Tamil and Sinhala Identities- Their Plausible Origins and Consequences

This is a work in progress in which I have developed preliminary ideas about the evolution of identities which set the background for the racist-ideology of the LTTE. It is however more than that and attempts to understand the evolution of the current identities of the Sinhalas and the Tamils. The references associated with these assertions will be added in time.

Names of Empires of South India are not identified with the language Tamil:

Pandya, Chola, Chera (Chera later developed their own language Malayali, Pandyas controlled South India and Sri Lanka in early times- Sinhala is probably derived from them. Modern Tamil can best be attributed to the Cholas)

Sangam Literature mentions Tamil as a language:

Tolk ã ppiyam (derived from combination of two words- Tonmai meaning ancient and Kappiam meaning literature) is work on grammar. The exact date is not known (poor archaeological evidence) but based on “linguistic evidence” is dated around 1st century BCE. It is said to have been based on Sanskrit grammar.
A “scientific breakthrough” was achieved in analysing the syllables and classifying the alphabet into vowels and consonants.

The term Sangam derives from the Buddhist Sangha (South India was under the control of Buddhist Kings the Kalabras (not Tamil). Dravida Sangha was established by a Jain named Vajranandi. This influenced interest in the Tamil language and literature.
The prePallava literature does not mention Sangam academies. Thus it is likely that these academies occurred much later than the time attributed to them (in BCE).

This is not to say that the the literature associated with Sangam were not present in the period 200BCE to 300 CE, but it is likely to have been orally transmitted and probably could not have been identified as “Tamil” as such.
It should be kept in mind that South India was largely megalithic until well into the first Millenium. Anuradhapura was the largest city in the south comparable to two northern Indian cities. Thus it is more likely that Prakrit evolved more in northern Sri Lanka than in Southern India.

Tamilakam
Some authors are of the opinion that Tamilakam (Tamil country) did not exist archaeologically. The people of South India appear to have been loosely associated and linked by the similarity of the proto-tamil language that they used. The Sangam literature classifies clans of people based on the type of occupation and where they live.

On the other hand two Chinese monks in the early centuries of the Common Era (CE) have mentioned the island of the lion people (Sinhale).

The earliest archaeological evidence connecting sangams with the city of Madurai is the Cinnamanur inscription of the Pandyas (10 th century).

The word Tamil
Tolk ã ppiyam while being dated to the 1st century BC may have been a generic grammar for a number of southern languages and not necessarily for Tamil.

The word for Tamil occurs in Tolk ã ppiyam in the form of senthamil (classical) and kotunthamil (colloquial). Sinhala grammar for example follows similar principles and unlike Tamil had acquired Sanskrit forms in its alphabet as well (same as Malayalam).
The etymological roots of “tamila” or “Tamiza” could be traced to give similar meanings (one’s own tongue) similar to Siyabasa of the sinhalas.

Dravida vs. Damila
It is likely that the words used in Mahavamsa (Sinhala cronicles) for Tamil, Damida and Damila were pointing to the sinhalese identifying an ethnic subgroup in ancient Sri Lanka. These words probably equate to Dravida Sangha as created by the Buddhist Jains and possibly the Tamil language perhaps generated with the Tolk ã ppiyam. I would suggest that the Cholas who build a magnificent empire were responsible for the development of Tolk ã ppiyam and identification of the language Tamil. It is interesting that neither the Cholas nor the Cheras called their language after their identity. The Pandyan language is extinct except perhaps for the Sinhala, which is identified with the identity of the island and people of Sinhale.
The Tamil Country and identity was never a united concept until the advent of the Chola empire (Chalukya Chola). This only lasted for a brief period but spread to most of Sri Lanka and to most of South east Asia. It is likely that the Chola suppression of Buddhism (even though at one point they protected it) in favour of Saivism for the hundred or so years of their rule over much of Lanka l(9-10 century CE) left an indelible imprint in the consciousness of the Singhalese that Tamil speakers could do it again.

Sinhala
There are claims that the Sinhala was not a language until the 12th century and that there was no sinhala identity until then. However, there are others who refute this based on the vast historical evidence (both linguistic and archaeological) of such an identity. One such argument is the inscription left by the Chinese invaders of about this period which included Chinese, Pali (Chinese were Buddhists) and Tamil (Tamil was by this time the maritime language of the region thanks to the Chola empire) but not Sinhala.
The evolution of South Asian and South east Asian language scripts from Brahmi demonstrates that Sinhala and Tamil script evolved in parallel (although sinhala-prakrit was probably commenced its evolution at an earlier stage) and had reached a mature stage by the time of the Chola empire.
Sinhala folk oral tradition of the Middle Ages which has been committed to writing demonstrates a very strong identity at least in this period (to the exclusion of other identities). It could be extrapolated based on Mahavamsa which was written in pali by Mahanama Thera in the 6th century CE (based again on much older oral tradition) that such an identity (Sinhala) existed for much longer. There is no indication of significant identification of Tamil as a major enemy in the Mahvamsa period. The hostility of Sinhalas towards foreigners (including Europeans and Chola Tamils) may have emerged in the context of almost continuous attempts at suppression of Buddhism by invaders since the Cholas. The Sinhala mind set which appears to have developed a character of being under siege, in the 19th and 20th century may have one explanation in this historical feature.
Sinhala identity was certainly well formed by the time of the English occupation. Some of the proponents of Tamil homeland concept point out that the Kandyan treaty was signed in tamil and malayali as well as sinhala as evidence of a divided nation (in fact there is speculation to suggest that Mahanilame, Ehalepola signed in Tamil to indicate that it was signed under duress ; to abrogate later; when making a more emotionally significant plead on behalf of family he signed in sinhala). However, the much more likely explanation is that despite language differences people were united under the sinhala flag and nation.

The Origin of Tamil as a nationalistic identity
So far in this exploration I have found no evidence of a unique and continuous “Tamil” identity, which incorporated a language, a country and a people. Language as distinct and written does not appear until the Chola empire and the Demeda and Damila identity as an ethnic grouping has only been recognised in Sri Lankan rock edicts earlier.
The earliest development of Thamilakam (Tamil Country) as a concept incorporating a people, a territory and language which I can find is in the 19th century when some Sri Lankan (Jaffna) elite collaborated with Indians in the Madras Presidency to evolve the idea of a Dravidastan.
Arumuga Navalar (1822-1879) a high caste Jaffna Tamil appear to have made the first attempts at spreading tamil consciousness in Jaffna and South India. He was a crucial player in re-establishing the Shiva agamic faith and Tamil literacy in South India and Jaffna. He and his followers established the society for preservation of Shaivism and the Jaffna Hindu college by the end of the 19th century. It was he who influenced the Governor of Ceylon to appoint Ponnambalam Ramanathan to the legislature.
Another important figure was Thamothran Pillai, the first Jaffna Tamil to graduate from Madras University in 1858. He was greatly influenced by Bishop Robert Caldwell’s (1856)division of languages in India into Indo-Aryan and Dravidian. This appears to have been seminal in the commencement of Dravidian and Tamil consciousness in India and Sri Lanka.
Subsequently Pillai, Virasoiyam and Kalitokai brought out publications on Tamil Classics. It is said that the modern linguistic consciousness of Tamils people can be traced to this period. One Tamil scholar even considered Tamil (language) as Goddess.

Subsequent movements for an independent Dravidastan from these beginnings is not clear but I would postulate that the Jaffna Tamil elites mainly identifying themselves with the Chola Ksyatriya invaders were conscious of their “elite status” and expected to be political leaders of at least Lanka if not the subcontinent. The attempts at secession may have been in recognition that they could not hold such leading positions without complete hegemony over a territory.
The idea of Dravidastan was finally laid to rest with the India-China war (1962) and legislation banning secession. In 1969 Madras State was reconstituted and the Tamilnadu state was born, completing the Tamil Identity.
Thus Tamil identity with a territory and a people and a language appears to be a relatively modern concept in comparison to Sinhala identity. The divisions such Caldwell’s led to dividing the people of India and Sri Lanka along the Aryan-Dravidian divide, whereas modern genetics demonstrate that people of the subcontinent are essentially genetically indigenous and mixed (thus the race theory is artificial). Thus the Sinhale which was the name for the people of the island became an ethnic entity for the first time.
While the Tamils of India had an identity, this left the elite Tamils of Sri Lanka without the political benefits of this. The communication ascribed to the Ponnambalam brothers (elites who appear to have thought they were the heirs to Sri Lankan rule), Chelvanayagam (a Tamil brought up in Malaysia with no loyalty to Sri Lanka) and Amithralingam (the only ordinary son of the soil ) indicate that they wanted the Tamils of Sri lanka to remain an elite section of society.