Sri Lanka scraps Tamil national anthem at Independence Day

[samv]

Right, they arrived as aliens.

View attachment 603870

Again, the Sinhalese never came from India as a people.

And the Sinhalese predate the Bengali identity and language which arose around 1000 CE in what is now known as Bengal.

Ditto for Gujarati.

The capital of the Sinhalese - Anuradhapura - was established around the 5th century BC long before the "Bengali people" or the "Bengali language" or the "Gujarati people" or the "Gujarati language"

The Sinhalese identity and the Sinhalese language developed entirely in Sri Lanka.

Show us any Sinhalese kingdoms in India and where the Sinhalese language was and is spoken in India.

 

[Chhatrapati]

Again, the Sinhalese never came from India as a people.

And the Sinhalese predate the Bengali identity and language which arose around 1000 CE in what is now known as Bengal.

Ditto for Gujarati.

The capital of the Sinhalese - Anuradhapura - was established around the 5th century BC long before the "Bengali people" or the "Bengali language" or the "Gujarati people" or the "Gujarati language"

The Sinhalese identity and the Sinhalese language developed entirely in Sri Lanka.

Show us any Sinhalese kingdoms in India and where the Sinhalese language was and is spoken in India.

LOL! The first time I see someone trying to refute DNA make up with linguistics.

Your language is a derivative of Prakrit, Tamil as a language existed at least 500 years before Sinhalese was ever conceptualized, so antiquity wise, you are relatively new.

 

[EyelessInGaza]

Just read the comments from Sinhala forummers -as fine an example of chauvinism as can be seen anywhere- in this thread to understand why the Tamil problem started in Sri Lanka in the first place. And why, if a majority there think like this, it will recur in a few decades if not earlier.

 

[Uguduwa]

Tamils have equal opportunity in Sri Lanka but to have a separate anthem for a minority that doesn't even make 15% of the population is beyond laughable.

 

[samv]

LOL! The first time I see someone trying to refute DNA make up with linguistics.

Your language is a derivative of Prakrit, Tamil as a language existed at least 500 years before Sinhalese was ever conceptualized, so antiquity wise, you are relatively new.

Your study is laughable.

You might as well argue that Bengalis and Gujaratis have "Sinhalese DNA"

If there is any truth to your study it would be that Bengalis and Gujaratis as well as the Sinhalese have some common ancestors. That's it.

Antiquity wise in comparison to Sinhalese, Bengali and Gujarati are new.

The Sinhalese language developed ENTIRELY in Sri Lanka. And the Sinhalese identity developed ENTIRELY in Sri Lanka. Sinhalese is ENTIRELY unique to Sri Lanka. Unlike Tamil which is a language from the Tamil country. It is a relatively new language in Sri Lanka, brought in by invaders. So recent that it hasn't had enough time to evolve into another language like Malayalam.

So Tamils are welcome to sing the Indian national anthem in Tamil.

And they also welcome to f**k off back to Tamil Nadu if they don't like it in the island.

Even the Mahabharata recognizes "Sinhala"

Just read the comments from Sinhala forummers -as fine an example of chauvinism as can be seen anywhere- in this thread to understand why the Tamil problem started in Sri Lanka in the first place. And why, if a majority there think like this, it will recur in a few decades if not earlier.

Bring it on. If Tamils want another war that is what they will get.

Funny how Tamils have their own homeland called TAMIL NADU which is twice the size of Sri Lanka with more than 50 millions Tamils and they still want to steal Sinhalese land and claim it as their own.

Not going to happen.

 

[Godman]

And why, if a majority there think like this, it will recur in a few decades if not earlier.

Sri Lanka will eliminate any such threats what ever means necessary, the method does not matter.

Also since the war interest in ancient kingdoms in the North and East have been revived and Monks are exploring the North East for ancient ruins

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=2524945807740758

They have brought together the few isolated Sinhalese villages in the region and are now building Temples, Irrigation Tanks, turning wastelands into farmland. The Wanni region and Eastern Province still has a much lower population density than the rest of SL so lots of space for Sinhalese to come and start farming and seeing these Monks build these things alone have ignited interest in the Sinhalese to return to the North East again.

This is in Batticaloa where new tanks are being built

 

[Chhatrapati]

Your study is laughable.

You might as well argue that Bengalis and Gujaratis have "Sinhalese DNA"

There is no Sinhalese DNA. Sinhalas are a linguistic ethnicity than a tribe. There is nothing unique about Sinhala and has no point of Origin to your DNA. You simply are migrants from India, just like Tamils.

If there is any truth to your study it would be that Bengalis and Gujaratis as well as the Sinhalese have some common ancestors. That's it.

Nope. Sinhalese are early migrants from India. That's why you have both Gujaratis and Bengalis in your DNA make up. Because in India there was hardly any mix between Bengalis and Gujaratis, both live in two extremities of India.

The Sinhalese language developed ENTIRELY in Sri Lanka. And the Sinhalese identity developed ENTIRELY in Sri Lanka. Sinhalese is ENTIRELY unique to Sri Lanka. Unlike Tamil which is a language from the Tamil country. It is a relatively new language in Sri Lanka, brought in by invaders. So recent that it hasn't had enough time to evolve into another language like Malayalam.

Tamils probably came before you and inhabited the place due to geographic proximity to the region. Ancient South Indians are early inhabitants of the Subcontinent. Sinhala is unique because it developed independently, just like Malayalam is a mix of Tamil and Sanskrit, Sinhalese derives its roots from the Indo Aryan languages. You write in Kadamba script, a script similar to Kannada.

Even the Mahabharata recognizes "Sinhala"

Mahabharata exclusively writes in a poetic form about the battle of ten kings in Vedas, these happened long before Sinhala or Sri Lanka whatever your name is came to be known.

Stop thinking you are some exclusive special group of people that's the center of the earth, you are even less interesting than the Tamils who have a whole different civilization and culture.

 

[W.11]

irony is the guy Chhatrapati supports hindu fascist Modi on his anti islamic rhetoric and actions and here defending the tamils.

regards

 

[Kaniska]

Wonderful news.

One country, one anthem.

Tamils are welcome to sing the Indian national anthem in Tamil. That's where they come from.

Nationalism is supreme than regionalism...Let Tamil
of India sing Indian national sing and SriLankan Tamil people sing Sri Lanka national song

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

I am completely with Sri Lanka over here. No need for SL to have a separate Tamil national anthem.

 

[samv]

There is no Sinhalese DNA. Sinhalas are a linguistic ethnicity than a tribe. There is nothing unique about Sinhala and has no point of Origin to your DNA. You simply are migrants from India, just like Tamils.

Nope. Sinhalese are early migrants from India. That's why you have both Gujaratis and Bengalis in your DNA make up. Because in India there was hardly any mix between Bengalis and Gujaratis, both live in two extremities of India.

There is no "Bengali DNA" or "Gujarati DNA" either. The Sinhalese identity and language predates anything Bengali or Gujarati. There is no point of origin to the the DNA of Indians. The point of origin is thought to be Africa.

The Sinhalese never immigrated from India as a people. Unlike the Tamils.

The Sinhalese identity and language developed entirely in Sri Lanka. Unlike the Tamils.

There were no Sinhalese speaking people in what is now India.

There were no Sinhalese kingdoms in what is now India.

The Sinhalese language, Sinhalese literature, Sinhalese script, the Sinhalese identity, the Sinhalese people are all completely unique to Sri Lanka. Why? Because Sri Lanka is their homeland.

There was no doubt a movement of people from what is now North India to Sri Lanka, but they were neither "Bengali" nor "Gujarati" and they did not speak either of those languages.

Tamils probably came before you and inhabited the place due to geographic proximity to the region. Ancient South Indians are early inhabitants of the Subcontinent. Sinhala is unique because it developed independently, just like Malayalam is a mix of Tamil and Sanskrit, Sinhalese derives its roots from the Indo Aryan languages. You write in Kadamba script, a script similar to Kannada.

There is no evidence of an ancient Tamil presence in Sri Lanka. The oldest inscriptions are in Prakrit and the oldest religious artefacts are Buddhist. The Tamils have no equivalents of Anuradhapura, Pollonaruwa, Sigiriya or Dambulla in Sri Lanka. All of that is only found in their homeland of Tamil Nadu. Indigenous people predate "South Indians" in the subcontinent, including the Veddahs of Sri Lanka. The Tamils of Sri Lanka are remnants of invasions by the Cholas into Sinhalese land. That is why they are found predominantly in the north of the country whey they pushed the Sinhalese southwards during their invasions.

Sinhalese is entirely unique to Sri Lanka and gave the island its unique identity. Malayalam proves that Tamil is a recent addition to Sri Lanka. Malayalam derives from Tamil but became a separate language close to the 13th century. Whereas Tamil in Sri Lanka has had no time to evolve into a separate language despite being separated by a large body of seawater. Same script, same language.

And no, Sinhalese is written in the Sinhala script, not the Kadamba script. The Sinhalese script is derived from Brahmi and again is completely unique to Sri Lanka.

Mahabharata exclusively writes in a poetic form about the battle of ten kings in Vedas, these happened long before Sinhala or Sri Lanka whatever your name is came to be known.

The Mahabharata mentions the Sinhala:

Ravana - The Great King of Lanka
By M. S. Purnalingam Pillai

Stop thinking you are some exclusive special group of people that's the center of the earth, you are even less interesting than the Tamils who have a whole different civilization and culture.

Tamils are the people who think they and their language are the centre of the earth going on about BS such as lemuria and kumari kandam and being the oldest this and the oldest that. Even in India it is the Tamils who are at then centre of language chauvinism. And it is them that are pissing all over your Modi.

Just remember Sri Lanka is the homeland of the Sinhalese people and they will fight to defend it whether you like it or not. Tamils can do whatever the f**k they want in their homeland of Tamil Nadu. No one cares.

irony is the guy Chhatrapati supports hindu fascist Modi on his anti islamic rhetoric and actions and here defending the tamils.

regards

He probably likes the fact that the Tamil Hindus of Sri Lanka provided most of the world's suicide bombers before ISIS came along.

I am completely with Sri Lanka over here. No need for SL to have a separate Tamil national anthem.

Thank you. It would be one thing if they were advocating having Tamil lyrics in ONE national anthem, but wanting a separate Tamil national anthem? Sorry no.

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

Thank you. It would be one thing if they were advocating having Tamil lyrics in ONE national anthem, but wanting a separate Tamil national anthem? Sorry no.

I'm surprised why did you have a separate Tamil national anthem in the first place? Appeasement politics?

 

[Chhatrapati]

There is no "Bengali DNA" or "Gujarati DNA" either. The Sinhalese identity and language predates anything Bengali or Gujarati. There is no point of origin to the the DNA of Indians. The point of origin is thought to be Africa.

There is no archeological evidence of any civilization of Sinhala speaking people during Vedic era. Sinhalese is relatively a new language, not a classical language with a single-point origin. Unlike languages like Tamil, Sanskrit, etc...

The Sinhalese never immigrated from India as a people. Unlike the Tamils.
The Sinhalese identity and language developed entirely in Sri Lanka. Unlike the Tamils. There were no Sinhalese speaking people in what is now India. There were no Sinhalese kingdoms in what is now India. The Sinhalese language, Sinhalese literature, Sinhalese script, the Sinhalese identity, the Sinhalese people are all completely unique to Sri Lanka. Why? Because Sri Lanka is their homeland. There was no doubt a movement of people from what is now North India to Sri Lanka, but they were neither "Bengali" nor "Gujarati" and they did not speak either of those languages.

Sinhalese people didn't spout in Sri Lanka, they came from somewhere. And evidence suggests they are predominantly from Bengal. Bengali, again is a relatively new language, like Sinhalese which is a Branch of Indo Arya language.

There is no evidence of an ancient Tamil presence in Sri Lanka. The oldest inscriptions are in Prakrit and the oldest religious artefacts are Buddhist. The Tamils have no equivalents of Anuradhapura, Pollonaruwa, Sigiriya or Dambulla in Sri Lanka. All of that is only found in their homeland of Tamil Nadu. Indigenous people predate "South Indians" in the subcontinent, including the Veddahs of Sri Lanka. The Tamils of Sri Lanka are remnants of invasions by the Cholas into Sinhalese land. That is why they are found predominantly in the north of the country whey they pushed the Sinhalese southwards during their invasions.

Tissamaharama excavation showed Tamil Brahmi inscription that dated over 200 BCE. That's Southern part of Sri Lanka right? That's pretty much before the Elu language developed into today's Sinhalese. So, your claim of old Sinhalese and what not developed much later.

Sinhalese is entirely unique to Sri Lanka and gave the island its unique identity. Malayalam proves that Tamil is a recent addition to Sri Lanka. Malayalam derives from Tamil but became a separate language close to the 13th century. Whereas Tamil in Sri Lanka has had no time to evolve into a separate language despite being separated by a large body of seawater. Same script, same language.

Unlike Sri Lanka, Kerala was a land of migrants. There were merchants from all over the world, there is Tamil speaking community still close to the border regions, Malayalam didn't simply develop from Tamil one day, Malayalam is the result of a mix of Tamil and Sanskrit over hundreds of years drawing a lot of words from Tamil.

And no, Sinhalese is written in the Sinhala script, not the Kadamba script. The Sinhalese script is derived from Brahmi and again is completely unique to Sri Lanka.

Any idiot who has eyes can compare

This is Brahmi

This is Kannada

This is Sinhalese

Both Kannada and Sinhalese are from Kadamba script Brahmi script was predominantly used in this part for Tamil although Kadamba originated from Brahmi their direct connection is much less.

The Mahabharata mentions the Sinhala:

So what? How sure are you that it is the same Sinhala that is Sri Lanka.

irony is the guy Chhatrapati supports hindu fascist Modi on his anti islamic rhetoric and actions and here defending the tamils.

regards

Stick to inventing Indian cultural heritage (in your own way) threads to attract pissing contest.

 

[samv]

There is no archeological evidence of any civilization of Sinhala speaking people during Vedic era. Sinhalese is relatively a new language, not a classical language with a single-point origin. Unlike languages like Tamil, Sanskrit, etc...

The Mahabharata mentions the Sinhala, which is testament to the antiquity of the Sinhalese. Sinhalese is the oldest spoken Indo Aryan language in South Asia. It is older than Hindi, Bengali, Gujarati, Marathi, Odiya, Punjabi. The capital of the Sinhalese - Anuradhapura - was established as far back as the 10th century BC.

Sinhalese people didn't spout in Sri Lanka, they came from somewhere. And evidence suggests they are predominantly from Bengal. Bengali, again is a relatively new language, like Sinhalese which is a Branch of Indo Arya language.

The Sinhalese identity originated entirely in Sri Lanka. There were immigrants from both what is North and South India but they were not Sinhalese people. They mixed with the indigenous people. The Sinhalese never came from India as a people. Their entire identity developed in Sri Lanka. Sinhalese is older than Bengali. Bengali arose around the 10th century AD.

Tissamaharama excavation showed Tamil Brahmi inscription that dated over 200 BCE. That's Southern part of Sri Lanka right? That's pretty much before the Elu language developed into today's Sinhalese. So, your claim of old Sinhalese and what not developed much later.

So? The Mahavamsa places Tamil presence in the island before the common era. But as:

(1) traders (such as Sena and Guttika) and (2) as invaders.

Not as the civilisational people of the island.

Elu as a distinct Prakrit is thought to date from around 3rd century BC, while Prakrit inscriptions in Sri Lanka date from around the 5th century BC (before Asoka).

"Support for this idea of pre-Ashokan development has been given very recently by the discovery of sherds at Anuradhapura in Sri Lanka, inscribed with small numbers of characters which seem to be Brāhmī. These sherds have been dated, by both Carbon 14 and Thermo-luminescence dating, to pre-Ashokan times, perhaps as much as much as two centuries before Ashoka."

Passage to India? Anuradhapura and the Early Use of the Brahmi Script
R.A.E. Coningham (a1), F.R. Allchin (a2), C.M. Batt (a1) and D. Lucy (a1)

Unlike Sri Lanka, Kerala was a land of migrants. There were merchants from all over the world, there is Tamil speaking community still close to the border regions, Malayalam didn't simply develop from Tamil one day, Malayalam is the result of a mix of Tamil and Sanskrit over hundreds of years drawing a lot of words from Tamil.

Malayalam is considered to have evolved directly from Tamil and this is without sea separating the Tamil language. The fact that Tamil in Sri Lanka has not evolved into a separate language is testament to how new it is to the island; the vast majority of Sri Lankan Tamils are descendants of Chola invasions. The Malayalis have their own culture, script and literature. But the Sri Lankan Tamils have none of that. They STILL look to Tamil Nadu as their refuge and source of culture. Their heros are from Tamil Nadu. Their literature is from Tamil Nadu. Their great kings are from Tamil Nadu. The form of Hinduism they practice is from Tamil Nadu. At the slightest hint of trouble they run to Tamil Nadu. All testament to the fact that they are recent invaders who never left.

Any idiot who has eyes can compare

This is Brahmi
View attachment 604290

This is Kannada
View attachment 604291

This is Sinhalese
View attachment 604293
Both Kannada and Sinhalese are from Kadamba script Brahmi script was predominantly used in this part for Tamil although Kadamba originated from Brahmi their direct connection is much less.

With regards to the Brahmi script:

The Indo Aryan Languages by Colin P. Masica

Literary Cultures in History. Reconstructions in South Asia by Sheldon Pollock

So what? How sure are you that it is the same Sinhala that is Sri Lanka.

LMAO the Mahabharata mentions the Sinhala and Lanka. You didn't know this did you? You learnt something new today. It is testament to the antiquity of the Sinhala people.

I'm surprised why did you have a separate Tamil national anthem in the first place? Appeasement politics?

Yes! Total appeasement politics. Started by the "congress" of Sri Lanka in 2016. Singing it at official independence day celebrations is not even an established tradition.

 

[Chhatrapati]

The Mahabharata mentions the Sinhala, which is testament to the antiquity of the Sinhalese. Sinhalese is the oldest spoken Indo Aryan language in South Asia. It is older than Hindi, Bengali, Gujarati, Marathi, Odiya, Punjabi. The capital of the Sinhalese - Anuradhapura - was established as far back as the 10th century BC.

Ramayana mentions Lanka, which in say next 100 years becomes a testament to the antiquity of Sri Lanka. But the fact is, neither Ramayana or Mahabharata gives the exact location of Sinhala or Lanka towards present day Sri Lanka. Also, Sinhalese is not the oldest Indo Aryan language, it developed in today's form around the same time Marathi developed. The highlighted part is where we were learning basic farming, forget establishing Anuradhapura.

The Sinhalese identity originated entirely in Sri Lanka. There were immigrants from both what is North and South India but they were not Sinhalese people. They mixed with the indigenous people. The Sinhalese never came from India as a people. Their entire identity developed in Sri Lanka. Sinhalese is older than Bengali. Bengali arose around the 10th century AD.

I didn't say it originated someplace else. My only point is, you dissing Tamils for being from another place while you Sinhalese whose ancestors came from another place sounds hypocritical. Tamil Lankans are born in Sri Lanka and are living there for generations.

So? The Mahavamsa places Tamil presence in the island before the common era. But as:

(1) traders (such as Sena and Guttika) and (2) as invaders.

Not as the civilisational people of the island.

Elu as a distinct Prakrit is thought to date from around 3rd century BC, while Prakrit inscriptions in Sri Lanka date from around the 5th century BC (before Asoka).

"Support for this idea of pre-Ashokan development has been given very recently by the discovery of sherds at Anuradhapura in Sri Lanka, inscribed with small numbers of characters which seem to be Brāhmī. These sherds have been dated, by both Carbon 14 and Thermo-luminescence dating, to pre-Ashokan times, perhaps as much as much as two centuries before Ashoka."

It can be interpreted as anything. Invasion or trade, migration, the fact is Tamils were there and may have been living there for centuries. Just because they invaded in 300BC doesn't make them anti Sri Lankan.

Malayalam is considered to have evolved directly from Tamil and this is without sea separating the Tamil language. The fact that Tamil in Sri Lanka has not evolved into a separate language is testament to how new it is to the island; the vast majority of Sri Lankan Tamils are descendants of Chola invasions. The Malayalis have their own culture, script and literature. But the Sri Lankan Tamils have none of that. They STILL look to Tamil Nadu as their refuge and source of culture.

There is quite a lot of difference between Tamils and Malayalis, first Tamils identify themselves by their language, they don't have any affinity to the land they live in. People in Kerala identify by their land and they don't care how bad your Malayalam is if you identify Kerala as your land you are a Malayali.

On the contrary, Tamils don't see Tamil Nadu as their motherland, they care about their language more than the land. So, a Sri Lankan Tamil sees Tamil as their source of culture, not Tamil Nadu that's why they have an issue with language and any attempts to dilute the Tamil Language will be met with sharp reactions.