90

 

TAMIL KINGS IN EARLY CEYLON

 

            A Sinhalese correspondent in the ‘Daily Mirror’ of 7.5.62, takes the following quotation from the Dipavamsa, a IV century Pali Chronicle of Ceylon, to prove that the early kings of Ceylon who were not Tamils were Sinhalese.

 

            “The Damilas (Tamils) Sena and Guttaka capturing Sura Tissa (Singhalese) ruled righteously for 22 years.”1

 

            (Note:  Sura Tissa is said to have been a king in the 3rd century B.C.  He was the brother of Devanampiya Tissa and the son of Mutasiva.  Mutasiva in turn was the son of Pandukhabhaya who was a descendant of Panduvasa.  The last name appears in an altered from as Panduvasudeva in the Mahavamsa, the later Pali Chronicle.)2

 

            The original Pali text as well as its translation by B. C. Law may be consulted.  The word Damilas is not indicated within brackets as ‘Tamils’.  Nor is Sura Tissa stated to be a ‘Sinhalese’ within brackets, as this Sinhalese correspondent has done in his quotation of the text.

 

            Of course every one knows that Damilas is the Pali form of the word ‘Tamils’, but Sura Tissa is the name of a person and he is not described as a ‘Sinhalese’.  He was in fact, as already indicated, the son of Mutasiva and a brother of Mahasiva, both descendants of Panduvasa and Pandukabhaya.  Panduvasa (a dweller of Pandya, the Tamil kingdom in South India)3 had succeeded Vijaya, after a brief interregnum, following Vijaya’s death4 :  Pandukabhaya, a local Naga who formed an illicit marriage with Chitta, the younger daughter of Panduvasa in the teeth of opposition from her uncle came to power with the help of Yakka chiefs in Kerala5 and so did Mutasiva, his son, who became the father of Devanampiya Tissa, Uttiya, Mahasiva and Sura Tissa.

 

            As the names Panduvasa, Abhaya (Apaian or Appiah)6 Mutasiva and Mahasiva suggest, these kings were Hindus (Saivites) and Tamils.  It is significant, as pointed out by B. C. Law, that the names of Devanampiya Tissa and Duttugemunu, the two alleged Buddhist heroes of the later Mahavamsa, are not found in the early inscriptions so far discovered in Ceylon.7

 

            Sura Tissa was followed by Sena and Guttaka, (Tamils who came directly from the Tamil country in South India).  ASELA,

 

91

 

another son of Mahasiva succeeded them, and the great Elara followed.  The difference between the earlier kings ending with ASELA, on the one hand, and Sena, Guttaka and Elara on the other was that the former were Pandyan Tamils who had founded a dynasty in Ceylon, and the latter were Chola Tamils.

 

            The Dipavamsa, a priestly Chronicle written in ‘atrocious Pali’8, was discovered in Burma.  The Mahavamsa, the other Pali Chronicle, described as an ‘Epic Poem’9 was found by Turnour, an English Civil Servant in about 1826, in a Vihara near Tangalle, and the Tika, a Pali commentary ascribed to the XIII  C.10, was discovered by him in a remote Vihara in Sabaragamuwa.  These ola manuscripts un-understood even by the priests of the time, had to be unraveled, and the Mahavamsa translated into English, after much research and study, by the young English Civil Servant.  Dr. G. C. Mendis states that the age of the Mahavamsa Manuscript, written on ola leaves, is perhaps not more than two hundred years.11 It was through the English translation of the Mahavamsa executed through the labours and scholarship of an Englishman that the English educated Sinhalese laymen of the XIX C, first came to know the contents of the Chronicle.  A Sinhalese translation followed later.

 

            Much has been made of the word Sihala used in a single instance both in the Dipavamsa and the Mahavamsa, in an effort to associate the Island with the alleged lion race to which Vijaya is said to have belonged.  How did this strained explanation arise, when elsewhere in these texts the Island is referred to as either Lanka, Tambapanni or Nagadipa and never as Sihala.

 

            This is what B. C. Law says referring to the authors of these Chronicles –

 

            “They offer a cheap fantastic explanation for the origin of the name of the Island -  Sinhala- because of Vijaya’s father Sihabahu since he had slain the lion…..”.12  The probability is that this ‘fantastic explanation’ is the result of an interpolation crudely effected during the period the Tika was composed (circa XIII  C).13  Besides this single ola manuscript, ‘not more than 200 years old’) we have no other copies to check the authenticity of its contents.

 

Tamil Kings – Usurpers

            The same Sinhalese correspondents tell us –

 

            “The usurpers as Damilas (Tamils) referred to by the authors obviously make one infer that the other kings”, (meaning

 

92

 

kings such as Asela, Sura Tissa etc., as distinct from Sena, Guttaka), “were Sinhalese kings.”

 

            The word usurper means “one who assumes a throne wrongfully”.  A usurper need not necessarily be a member of a particular race!  Subbha, the porter, Dharmasena, an ex-Andhrite Kasyappa, a Kanarese, and several other kings of the Island were usurpers.14  In fact, we know that of the fifty-one kings of the Mahavamsa period, nineteen were put to death by other aspirants to the throne.15

 

            And still, nowhere in the Dipavamsa, for instance, is it stated, as this Sinhalese ‘historian’ suggests, that Sena, Guttaka and Elara, (particularized as Damilas), were usurpers.

 

            Here is what we read in the Dipavamsa about them – Ch. XVIII, vv. 47-50.

 

            v. 47.  “The Damilas, Sena and Guttaka, capturing Sura Tissa, ruled righteously for twenty-two years.”

 

            v. 48.  “Prince Asela, son of Mutasiva, killing Sena and Guttaka ruled for ten years.”

 

            v. 49.  “The Prince named Elara killing Asela ruled righteously for forty-four years.”

 

            v. 50.  “Avoiding the paths of desire, hatred, fear and delusion, he ruled righteously being incomparable.”

 

            Curiously enough the Dipavamsa, the earlier of the two old Pali Chronicles, makes no mention of a war between Elara and Duttugemunu, (a tale apparently fabricated to counteract the Saiva revival that was fast spreading through the Tamil country during this period).  The graphically and romantically described campaigns occupying a large section of the Mahavamsa were written two centuries later than the Dipavamsa, and about 900 years after the time of Elara.  It was evidently invented for the edification of the pious in Ceylon and to strengthen and confirm the common people in their new faith.  The hero of these apparently fictitious campaigns, is depicted, at the same time, as the slave of the Buddhist priesthood in the Island.16

 

            There are more reasons to infer that Mutasiva, Mahasiva, Asela and Sura Tissa (and incidentally Devanampiya Tissa) were of Tamil descent and were Hindus (Saivites).  That is why Tennent holds that “the rule of the Tamils, although averse to Buddhism, was characterized by justice and impartiality and that

 

93

 

the people recognised their relationship to the legitimate sovereigns of the Island”.  (Tennant’s ‘Ceylon’, Vol. I, p. 296).

 

            Why abuse the good old Tamil Kings when our Sinhalese brethren, who lay exclusive claim to this Island, have a feeble case to support their make-belief?

 

Early Dravidians

            The same Sinhalese correspondent, a budding local ‘historian’, gives us a summary of what he alleges to be stated in the 1922 Edition of the ‘Cambridge History of India’.  He refrains from quoting his source.  Although this Edition was published 40 years ago, and much water has flowed under the bridge of History, Archaeology and Philology, his summary does not appear to reflect the views of the Cambridge Historians of India who say –

 

(a)     “The oldest stratum of pre-Dravidian blood probably belonged to Savages, termed by ancient (Tamil) poets Villavar (bowmen) and Minas (fishers)”, ibid. p. 539.  This has been interpreted by the Sinhala ‘historian’ to mean that “the present Dravidians are the results of pre-Dravidians – a race of high culture…….”.  He is apparently not aware that ‘pre-Dravidians’ means, an earlier race than other Dravidians, and that proto-Dravidians means, ‘original’, ‘chief’, ‘primitive’ Dravidians or “Dravidians of the first period of formation of growth”.

 

It is this kind of knowledge that passes for history in Ceylon and is dished out as the authentic story of the peoples and the culture of Ceylon.  The Cambridge History continues-

 

(b)    “The Tamils…..  formed the three kingdoms of the Pandya, Chola, Chera, where the ruling element was the land tilling classes, the Vellalas.” (ibid. p. 539).

 

(c)     “The Pandyans claimed descent from a tribe styled Marar….”  (ibid. p. 539.)  (i.e. Not from the ‘Pandavas’ or ‘the Aryans’).

 

(d)    “Even in the fifth century A.D. of the Christian era, the South seems to have felt little influence of Aryan culture.” (p. 540).

 

(e)     “Dravidian Society was still free from the yoke of Brahmin caste system”, (p. 540).

 

S. J. Gunasegaram

 

 

94

 

NOTES

 

1.                                          Dipavamsa (Ch. XVIII, v. 47), wrongly quoted by a correspondent in the Daily Mirror (7.5.62), to show that the kings of the period were ‘Sinhalese’.

 

2.                                          B. C. Law, “On the Chronicles of Ceylon”, p. 50.  “Did the author of the Mahavamsa purposely change the name to Panduvasudeva King of Vanga and Kalinga mentioned in the Mahabharata……?”.

 

3.                                          Panduvasa.  “It may as well be a Pali or Prakrit equivalent of Pandyavasa meaning one from the Pandyan country i.e., A Pandya by his nationality”.  (B. C. Law, ibid. p. 52).

 

4.                                          Vijaya paid an annual tribute to the Pandyan king.  (MHV. Ch. VII, v. 73).  It is likely that his successors too did so.  North Ceylon (Nagadipa or Serentivu), it may be presumed, was under Pandyan control.

 

5.                                          (a)  vide, Dr. G. C. Mendis ‘Early History of Ceylon’, (1954), ‘Map of ancient Ceylon’, p. 23, Northern Ceylon is indicated as Nagadipa which corresponds to Serentivu in Tamil, the Island of the Chera Tamils.

‘The Chera or Sera is the Dravidian equivalent of the Nagas.  Chera Mandala has the same meaning as Naga Mandala – of Naga country’.

‘Anthropology in India’, (1961).  (Bharatiya Vidiya Bhavan Publication).

 

(b)   MHV. Ch. IX.  Citta and DIGHA GAMANI are referred to as PANDUKABHAYA’s parents.  GAMANI was apparently the son of a local Naga Chieftain (referred to as a Dhiga).  Still Pandukabhaya retains the PANDYAN title.  In the list of kings he is referred to as the nephew of ABHAYA.  CITTA, a horseman, is said to have assisted the parents of Pandukabhaya in their clandestine love affair and was apparently made a Chieftain who had his abode below Basuvakulam.  It is likely that as a mark of gratitude Pandukabhaya had made him a sub-king.  CITTA is not a Sanskrit term as Dr. S. Paranavitane holds.  (JRAS/CB. Vol. XXXI, p. 304) but a Tamil word – CITTA Small and ARASU IRASA = King.  cf. CITTAPPA in Tamil () father’s younger or ‘smaller’ brother.  (vide D.E.T. Sect. 167 for Aracan Aracu = king Prince).  RAJAN is probably derived from Tamil Aracan.  (Cittu, Citta, small, young – vide D.E.T. 2073).

 

95

 

6.                                          Abhaya is the Prakritised form of the Dravidian Appiah or Appayan.  Apayan () in Tamil means ‘he who averts fear’, ‘a warrior’, ‘a hero’, ‘a king, particularly of the Chola dynasty’.

7.                                          “The two main heroes, Devanampiya Tissa and Duthagamini are still missed in them’, i.e., in the Inscriptions found in early Ceylon.  (B. C. Law, ibid. p. 65).

Laws adds, “unfortunately, however none of the names by which the early kings of Ceylon are introduced in the inscriptions is identical with that which occurs in the Chronicles.  The identifications so far suggested are tentative” (p. 65).

This apparently has been the result of the early Buddhist monks attempting to Pali-ise Hindu Tamil names of the rulers and chieftains of this Island.

 

8.                                          Rhy Davids, ‘Buddhist India’, p. 157.

 

9.                                          ibid. p. 158.

 

10.                                      Geiger considers the Tika to have been written between A.D. 1000 and 1250.

 

11.                                      Dr. G. C. Mendis, ibid.  Appendix I, ‘Sources’.

vide, also Introduction to Turnour’s ‘Mahawamsa’.

 

12.       B. C. Law, ibid. p. 49.

 

13.       B. C. Law, ibid. p. 22.

 

14.       The Pallavas were not foreigners but were themselves Dravidians.  The Rev. A. H. Popley says, “It is clear that they came from the Deccan probably from what is now Kannada” (‘Indo’, Oct., 1956).

            The term Pallava is the Sanskrit form of the Tamil ‘Tondayar’.  To begin with, their rulers were Jains and Buddhists but many of them became Saivites through the influence of the Tamil Saiva saints.

 

15.                          Tennent ‘Ceylon’, Vol. I, pp. 314-315.

 

16.                          Duttugemunu’s dying avowal was that he lived “a slave to the Priesthood” according to the Mahavamsa.  Geiger translates the words as ‘the servant of the brotherhood’.  (MHV. Ch. XXXII, V. 58).