Presenting a Review Essay compiled by Michael Roberts in 2010 that was presented in the SRI LANKA GUARDIAN on the 15th August 2010 … with this title: “Ethnic Identity in Sri Lanka’s Pre-Capitalist Past: Shanie, Darshanie and Roberts”
Let me quote an extract from Darshanie’s note, with colours distinguishing Darshanie [blue] from Shanie [brown]: “Isn’t Shani (the writer of this article) actually displaying mediocre scholarship and a lamentable lack of intellectual rigor when she says: “Scholars like HL Seneviratne and Michael Roberts have in recent contributions to the Island pointed out that there is no evidence of any distinctiveness in our ethnic identities. HL Seneviratne pointed out that many of the Kandyan chieftains signed the 1915 [sic—1815] Convention in Tamil.”
Sri Vikrama Rajasinghe
By placing the second sentence after the first hasn’t Shani made out the second assertion to be some kind proof of the first assertion? But signing the Convention in Tamil is not indicative of any lack of distinctiveness of ethnic identity no? it is actually more an elitist thing isn’t it? Tamil was made the current language of the ‘inner circle’ by the Royal family and their powerful contingent of Royal relations present at court no? It’s rather like the pre revolutionary Russian nobility speaking French isn’t it or the way people speak and write in English in Sri Lanka even when they are among their own with no need of a lingua franca?”
I am entirely in agreement with Darshanie’s reasoning in her second paragraph. Let me add that as far as I know the signatures deemed Tamil in the Kandyan Convention are in fact written in Grantha which is a script not a language. I leave it to scholars versed in that field to engage that issue.”
