation it operated free from Sinhala rule. Sinhala kingdoms were waging war with colonials they had no time for Jaffna. And tamils do not agree Jaffna as a vassal state of Sinhalese (rightly or wrongly).
And HeinzG there is a huge difference between practicability and what ought to be done according our version of history. If we depend only on history, we will not have time for real issues of the country but rather wasted our time on a history debate and miss the bus (which we did). What we should do is what should be done according to the situation and time we face and not act according to certain absolutes. Whether Jaffna kingdom existed or not, the reality of this country is we have a non Sinhala speaking population (25%) concentrated in two provinces. We have to manage that and integrate them to our country. We cannot go on this is only ours and you learn to live with our ways. That is given there is a neighboring state with a much larger population of the same ethnicity (larger than whole of SL). So they can counter attack. So imposition is stupid in a rational sense, but diplomacy could have yielded better results.

Present day Sri Lanka is a continuation of Kandy kingdom. The king of Kandy were called the ruler of the three kingdoms or the ruler of the entire island. Even British accepted it. Tamils also didn't objected to it. Do not mix Sri Lanka with Pakistan or India. Sri Lanka was one unified country before the British and was a unified country after the British. .

Are you serious? It is this mentality of Sinhalese to continue a legacy of a past kingdom that made issues. It is much like the Muslims’ fascination with a caliph. The kandyan kingdom might have called himself the ruler of the entire kingdom but that does not make others listen. The kandyan king could not even get the allegiance of low land Sinhalese. Japanese said they are the ruler of an expanded empire and went on terrorizing people but learnt the lesson hard way. One can call oneself anything, but it does not mean real.
Where have tamils agreed to kandyan king as the ruler of the island? Are you saying when brits arrived SL was a unified country? Are you nuts? Go and see a map. There was a Jaffna kingdom and several other kingdoms when brits arrived.

It is this fact that you should remember. So we can negate many of your points here after. .

What points can you negate? Are you saying kandyan kingdom is the sri lanka although kandy had no power over Jaffna and some of low land kingdoms? Even eelamists would agree to that sort of SL.

Yes, we are a new community after 1948 but as always every one should realize what is the history of the country and what has brought it to the present. Simple ommitions of history for political gains won't make any thing better. That should be understood by everyone. .

What ommitions? Aren’t you the one who is omitting things like Jaffna kingdom?
Listen pinhead. I think I cleared this to you before. Current realities in a country are what needs to make decisions not history. I am not saying we are forgetting history but the reality is the current realities that matter. If world powers put their weight behind tamils and carve out an eelam you can shove your history where sun doesn’t shine. Because no one is going to give a fack about your history because the current realities does not help you. This is the only law that works in political arena. We have to adjust according to current realities. The very thing that made JR to accept 13 amidst indian influence. The current realities matter not history.
And if we are a new community from 1948 how can that be a Sinhala nation when 25% are non Sinhala? Are you saying the 25% should become Sinhala or jump to the ocean? How can we get the allegiance of a people if we do not recognize them? If we don’t accept tamils as an equal citizen what is the need for a tamil to show allegiance to SL?

Many people sign in English nowadays. Does that make them English? Tamil was the language of the court of Nayakkar kings so the Sinhalese noblemen used that language in court. Even the ones who signed in Sinhalese knew Tamil. Monarawila Kappetipola was a clear example. .

I didn’t suggest the nilames in kandyan court were tamil. I wanted to highlight the lie in your post that kandyan convention had no tamil.

The Singapore case was much different. Singapore got ahead of Sri Lanka because of our mismanagement specially in Colombo port. There is no clear connection between language policy and Singapore miracle. .

There are many reasons Singapore got ahead. Actually it is not only S’pore, Malaysia, korea, Thailand, Indonesia, all got ahead when we were engaged in a senseless war. SL’s language policy did not cause Singapore miracle. That is purely the ingenuity and capability of S’pore’s ppl and its leaders. Rather S’pore was an upcoming destination for migrants from SL and they too contributed for S’pore’s growth. What is this port thing? I haven’t heard. As far as I know everything in SL was mismanaged.

There is issues with practicality, procedure and timing. But the reason for choosing Sinhala as national language is mentioned earlier. .

No one is questioning Sinhala being official language, rather questioning omission of tamil.

The Tamil concept of equality comes from the idea of Tamil homeland which was actually a hoax. If Tamil leaders were more cooperative they should have made Tamil population realize the fact that Sri Lanka was the country of the Sinhalese and they can coexist if they acknowledged this. Instead they pushed the Tamils to carving out a separate state. Which was the notion of Tamil politics from the early 20th century and the cause of our national issue. .

So you mean tamil leaders should have instead made tamils think they are living in someone else’s country and they should act according to what they say. what a representation for tamils!
Rightly or wrongly tamils consider N&E as their traditional homeland. But asking for homeland status came after language policy because tamils realized things are not going to be rosy. Actually Sinhala policy made tamils to ask for homeland because they felt the necessity of such a thing. And lead to whole history debate.
If you think of absolutes Sinhala and tamils will debate on history until the end of time and kill each other (which is happening). The country would not have a future. The children of both would migrate and not much Sinhalese and tamils would be left at all to continue the history debate.
A practical way is to prevent such a scenario coming up and make tamil’s fears are irrational. The tamils as a community did not care much about a homeland, but it is the actions of successive Sinhala gov and people which pushed them to ask for one.
It does not mean we are going to believe their version of history. After the country come to a point of stability with enhanced national security, diplomatic relationships and prosperity we can invest in historical research and excavations. These things would have settled the matter in the long run.
At the same time it is wrong to say tamils have no historical claim. Even according to Sinhala version they have been living here for 400 + years. Such a people cannot be pushed away saying you are not belonged here.
We pay a little price but gain a lot. We did not pay any price but took my way or highway approach and lost a lot.

Well the linguistic tradition won't be disrespected by making Sinhalese the only national language. Only the Tamil pride might get hurt emanating from their bogus claim. Nothing to be done for that.
If you say Tamils and Sinhalese should respect each others language why can't Tamils realize the fact that Sinhalese was the national language of Sri Lanka before 1815. Why can't they respect that?
Do Sinhalese only need to respect others while other do not do the same? .

Do you really think by calling tamils’ claim is bogus and they should accept only Sinhala you are respecting them? What sort of a respect is that? If you consider a tamil as an outsider why should a tamil respect you? For god’s sake there was no sri lanka before 1815. Before 1815 there were tamil parts which are now territories of SL with tamil people in it. Just because ancient Sinhala kings could not protect their territories it doesn’t mean we can push the tamils away now. When you build a nation you have to represent everyone in it. You cannot pick only the majority. If you do that there will be counter attack because people feel they are oppressed and fear loss of identity.

Well there were violence in Jaffna after the Satyagraha incidents in Colombo. No Tamil leader tried to stop that. That's why the term violence from day one term was used. Moreover are you trying to forget the violence of 1958 which was started in Jaffna instigated by Tamils? .

The violence was in a reaction to the state’s offensive against sathyagraha. I am not saying tamils are saints, I hardly support tamil militancy. But the appeals and protests of tamils were violently put down by state which caused a reaction. But that is still not the violence. The larger section of tamils did not do that. The tamils got into violence largely in 70s.

Oh you do not know what happened that day, go and read some books. .

Yeah you are the one who knows. It is ironic the ones who know everything had their way in SL but made a royal fu*k up of everything. Now sons and daughters of people like you are fleeing SL looking for Aus. Is not 58 sathyagraha in gall face a non violent one?
Have you stopped saying “if tamils made their greivences known to us we would have changed things” tune? The violence according to you did not make it known that coming colors are no good and Sinhalese need a rethink of their strategy.
And pin head, if tamils are not integrated and problems occur the stability of this country would be in trouble with losing prosperity and a good future for SL. If that happened the biggest loser is the Sinhalese given that we are the majority. So ‘rational’ way is managing the tamil’s issue at that time not going for absolute of ‘this is only Sinhala country’.

Well Tamils have that privilage in Jaffna and other Tamil majority areas. But it is simply unreasonable to say that Tamils were marginalized in Tamil minority areas because they didn't knew Sinhalese.
Tamils got their birth, marriage, death and educational certificates in English before 1956. .

Go and read Neville jayaweera’s book on Jaffna. He was the district secretariat (or something like that) in North during that time. He categorically mentions these problems did occur. He was sent to North by Sirimavo herself to manage north. Neville said he understood the tamil’s concerns and he was the one who brought these things into practice in north (not a part of original policy) because of rational and moral reasons. But things went other way as soon as he left the office. So it was not a provision of original policy but rather the diplomacy and rational thinking by a single civil servant. It is this rationality and diplomacy we are missing in SL politics and even incomprehensible for the likes of you.

Well Tamil leaders did. First before granting the universal suffrage to Sri Lanka and then in 1948 by asking for a federal policy. They turned to separate state mentality because they failed in earlier two attempts. .

Federal policy is not separate country. Actually Sinhala leaders like Banda did speeches in Jaffna federalism will work for Jaffna. So tamils there had high hopes. Tamil leaders might have had separatism in the back of their minds but general tamil populace was against a separation. There was no support for that.

Learn some history mister. I cannot type everything here. .

Are you saying Sinhala goons did not attack protesters? In 58 tamil families were killed in Colombo. And what about 83? Are you saying Sinhala did not attack 83? First be a human. You cannot justify violence in 83.

BBS is not standing up to Sinhalese grievances. They just oppose the islamic radicals groups. A simple counter balancing effort. .

But the said BBS does have a Sinhala racist agenda like SL is a Sinhala Buddhist country. Doesn’t that hurt non muslim minorities as well? They do not counter balance anything rather give oxygen to not significant Islamic extremism in SL. There are no Islamic radical groups in SL. Questioning Buddha or Buddhism is not radicalism. SL army chief himself has states there are no Islamic radical groups. Are you saying BBS knows about SL defence than army chief?
Actually BBS is pushing normal muslims towards radicalism.

So Sri Lanka is not both Sinhalese and Tamils country. Can't Sinhalese go and settle in anywhere in this country in groups or alone? Why this Colombo theory is not being applied by you to the whole island? .

Sinhalese can settle anywhere in the country. Where have I said ‘no’? It is the state sponsored Sinhala settlements and sinhalisation that is causing problems. Because idiot Colombo is the capital, the chief city where commerce happen. Are you saying tamils should stay out from Colombo? Then what is their capital? Jaffna? Isn’t that confirms the idea of a separate state? What you fail to realize is if you want the unity of the country every one can settle anywhere. But you don’t like seeing tamil speakers in south. Then let the tamil speakers go separate so you will enjoy Sinhala speakers all around you.

Tamils come and settle in Colombo by groups. No Sinhalese object to that.
I saw that but couldn't reply. subscribe to that thread.

That is still not state sponsored. Tamils buy land and come. Sinhalisation means idiot state take Sinhalese and settle in the middle of tamils unknown to tamils and even going against their wishes forcefully.
The problem with you is you are stupider than a racist. Even Lee kuan yu was a racist but he has brains in him. When a racist does not have a brain it is like you.
Listen this carefully SL cannot afford to make you idiots happy.
And i see you have stopped talking about india..

 

[Maravan]

Hindi cannot enter Tamil nadu until unless we are interested in learning hindi, since there was/is/will be no flag bearers for hindi inside tamil nadu.
Hindi cannot become national language of india, those days are gone. In TN, except tamil no other language will not be accepted as national language.