Sri Lanka scraps Tamil national anthem at Independence Day

[samv]

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.

Ancient Indian epics mention Sinhala and Lanka which is testament to the antiquity of the Sinhalese.

It's very hard for you to counter this. You weren't even aware of this. Initially denying now grudgingly accepting.

Where does the Mahabharata mention the Marathis?

Sinhala is the oldest spoken Indo Aryan language in South Asia.

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)

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.

Tamils are from Tamil Country. That is where their culture, language, literature, history all originated.

While the Sinhalese identity, language, literature and history all take place in the island Sri Lanka.

The Sinhalese as a people never came from anywhere else. Unlike the Tamils.

None of Sri Lanka is the homeland of the Tamil people. It is the homeland of the Sinhalese people.

Tamils have their own homeland called Tamil Country (Tamil Nadu).

They can do whatever the f**k they want and please in their Tamil Country.

Not in the homeland of the Sinhalese.

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.

Tamils in general have contributed nothing really valuable to the development of Sri Lanka except invasion, theft, killing, destruction of Buddhist monasteries and ancient cities. There were Tamil Buddhist monks in Anuradhapura however.

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.

They don't have any affinity to the land they live in yet call it with an ethnocentric name such as Tamil Nadu? How does that work? The story of Malayalam proves that Tamils in Sri Lanka are descendants of Chola invasions. They do not have an ancient history in Sri Lanka. Not enough time to develop or evolve a unique language or culture.

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.

If you say so. Sri Lankan Tamils 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 movies and sources of entertainment are 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.