The
greatness of the Great Chronicle, Mahavamsa
H. L.
D. Mahindapala
“And the
soothsayers, when they saw the seats prepared, foretold: ‘The earth is occupied
by these (bhikkus); they will be lords upon the island.’ – Mahavamsa
XIV:
53.
.
In the opening paragraph Bhikku Mahanama, the Father of Sri Lankan
history, makes it clear that he didn’t sit down to write the Mahavamsa
because he had oodles of time hanging on his hands and did not know what to do
with it. He declares in no uncertain terms that his mission was to write a new
history from the available old histo ries (example: Atthakathas,
Dipawamsa). The result was a classic text in historiography that gave
meaning and purpose to the descendants of the Aryan First Settlers. Though
there were pre-Aryans like the Nagas and the Yakkas the Aryan First Settlers
were the pioneering makers of history in the island. In time they came to
be known as the Sinhala-Buddhists who steered their way triumphantly down the
passage of time into the 21st century. The Mahavamsa
says that “all those (followers of Vijaya) were (also) called Sihala.” (MV –
VII: 42). (Please note that all MV quotes in this article are from
Wilhelm Geiger’s translation).
With or without the Mahavamsa, the epigraphical and
archaeological evidence would confirm that the Sinhala-Buddhists were the
primary and the dominant makers and guardians of history. The monumental
legacies left behind by the Aryan-“Sihalas” confirm incontrovertibly that it
was they who laid the foundations for a new civilisation. And the accepted
tradition in history is that territory belongs to those who made history
with the sole objective of making the land “a fit dwelling-place for men”
– the ultimate goal of humanity who have been struggling to find their feet in
recorded history. From the Ten Commandments to the UN Charter the
objective of the makers of history was to make the land a fit
dwelling place for humanity. This principle is spelt out clearly in the Mahavamsa
which states that the first mission was to make “our island a fit dwelling-place
for men”. (MV-1:43).
In creating a new civilisation, new culture and new language the
“Sihalas” were conscious of the role they were playing. They were driven by a
deep sense of history, protecting and defending their identity and territory
from S. Indian and Western invaders. The Mahavamsa shines today
as the symbol and the transmitter of that deep sense of history. Though it
dealt with the past it was meant for the future. It shaped the future of the
evolving a nation. No other known text has had the ideological and political
impact as Bhikku Mahanama’s 37 chapters. There are 17 universities and “4,500
faculties in Sri Lankan university system”. (The Island, 19/6/18
– Devenesan Nesiah). Which university or faculty has produced anything comparable
to that of the Mahavamsa? The laboured doctoral theses of current
holders of chairs in academia are gathering dust in the dark corners of
university libraries where the MA and PhD theses pile up like cadavers in a
mortuary, unknown, unread, unsung and unwanted.
The Mahavamsa, on the contrary, remains as live
force to this day, renewing its power with each passing century. Eminent
scholars have been falling over each other to analyse its contents in minute
detail. There are four main translations in English, starting from that of
George Turnour (1837) of the Ceylon Civil Service. Before Turnour’s translation
there was a French translation done by Eugene Burnouf (1826). Scholars
also have discovered Burmese and the Cambodian translations of the Mahavamsa.
Dr. Hema Goonatilake, UN adviser to Cambodia, has documented in her essays on
Buddhism in South East Asia that epic scenes from the Mahavamsa
have been painted on the walls of the Myinkaba Kubyank-gyi temple by the
Burmese King Kyanzitta in 1113 in honour of his dying father.
(Goonatilake, 12th century paintings of Mahavamsa in Burma,
Sri Lanka Puravidya Samhita, Vol 2, Archaeological Society of Sri Lanka, 2006).
The Mahavamsa advanced further into Thailand, Cambodia and Laos.
Dr. Goonatilake’s research has revealed the role of Sinhala monks as
missionaries who had to first combat legacies of Hinduism and Mahayana
Buddhism in converting these nations to Theravada Buddhism. The
best known translation is that of the Indologist Wilhelm Geiger. It became so
popular that one of the most respected historian / archaeologist, Prof. S.
Paranavitana, said: “Poor Mahanama! Everyone calls his book as Geiger’s Mahavamsa!”
(p.21, Mahavamsa, The Great Chronicle of Sri Lanka, edited by Dr.
Ananda Guruge, Lake House publications.)
Nevertheless, the Mahavamsa has come in for
criticism, and even derision, by the anti-Sinhala-Buddhist lobby, particularly
in academia, because it had focused only on the history of the
“Sihala” people. There is no doubt that the Mahavamsa
has given the “Sihalas” a pre-eminent place in contemporary politics – a
factor which is resented by the mono-ethnic extremists of the
North. It is generally accepted that those who dominate history
also dominates politics. So it becomes an inescapable political necessity for
those demanding disproportionate share of power and privileges to undermine the
overarching and dominant history. Consequently, Sinhala-Buddhist history
has been the common target of the federalists/separatists.
G. G. Ponnambalam, who raised the communal cry of demanding 50 % of power for
11 % of Tamils, led the anti-Sinhala-Buddhist lobby in the late 1930s by
attacking the Mahavamsa and the Sinhala-Buddhist history. The
rest, of course, is history. Financed by foreign-funded NGs, some hired
academics too rushed subsequently to follow the anti-Mahavamsa
line initiated by Ponnambalam. Their political objective was to belittle and
deride Mahavamsa as a partisan document of the Sinhala-Buddhists.
Undoubtedly, Mahavamsa focuses essentially on the
Sinhala-Buddhists. What else could he do writing in the 5th century?
What else was there for him to write about at the time? He couldn’t write
about the Tamils because they were not a part of the evolving historical
events. Historians can deal only with the available material. There were no
other makers of history at the time he wrote his magnum opus. The
Aryan-“Sihalas” were the primary makers of history until the first wave of
Tamil settlers established a base in Jaffna in the 11th century.
This “new colonizing wave (of S. Indian migrants) set forth from the Malabar
coast and must have settled down before the 11th century,” wrote
Heinz Bechert. “This group of people are in the main the Mukkuvas……The
second migratory wave – perhaps in the 13th and 14th
centuries – brought mainly families of the Tamilian Vellala-caste, the high
caste peasants (the so-called “high caste sudras” from the east Tamilian region
to North Ceylon.” (p.30 – Heinz Bechert, The Ceylon Journal of
Historical and Social Studies, Vol 6, January – June 1963, No. 1.).
Bechert, a leading Indologist, outlines the decisive migratory waves of S. Ind
of ouians that came across the Palk Strait to settle down as permanent dwellers
in Jaffna. Even Tamil historians like S. Arasaratnam and K. Indrapala agree
that the first Tamil settlements were in the 12th and 13th
centuries.
As an objective historian Bhikku Mahanama documents the
failures and the achievements of the Sinhala-Buddhists. The role of Tamils in
Sri Lankan history is put more precisely by Dr. Ananda Guruge. He wrote:
: “…..(L)inguistically and culturally, the Dravidian element in the Sri Lankan
population had remained sporadic, intermittent and secondary. On the whole, the
material evidence of its presence and impact dates from a much later period
than the arrival and the entrenchment of Indo-Aryan Sinhala population in the
entire island. Archaeological and epigraphical evidence, as well as the place
names of proven antiquity, confirm the distribution in all parts of the Island
without exception.” (p. 90 – Guruge). The extant evidence points to the fact
that the Tamils did not put down their roots as permanent dwellers before the
11th century. They were all tied physically and mentally to S.
India, their only homeland. Besides, they did not believe that they had a
history of their own in Sri Lanka worth recording. If they did they would have
certainly done so as they did in their original and only homeland in S. India.
In fact, they had no inclination to engage in such creative or
scholarly endeavours as writing history. It is the Dutch Governor, Jan
Maccaras, who had to order the writing of a history of Jaffna for his guidance.
This resulted in producing a sketchy account of Jaffna, Yalpana
Vaipava Malai, (circa 1736 ) mixed with folk lore and legends. What
is noteworthy is that this text came out of a Dutch order and not from a deep-rooted sense
of history like the Mahavamsa. So, considering the
historical facts, there is no justification to blame Bhikku Mahanama for
focusing only on the Sinhala-Buddhists. He is demonised as a racist historian
who had deliberately downgraded the Tamils. But this is a perverse view
of history : if the Tamils of S. India had only settled down
in and around the 11th century how could Bhikku Mahanama write
about the incidental and inconsequential Tamils in the 6th
century? Besides, there were many sojourners and drifters in Sri Lanka
from the year dot and Tamils were among them. Like all other
histories the Mahavamsa dealt only with the
permanent and constructive makers of history. The Tamils played a
temporary and destructive role and due place was given to the Tamil invaders
and marauders. Historian Mahanama did not miss any significant details. As he
stated in his first line in he “will recite the Mahavamsa of varied
content and lacking nothing.” (MV – 1:1). If there was any
significant contribution he would have recorded it dutifully and
scrupulously as seen in the emphatic place given to Elara’s bell of justice.
Other than that the Tamils did not come into the picture until the 11th
century. So how could historian Bhikku Mahanama write about a non-existent
factors in the 5th century?
The anti-Sinhala-Buddhist lobby denigrates the Mahavamsa
venomously because it does not substantiate their claim that the Tamils, like
the Sinhala-Buddhists, were “in possession” of divided Sri Lanka from “the dawn
of time”. (Opening line in the Vadukoddai Resolution). They need
this historical fiction desperately to substantiate their claim to the
Northern and Eastern territories, which constitute 2/3rd of
the littoral strip. Mahavamsa provides no evidence of the
“Demalas” (Tamils) playing any historical or significant role in laying the
solid foundations of Sri Lanka, or occupying the Northern and Eastern
coastline. In fact, Bhikku Mahanama makes references to the “Demalas” as
invaders, marauders, traders, and even gigolos in the court of Queen Anula more
than the “Sihalas”. He makes only two references to the “Sihalas” but
makes numerous references to the “Demalas” describing the destructive role they
played as colonisers who were driven away by the “Sihala” nation-builders.. But
nowhere does he mention the Tamils as makers of the great new civilisation.
They are recognised as colonial invaders, marauders and gigolos who were driven
out each time they tried to occupy Sri Lankan territory. The credit for making
a new civilisation goes decisively, on historical evidence, to the
“Sihalas”.
ButThe
By writing this history as objectively as possible, which is remarkable for a
Buddhist monk and a historian of the time, he was being faithful to the events
as they happened. The roles of the “Demalas” and the “Sihalas” are recorded
without bias. If he was a partisan historian he would not have given Elara, the
Tamil coloniser, the respectable place he occupies in the Mahavamsa.
He does not demonise Elara the way our “hack-ademics” denigrate him. The
problem with the detractors of the Mahavamsa is that they are
frustrated because Bhikku Mahanama did not write a history giving the pride of
place to the “Demalas” as makers of Sri Lankan history. In other words, they
wanted him to write fiction and not history as it happened. They would have
praised him to the skies if he wrote script that would help them to legitimise
the mono-ethnic politics of glorifying Jaffna jingoism of the 20th
century.
Historians and political scientists have been unsparingly critical
of the Western imperialists who occupied Afro-Asia. But Bhikku Mahanama has
been very considerate and just in dealing with Elara, the Tamil colonialist,
whose primary objective would have been, like all colonial masters, to live off
the Sinhala-Buddhist people. Dutugemunu is elevated to a central place in the Mahavamsa
not because he defeated Elara, which was inevitable, but because he overthrew
an unwanted colonial regime and restored the territorial integrity and the
unity of the nation. Anti-colonial leaders who triumphed over imperialists are
given a place of honour in all histories. Bhikku Mahanama’s account
of Elara is no different from that of any other historian who
would reject colonialists and embrace the national leaders who fought against
the foreign invaders.
Bhikku Mahanama’s stated ambition in writing the Mahavamsa,
however, was humble and simple. He stated that his endeavours were to make his
new text easy to read and understand unlike the “faulty” old texts. But he
never dreamt that his classic would reverberate down the ages, inspiring
generations to look back with pride about the achievements of their ancestors.
It is a book that bound and held together the descendants of the Aryan First
Settlers in a shared history. It made them feel that the Aryan First Settlers
did not live in vain. They left their indelible mark on sand, rock, bo-tree and
land. The overall design, the integrated structure, and the easy flowing narrative,
placing the secular movement of history as the central drama, within the
overarching ambience of Buddhism, had stood the test of time and proved to be
an invaluable historical document throwing light into the dim distant past. In
short, he had succeeded in achieving the mission he set out to fulfil: write
a consolidated history of the people, or as he put it, “to recite the
Mahavamsa, of varied content and lacking nothing.” (MV – Chapt 1: 1).
His masterpiece which bound the people together down the ages is
yet to be matched by any other academic, some of whom had derided his efforts.
His skill in editing the available material has proved that he had mastered the
art of historiography of his time . The interplay of Buddhist dynamics
with the secular politics is handled deftly to maintain a convincing balance
between the two competing forces in the evolving history. The relevance
and the accuracy of his text have been acknowledged by international scholars
exploring South Asian historiography. For instance, the missing links in the
history of Emperor Asoka were filled by the records in the Mahavamsa.
George Turnour’s first translation into English (1837) helped the restoration
of India history.
Besides Bhikku Mahanama’s commitment to revise the available
narratives, which, according to him, had not been told with clarity and
felicity, his ambition to take the available material and give it depth of
meaning, confirm that he was imbued with a deep sense of history. His basic
methodology, as stated by him, was to cut here and chop there and edit the
available histories to give shape and meaning to the daring and creative
journey of the “Sinhala-Buddhist, as the pioneering history-makers came to be
known later. He wrote: “That (Mahavamsa) which was compiled by the ancient
(sages) was here too long drawn out and there too closely knit; and contained
many repetitions. Attend ye now to this (Mahavamsa) that is free from such
faults, easy to understand and remember, arousing serene joy and emotion and
handed down (to us) by tradition….” (MV 1: 2-4).
Having redacted the text expertly, he emerges in his narrative as
a scholarly analyst determined to put the record straight for posterity. The Mahavamsa
he produced stands, even today, as a guiding historical source that had
directly influenced the course of history just not in Sri Lanka but in the
Theravada movement that fanned out across the South East Asia as well. In
the forefront of this Theravada Movement were the Sinhala Buddhist monks, whom
the Mahavamsa predicted would be “the lords of the island.” (MV –
XIV : 53). None of the subsequent historiographers in academia and elsewhere
had produced a book of that magnitude. Detractors of Bhikku Mahanama had made a
living, and also advanced their careers, in academia and in NGO circles by
distorting the text with their perverse interpretations. But none ever attained
the broad influential and over-determining heights of the Mahavamsa.
For the moment, forget the murals of
Mahavamsa painted on the sacred temples of Burma.
Which chapters of any of the academic detractors of Mahavamsa,(e.g.
Professori Carlo Fonseka), have been drawn even in the streets of
Slave Island?