OEYLON AND MALAYSIA

331

A
Journal,

Rejoinder

Ceylon and Malaysia: to Nilakanta Sa.stri

Bv S. Pen,rN,c.vrrlNe

has exposed any weak point in the chain of evidence.-

K.A. Nilakanta Sastri, in his article 'Ceylon and Sri Vijaya, (ttris VIII, pp. tz5-r4o) has taken upon himself the task of refuting the thesis I'vhich rve have established in our paper 'Ceylon and Malavsia in Mediaevai Times' (Vol. VII, pp. r-42). Helemarlis that this thesis, if it is proved on sound and clear evidence, would constitute a new and important addition to our knowledge of the times, and it is there{ore essential to test every link in the chain of evidence put forward by us. For the same reason, we proceed to examine whether the detliled criticism, to which our paper has been subjected by Nilakanta Sastri,

Sailendra-varhsa. The first is not universally admitted.l As regards the second, R.C. ,Majumdar has pointed out that 'it is impos"sible, according t9;ou-1{ methods, to affirm that be{ore the eleventhcentury the king of Sri Viiaya belonged to the Sailendra dvnasty'.: What is there to preclude the possibility that some rulers oi Sri Vijaya, even after the eleventh century, were not Sailendras?

Tire first point on tvhich Nilakanta Sastri joins issue with us is over some remarks which we have made on the Jivaka king Candrabhanu. We quoted the reference to him inthe Hatthavanagalla-aihuraaaitsa, and remarked: 'This description, particularly the reference to ferrdatory rulers, r'vould call to one's mind a potentate like the Maharaja of. Zabag, rvhose rnight and wealth have been extolled by the Arib geographers, rather than a local ruler of obscure origin, who had but r:ecently shaken off his allegiance to his suzerain of Sri Vijaya, as Candrabhd"nu is generally held to have been by historians'. irrthese rvords of ours, there is no definite identification ol Candrabhdnu as a king o{ Sri Vijaya. Hence, Nilakanta Sastri's quoting the Jaiya inscription to prove that Candrabhanu was of the Padmavarhsa oi paiicandavarirsa, and not Sailendra-varirsa, is besides the point, and his reference to 'Paranavitana's rvish, in favour of Candrabhinu being regarded as of the line o{ the Maharajas ol Zabag (Sri Vijaya)', does not arise from what rve have said. Moreover, Nilakanta Sisirits argument here is based on two propositions: (r) that Zabag is identical with Sri Vijaya and (z) tnaitni rulers o['Sii Vi1uy" rve"re all o[ the

The next point is the identification of Tambarattha with Tanbalinga. Our argument is as follows: The If atthatLanagalla-vihdra-aait'sq', coritemporary with Candrabhinu, agreeing with- the Jaiya inscription, informi us that Candrabhanu hailed from Tambalinga. The Sinhalese versions of this work, written r'vithin a century and a half after the Pali original, refer to Candrabhinu's horne as 'Tamalingam' or Tamalingamu-', proving that this is the Sinhalese form of the territorial name referred to in the Jaiya inscription and the Hatthaaanagallaa ihar a=a arhs a. It the P aj auaft,, written in the reign of Pardkramabahu I I, the region from rvhicir Dhammakitti-thera was. invited to Ceylon is alsoialled'Tamalingamu', but the Cfi'lauathsa, in its account of the same event, tells us that Dhammakitti-theracamefrom Tambarattha. 'Tamalingamu' being, on the one hand, equivalent to 'Tambaiinga', and on t[e other to 'Tambarattha', the identity of Tambalinga with Tambarattha is clearly indicated. In fact, the form Tambarattha can be explained as an abbre"'iation o{ Tambalinga-ra!!,ha b)' th" process knowir as madhya-l>ada-lopa, i.e. the elision of the middle rvord in a compound of three rvords. To quote an analogy: If, for instance, a Tamil translation of an English document were to give 'Sennaipaltanam' as the equivalent ol 'Fort St. George', while another Tamil document gives Sennaipattanam' as the equivalent. of -'Madras', it is quite l6gitimate to conilude tirat 'Fort St. George' and 'Madras' refer to the same piace. To put it in the form of an ecluation, let us call Tambralinga A-, Tamalingam or Tamaiingamu B, and Tambarattha
C. The equation rvould then be:

A:B CB A:C
be quite convincing, Nilakanta Sastri says: 'He shows that the Pu.iauali calls it (the home of Dhammakitti-thera) Tamalingarnu, while the Cdlauamsa calls it Tambarattha. Hence he says, "it follolvs that Tam-

On this identification, which to anv unprejudiced mind must

balinga country was also known as Tambarattha. In Jact, Tambarattha appears to be an abbreviation o{ Tambalingarattha"'

iocation of Zabag in the X{alay Peninsula by }Iajumdar recer'ves suppbrt from the mention o{ Jd,vaka and Tambaliirga together by Medhaikara-thera,-which would be noticed in the sequel. The arguments of Nilakanta Sastri against Nlajurndar (History of Sri Vijaya, p. 66) are not convincing.

-=.

-R-. NI.Fmdar,-Suuarryaduiba, Vol. r, Calcutta, ry37, p. zr7. The

2. Ibid. p"

65.

Have we really put forward such an absurd argument as the above, attributed to us by Nilakanta Sastri? Our propositions for the identification of Tambalinga with Tambarattha are contained in the four paragraphs beginning with line 3r of page z and ending rvith l. zr bt page a o{ our papJr, and have been re-stated here in the foregoing paiagiuptr. Nilakinia Sastri has totally omitted the first trvo proposi-tlons, utra starts with the third, i.e. that 'the name Tamalingamu also occurs inlhe Ptr,jauali as that of the country from rvhich Dhammakittitherawas invited to Ceylon'. The word 'also' connects this sentence with the precerling paragraph, in rvhich it has been pointed out that 'Tama1infamo' ocioi. in.-a Sinhalese translation oI the H atthaa anagal I a' aihara-ualnsa. in place of 'Tamabaiiriga' given in the Pali original, to

332 JOtIIiN-{T,,

R,.A.S.

(Lllt\l1-alN) llol, VIII, I'art 2 (tr"eu Sa.les),

1963

CI'YLON AND MALAYSIA

333

rvhich relerence h:Is been nrade in the first oI these four paragrilphs. The reader, n hen he comes to tire paragraph dealing r,vith the occurrence o{ that name in the Pujtlt:alt, is expected to have in his minll 'n'hat \\,as statecl in the t-vo pr:eierling paragrapirs. In Nilakanta Sastri's \rer!-irion of our argunent f or ihe identiiication o{ Tamabaliriga rvith Tamltarattlia, this icier,rtitv is s:rid to foliou' irom the {:r.ct tl-rat t}re country calicd 'I:rirralirr,{:rnru in the F,ujdtalt is called 'larnbarattha in tirt' Lui,n,,rtitsct" What rve have actr,taliv stated is: "'lire Sinliak:se naine 'Tanralinqamn' being thus the eipivaient oI the Pali 'farnabaliirg:r' asrvellas'Tinrb:rrattha"', it follo."ls that Tambalinga country r.vas also knoln as'lam-

Savs Nilakanta Sastri: 'Here the last phrase cannot possibly meall .C,iilya (c..ntr1-) and" the Tambarattha' as Paranat'itana_ interprets

it, 5ut really iriam6aratdra of the CoJa (country-):

not-e^the ab'sence

barattlia.

{rom the one thnt wc itave girrcn, has }-recome, in Nilal<anta Sastri's hands, onc that rve liavt: ne:ver put forrv:rri1. One of the cardinal principles to be observectr in a contr-or-ersv, if thal is intui,-1ed for the eluci.dation of tr"*th, is to gir-e a tnie auci iaithful acconnt of the propositiun that is i;rilg controvtrtcrl; Nilakanta Sastri has rriolatecl itris principle. \\riratever be the reasr)n therefor, thig distortion, to say tire least, makes his position as a critic liabie to suspicioii.
We rvill sce ihat Nilakanta Sastli has had recoulse to this rnethod again ancl again. Where our arqLltrrenis hill'e been ciistorted or rnisrepresented in this lranncr, it must be hclrl that this is clue to the absence of any valid arguments against them :rs thev stand. Coi-rtinuin5l his objcctions, Nilaiianta Sastri sa1's; 'But this :r11 too tiasty corl.bination

It rvili thus be seen that our propo',iition, i:y the omission of tn'cr of its inaterial r.nemlters, ancl thc introi'Luction of a rr:ason quite differeirt

of a locati'e encli'g after Coliva and the compound rvord Co1i1'a-'lambarattha, rvhich is ilear rvarning that er-cn if there be any other lambarattlia (which may be equated-'r.ith Tambralirigl), that is-not *'hat is meant in this context'. Nilakanta Sastri himself admits that 'Co1i1'aTarnltarattha, is a co,npound. l)oes he e:pect the first r.r'ord in a compo'nd, too, to shou.tlie case enrling? Tlie 'orrnal-granr.matical rule, it is hardly necessarv to say, is that, exccpt irl the- ca-se of certaiil \,vords {or ivhictr special rutres are givell, the first rvoicl of a compound in Sanskrit or Paii is in the ste; form. It u,i1l be noticecl th:rt the

compouncl Colil'a-'fatt"bavatthe is in the-locative \\'-hel a ca'*c endini o...o, in tire'1-ast rvord,rf'a cor"puu'd, that encling apptries aiso to each of the preccdin6J worcls, provided th:1 the compor'rnd is o{ the duarLdTa cla_ss. No\1., t'iris corniiounrl C0li;,,a-Tam,baratllte inay be either d.ta;d,aa, tt"t'bttrtt':a or ha'rmadhall4ta' Ll rve take it as a tatfu'rrt'sa-corn"pouncl, ii rni-v 1u.url '-lambarattha of the.Coliyas'; if it isaharmadlLi:loi'a, ftarJatattt ,r vn'hich is Coliva.r'But the irrteiprel"ation of the compound in tillrcr oi tlr, se l\\'u \\'a's js i,t'ctlrt,led L,r'thc Polonr;a*t inscriptiun separate regions.s },Ior-eot-er, it u,ouid 1gt square with tlio lino\\'n tacts adout tire ielations ihe Sinhalese lluclclhisis of tire trr,el{th and thirt-

n[:lnrIarainahaderi, $hiclr rc[r-rs lo'l'aml rrr:ttlltlt rnd Co!a a*-tlr'{)

by Paranavitana's orvir cita.tions from Pali rvorks'. What rve har.e combinecl in our argument are not surmisc-s, but clefir-iitc statcmcnts in tmstn,orthy slrLrrces. Of the sollrces frc;in r",'hich clata have been gathered for this identihcation, tite first, I'IattloarLanagaila-rihiraratitsa, is conterrrporarv \vith the crrents discussecl, the seconCl consists of trvo Sinhaiese translations of the flrst, the itiird (thc l)ujtrunl|) ancl the fourth (Cfi,lat:athsa) are contempor:rrr,' rvith thc llrst, and so fai as ihe qtrestioir at issue is concerned, deal tvith the same events. They are therefore bv no means disparate, as Nilakanta Sastri states them to be. From rvhat has ireen stated., it rl.ill be seen t.hat it is not our conrbination of the data that is'al1 too hasty' but Nilakanta Sastri's

o{ surmises ri,'ith c1:rta frour despar:rte (sic? ) soLlrces is riirectl_v precluded

eenth centuries had il'ith their co,religionists in South lndia. It ri'as only at Nagapattana that thcre rvas a fiiurishing cnlrimnritv of Theravacia lJuclclhists'in the South Lrclia o{ that periorl. Neitlicr in the references to Nagapattana in sinhalese u.ritings, nor iu the literature and cpigraptry ii Soutn India, has tlie regi'''il -rou.rld Nrtgapattana t."r,o &tj.a Lambarattha or its ecluivalent. \\'c should not, thetefore,

tr*t tt. compound Coliya-Tamltaratthe as one ol the k,arnta-dh,araya ir iaatptwu.,.a ciass. We iri'c to take it as a d'rtctnd,t"a compound, inter'lambarattha''
pt"iiig it o, 'ir-, ColiS'o-rattha
and
Coliyt't' is a

derivalile

distortion of our proposition, and his assurnption that the sources utiiised are disoarate.
Sastri, 'is ciirectly precluded by Paranavitana's orvn citations from Pali rvorl<s', natnel5r the following half-l'erse {roil lludd}rarakkhita's
J i n tll ahk dr a- a an1t an ii :
L a ddhi"b lil s eh o a a r a - p an di{, elt L ahlt atutl e C aliy a-T amb ay atth

Ttiriin'iA of the name Cofa, rvir;cn denrtes a pertiirihr ro1'e1 iamilrv, :Lnd ri,asextendecl io the people anclthe courrtri over ri'ltich tl.re1' lult:ci' Coli.yayattha woulilthus mean'thc country beiongingto the Colas'. trt be pointecl o*t that i^ this compouncl of three s'ordsi, the ,r*fi "froare jcrined together as a d,ttanch:tr,co:mpound, and C-oliya-lawba ni*'t touo thus fornred"is furthei combined $/ii]n rattJw as a h(wm(tLlhfiraya cotmpo"r,a. Tlre u'ord rilttha (coLr\1f1y) thris applies to coli^,tn as s'ell as
Tatnba.

Norv let us see rvhether this iclentihcation, as clainrerl by Nilakanta

rattha tvas in South India. 'I-ikervisE Anrirucldha Tirera's mentiorr of iri*'Ui.th in a farnily t-,f Kavira-nsgara in the excellent l{aficipura n"tii" ."a his lir-ing in 'lafljanagarJ o{ Tambarattha lea'es no doubt abor-it tlie p.or,.r,ntie of tde thira, ob:'iousl1: it $'as South India''
note 20.

Nilakanta Sastri has another argunent for his vierv that Tamba-

i
e

3.

Sce

EfigrofLia Zeylattica,\ro1. IV, p. Tz andthis Journal' \rol VII' p''1'

334 JOURNAL,

R,.A.S.

(CEYLON) Vot. VIII, part 2 (,\ew,Serries),

t96B rvas piesented

CEYLON AND MALAYSIA

335

ranja. The menrion.of raija as a'city in r"*u"*it}r" ca"nrt oe taken as a reason for locating Tambarattha i'South India, for the^re are several place names in th"e J\Ialay peninsula witn tn"'J"]n.'t
called ha Thera was born in Kariiranagira in the Kaicipu.a coorrtrv. *hi.t are assumed to have been in South India, there is no croubt ihat the place where he lived was also in South tnaia. tt wourd ir" tt the reader that the general proposition irom which rr.i-t "po"i".rt can De dra\vn rs that any person who rvas born in South "'.5".i".i"" India could

pu-t forward, is the location of rambarattha in *hich"

Now, the question at issue, to settle r,vhich this argument has been

th;;; *"*"r1ity
Anurudd-

inscription of his that the Forest Monastery to the west of Sukhodaya to a distinguished elder who came from Sri Dharmaraja, and who had studied the lvhole of the Tripital<a.a In this case, it was the Pali Tripitaka that was meant, for the king of Sukhodaya was a follower
of the Theravada. We may point out a further example of an argument attributed to us by Nilakanta Sastri, which materially differs from that relied upon by us in the identification of Tambarattha with Tambaiinga. 'The method follor,ved by Paranavitana to establish that Tamalingam

an]ong. I hus the reason given by Nilakanta sastri is that, .l

as

times in r'vhich Anuruddha-thera fliurished. a"a x&ir"f"itu"u was in the Cola country, not in the To{rdaimaldalam, of whiit'Kafci_ was the capital. These unusual features in the geographical data Pul3 ln tne passage rviil make any one, who has no interesi inlppropriating everything for his or.vn co-untry, and has no antipathy to an /original ,ori*i.t"t ty'".ra thesis', hesitate before dubbing the passage manifestl-v south Indian in conte"nt'. Even ilive "J "t grant that Kaflcipurais the city named Kafrcipura in the T"ondaimandalam,' and I3!f!. I{avrranagara, which is said to have been in the Kaflcipura-rattha, is no other than Kaveripattana in colamardala, that ao.*iiot *"t. it necessary. to offer a location for Kdflcipura in Malaya before Tambarattha is located in that region._If y" i.9 tolcl that *-.y.2. C.ttiy"., who was born at Tirunelveli in Madras State, made a fortune is a money-Jender at Kuala Lumpur, is it necessary to offer a location for Tirunelveli in the Nlalay peninsula, in order"to take it that Kuala
Irurypur is in the Malay Peninsula? Pali schorarship was notunl"o*" i" the Malay Peninsula. King Rama Kliamheng has iecorcled in a famous

are not aware of such a rure having operated in South India ln the past. argument th^at there are place names in the Malay peninsula - ,., the wrth9,u. eiement Tafliong has evoked from Nilakanta Sastri a pro_ nouncement in which dogmatic assertion takes the piace of argumLnt: 'But it should be obviousito any-9ne rvho has no inteiest in maiitaining an "original thesis", that not itt the Tafljongs in Maraya la" li.ip1rr; l.-C-y"fnt lr"-.erelaring to a passage which is"unmistakably and. mani_ testly south Indian in content. we may note further that paianavitana's ingenuity can offer no location for Kaflcipura in ilIatuyu, produce any^evidence.that llalaya was ieputed for pali ".ia""--n" scholarship, as we knorv South India rvas frorn mutry .o,i..es'. The passage referredto does not become 'unmistakabty ana mani{estly' bo"triI"ai"" i" content by Nilakanta Sastri merely stating it to be such. Of course, there was-, and still is, a famous city in South India called Kd"flcipura, but can Niiakanta Sastri refer us to any source which mentions a ra{lha (eqtivalent of T.am1l nad,u) called Kaflcipura (not Xanlip*ayl There was in ancient times a seap-ort named ra'virupitt""am iFirni.t; but this is said to have b_een submerged by ilre sea tbng beiore lne

lot,.h"yj left that region io reside in a place which is not in South rndla. we

or Tambalingam is the same as Tambarattha cannot be looked upon as sound. He says thal Pd,jauald mentions Tamalingam as the original home of Dhammakitti which is recorded as Tarnbarattha in ttre Cd,Iavarhsa, and the name Tamalingam is given as the home of Candrabhb"nu and his Javakas in some iate Sinhalese works like the Rajaratndkara,

and therefore the Sinhalese name Tamalingamu is the equivalent of the Pali Tambaiinga as rvell as Tambarattha'. Nilakanta Sastri, rvhile correctly giving our reason for taking 'Tamalingamu' as the equivalent oI 'Tambarattha', has not accurately stated the grounds on which the same Sinhalese name has been taken as standing for'Tambalinga'. It is not because 'the name Tamalingam is given as the home of Candrabhdnu and his Javakas in 'some late Sinhaiese works like tbe Rdjaratnakara', that we have taken this name to be the equivalent of 'Tambalinga'. The paragraph rvhich refers to the Rajaratnitkara in this connection (p. 3 of our paper)begins by drarving attention to two old Sinhalese translations of the Hatthauanagalla-aihdra-aaitsa, in one of which the form 'Tamalingam' and in the other'Tamalingamu' are given as the equivalent of 'Tambalinga' in the Pali text. The reason given by Nilakanta Sastri for our conclusion that 'Tamalingamu' is an equivalent of 'Tambarattha' as weli as 'Tambalinga' being not ours, any criticism of the formulation of the proposition, put forward by
Nilakanta Sastri, does not, in fact, touch us at all.

Let us, holvever, examine whether there is any substance in the criticism of Nilakanta Sastri, invalidating our argument as we have put it, or even as he has distorted it. Nilakanta Sastri's objection is: 'This argument seems to us highly fallacious in itself in -because the Cdlaaarirsa itself there is no confusion between Tambalinga and
Tambarattha, forms rvhich are clearly distinguished and used in different contexts altogether'. It is not only in the Culauathsa, that there is no confusion between 'Tambalinga' and 'Tambarattha', but also in the II atthau anagalla-uihar a-a aths a. The former text gives Tambarattha as the name of the region which was the original home of Dhammakittithera, while the latter says that Candrabhd"nu came from the Tambalinga country. And it is the common Sinhalese equivalent of these trvo names that proves the two to have been different names of one and
1924, p. 46.

4.

G. Coedds, Recueil des Inscriptions du S'iam, Prem.iere partie, Bangkok,

336 JOURN;\L, R.A.S. (CIIYLON) I/ol. VIII, Part 2

(Neu; Serias), 1963

CilYLOr\ ANI) IIALAYSIA

337

tlie sanre country. Wiren a country may be re{crrecl to by either of tr'vo names, one author may prefer one, $'hiie another may {avour tlie other. For example, the country ca1led Siam by one author mav be callccl Thaiiirnd by another; Persia o{ one author may be Iran o{ another. But, i{ the trvo names are used bi' otr. and the same author,
ncc3ssary one,

in two differcnt conte-\ts, tircre is rrrom i.r an inference, but not a tliat trvo different countries are meant. As such, it mav appear to the reader tliat the reason given by Nilakanta Sastri {,rr

his conlention that our argLrm:nt is highlv fallacious has sorne substance irrit. i-,.rt,lr.'llr- irr'truir rvhi, ir \ilal<arrtu >rslri Lasos liisalgllps',1 coirect? We h:rve statecl that tire Culavattt,sa has used the naine 'Tam-

bar:rl,tha',r.rhr\etlireIIt'ttlJtauattagall,riiilt,irt i',t.tnsahasu,rerl'lambaliriga'. Nilakanta Sastri, on ihe contrarv, savs that i:'r the C'Elauait:sa t]ne tivo {orms are cir:arh,r clistinguished and usrd in diffcrcnt contcxts altogether. \drc 'ni1t our cyes', for, as rve rcinrilbcr, tire folrn '-Iairrbaliiga' occurs norvhere else in the tsa1i iristorical r",'ritings cr{ Cevlon, erccpt in the Hattit,uranagalLa-r"ilfiya-aa;i;s,r. iiespecting the rveightl' authoritv of Nilakanta Sastri, and thitri<ing that our nlenorv mav have failecl us, wc relcr to thc cornpreheilsive Incicx u'hich Geiger has appenclecl to liis erlition ttl tlrc C ulaaaiilsrz, but {aii to finc1 the name "1'anrbalirigir"' there. (Jur respcci for tire autlroritr- r-.f Nilakanta Sastri. horver.'er, clrcs suggcst to ut that this rnat, bc a case of omission on the part of that thorough and careful (ic;:irran sci-Lolar, and n'c reaci. tha C ulauaitsa frciru beginning to cnd, alrn'ays ol the Lookout for 'Talrbaliriga.', :rnc1 reaclv to polrnce upon it rviren n'e encor-rnter it. llut aiil oul efiorts are in vain. Our confrdcnce in Nilahanta Sastri is shaken, zrnci rt'e are forcecl to conclude that, in splte of liis r",eighty autirority, he has secn things in the Culaaafusa u'hich are, in facc, not to be fo'-rncl there. 'Ihe reason given for the contention that our argumrnt is fallacious bcing tlrus non-c,-<istent, the alleged firllacv :r1so becomcs :rnon-existent one. There being iro fa11acy, our argument stands vindicated.

to

'llrus rve lind that Niiakanta Sastri has invoked lhe Culat,athsa bear witness for tirings to n'hich it cloes not tes+.ifr.. We need not ex1;atiate on the gravitv of tire ofience, i{ tliis attribi.rtion to the Culat:aiizsa otr things rvhicli are not to be founcl in it, has i,.een done int,,lutionally, for ihe sake o{ basing an accusation against an opponent in a cliscussion. \Ve are preprred t, ' be charitabii, ancl to iiold that there ilas been no such intention.
tha-t our arguinent 'flirrs in the face of tire clear indir:aiions of tire location cf Tambarattha in South lndia in the citations Paranavitana hi:rrself lras ruade from Bucldharakkita's Jinilamhara and Anumddha-

We norv coino to the main thesis of our paper, namelv, tirat I'tAgha, referred to as a l(:rlinga, came frorn },Ialaysia, that all the kings of Polonnaru who clainred to beiong to the Kalinga dynasty hailed ]rom that region, and that Kalinga relerrecl to from chapter 54 onlvarcls in tlae Culat'adtsa was locatcd irr the i\falay Feninsuia" 'lhe first link in the chain of evidence is concerned rvitir lfagha, and proceecls lrom the r'vell-establishecl f:rct that Cancirabhatru 'nviio raided Cevlon in the reign of Faraiii<r:imabatiu II rvas a prince tvhose home ivas in tl-re Ilalay Penitisuia. The i;c.lcliers o{ Cairdrabhdnu are calied Jivakas iri the Ciilav-aritsd., but the Rujuttalt states that tltev 11-st-. l'faiaias. The Raja-"aii, agreeing rvith tbr:Pujatalt,, also states tha'r the buik of }iagha's troops lver-e aiso ir-[alaias. If r,i.e retrv on the iliijitruli and eqriate 'Mala]a' ivith 'Javaka', it {ollorvs that Magha's army consisteci inairiv of 'Javakas' and thercfore he, ljke Canclrabhanu, calne from so:ne legion in lfaiavsiir. \,\re har-e anticipated the pcissiblc objecticin that the Iltijiztalt, is a late rvork, and there{ore made an inrlepr:ltlent incluirv as to r,rrho the }{a"lalas rvere, ancl lrave aclducecl evicience lrom Sil-rhalese literatur:e to establish tliat they \vere people of irialav..rra, rvhicir rvas ir.r Malaysia. Thus tire statcrrent in the Pu.jatch., u'hich is ahnost contemporary u,itir l{i1glia, tirat the bulk of }'Iagha's forces ti,ere lfalalas, independenti-.,' establishes his connection r,r.ith the }'[alarr Periin.qula,ap:rrtfl'orntheinferenccrdrau'nfromthe Rttjut:ah,, thnrcb_vpr-oving that the Ri,.jauati, has prcsi:rved a genuine tradition x,hen it recorcis that Canclrabhanu's r,trltlier-s .r'ere llalalas. Othcr evidence is also brc.ught fonr-ald le:rding to the same conclusion, Nilakanta Sastri refers only to the cornbinatorv process, and our orvn aclmission of the iatenesn of the Rdjatoli, but aliogether ignores the r-er_v material e-u.iclence of the l\,Iatiaias being cail.:c1 Malayr-iras and remarLs; 'No one can ac'hnit the identity of n'Iaiaias ancl -favakas on the basis of such a clcsparate and rvishful guess'. No fact is cailed into qr,restion and no flau, in thc argtirnent is exposed. Hence rve rvoulcl retor-t: 'No:rensible llcrson rviii reject such a u'eil-arguecl thesis on account ol tlte i.pse dixii of Nilakanta Sastri'.

After tilting at a non-existent fallac]', Nilakanta Sastri

states

thera's Parawattlzavitticch,at'o' etc. This is a repetition of rl-hat iras been stated in the previou* paragraph, and rve liave aireadv clispose of Nilakanta Sastri's reasons for locating Tambarattha in South India
(ante,

p.5 {.).

that the very sarne passage oltIrc Rii/attalT, from u'hich r,.re har.e gathered data for this argurne'nt, has been utilised by Niiakairta Sastr-i himself to drarv historical infer-ences fronr it, tlie irnly diflerence ireing that u'hile rve haye referred to an e<lition and translation of the Rd,jdtal,r by a li'eil-knon'n Sinhalese scholar, and consulted nanuscripts to ascertain the correctness oI the readings adopted b]r u*, Nilakanta Sastri has relied on a confllsed account of Ceylon history based on information gathcred not only from the Ildiotati but also from other sources, by an Englishman not rve1l versed in Sinhalese, at the beginning of tlre ninetcenth cerrtnry-a time rrlL,.n oliental sl udies rvele in their infancy. In his paper 'Sri Yija1.a, Canclrabhanu, and Vira Pnndya',

'lhe onl1t objcction put forrvard bv Nilakarita Sastri to our arguments proving 1\lagha to be of lfalay origin is the latei]css o{ the Rujttral,r, but this objection itas been anticipatecl and adequzrtely met. Hou-ever, it t'oulcl be pertinent, in this connection, tr: point out

338 JOLTIINAL,

R,.A.S.

(CEYLON) Vol. VIII, I'art 2 (New Series),

1968

0itYl,( ),t{ .'\N D }l,r\1,.\\ ril,\

i.rlr:_..mediar:r,iLL histor3' of Ceylotr h:rs no beatirrg urr liris point. .ltrr: ca'rlier sections oI tlnr: c,u,lataii'tsa lvtvt: obviousll."btt n u'rittrri prior to ri i- ptrit,il, i]rr'r'c;rniluf tlr"ir-[o|r tirl<r irttu acLoulrL lir(,(,\r.nts (,I lh(, litr;-iecntlr crntrrr)'. 'fhat sci:tiori of tbt:: C,ulazta.rh,sct treating of polon_ n;utu hingir after Pariikrlurahiilru l. lur,l r,I llie reigns c,t rrijavatrr.trLl iIr rrl-rdi Fardl<rem:rbahu II, iraii'c obr'iouslrr becn r.r'ritten b\r'iiii Linl<nor,vn '':ilc'rn t',i'ulrls Ilrc 'ius,' uf , nl i',rrn,], Iilrrel' f,,ll,,riing {1i,.. rt,iqr- uI, ti:e last namerl_king. 1'hc iListrrical rirapteis of trre p*jAualt,, one oJ iire sraiufccs of the data thal- li'ehar-c reiietl on in orrr deciuctions, r,;crr:

Nilakanta Sastri states: 'Later Cevlonese tradition is somewhat confused on the nationality of Cand.ribhatro and the place of his origin. The Pujaaalz, like tine Mahdaanasa, says that Candrabhanu was the leader of the .favakas, but the Rdjauali makes a Malabar ruler of Candrabhanu. It says: "A short time afterrvards, however, another Malabar king, called Chandrabhinu Rajah, made a descent on Ceylon and gave battle to King Alese, and was opposed by the second king or Pralarama Bahu's younger brother, who rranquished the army o{ Malar'vas, and extirpated the ',vhole out oi the island". The Rajaratndkari also speaks of the Nlaiabars and "the Malabar king, Tambolugama Rajah" in the same connection. These references showthat, in the late Ceylonese tradition, the Javaka king had come to be looked upo,n a! a local chieftain, though the name 'Tambalingama Rajair' ol the Ritjaratndh,art, preserves a trace of the true origin. Such a confusion is not likely, to have arisen if there had been no local Javaka settlement in some manner connected rvith these JAvaka inroads into Ceylon. And on this hl,pothesis also we are able to account for the manner in rvhich the son of the Javaka king is mentioned in the inscription of Vira Pandya'.5 We might point out that the confusion complained of by Nilakanta Sastri is due to Upham, rvho is also responsible for the feminine ending of Riijaratnakarr,. By 'Nlalabar', nngtstr lvriters of the early nineteenth century often meant the Tamils. What is given as an extract from tlne Rajdaali is Upham's paraphrase.'King Alese' is obviously due to a clerical error in the manuscript utilised by Upham, and 'Malawa' is a nristake for 'Malala'. In spite of these blemishes, Nilakanta Sastri, without a murmur as to the lateness of the Rajaaah,, drarvs significant historical conciusions from the data contained in that passage, some of which are very nearly identical with our own inferences. He appropriates 'Malawas' for South India, identifying them with Maravar, a fighting race. Is it oniy for the greater glory o{ South India that this passage from the Ritjaaal,t, can be utilised without anv suggestion of'desparate and lvishful guesses'?
research pertaining to this question, Nilakanta Sastri remarks: 'After ail, the Culaaathsa is our earliest systematic authority on the mediaeval historl' of Cey'1on, and we should be very slor,v to prefer to its authority

With regard to general principles to be observed in historical

kramabd,hu II, and the three decades .,vhich preceded the beginning of that reign. 'I'he Culaaarhsa being the earliest sl/stematic account of

the confusion of later chronicles and the rhetoric or metaphors of gquaily late literary rvorks as the foundation {or sober histoiy'. lhis is far too generalised a statement rvhich ignores particulars . The Culaaafirsa is not the rvork of a single author composed on one and the same date, and 'mediaeval history' is a vague term. What \ve are concerned with here are events rvhich took place in the reign of ParE-

ci.',"^rc i'iour'the'lamJ;.li'g" ."itiiJr . rt"i""i*t *,,rfl:;nr',1 l,r l]r,. .l.r;.:. i;r,.clipli,,rr r,f ( l;rr,lr;.lrlr.lrrr, l:jrtis,.ll. II r,.e, " i, ilrriing Nj'latantr sastl:i's advic,.r, r't:jccl tLris eviclence ol tjue. frattitt,t:snagallu-r,ihdyct-.ut;thsa, l',,e wonkl hc throu,i;ri< thc babv iru,ay w'itir the batir. As a nrattci of fact, ii liteiarv sourccs ale to bc set ;iside in lristor:icai r:ese:rr-i:ir on accoLrnt ol thtil r-irr:|oLiciLl clrai-acter. har:rllf irnvthins ll'ill r:cilain li;r' thc stud.ent of lrrclian historrr tc u,orli x'itli, \virat irrrr morc rhctorjr.;:r1 than the .fro.:,,rsIts ,rI lndiur-r liirrgs" in pai'ticLrlar tire rulcrs of SoLrtlL IrcLi;r, Iruir tlijcir Nilalianta Sasiri ilris tir;r.u,n naterial ioi'liis orvn ri',rriisi Ale not tire Sarigam poefirs f trli ,ri r lr-i r r; iu 111 i]1rl;iptrlors? Is tile Ga,cL,vr,Llicu,t.t6.turla, Itam ivliich' l{ilal. rn+-J sai{tri tiraus rrlatirrial for a certain pcliocl oi cola historr', inno,.,irrt oI tlreioric o: mctaphor? Is the li?,t:il-alu,gtt, rvhidr Niial<anta S.l.stri quotes il hj.s cr.,Jcs, i rv.rk oi liigir arrtiquity?6 In cer.iir.in circumrtance;'i, the trridrnce contaiirerd in lalcr r,r'orks, i-f coliir-meiL Lrv othcr lrncs o{ i:r'idience, ag ilr this case oI tirr: iiientiilcltion oI ]IaLLla rvitir li';al<a, c;rnnot be riisrr:gardecl. I{ rhc utilisation of 'the conf'.rsioir o{

tL:--t ciinrh'.bir:l'u

thl> {,ul.avathsa. 1'hr: l},Ejti"L;a!,,i states br-icfi.,,, rvirat iir ione'clrarvn oui tr' t1t:,c'illauatitsa.'fhe y'rrobabilil--v i.q that th-e accoun.L of ir:rraliramairJlnr 1tr, in llrc Pujutali is oicr:r'tiian the c-'rrr:sloncliirl; cha.pters of thc ('iitr'.,ir iisu lt a f err,' 1,si t',t. ln rits obje ctivit,,r, thr at:coLrrlt o i tlie cvents in )' t1r.: i) uiin'r't!'i cr,)lrl)arerJ vcr-y iar.our-ablv i;iih the sllinc ilt 'tlte. culnyatitlrr.'1-i1s Pu.jor.l:iii. tlrcrefore, is of tiir: samc ilulirr,r'ih-:rs thi- cit!at,ttilsa ri';.iJr r:egai:rl ilr ihr: r:rrents thtrt rve have consjritr-ed. llrr iltililt,Lutut,tr,..;t!.i.rt'it;llLtlrtt.-i.tctri't'su wan illso i..'rittcn in the closirr;; l,ears i,.i parlllirailrabairu I{'s icis11, .'111{ .,vitnr reBarcl to flanclrairrr:inu, lias c1i:alt rr'iilr cvcrt$ r','liich its lirl-hor li;Lrl u'illesseci. r\ilakania Sagtrj's chargc tlrat u,e tra.r,t: ;.rrcfi:rrecl ihc confirsiou o{ latcl clii'oniclcs tr.r thc airihr.;rit,i of tire (-li;,la|ailt,s'c is thus clut to his ov,'n unfainili:rr:iti, u,itli tire sr,riices that ir,r: ]ri1r..t: irtilisrd. lVitlt regarl to 'rhctoric or mit,rl.ir,,r', thc ('ll/ni,alrsr.r ir: as fullol thciu as the sinhaleire rv,rks rve liave 'relicrl..n.'I'ire f,ialtlttuit'ti'a;1a!,1o,-tilmva-vttti,sct, in spitc oi the ornatr: cha-rlrci.er of its lan!.'.jaiie, iias irresr:r-ved se','cral iterns o-t historical inlorni:itron not lounctr irnr,"-1:116,,,', clsc.'lh;rt is the orly {-ler4onr:se worli rvhich dclinitelv statcs
,:1.

x'riticr bv jluddhapriira sthavira in tlie l:rsl f ira-rs of par:i.kranatrahu ll. ancl trelt of the saine cycnts iLs those rcfti'rcc1 to in cha_pter-s so-is9

1937,

5. Tijdschrift
p.
z6o.

uooy Indisth,e Taal-Land,-en-Volhenkwncl,e,

Deel LXXVII,

6. li.r\- Nilali;Lltl
irlrd 35-5-{r.

Sastr.i, "l-he Colrt,s, zncl Ilclition, l\Iarlras, i95.5, pp_

340 JOUII,NAL, Li.A.S. (LTDYLON) t'ol' Vl!t,I'art2

later chronicles
zrnd.

(Nt'ut 6en'es)' 196:j

CEYI,ON AND MAT,AYSiA

as the name of a

34r
1sls6

in history which is not sober, Nilakanta Sastri's own

the rhetoric or nletaphors of literary \4rorks' results perfofinances will be among the first to be thror,vn overboard as 'inebriated' history" The high authority of the Culaaathsa does not hold good in equal degree to the period after the close of the reign of Parakramabahu I'

transference
statemen.t

as'it do"s to that before it. In fact, the history of Ceylon from the
from sources rvhich Nilakanta Sastri r,'n'ould have us reject as 'the rhetoric or metaphors of literary works'. When we are dealing with later periods, we have necessarily to rely on later works. The valuable papeis of C<,rdrington on the Oirirbadenl Dynasty and the Garhpola Peiioa would indicate how impor-tant these 'later chronicles and the rhetoric an<1 meterphors of equaliy iate literary rvorks' are to an unbiassed" student of history.? 'fhe contemptuous manner in which Nilakant:L Sastri re{ers to Sinhalese historical literature is due to his own un{amiliarity rvith tircm, for in his rvritings he does not exhibit any knowledge oi them apart from llpham's very inadecluate and confilsed narrative produced in the beginning of the nineteenth centurv.
Nilakanta Sastri is not correctwhen he states that rve have pre{er' rerl 'tlre con{usion of iater chronicles' to the atithority olttre C&,laua'titsa' Wlrat we have done is the interpretation of the evidence of tbe Cfi,{'a' uathsa in the ligirt of tire statements made in the Pil,jattall, which is of the sarne date as the Culauatitsa, if not eariicr than it b1z a ferv yea.rs. The Cfilaaatirsa, as is u,ell-known, is r,vritten in Pali verse, in a langteagt' r,vhiclr r,vas not the vernacular of its author .'lhe Pd'jaaali, on the other hand, is written in prose in Sinhalese, the language spoken by thtr author. TIre statements made tn the Pd'jaual:t' are therefore free from the ambiguities and obscurities u,hich iner.itably result when writing is eflected in a classical (i.e. clead) language, and those arising from
Kuruniigala period has to be pieced together from information gathered

warriors in M.igha's army, does not necessarity imply that his invasion rvas Indian, and South Indian, in character. Candrabhanu, who is definitely knorvn to have been of Malay origin, had Cola and P6"ldya warriors serving under him. What establishes the home of Mdglia is the nationality of the soldiers with rvhom he first invaded the Island, and they are stated to have been Malalas tnthe Pfr,jauall, which is as authoritative z* the Culavavitsa. TIte reference to 'Kerala' rvarriors in l{agha's army rvill be dealt rvith later.
'f'he understanding o{ a lfstolical text depends on the meanings that we attach to its worcls. And ttre meauings of words are ascertained either from their current usage, or from their occurrence in literary rvorks. When the name 'Cina' occurs in a historical text, rve conclude

World. The in tlrc Cttlaaafusa that, at a later stage, there were Damila
Ner,v

of place names in Iiurope to the

part of Siam.s Analogies rnay

be t;ited from ther

the necessity to satisfy the requirements of versification, such

rhythm and metre. 'Ihe Culaaarhsa merely states that Magha came from Xi.Unga, and leaves us to form our own conclusions with regard to its location. It is rvell-known tha,t famous geographical narnes current in ancient India rvere transferrecl by Indian colonists to lands in which

as

they settied. The well*nown 'Campa', the name of a land to the east o{ Maladha, was used by Indian settlers as the appellation of a country in Indo-China. When the name 'Campi' occurs in a historical document of non-Indian origin datable in the thirteenth century, we are not bound to conciude that the Campi of Buddha's time was the countrl'

meant. Similarty, 'X{aharattha' w}rich in Indian Iiterature was thtr name of a region in Western India, is used in mediaeval Pali writings

that the Chinese are meant, because the word is used r,vith that signiticance in current speech as well as in literature. Thus, if a rvord found in a historical text is still in use, the conlidence with which rr'e assign rr rireaning to it becomes ali the greater. 'Ihe lvorcl Demala found in Siniralese historicai texts of the mediaeval period does not give rise to alxy doubt in our minds, because the Tamils are even today referred ta as Detnala by the Sinhalese. Therefore, lvhen literary r,vorks are utilised to ascertain the meanings of words found in ltistorical texts, the trateness of the literary work in which the word is found does not rurilitate against its applicability for the purpose. Nor does it matter u'hether thc u'ork is rhetorical or matter-of-fact in character. 'fhe manner in r,vhich Nilakanta Sastri, without making any discrimination, uses the rvords 'late', 'literary', 'rhetoric', 'metaphor', etc. in this 't:ritique'is calculated to throrv dust in the eyes of the reader. Nilakanta Sastri, in order to disprove our contention that Migha t:ame from Nfalavsia, says 'Ceylon's continued association with Orissan Iialifrga is attcsted not only by the legends relating to the foundation of Sinhalese monarciry by Vijaya, the introduction of Buddhism into the Island and of the sacred bo-tree, but by material finds of relatively late historical times, such as (i) gold fanams dated in regnal -vears I to r9 of Anantavaraman Codagairga of the Eastern Ganga d1'nasty iound at Haragama (Kandy Dt.) in rgzo, and th_e decidedly east Ganga emblems and symbols on the coins clf the Arya Cakravartis of Jafina (Codrington, Coins o-f Ceylon,pp.74 and go)'" Let ns examine
t

hese allegt.d attcstations.

iee C.E. Godakumbura in 'The Historians nf India, I)akistan a.ld Ceylon', oclitctl

JCBRAS, Vol.

7. 'Notes on the Dambadeni Dynasty', Ceylon Antiqwary and' L'iterart' llegister, \ro1. X, pp. -37-53 aLnd 78-89. 'The Gampola Period of Ceylon History'. XXXII (No.86), pp. 258-3o9. Iior
1';y2.

With regard to the legends relating to the foundation of the Vijala, I(alinga finds no mention in this connection in the Di.faaarhsa, the earlier of the two Pali chronicles of
Siirhalese monarchy by Oeylon. In {act, there is not a single mention of Kaiingar in that chronicle.

Sinhalese historicalliterature.

by G.H. Irhilips,

7zfI.

S"

S{tsana.us.rhsa., 1'.

I.S. Irldition, p.

r6E

:J.12

.lOtiIrN,tr,, rr.A.s. (Urryt,oN)

(_lEYt,oN,\ND 1t,L\t,AYSl,\ Ni36arhkanalla, u'ho i' our 'ie' c:Lme from Maraysiti, refers inscriptions to the rerations, rrostiii: or frienciiy, iir"i 1r.'rrlri *iir,
:11.3

Irthe jllahuvaritsaversion ol the Vija,rrarr iegencl, Kaliirga isrnentiotrerL in recounting tire origin of Vijaya. A kirlg of Vangi c$poused tbf
daughtcrof a Iialinga rnonarch; the coupleirad a daughier of an arnorous disposition who rai arvav rvith a lion, and b5, her union u,ith the king trf beasts, gave birth to a soir ancl a daughter. 'Ihis son r,vas SiriihabahLr who, by union rvith his sister, begot many sons of whom Vijaya was th(l t:ldest.e llut Sirirliabahu himsell hacl no connection ivitla i{aliirga, his kingdorn rv:Ls in I-a1a (Lz1ta, in Gujarat). We fail to unclerstand hoi,v thjs totemistic nryth can contribute to estabiish the continuecl association of Cevlon with Orissan I(aliiga. Nilakanta Sastri, who so often complains of confusion in tlie accour-rts of later Sinhalese chroniclcs, sees no confusion in this story rvhich brings together regions in tht Jiast oI Lrrlia ns u-cll as tlrost' !n llrc \\ t.st.

'lhe Jcgr:iidrs connectecl u'ith the introduction of llucldhism into the Island rlake no mcntion lvhatever of tl're Kaliriga country. 'lht tilree sources relevant to this event arc the Flistorica.l httrodnctio,n in tlre Sant,attla.f>usidiha, tlrc Drpa"r:ari-r,sc,t ancl the Mttltutcr,ti"sa. !ui,tt trone of these three r,rrorlis, or any others rvhich are basr,:c'l. on thel,-l. is ther-e any inentiotr o{ Kaiinga, rvith l-eference to this pitrticularevcnt. I'lil:lkantzr Sastri r.loes not rcfcr to any authoritf in sirpport,rl this stzLterlent aucl, :Ls in liic ca.se o{ his a-ssertiun that 'Ialrl6ahr'r-qir an<l J--ainbararttha :rre botl-r me.ntioned in tlte Cwl,attaitsa in cliffer.crrt ccintcxts, rve illtd liirn herc also quoting er-iclenc,: tlt"t l* lun-eriste,li. Jlut, {'rl the scconil time, rvc t:'irrain charitabtre, and do not accun.!him o{ intcntionalitr putting iol'v,'arcl non-existent evidence l4lithregard to the legencls ol the s;Lcrec'l Ur,.,tree, the rneniirul oi I{aliriga {)ccurs in thi: iiiiliirga Boci}ri.}ataka, rrhich states that, o:r,:i'
.

slrnbol; ollrer dvnastir,s rrscrl the dcr-icc on tlieii seals.r: Even if the b*li of thc Arya cikra'artis rvas oI tiaster' it does n.t cs{alrlislr tri'cit eontuct n"irr""n C.vton'."a Ga.,g" ;-gir, o}i"li."-ii-,,,.. is reli.ble e'idence- esiablishing tirat the Aryn cnt ro.,nrii* -rur.a feuclatories *e:i.r- ItrLi'es'arairr, before thev becarne the ri .rlers o f in.flna ^. Thc crcsr r nl rll{ los;nA tlre srrrr iclol is a sr rnbol lountl ) on th" rni,diaeur,t )rnr)artss( {nr(r (',)rns, {ro:n u iriclL tlr(' 1\'p. oI tlrc coir,, r,[ .\r] ir. (,akrar-ai'tis of Jaflna is ultirnatelv clg1i1,sd.ra

i' rris parts of India.11 The-Arya Cakra'artis of laff'a fl;ii;i;h;^il';; fourteenth to sixteenth,centuries; of the embrems o' their coins, the couchant b,il is the oniy_ one that h.s affinities *itn 6"-i"r', dorigo cmb,lcml.and symbo.ls'.'lJre liasrt,rn Gairgas had no,,;;;;ii.'.,i rl,. coucr)ant hrril

*.',o.

tiitirl,l

l'he er.iciencc

l-lpc)t):1.time,intheincnlcitahllt'ein,,tc ri3flt,Ilre.Budclirari,,asbornasl,iti-'

cliapiain

lrJll..i),,r'lirrX l:i,trsr

horv tllis stoL\: cari contilbrite to egtairlish tlrc c.rntiutitd 3,s5uci:ir.)1r of [,]e.l'iorr rvitli tirc Orissau (or as a m:ritcr rtl t]rilt, any other) Kaliti3.L

he rviis sie:rtr:d, ltoopcrl r.,1len irassirrg tiie si1.e oi il:rc future lloclhi-trer, :Lncl relusccl to;rlole err.cii thonglr grra<lr:cl to tjeaih.'I'be Caliraval-ii inott.rr(ir^llr,'.r,i1'Jlrr i:,r: ,l,rr\''t \\irli lri" ,.. ti,-lrrr'. ;tn,l pliul l;oinn;,: t., the site.lr [.e1:]e1 i;; rrot at a.il meritionetl in tlie -ot,urr. We faii tir sr:c

oi a Calir;rvarti kinS; of Kaliirga. \tr/hen the monarcli. \r,,ls il i,1 lir. tjrt rtiir'.rcr,l,r;rs cl,.pir;int ul) rr'lr,rre h.r..j

r-rnrorr.r,r.irrcl,r.arrr, ".,n i,Tlll"^ll; ll:,.i:i11"1, rlct lr)-r',;; 'f n {lrc iac,. brt i]e i, _o irr.pr"".*,i n, put' rtcv thnt. lir. ol suclr cjear ern<l .je.i*ir,, llt:,]i llldtctllluits o{ tlrr- Inrli;r.ir oricin,,f ll;rSlL,r, \\e caitnot trr.ct,pt J,i" illal origirr on srr' lr flinsi- cr i,i1'11.',','t tt't" iil"ig"nti'rr ,r{ NIa}arr crrrfr-rr.crl on his soidiers as rvcllhs thr_rse of (,an<lrablianu in tlie RitjrTt;nlt,. To put ltis reasoning in a nurnbcr of proposiii"*, 111 Vilaya,'s grnrrA*nil..r: *'ho r',rrr..rrvrr'.riiilr rr li,,rr-ua*'a 1ir-in.,,,r. ii oin ori'sril'' i<?iii..; trr.r" wlts r',rnliniicrl irrtercnrnse Iretq-ccn Cevi,irr rnd Oili"ran lr.ii,:,""',.-1i,,.r" lo'c, )liglrr.rtlr,, inr.l,l,,j Cel.lrrr 1,,'ii," ,1r,i.t,,.,,ii,.",i1 ,,,i"rr.* ,'f ir!i1rr uri.'irr, (zt 'll:,. l,,g..ird- "..i11 ,.. Jli,ig-tn if ,,.'i;l ,rr,,.'i,,, f ,,;," ()t il ( ;iiii-il\trtl rnlnat..ll ol l{lliriga ",,. u.ho is lr,.iicrrrl 1,, l:,r,..,. livrrl i,r rr It':nr)tr I'i:t. l'irr ieinfe. ti'c,.{. tr'.rs contittrtctl l.:,rcirti,,r,,,i t..r.1,,,,',r.itt, O:-l-:r il',i'nq. arid )li;ir:r rrt,,,,1.,i,i,. ii,,ni 6riiirra \\;rs,)i i,riii.,r {.t) tn tiry trl':,',,,lr)1r, tlierc loqerrd< rclrrtinr rr, 1lrt, inir,,,lur-ii,,rr ,,1 j lrrrl,lJiir;:n to (,i\ ls n., lnention lr,hater.er cf Kaliir5;a ,l.lrere{orc, therir r\'?s cr,111i1r,1p, I asso"iir,i,,, ''ri;ti, ,':"ri,,,, ,,i t_lri**r,, l{:r !iirl r. r,r,i i\laglrr .;-;;,,i;-;"., 1f Ka,iiriga rvas 'f irrclian. origin. iv,, nn"-i,I-t,ir r;;1iil tlrrl 1 1t,... . i1r',' r'j1.31- irrr,! ,1,,, 1"1r,.' irr,lr, at i,,:;". ',,'rl'ii*
f

aclclucecl bv Niiakanta Sastri as attesting ;rss ,(.iirtiorr ,tr('1.1 lqrl1 ,,;tf.r Clri;*o-u fiaii"g, i;

ih;;';it;:i

the

con_

Tirc fincl of goiti lana.irrri o{ Anall.avaranl;in (lor'lagairg.a. at }iara. flama near i{arriv is er,'iilenr:e iol: sonlc i<ilcl of interc,ruise lrrtu-cerr ceylot.r ar-rd orisran lialii,ga durin;-1 the pcriocl to u,hich tirc coins ic[t,r (tivelfl,h ceutr-rry), or iater. Possibir-, thi re rvas trade betu'et,r [g,,.1o1 and Orissa. i,\Ic lrave nonhcre suggestec'L tlrat thc rcla-tions -b,:trirtl Lleylon ir"nrl }'Ialil.ysia neant the ce,qsetion uf trade betureen this Islanrl ;rnd ail othci parts of the r,r'oricl. \,'Ire har,c iri fact pointetl or.:t that
(). il'[u]iitaisir, chrptcrr \.I, rrr-. I fl. I o. .f rltnl;rt.,'l'rur.sllition, 1,ol I\-, bv \\'.I:l .l). Itoust, p. 1.1: f

\ijrrkrrnta Sa*11i. Irrrrrr'\'t r', is s,' j;111;1g5s,'d ri iiir iri:; ,,,1 11 p1 1is1. 'r'r iJr.rr.t'ro'rrre [,r,ii,rr;,,riii,i nl ti:eii,,r't'i,rt, ljtj[,'irr prescrrring rhis ir,, srrrrrglr 11 mitrlis : .l ln tn(' tir'r:{ l)traqrrplr. hut iir ing io, .\.(. lna\. lea'e on,nr. strlr.ttre clabur,ric,lis, lrii,ition ,,I i,rr,in;rr iirni (.;,!,irlatccl to shorv that Maiatas rver. r{ai.la.vsj cLc. 'rhe icientiilcatio" ;lt"l"lr, rvith 'l'Ialay'is tire nlain arguraent i,,r oii,l ,rt,,r,q;rir*J-li,,i.r,o. -".-, "f tt. L.pigliltrut Zeylunica, \;oi" Ij, p. it3.
,,'-

'?' i et.t i ./ affi a,,\Iaclurs, ; ;;6,-i. ;;..' 13. 'lhis Journai, yol. \,-II, p. zo6 {. .t.1. JT.\\-. ('nrlrirr;,l,rri, 6a-,.rn,,,'.., t,:./ t.t.,.t,r.,,r. {,,i,,1r1.,r.. r,r:1, L ancl 75.
seir C. Rasanay agzitn, A
t.t c
t

FolVariouslndianrlynasties$'hohaclthccoucli:irrtirulli,,sthoircrr:bir:I,

_,

3414 .}OUI{NAL,

Ii'A.S. (CEYLON) l'o1' VIII' Part 2 (Ntttu Series)' 1l)tt:l

CjEYLON Ar\D

X{ALAYSIA

;]4rl

Nla]av.Hence,ithasbeenprol.t'dwithaSystematicmarsll'a]lingof ;ffi"il;;;"".ii"r^ur. leng'th - -'elaborate disquisitio'' as Nilakanta i"ttii p"t. it. Nilakania Sa"stri,ltorvevcr' does not examiue or rclutt' ;;i ;"fi"ffi: i.Tii;il;;i; 5a*tri;s arsument.here is a.alogous.to that to of an astronome, wedde,t to th" g"eocentric theorSr who refuses o{ frv a fielocentric astronomer because ;;"^,,i;;h;lioof*

sia. 'lhc reason for this iirference being not refuted, the inference itself, namely that the I(alinga from which Magha came rvas in Malaysia, has not been refuted, and has to be taken as proved.
sunrmat'ised the results so far obtained by drawing an inference from the fact that Candrabhdnu as well as Magha commanded forces consisting mainly of Malalas, so that this inference may serve as a sprin5;board in the further development of the thesis. This has evoked ther

Having demonstrated that the Malalas rn'ere l\falays, we havtr

for the vierv tirat the sun mor:es round 'Ihe 'eviden"c;;-thti he has lec1 to orove the Indian origin the earth. ot I\tagha, in his opinio"n,';;i;; it-r"p.rttuo,rs. wirat-higha opinion rtiUf"?lr'S..tri tias oflhe potency of the non-existent? What mightl' l";;; il the remote in time and the irrelevant? rvhen Nilakanta Sastri cloes not correctly represent our position Malaya of the east lfom MalaYahe states that wc have distinguished (takkola) ,\Ialabar:,on the b^ri;;i";''-i";i.-.o**l,ait5'. the cubeb thelributes brought to tf9 l3odhlsattva -"ia i" 1t""" figured' among kingdom rvere ;;--B;;;;'.--tubeb and other proclucts bf hiso[ a region on Thc itlentification ;;"tsill; the \Ialala prince. ;;;;%;;= Li on" ur it-'prJJ"cts.rvilt be valid if rhat produ.ct is rvellt: i:-"ii*t*--lnn lcnor,r,n as peculiar to tfroii"gion, -or if the. rcgion that oroduct in the convention o[ poets (Aaui-samaya)' uut' ,Il ,our ia""tln."ii"" of Malala with Maiaya o{ the east' rve have not retted on nave alone. Immediately a{ter this reference to cubeb, we trri, ""1a""." our p"p"i t"ittt ifte follorving sentence: 'More decisive continuecl in {urnished by a refere;;il;;;;;.g"rai"e ** iae,riity o{ the Malaias is by its ol cl paraphrase'' interpreted nce t o them"i n tn"k oi;i i -, on ie, n, as i;-thi- ;;f.*rr.", u"t"tu,'i* ia""iin"a wltn'Matayt-.ra'. \A'e.ha'e next 'Iualayura demonstrated that, in a mediaeval Sinhalese.literary -work' istheequivalentofPaTiSw,aalt.nabhutni,whichislvell-knowntonavethe and L"."-tfrJ ancient fndian a..ignotion of thc Malay Peninsula Ferrand rt,*" ir:" iia,.c rel"rred to the-opinic'n-s of i-r""d sumatra. lact tha-t the "i and Gerini with regal io the location of Malayur,'-The tt* "of f."" definitely setiled y"t',iLlo' ob-dacle r"."t*" "i Maiavui lo oo, identificaiion of 'Malala' with 'Malaya' of the east' Uur, purpose i- ;; th; aennite ro."li* of Malaiytr, but to determine the racial suggested character of the p.opl"'rr"-.d Malaia, and both locations *"il as in,the last, {3-e-o-9]i ot ioaov., lrJ't";;6--i"ri"ni1"a "* ifi"f"v;;?.. i,' ora.ito esta6iisti that a certain iommunity was of -t".t, it is immaterial to settle the question rvhether the-region f.*ii country.,.for il;bit.d bi them was in the pd4dya or'the cola be consideredthe as ."gions harl an'equal claim to ;f rJttt ttt.*.

^ia"".d ,the clear ancl d"ecisive ;i;;;";l

do not consider Nilakanta Sastri's benediction so important as to resort, in order to secure it, to the use of non-existent eviclence which, it appears, is what he takes to be'clear and decisive'.

value to be attached to pronouncements ol this sort made by Nilakanta Sastri. We have pointed out that Nilakanta Sastri has not ie{uted an.v single evidence that we have brought {orr,vard witir regard to the sigrificance of the word Malala, and his contention that its probatir.e value is next to nil is no doubt due to the reason that none of our arguments is based on evidence that is non-existent or far-{etched or irreleva.nt, which according to him isrvhat is 'clear anddecisive'. We

sarily pror.e that he was a Xfalav from the Mala.y peninsula. Some rvriters, indeed, have called him a Javanesel5, and others have appropriated him {or South India.16 The reader rvould not have been so somnolent as not to understand the reason for which the stalernent quoted above has been introduced. That purpose did not make it necessarv to introduce anything new into the statement. Nilakanta Sastri goes on to state that 'the whole argument rests on the ',vorcl Malaia lvhose probative vaiue as lve have seen is next to nil'. Tire reader by this time must have made his own conclusions about the

in the

following hilarity from Nilakanta Sastri: 'That Candrabhanu r,vas a Malay (Javaka) is directl)z stated by the Cfi,laaathsa and needed ncr proo{. The reader therefore rubs his eyes when he finds Paranavitana solemnly rvriting: "CandrabhS.nu rvho invaded Ceylon with a force of Jdvaka or Malala soldiers being conclusively proved to be a prince from the Malay Peninsula, the inference that Magha who similarly brought rvith him an army of Malala r,varriors, rvas also a Malay from the same or an adjoining region, seems justifiable" '. The statement
Cil,laaathsa

that Candrabhanu was a Jivaka does not

neces-

;."p1;

Tamils.

establishing the ident-ity of Malala has becn proved to bc.no r('ason at all. tte has therefore rvith-Malay of not re{uted o.t, org.rirr".rts on this point, and the identification of Maiaf iras to be taken is-proved' It is on the reason ifl"f"f. i*'i1n fil* *irf ai.r, beingllalal,s thatu,e inferrecLthat Mdghacame from Malay-

The reason \,vhich t, ,l;;;; o' orr" siclei-our evi<lence

Nilakanta Sastri considered aclequate-enough

point t_o,consider other matters ailsing from the conclusion that Magtra n'as a Malav. Nilakanta Sastri, in his 'criticlue' of this portion of our

- Having demonstrated that Magha was a Malay, we confront that fact r'vith the statement in the Cil.lauaizsa that'he came from Kdlin-ga, and.drarv the inference that the llalay regions r,vere called by that designation in mediaeval times. We have quoted R.C. Majumdar to.support that inference, and postponed further discussion bf tnat

15. H.lV. Codrington, ,4 Short. Ilistory oJ Ceylott., rst lidition, p. r6. JCBRAS. Vol. XXVIII, p. 8s.

77

::t.1ti IOt.rltN.\i.," ll.A.s. (LlllYl-()\

(jl,l\'1,()N,\Nl) ll,1
'iult:rrr,'d tlial- tiri: r\lalay
rr,:p,;ions

L-\r"St;\
irv la.tcr c6pyistl intr

)1i
{rtnL_

ilrgrilil{:nt, liillsL:li arlmits that

havc hct:ri ciLllccl

rve lrirrrc

l{aiiiga iu the Siniralese histor:ical rvritings'. FIc lias irrougirt no lrbjeciion to tire fllets on u'hich tiLis illcrelce is base,rj, ot' r'r.idencc to r,l'row tltat tlte inft:reni'r: is iu'itlic'l- i:iut iii 11t" '.,sly nr:rl srnttrrcc hc sttrtes that rvc'st:rr-t b1':rssuming ivhlt ire hrt.s to protrc'. IiiialiiLrta ll:rstri, t'c presLrnle, is arvarc oI thtr dilJtrencc 1.rt'trt-eclt ittt iirfr:rr:ni:e:lucl an arisuiuption. An inlcrcrtci'. ii it is a lcgitirriate ortt:. il
rlo rr'lriit lias bccn t:iLllr:d an infererrce lrt,
:'.s

irtrtlr{)rjti,itivr:is

tJirt,:r:t

eviilencr:, ancl hc hirs no justilica.tion to rc{et' hiillclI as a-ir assnrnption.

Ol ilie rlriritlrtion of It.C. )\'[:r.juinclar''s ol.rinion t]rat 'tlre adoptiorr ()f ir ]rerv rin.nt: I(aliriga for ]'{irl:rvr.1ia., at least bv tlrc 'irlreignt:rs, u'as oilr: sf th o n:sults oI th.e ld ycnt ol t1ie rsailcnrlra pr..i\\'rr', Nilirl<:,lnta Sastri oJ)scr'",es: ''l'his see:ms bv tt'-.r bteans:l cor-recl sttrtct-lrcrit. tirortg,ii ri't' l<nrr',r
tirai r\I'.ilavs r:allt'rl
',i'iLs

j.Lrr

l,,:r'rri: o{

11

InciiaLns Iilirgs sonrclilncs, poir.lriirl'; bot:atLsc {i:,rlirrga large nucrbcr- oI thc:m'. 1f, bv lhesc u'olc1s. Ni]akant:i

l'hir:h i1

liint to iris on'ti ,,i',r;.is tiit this nratl,t'r- 1'-\pr('ssll.ls.',r'l'.cLi' {,oritloveltirg i\{ajuilcla.r''s vieu,'s ou tlte origJin ui tlrr F.riltLrclras, \ilaitanta. Sastri r;ays: 'Ii.{-. }lljumrlar, horver,tr, sr-rggestctl lfrelt tlri' 5:rilrnrir-a.s tiriilil:ili."' cane frorn lialirl.e,a, ancl lprea.cl tltcir pr-,tvcr to tlre iar: t:ast tlrror.lgir Lo.,r'i:r Llilrirra a-nd.Miiiav l'erinsuia.. flc sllit'i.tilrt an lrtliiin origirr of tlrc i{aiiendr-ag u'ou}cl cxlrlain ttrc irirodrrctiott trl tirc hlrigar-i alplrabtt in their inscril-.tlols, anrl of ii ne\\,r n.l:t1c {.irliilga ior Xalr:-1'sia in itrc: Cirlneqe iinnals. -tlut'rlit, usc ol i\agari ntir5: llt' ,-rxjrl.ijr,.rd lrv the pi:csLrnce <;f BLrridlrist priests irorrL l3cnga.1 rvhiclr i" i',,cil irttlsle<l bv the l(eiural< iirscripti-;n, ancl 1hi: raili: iialilga for ,\Iala::sia ,rcr,nr'r in the Chir-rt:sc anniils er,en beforc the rllrpr:iirarrce ril tlic laikl.itlras'.it tlerc, Niial<irnta iiastri has dcijlitcll givcu his; oiri,rion ihat I'IiLla1'sia is rc{er-rci1 to in tllrlnesc airn-a-is 1rt'thc rltirne ol i{liir'rglL r:rrer berlorc the arlvt:nt rri the fiailenclllls. n''or otlr purposes, it is irn:r-rait-'r'i.iri lr,''rethcr tlte lrc|r;tion oi tlie lamc i(ii.liirga {or iltalaysi;r occnr-recl bcfort, or aI'rcr tlie arir.ent o{ thc Sailendras. }iilaliarrt'.r Sastr,, in thi:l corrnLrct:ion, ruriairhs. 'v;hat the rist: oi ttrc Sail-:nclra p()wcl'hacl to clo rvith this i'i ai$o obscitlc'. Flacl Nilakaltir Sastri reacl otrr paper r:are1".rlh', it rvl,uldL rot hat-e br:cn cliflicult- {or hiin to untlelstancl that tvi: ir:lr-e rrraclc a quotation flo:Ln li..Ll. I{ajurndar, ancl in ordcf to mali{l tlral qnotation intclligible to 1.ht rcailtr-, t'elt:rlct1 to the ctttttelit irr
ttta.rt'l-r'il'r'
occr.rrFi"

Sastri ricsitesl to ci'eatc the imprcssion on thc rnilci o{ tlit: reader tbat .\tala..'si;i r..i:rs not caller'[ iiLilirrga in :rnr:iernt ol :nr.ediat:r.:r1 i.irnes, rl't

'iiLst;:i per:sists in caltrirll tl ris rhrr,nii.L, l,r 1i,t. pail li,or-k, tl,ltr,,:cal it ls o1 fl-Lc,: sanri,r agc as thr: Cfi,lui:crtitstt.. FIe is also u,rc;ng .,,,,hc;r iic stiLtcir that '!\'e ilrre not surc il th,: l'[alala,s of I'Iliglra r'r,r-r: per4rle fri.,:il the i;irni;i rea. \4Ie iiar-e girrcn the c pi,iiou o{ (lcrini about tlre lirr:ati6ir of r{ jalrnr 'r ;rncl thc seatcncc."r'hiclr i:mmccli;r-te]r. {oilclu,s i1- is: 'i:lirt ,no.rt rr.i-r,rir.r*
,

lyuLilprtt -a r:..'.ptir.rn tlrat coulcl ]rar.e c.siiv crt:pt iir.' .lnis has-i,e,..,n 'iistoft_crl by r\ilakantl lia.stri;.r.s a manrrf;rctdring o{ cr-irlcxrcc t., t,urr.;,,ort llagha froin a_ l4a1a.1a.n lroirlc.:uLrl hr: soiitrits tlrc svrirpiLtLv ol lr, t', lrlr t l,r r..,, I ri,,tir'::.: ( {)ptrttlttl {)1 .rr,.h rilt.si ,,ri ';r,6*i,rl irrgunrcntation js reerlless!'Jir, sirch nx:ttrocls lrri thing raL] irr.r 1,r,i,tril' .:\n.v c.;nc i.,'ho *,oriicl rc;rcl tirc ltara.gr.api-t rlealir,.t r.i1l, ti,;*...,',ilt rn.iil irc;ticc ihi'.t'nve liai't-'clrilnvn t,u,,u,r"i,roionsi fLi-':rr jr. rt has l.,i.rr,, oi..,,r, ;rs_;r posl;ibil:i1..1, ilrLtl. iiij;rill-tlil(lv irtated, a.fti:r rlr. lrar.c .:on. lucl.,,l l-,-,r,,, ,rlirer cviclcnr:e that il{a.gitir cilnre ll-oil ,\talavslr..'['lte lelcrtrncc to tfre '-!,iit/ttt,.'nt,o.y,tllo-ir!t. tt-tt!tit\tt Ir,.r., i.. t,,.r1ijrl.1.ilre t,,irriu.i,.lt rlr.;rrttl lro;n. tlr:it crlcir,rncc to a iralticniar 1--lssagc iir tir;,,t tc_rt. Nil:l'1*nta

,riigiiral leadilg Jutnbii{lf.,a, lrcing

altr:r-cci

.,qj-(
r

as tht oire suggcsted by us hc.e, har.e bien r.sortcd to b' of the highest repute ili histor-icai rese:.rrch. r. q"ot. oi,.. 'chola's ('-\arnpje, thc nairre "ft,aaha in fht J inahtLlant,ilt.nt lias bccn cilaner:rl t. gr:eat lListor:icar sigriiica,,." t,n.,,,-ii.n .f ituah,, nnrl r:onci'sions

'rl tutts,
;r

.renl.nct' ht'gins_ rvitli 'but' inrlica.tes thlrt llr havc not ziccepteil rvhat Las becn sttr-ted l;efore. \\'hcn onc of tlrc tn'o suggesteri loca*oirs ir.t"t jcr-icrl. it nrl;r'ally f,rllorvs tlrrrr tlrc nthr.r is r..1,p1',,i. Ui,,,.i,,i"ii,,n"
hrs

'. irr t;rllin< ll;ri;ir lrr.

ls.lltrrl,i i,iS,,,rth.r

ri 5rrni1tr.,,

tl'n-"f,,.1

iii"i

lr',rr'.

[i-c]111 i1.r.r

'f

i,';'a,iciii1'r11. trt't rLlring

iirat the r\{iLlalas ol i\'Iagha v,'ere people o1 -\I'.liavuril r,"tich, ilr tLe opinion cii most scliollrrs, is the sarnc as Jembi, rvc dicrv irl-tcltiou to titt'. tr!altlt,tt"i:anagallu.-',:ihira-t'n'titsrt, u'1lich states
1{-iivir-rg conclticli:cL

sinhalese'text are ielt rrr,'\[)]ai,n(d'. 'llre plairr Pali tert ltrs not lrcen ignored. ,lanlrudiurL' trr Srnlrrlcsc.nnd Pali litcratrrre is riut r.t,s{rieted in its rpplicrtion't,, India alone. Irlaces in Further Inclizr .rso are rcferred" t''as i' iar;rhudrpa.rl)_we have. i* fat-t^, explaiirectr how the va3'tr [ttr,i,,n-i* ,."r*'.o"t tr; an-understanding of a fou'icertir cent.ry sinrial6se t.it. ur"-r.r.," ;tati:cl; 'TI-re learned scholals an)(lng the Sirrhalese oI ttrc thirt.""t}r ancl fourteentir centriries r'e'e rvcli"r'cr.seci in sanskrit, iiicl.r,ii"f ']: lr,"
[>t!:',tnas'. Tlrc expn ssion
f .Jum K,ilrla:esti'r rl\s durr,rr urllr crrnlldt.rrte

'''tttLLiln!orra-t'trtt:rtt'iat;tstt, rs re{r Irirr( 1t,:1 1'eg;cn in i\lalil1.sia. ,1 rr,,tirr;l "it,, 'rt sllpp{,rr '1.r'. l'iytr.fttttiiln , NiJii<irnta 5rrsiri olri.cl=r d,it ,, r!r, plain lraii text shoulcl be ignored ancl hornr the l-it.yu lro,.,rro i* r..i'.r,.rrt 'to air,rincierstanding o.1 a fourtecnth centurv

_\\'ith rr:garr1 to .ur inter-p,r..etatio' rf thc e,.,i-rression in rlrc riarlicl sirrlr:rlest. tri,rrslati,,n

{Ltm{tr.t)rr,iha, '"t ttr,. it'rit

tt,l;'t

,a-ir(d(:a.\..r,
lro1
11

(.i11i(]t

6f lris rrrrlaLniii,iritt. u-itlr

, ls

illr

tir.Li

1l-iL;,;ha

caurr: lt'o'm .|ambnciiprt, end tlri'elt

ot'L

tlte possibilitr"of [-niver.itr ol

an

..--t,'t_ .\-\J. llf, 3, li. 5L;.''1

]\i:lrir:is

jjttllrtitt-

tht

\chool. oJ

oriettlal artd AJttcu,n, Sttulie.s, J-or.rdorr, \'oi.

() 'r.tr"

),-. 'ri.,i. |. 7.
1

wl,tf.r,"ta Sastri,

l'1

istor,,' o-f St'l I'iial'a.,

.\ ^,'?'.,U. rttitsotlhn.lf,tk,i itt.i, f J,l ljditinn, 1,. b8q. Scc ai-o ilri. J,,rrr.rr.,l. ()r \ ,I t), 'ln: Sttjn]to:'trti!sn, p. lo; \ nl. lll. r). .:.1 i. J,r'nl,ilo4t,1t;t,;. l'.'1 .S. Ilrlition. it.'f t:.piqr,,yl,i,t t-,;it,,,,,,,.,, {H.li.l .lJ (l , f f. .ir,.

l|'18 JOLI11,NAI,. li.A.S. (CEYT,ON) 1'ol. VIII, I'or1. 2 {r\t:rc Sci'ics)'

l1)(ili

CEYLOT\ AND MAL;\YSIA

3+f)

iinagine that they came from all over Jambudvipa. Forexample, it is treedless to sav that a particular person li'n'es'in a street in lfadras',
iusteacl

carne from a region of Jambudvipa. It rvouid have been cluite sufRcient to have said that they came fronr Jambudvipa, {or nobody wotlld

the form used by the author rvould Itave been .! arnbutlur' p a-pr adel ay akiru and not pr ade,4 ay ett,. More.over, it is neeclless for 'thC author to have stated that Magha's soldiers

Ii tirat meaning lvas intended,

tlre Sinhalese language, be interpreted as lrom 'a regiolt oI J t'tmbudai'pa'

such argument worth his serious attention.' This is the sort of objection rvhich a person believing the earttr to be flat rvould have brought

against an exposition o{ the cause o{ eclipses by an astronomer upholding the heliocentric theory. We have already seen rvhat solt of argument Nilakanta Sastri considers to be 'clear ancl decisive' to lte ctinvincing, and not far-{etched (see p. rz f.).

of in

},Iadras'.

We nor,r' corne to Niiakanta Sastri's obserr-ations on our expiilr:rtions of the Culavath,sa refereilce to X{agha's soldiers as l(eralas. It is only to reject it tliat we ha\re mentioned the possibility that thesr: trieralas lvcre the same as the tribe l<nclu,n as X{alayala amonS; the I{zr.r-o Bataks. Hence Nilakanta Sastri's stertement 'Paranavitana is not rvithout an inkling of the rveakness of his argument'etc. is ofl tht: ma.rl<. Our proposition that 'Kerala' is t1're form lvhicli the ancient Indian name foi the people of n'Iataysia and Further Indiar had assumed in Ceylon, is chalaCterised by Nilakanta Sastri as 'astounding'. This means that it goes against all the ideas and pr:ejudices of Nilakanta Sastri. It ma5, be so, but it does not necessarily imply that orir proposition is not correct. What would have been ntore astounding, rvhen it lvas first put forlvard, than the pr-oposition that the earth is a globc-l lfany ancient Indian names of peoples have been used in later times, in lands influenced by Indian culture, to designate ethnic groups quitc: clifferent from those to u''hom those na.mes rverc originall]i attachecl. For example, the n'ord 'Yona' (Skt. 'Yavana') u'hich first meant Greeks, and later Arabs, in India itsel{, has been utilised in Further
India. as the designation of people $,lto t{'ere ncither Greeks nor Ara-bs.zo After lraving briefly referred to our deriviation of 'Keraia' ftom I{a'iriila, Nilakanta Sastri goes on to say 'and the traders from Bharukaccha t<l Further lndia have been invoked in support of this normal phonetical deveiopment even if the Sinhillese themselr'es did not visit these lands and come in contact rvith the people callecl Kiratas'. Whatrve have actuallv said in this connection is: 'The mariners from Bharukaccha to ports in Iiurther India callerl at havcns in Ceylon; {rom them the Sinhalese people rvould have frequently heard the name, u'hich would thus havebeen in common enough use Ior it to have undergone norma.l phonetical development, even if the Sinhalese themselr'es did not I'isit these lands, and come in contact rvith the people called the Kird.tas'. We leave it to the reacler to jucige rvhether this is invoking the traders from Bharukaccha to Further India 'in support of tl'ris normal, phonetical der..eloprnent'. With regard to tire etym6lo*t suggestecl, Nilal<anta Sastri observes: 'while all this sounds ingenious anci plausibie, it is also far-{etched and unconrrincing. I do not t}rink thirt lvithout a favourite thesis to maintain, Paranartitana rvould have considered

With rcgard to or-rr stressing the fact that the Keralas find mention in tiae Cula'uathsa as a peoplc durtng times r'vhen the Kaliirga influence rvas dominant in Ceylon politics, Nilakanta Sastri says: 'granting tiris is so, it pro\ies nothing for the deci'.rion on the iocation of Kaliirga in India or l{alaysia'. In saying this, Nilakanta Sastri has not seen our purpose in stressing this fact. We have clone so not for cleciding thc location of Kalinga in }lalaysia, but in orcler to shorv that 'ttris association of Kerala'uvith rulers of Kalinga origin thror'vs dor,rbt on the facilc assumption that they rvere \'Ialaydlis'. 'lhere were no peopie namecl Keralas nho rvere associatecl with the Indian l(aiinga. II tlne priut,:t facie assrmption that the Keralas of Magiia were Maiay1iis is doubtfui, and if a people lvith the name of l(erala rvere not knorvn in connection with the Indian Kalinga, the other possibility is tliat they lvere from I{dlingar in Malaysia. It is after bringing forrvard this argument against the assumption that the I{eralas of Magha lvere Malayaiis, that we have given reasons of a philological nature to connect 'I(eraia' witir 'Kairata'. Nilakanta Sastri, in his 'criticism' of our paper, has revcrse<1
this order, thus disturbing the logical seqLlence of our argument.
asks why should Xfalayalis submit to Magha rvho was not of Malabal

Continuing his criticism, Nilakanta Sastri states: 'Paranavitana

Malalas -nvere MulayS"lis ancl not l alays; it has not been aclduced a.s a-;r argument to pror.e that Nlagha's countly, Kalinga, u'as of nfatra.yan provenance, ivhich has been done by the evidence equating the l{alalas rvith Malays. Nilakanta. Sastri's charge that the suggestion assumes what has to be proved is therefore baseless. The rnanner in which Nilakanta Sastri has put before his readels the argumcnt containec!" in
the abor.e sentence of orus affords another exarnple ol nrisrepresentation and distortion rvhich, as r'r.e have already pointed ou.t, is the m.ain weapon u'ith u'hich he has sought to demolish our thesis.

origin? He suggests that the best ansrner to this is to suppose that both Magha and Keralas as also llagha's country K5linga are o{ Nlalaysian provenance. The suggestion again assllmes rvhat has to bc: prorred . " . ' What r've have actually said is: 'If on the face value of thc ternr "Kerala" applied to them in the Cu,latait,sa, we take thatthe armv of ltagha was composed o{ Maiayalis, it may be questioned rvhy they, after having captured power in this Island, r'vere content to be slrbservient to one r'vho rvas not of them, for whether we take Iiatringa to have been in India or ftlalaysia, l'tigha lvas not oi Nlalabar origin'. This sentence of ours is meant to rneet the possible objection that the

20.

G. Coedis, Les Etats IJittrl,tr,tists

d' Inl.o-Chine

et tL'[tzdottLisie,p.278

:l;il

.lOtittN.\1,.

t-i,.A.S.

(C|l\ll,()\

) I'ol. I'l I I, I'ctrt 2 (irreu, ,Sclles), 1963

tlltY{,ON .\^\D

}L\1,;\YSI-.\

35t

Nilakanta Sastri also states that \\rc have overloolied thc rveillinul';n facts that the \farlavaiis ]rarre beern ubicir:itous throughout history lrncl ready to go anylrrhere in search of sentice as mercenaries
atnong others, ancl thert }ilallrbar is much nearer Ceylon than i\{alaysi:r. In bringing forrn,arcl this algun-ient, Niiakanta, Sastri ignores the lact tlint irr a prillcc r,r'ho clesires to concluer a foreign country and to e$ta-

blisir hirrrsel{ in pou,er thc:re, solc reliance on such unreliable troops rvouirl bi.: tantamount to giving hostagcs to Iiortune. That tix: i\faiar,'hlis \\,frc nearrf to f},:t,krn tliitn u,ere the l\ilalays cloes not neccssarily tiu thc scale in f:r-r'our o{ thcin. In iatcr tiiles, i.Lnder tlie l)utch lnd the llritistrr, thcrtr rverc M:riav regimcnl-s iu thc serr-icc o{ thesc
colonial powcrs.

\\rith rcicr:i:nce io Cirao jir-{iua's statcrnent tirat Ccr,'lon lr,ns lilon.l tlie tributaties of San-1io-'llsi (Sri Vijnva) and ttrc infcrcnce

'l-i-,r,tli llciic, bLrt for 1na1]], vcars beior-e that, hr: l,:ts u'ieitlinc ir-ctual lx)ivcr in tlri,: rcgions "ul, lrii,:li cbntained rnany oI the se:lports fle4ur:ntcd ii.1, t.hc Cirintst. 'fhe ller-cliants rvlxr c:rrne to ports in tl-re south :utr1 u,est ,,f Ceylon u,oulci naturally harre reported that the Islilld rvas ruled by :i srion of the Nambara fan1ily, r'r,hich narnc could very -well hzrvc bcen ti'anscritred ns Nan-pi inCirinese ch;lracters" 'lhosc rl4ro c;r-1iec1 at ports ir ttie northern hal{ of the Islancl rvoukl have h:rd a difJercnt tale to t.jl about thc trsland's political status. i{ilakant:r Sastri's reluctance it, acccpt ihe staterncni of Chao Ju-I{ua that Ceylon paid tribute tcr ::rn-f:o-Tsi, on ttre grouncl that a dil{erent stntrurernt is irarLe by hirir i'li:eu,herc, is dr-rc to hiri iira"clequate kntxvlerlge of Ccvlrir history, arrcl i).her rea$oi1s to lvhich u'e nced not reler again.

that wrr ira.r'e dr:uvn tirercfrom, Nilakanta Sastri objects tirat 'many ol. {-hao Jn-I(ua's statements :rre patently lvrong, and-lte cannot be sure thilt his record o{ t}re <lepenriancl'oI Ceyloir oi-r ljri Vijaya r,vas corretct.' Tliis t1.pe o1 c-ibjerction c-au be brought {ort.rard errcn to lhose stirtcments of {--,hao Ju-Kua, u'}ric}r irave been accepted demur "r,ithorii
orr San-Iio-Tsi is :unong tlre rnlst vaiuabk: noticeii c;I this liingcloin tliiit ha.re come doir,n to us.':i And it is in ihis chaptcr tirzrt the rr:ference to Ccylon being a tlibutarlr 6{ Q1n-1io-'lsi occurs. {,hao J u-Kua

l;v histolia"nr.
'His chapter

Fllrlel,r'here, Nilai<anta S;rstri sa1's

ol

{lhao Iu-I(ua:

if Cirao -fu-i{ua rvas colrect, continues Nilaiianta Sastri, and $rl Vijaya couid be ltroLLgirt togctirer only il ]iis home iaild r,i i-{alinga antl the nationalitv of his iroops hllvc becn cicinonstrzr-teci i,r lt; in and lroill Maia.l'5ii1. 'I'lrege trvo points have bccl-t cstabl"ished b1' i,s ,"vith yalirl a-rgumelits ag:rinst rr,hicir }lil:',1<anta S:lstri'g objections lr.i','r: no'r'ircen able to prei.a-il. 'lo statc thr e..'ideiicr iiLrccinc.il.,. {or ttre irr';ri-iit oi tirc irlpartiiLl tcadell: (u) ,l'Iap;ira establishecl his porvci: or-er tirc rrortheur iralf of Ccyion ,r i2rj riittr the help of an army of z4,ooii l'[:r1ala-s.
Iiven
\il1g1..a

is in fact thc principal source ot information {or the pollticzrl condition

ol.(ri Vijayn in the first half of the thirteenth century, and his account

of thc dependencies o{ Sr-i Vijaya, on the rvhole, has lreen acceptcd as trustr,vorthy b1r G. Coedds and othc:r historians of rcpute. Nilakanta Sastri has aiso dutifullv copicd u,hat these scholar$ ltar,e had to stiy, but cites the lact that Chao Ju-I(na, in another part o{ his r,vork, }rair i'ecorded'r-hat Ceylon u'as untler the rr:1e c'{ }{an-pi, taken to mean thc liairs of Lfalabar. Naturalllr, Nile&anta Sastri pre{ers Cerzlon to be
under the rule of llalabar, rather tiran its being a tril-.utar'1'oI San-Fo-Tsi. Chao Ju-Kua's translatots explain the dil{erent statements as rcferring' to tr,vo different pcriods or clifierent portions of the Island, and Niiakanta Sastri admits that thc latter explanation is likely.2? If it is so, the reason to doubt the veracity oI Chao Ju-Kua's record about

Ceylon iras been relrroved. In fact Chao .ju-Iiua's statements are in prevailed in Ceyion at the accord u.ith the political conditions "r'hich time he r,vrote iris lvork, i.e. 1225. Ten years befole this c1ate, Magha had consolidated his position at Polonnaru, but the southern part ol the Isiand did not acknowledge his authority. Among the princes who set themselves up in opposition to l\{agha was Vijayabahu III,
rvlrose

cpigraphy, or indeed {rom South Indian soLlrccs, tliat the Nayars of -\falabar lorded it over Ceylon in the third decade o{ the thirteenth ceirtury, as Nilakanta Sastri takes it to be probable.
Our view tliat 'Magiraraj a' seems to be a Pali rendering o{
a

,r{ }'ialavur-a (i.e. Malai-r'r1r), identificd rvith J:unbi u,hic}r iit that time ri ar.. in,-,it probably tire ireaclquarters o{ the empire of Sr-i Vijaya. irr) Ch'.ro.[u-Kua, writing ::ntzzi, has recoriiecl that Ceylon paid tribute to San-Iio-Tsi (Sri Vijal'a). Tire conclusion should be obvious to rl1y {;ne $rho is not hiclebound by prejuclicc. Niial<anta S;istri clismisses riurexplanationof Nan-pi as 'ingenious, btit nrtt probable aircl convincing'. He gives no reasoll ior this juclgment rvhich is of the sort that ir i,lerson convinced of the flatness o{ the earth might bring forlvard io leject ihe arguments in proof of its rotundity. There ig not a shred o{ t:viderrce, either in the historical u,ritings of Ceylon, or in thc Island's

(.1,) trn iiinhak:se litrraturr: 'I'talala'

is t'rplair*rl ;rs ihc' 1;t.op1i:

dialecti-

caiformot'Maharaja' is not an unwarranted assumption,

as Nilakanta

counted

family was cailed Nembara or Nambara. His d,e ju,re reigt is trontz3z, the year in rvhich he became the possessor oi the

2r. History of Srz Vijaya, op. cit. p. 88. 22. History of Srn Vijaya, op. cit.p.9o. note

r.5.

king named King Magha', rvhich is as if one referred to 'a professor naned Professor Sastri'. The rnere fact that a ruler came by sea and established" hirnself in Cevlon would not have necessitated the rnaintenance o{ garrisons at so many seaports, as Mdgha is recorded to have done. The occupation o{ two or three seaports would have been suffi-

Sastri asserts, but is a perfectiy legitimate inlerencc from the occllrrence meaning 'king' twice in the exptession Mltgharaja nain K alih gu,-r aj a. I f rve do not take r aj a in M a gh ar aj aas an integral part of the personal nane or title, the translation of the phrase would be 'a Kalinga

of a word

:l5z

.JOLrR-}iAt-, .11,..\..S. (CIrlYl,ON) l,-ol.

l'lll , I'urt )

(Ncr 5'a'ir:r),

lLtXili

CIEYJ-ON

ANll I\{ALr\YSIA

353

oI garrisor.rs at so many ports is most probably for clominating the

around the Islancl, n'hich indic:rtes a naval power. Ancl tbe Orissan K:rlinga of this pcriod was not noted as a rjea power, whereas Sri Vijaya rvas. 'lhe assumption that l{agha's naval forces engaged themselves in piratical activities is due to the lact that the successors o{ Magha .been lrs rulers ol Jaffna, tire Arva Cakrirvartis. ere l<norvn to have ongagecl in such actjvities.
seas

cient to mrrintain conlmulications u'ith bis hon'leland. 'fhe maintenailcc

nri di1g,,1 st;Ltement in t\e ilIahirait,sa lltat Candrar.bhinrr carne frorn .|"'rvaka or that hc returnccl to the lancl in the inter:rral betrveen his tn,o inroarls into Ceylor.r. Let us note also that the Ma.hauafusa counts tlle JAvaka inroarl among the many calamities that bcfcll Ceylon in rlirs period b,\'thc dcpleilatirjns 61_1tt.nnicalr-ulers of foreign extraction:
Pavti"knsanividdhastarir lhAnarh nrrAsanr vilra l\{eghadibadhitarii I-arrirkarir JavakA puna badh:ryurir

Candrabhinu. Furtl'rer, Nilakanta Sastri says:'l3trt Paranavitana's argument has no lorce till nlagha is proved to be a Jar.aka'. We havc' pointed out that the forces of Magha, as of CandrabhAnu the Javaka, consisted ol l\{alrlas, and demonstrated that lfalala.s were the peop]e of Maiaiyflr, i.e. Malays rvho are re{erred to in the Pali chronicle as .f avaka.s. Migha rvho commancled them must consequently be a Javaka. lhis argr-rmcnt of outs, as \\rc have shorvn above, has not bren refuted.
Nilakau'rta Sastri arlso asserts that the line in the Culatatitsa {cirap. li3, v. 4o), MnghatlibaLlhitafir, Laritlttu"rt, Jiraalrcl ftuttr, batllta.yu,,rit, 'c1-xar7t, cuts against Magira being ciassed as a .Jarraka.'. Wc arc grateful to Nil:rkanta Sastri {or clrar,ing our attcntion to this versc lr'}rich, instead of going against our suggestion, gir,cs con-*iclerable support to it. The rnain part o{ thc scntcncc cornprising this haJ.f verse, in prose order. is: Jaaahr1 Lafizltait, ,ltlm,a bddhayu,m 'the .|avaka-s ra\iaged l-arirka

On our suggestiontlia.t the Javai<a's son rncntionecl in tire Kudrirnivamalai inscription of Vira Pandya could have been Magha's rson. rather than CandrabhS"nu's, Nilal<anta Sastri says that. it 'looks verv plausibie but not quite correct or convincing'. He continues: 'The rhetorical statcment in the Pand5ra inscription that the son should get tht: Islancl ruled b5r iris father rvould be satisf,ed if a part o{ the trslsnd, such as tire l(ingclorn of Jaffna as I have suggested in my article in T.B.G., rvas made over to the prince by the Panclya conclueror'. trMe have not suggestcd that thc lvhole Irrland u,as nrade orrer to the Javal<a's son, but that tiie expression 'that the sotr should rulc the vast nsiand of Ceylon rulecl by his father beforc' siiits lllagha better than li does

to tire first raid oI CaudrabhAnu, a .fav:rlia settlement infer:red as trxisting belore that, cannot have coine into being a{ter tliat ra.id. The rlarres in thr faffna Pcninsula referred io clo not suggest anvthing r.egarcling the clate o{ tliese settlemcnts. The .lavakas could not havc made a settlement in the 'ncighbourhood o{ Cevlon' ars Nilakanta .-iastri opines, for that vvoulcl havc been in the Paaclyan kingclom, and tiire Pandyas, rvho werc pou,er{ul at thc ti:rnc, rvoulcl not have ailowed it. Thus it is the suggestion made in tirc last scntence of the above <:xtr-act that is leasiblc. lir-rt tliis Jar.akaL settlement cor-rlcl not have heen made b)'Candrabhdnu. for there is no evidence zrt all of Candrahhai-lu having had anytiring to r1o rvith Ceylon before his first raid on tire I"qlanctr. \Yc u,ould norv statr the knorvn facts in a series of propositions:

.ril this mzrlt raisc il doubt if the Javalias ancl their chicftain had establlshed a strorrgholcl {or thc:mselves in the neighbourhood of Ceylon. Fl.W. Codrington has notecl in his S/zorl llistory o.;f Ce;t'lotr. that "the n:.me Chavakachcheri (the .|ar-anese scttlcincnt) f'.hzrvankottai (.Javanr:se l-ort) at Navatkuli in the f affna Peninsula, and -favankotte (Javanesc Fort) on the mainlancl p<-rssib1l, recorcl settlements oI his followers"" If 'there was sucha settlement, it isnot unlikely that it had jts origin soon trfter the repulse of the lirst inroad of Candrabhanu. And it is not also impossible that []anclrabhaml ancL fiis lollorvcrs had made :L settlcment for thenrsclves bcfore the,v startccl cvcn thc f,rst rvar rvitlr I):rrakram:rbirenll II.2;l As the Culattafisa vcrse cluoted erbove refers

(l) lironr rL 1:erse in the C'ularaitsa,

one can infel ttr:rt thcre rvas a settle:nent oI Javahas in Ceylon before the first raicl of Candrabhanu (partly admittecL by Niiakanta Sastri).

interpretation \ve give o{ it herc, has inferred lrom this versc that there was a Javaka visitation on Ceylon before Candrabhdnu. In the article refcrred to;rbnve, he argues: 'It is notervortlrv that there is

again', r,vhich clearly irnplies thai the l sland u,as invaded by the Javakas beforc the occasion to u'hicti tliis sentence reders, i.c., the iirst raid on Ceylon by Candrabhatu. Mughadihadhitatu (first ha.r:ried by Magha), nhich qualifies Lafitkah, arnd comes belore the explession Jnaaltii. puna badh.ayu.ziz, indicatcs thc prerrious occasion on l,hich the trsiancl 'lival<as. was ravaged by the The simile used in the first liaif of the verse, 'just as lightn.ing t'ith floods of l ater rtisit a place clcstr(.,1e rtr b.v lightning with flames of fire' conveys the same sense. i\Iagha's troops, like those of Candrabhiinu, lverc compared to the destructive liglitning. In fact, Nilakanta Sastri himself, to a great extent agreeing with the

CantLrabhanu's soldiers are referred diers u'ele also Malalas. I,Xalalas 'overe the people coinmanclecl them.

to

as Nlalalas; l\{zigha's solMagha

of Malaiyir, hencc Jivakas;

is

Candr:rbirdnu, rvho sirnilarlv commerndecl l{alalas, caileci a .farraka.

\r,/e lcave the unbiasserl reader tllese propositions.

clefinitelv

to

clrarv the necessarY inference lrom

2.3.

T i jdsc;triJl uorsr IndistittT-utl-l-a,tttl-en-lloL]tct,th,uutlt:, 'r59-2bo"

DeelLXXVII, r937,

)i4

.iOUli.NAL, -tt.A.S.

(UltYl-O'\)

l'ol

. I'lrr.l?r't

g (Nar ,!olics), il){i}

UEjYLO]{ AISD

}t!L,t1-lj1:\

:lr}-

'I'he con{used account in the Datir,badeni*asnd of tlie foreign jrivasions by sea clur:ing tirc rcign of Parakranrabd.tru II is bascd on tLt. nlemorieil of tliese eveltts .,vtrrich rvere prer.alent among thc people a century or so a{ter the tirne in ri'hic:h tjrev tooh placc. 'fhese popular i'ersions, garbiecl ir-n<1 confusecl thougir thev be, are not the pi:oiiucts oI pure intagination, but ciue to transrlissit;n oratrXy, from one-narratot to another, of a. stolv rvirich at the sta"rt rvould ha.ve been ra:ional irncl sober. l,-rtlturia.tc-1y, in l.his instancc, r,l,e harrc contemporart r'';ritfen rccords ol thc iictual event$ iri the officia.tr ancl other hisiories. ri'ith the irclp of ',vhii:h ."vc clrn conjecturc the process by rvhich a cieal a.nc1 sober stoiy trarslormccl itscl{ into a ccnfi.rsed ancl garblerl one. 'lhe ,llafn,bude.,ni-ctsna. sr;eaks of tlrree kingil from {oreign parts r,,,'.hl inr.:rdecl Ceylon in ihe reign of Far5krainlabatru Itr. We kncl-w frori-i reliable sn,,i."r, CeSrlonese'ls iveril as South Xndia.', 1.hat trvo ruler-s o{ loreign lancis undertook n-rilitary' operations in the Isla.n.L in ttrre reisn of that rnonarch, nainciy Canclia.biranu the Iavat<a ailctr Vira pal$:r:l None of tlre threi: ilatros givgn irr the l)cr"nbad,eni-asna can, b3, a111 mea.ns, be tal<cn a-s refcrring to the Pandya ruler" 'Ihev must theref"lrc hc rlilferr nL clt.signatiotls r rI Candlahlrinrr. 'l'hc correctnc*s ot tlrireascning is brought out bv thc fact thelt tr,rro of the names in thi.

of Candrabhanu. The thircl irarnc also, by analogy, :rna.r therefore be taken as referring to Candrabhzl,nu. Ihis vierv,'as lveii as the irr{ererrce drau'n Jroin the st;iternent in tire f}rtrVthad.eni-asnr that the Iialiriga king carne to recover the prtrimony of his'grarrcLfather, are given only zr-s snp;gerstions, though thc reisoning itseli is
epithets
tregitimate

Dai'rbadeni-asra, namely Ta.tnaliiryantu-ra;ja (tfu: king of 'l:l.mbralinga; and -ft1t:anJtar\-r'aja (the king of the -fivaka Coast) are obvirjus

sllpportcd our propositi,:rns,. and- \\re ulal/ u'eil. gilc ilp ortr (,\iLluillatiijll rif his'clitique'at this point. Still, consicleriig tiru hicir stanclinr: r,-l otrr clii.jc, and rir;rl lir, ro lt'e gr'l:-;1, i11 our r-.tirisi r., Iru eonsidet. it a cieadly sin to doubt_an1,' arbitrary asst:rtion :lac1e Lrv |irn, let us follorv hirn t<-r the end, and sce if ca' cliscovi:r: a bettcr: grasp r,r{ f:Lr:|, an<l 've jrrdgmcnt free froil bi;rs, in the rest ol his 'cri,iique'. l-L". ve-ry.ne-'it pa"ragraph afiords :r good cxaraplc .1 i\irarianLi,. sastri's iirabilitv or rt'firrr:il trr 1iir,'1ir"-rrii. onc fait fr,rm another, and his tendcncv to ii-risicpre,sei-rt tirilgs so as to con{ui;c the r-eaciu-. v/e iravc expl;iincd the rilatt.aier-it ii-r. sjnh:r.lesc u'r-itin;s tirat lllaulia had no }.rlorvledge of the religioi'i o[ 1.lrr: l]ricl,Jha, 1;r. p, rintinr3 r;lLi thitt the lJurldhisnr rvhich i,,rcvaileti in Sorther-n lfala1 e arir] Snr,titrr iirt,rrr rvhich region lrc proirabilr hailed) ',vas of it ver'/ ilel,i.,e,i 'l-ur-,lric tvor, tntl 1li.,"l'tit.t'arii,ir l,hii;liirrLs oj l..1 l,,rr :nil.l '1 r',.r'-r-ireli ir;r,.c rc:t.l.ic, l lrttltt:*t'l)i:tltllristu;rs'S'torirrl r,Iiirrt]r!lri:rrr.insupp,,;1 ,.1 lhise::olaur1]o1_ylle may :rclt1 th::.t, er.'ei.r -1"9da-v, rvc ocr:asjonith.rtutl- oi ltla.Jirrll Ilucirlliists aitc,.-is!nil otlrr:r: {Jucirliiists, rvith r'}rose vier",'s they clo not rgree, oI ignora.ncc of tire iltrddha'r rilrnt:,utta. liilaLanta Saitrj clo,:., not qtiestion the vaiiclitv of this argurrent, but states, as if to shorv that n'e zire contra-dictirig ourselvcs: 'l3ut a. little carlier, in ilealing

that the

previonslv, or s,hat is to folktiv.

in orir vieu.. j{ these r.icrvs hltre to be rejecteci ultirna.teil,, that does not in an1, w:l); affect the r,'aliclity of r,vhat has bccn sta"te.-l

habita.t

ivith Buclclhar:l.kl;irita-thera's habita.t, Pa.ranavitana eagcriv rnaintained iVialatr Feninsula, his Tambarattha, funijllierl a model [or Siuhalesr thli rutlrur-s, rnrl idrllilic{l '1'aiiia u.illr a Tanionc pura'. How facts have bee' to.qether i' Nilaha'tr i;1rtri!" 'r'ildiecl critique, is secn by his speaking of '1ludclhar.kl.liita-therra's habitat'. What we r,vero investigating in the earlier part of the pa.uer v,as thc Tambarattha, rvhich u'e have identificd -"vith'lArabrahnga. Budclha, ralrkhita-thera, the autllor oI the JintlLttfi,liaya,liveil in Rohana in the south-east of Ceyion, and is szrid to ha.ve 'received consecr-ation at thc hands of eminent schol:rrs in l-anl<a, as rvell as in the Cola r-:ountrv and th-eTambarallha'.\Ve have ilot spoken of Ta.rnb:rrattira ;Iurrrishirqg.

of

Dharnmakitti-thera, r,viro lvag invited tc;- Cir,'lon

irorrL

step brr.stcp do_ not Jeel that we have found reason to a.ccept tht propositions laid clor,vn by ltara.navitana, and we may well siop at this point. Sti11, considering the importance of the subject anal tht, eninence of the author ir'ho aclvocates a r:adical revision ol Cevlol historl', iet us lollou' irirn to the encl, aud see if .,r,e discover bJttcr reasoning in the rost of his learned articlc:'"'[he reader, by this tirne, lr'ould have_had opportunrty te ,1..i.i. u,ho &akes smug oisumption.s, Nilakanta Sastri or ourselves. His mistaken assumptions abo'ut thr,, occurrence of Tambaliriga in the Culauatitsa anc'L the part played brOrissan Kalinga in the introduction of Buddhisrn to Ceylcn, ivould not have been {orgotten by the reader. We u'ho have followed Nilakanta Sastri's 'critique' r,vith close attention to all its details, have not found a single valid refutation of any of the reasons u'ith rvhich we har-c

,t\t ihis point Niiahant:r Sastri obsr:n;es: '-1Xucl norv t):rr;rna.r,itana smugly r-,'ritcs "llnough er,'iclonce has been itroright {orlt,arc[, I thitk, io establi.qh that l/{ilglia rvas a l{alay and tire l(alinga from which hr hailecl u,-:Ls in Malaya and not Inclia". W--c rvho have followed hiin

:r model for Sinhaiese Pali autirors'. In locating tho Inmbaiattha, i.e. Tailbralinga, we l'rave given the r;iews of C-edds anci Bradcieli, the- one identifying it r,r'ith the region of rvhich l.igor is the centrcr, and the other in the Kua.ntan area. Pi:eferring the former vierv to th,: iatter, rvc gave our reason thus: 'lhe references to 'lanbarattha in Ceylon writings inclicate that it u'as a flonrishing centre uf Thcrar-acla lluddhism in the elr:venth to thirteenth centuries; there zrre important Inonuments of that faith stiil preservecl in the Ligor region;-i,\'hereas the archaeological remains brougirt to light in the Kuantan area are-neither very outstanding, nor of a Theravacla character'. I-igor, with which we have ideniifiedTamblatthe where lherar.ada lluddhlsm
was flourishing, is in the northern part of the Malay Peninsula, and not the'r'vlrole of the i\{alay Feninsrla. Ther-e is nothing to pleciude Tanjongpura 'somervhere in the Malay Peninsula' being in the rrorth, wherc

As Taflja, identified with 'lanjong-pura, \\ras in Tambrattha rvhich ha.s been located in the area
Therar.d.da tsuddhism rvas flourshing.

:t;ti JOtJIiN;\I-,
ireninsulal

.tt.A..S. (CFl\:l,ON

l'o1.. l:111,

I'nt 2 ('\,:.u' Serics), l9iiil

Maiel.v

C]'YLON ,,\ND T[A],AYS1r\

;-Ii,;

rvas-in S<tuthern l\{alaya and Sumatra where, we have -.tated, the prevailingl3utldhism was of a debasecl type,_and its adherents over'to Tantric orgies Ii1<e the Bhairava cult. Is there a-nything -qii,,en itcotlgmo.lt in the fact that 'fhera'ada Iluddhisrn flourished in thc regioi ol Ligor, rvhile a different type of thc- same, religion prevailerl in"Southern"Mala-va aud Sumatra? Even today, the regio! of Ligor, rvhich is in Thailand, is mainlv Theravada lluddhist, whilc the religion of the majority ol the people in Southern Malaya and Sumatra is Islarr. We norv conte to that part oI otir thesis in rvhich I've have ilernonstrated. tirat the kings of Polonnarrt n'lto claimed to beiong to the Kalinga ctrynasty, ainong rvhom Ni66arhkamaila was the most prominent raonaich,'also came fro,n tr[ar1a.ysia. Wc begin by cmphasising the cliiliculties in the u'.tv of atdopting t]nc prirna facie view that the I{iliirga from lvirii:h NiSfarhkarnalla and his relations came to Ceylon ,vas ih" Inclian Kalinga. NiSsamkamaila, in his epigraphs, girres considerable clctaiis ab6ut his farnily, including the names of his i:entury is knorvn in considerable iletaii, no royal per-sonages answering to the iiescription, in his inscripti.ons, of NiSsarhkamalla's parents, havt: yet come to-light. Nilakanta Sastri has no contribution to r-rake o{ his r,rr'vn to makc-good this lack of ev-iclencc' On the contrary, he savs that on these fi.e. the dif&cuities refcrred to above) r've quote a long paragraph of D.C. Sarcar. Here is another instance o{ {acts getting inuaalea or of misquoting them to suit his own purpose. lhe..passage f'rom Sircar thiit ive quoted has been summarised by NilakanLa Sastri as fol1or,vs. 'That-scholar, (i.e. D.C. Sarcar) llnds a dilliculty in accepting Geiger's identification oI Siliapura (Sirhhapura), the capital of Xaliri[a inlhe tirne o{ Vijayabahu I, with a town in Radha said to have bee-n {ouncled by Vijaya's lather; the I(alinga capitalof the same name is to be identifiea witit tlie modern Singupuram near Srrkikulam; but his was the capital only i11 the fourth and fi{th centuries and the later capital r'vas at Kalinganagara. And _Sarcar accounted for the mention of Sihapura as the capital in Vijayabhahu's time in the
Culaaamsa parents; but thoLrgh the iristor-y oi tire Indlan Kalinga of the twelftlr

round Ligor, 'lanjong-pura \vas

It

in

tire northern hal{ of the

rvhich there is grcater reason) or ltaclfra, it is a" Iar cry {roni l-a!a to Kaliriga. Once again lve lind confusion with regar<l to facts rtn the part bf Nilakanta Sastri, ancl things lvhich do not find mention in the Muh,aaaitsa being quotecl as facts on the authoritrz o{ that

chronicle. Once :rgain r've rcmain ciraritable, and do not accust: Nilakanta Sastri of intentional misquotation' It is not the Culauamsa alone that lncntions Sirirhapura as ttr.: capital of l(alinga. In the inscriptlo1s of Ni33arirkamalla, it is said that he was born in Sirhhapura2a in Kaliriga, arid that Par?ikramabehu got dolvn a prince from Sirhh:rpura to,becomc his son-in-ial.25 In an inscription of Sahasamalla, it is said that a chicftain <lf Ceykrn went to Sirirhapura in Kalinga to invitc that prince.to come to Ceykln to become its sovereign.zG Ac6olding to the suggestion that Nilakanta Sastri consiclcrs as 'cluite satisfactory and reasonable', r'r'e have t'.r assume that peopie lr,ho rvent to. and came {rom, I(aliirga re{erred to its capital, in preference to its actual name, by an appellatiol given in a fifttr century Pali chronicle ttt a city in Lala (La{a or Itat"lha)" Can special pleading go any further? Even if lve ad:mit ttrrat the Culaaivhsa cbntinued a non-existent tradition of the Mahat;amstt by'refcrring to Siriliapura as the.capital of lialirrg-a, it would tre airalogous tb a writer of today r-cferring tr.r Nerv Delhi as Calc'tt*. because tht: latter city t'as at one time the capitai oI thc Indian Empire He concludes this paiagrarph rvith thc foilorving sentence:.'1'his hy.percritical attitucle to the reasonablc snggestioll of Sarca.r, is in striking

contrast r,vith thc many facile assumptions that abound in Paranavitana's argumentation in thii Very article.' To tlris we reply: 'l'lris credulous acieptance of an a.bsurcl proposition, n'liich has no basis .f fa.ct, is in striking contrast to the reluctance to see the force of feas;.)n, exhibiterl

representation of Sirirhapura as the capital of Kaiiirga'in the Mahuaath,sa tradition seems to be due to thc Iact that thc chionicic was colllposed in the fi{th century, while the Cula,aaritsa, ilppears merely to have continued the same tradition' altirough the latcr capital of the country was at Kalinganagara'. Tliis &pianation is liaited as reasonable and quite satis{actory. bv Nilakanta Sastri; so rve examine it as Nilakanta Sastri's own vier'v. As we have alreadY pointed out, the single mentiorr.o{,Kalinga in the Makfruarhsa is as the home ol the princess, wedded' to the liing of Variga, who was tire moiher of Suppadevl, yho {an ^aryay rvitii a lion, and was herself the nr.other of Sirhhabaiiu, the father rrf Vijaya. Sirhhapura is mentioned in the hfah[iuarhstr' as a ne$city triliit in l-ala 6v Sirihabahu. \\riietl'Ler $'c take Lala as Ld"t;a (tor

by saying. 'The

by Nitikanta Sastli in so nianv placc:s in the course of his critique' we aiso rleduce frorn tliisparagriiph that zrn argument, tci be'reasonable and 'quite satisfactory'6 Nilakanta Sastri, rnust proceed frotn something ihat is a {acile assumptiol.r, and not a demonstrable f:rct. r\fter ha.r'ii]g pointecl out the cliffrculties il the u,ay o{ assuminSl that the i{aliriga lvith u,hicir Ceyion hacl rclations in the tenth to

trveifth ccnturie,,l u,as the Inclian Kaliriga, r,",i: har.e marshalied cvidencc to establish that, to Sinhalcilc litcrari o{ that period, Kaliirga lYas a region in lf:rlavsia. To begin tvith, $,e have qtotecl one of the foremost sctolars r,i,ho floufisl're<] in thc firsi hali oi the thirtererrth century. Nleclhankara-ther:i, rvho assnrcs Lrs that ttrre langu:rge o{ that part of the Inclian l(alinga ri'hich crtmes into coirsicler-ation in this matter, 'Ia'rba1i'ga, rvhich i.e. Ancih:rbliasa iTclLrg.), rvas tlrr i;ingirage of C,ritsiclt.riilg tlris state:mcili rvitir an historir:al is also t:alleil .lil\,aka.
24" 25. fO.

.Dpigral:hia, Zcylanicu, \'ol. II, 1). rr5" tipigraphia Zcylttnica,, Vo}" V, p" zo7"

ti.!i.gra.fhia ileylal'tica, \'-ol.

VII,

1t,

zz7 ff .

358

JOt.f RN,\1,,

Ir.A.S. (CUYL0N)

c!tY.r,,oN AND

I{ALAYSI.\

;t51}

lact univcrsally admitted, i.c. that the 'ft:lugu coLrntr.\r pluverl a great part in the diflusion of Indian crilture in r,{aliLl-sia, ',i'c lLur-t, .rttenpteci to reconstruct the historical process b1r 114ri.5 tire state of affairs recorded bv r'Iechar:jrl<ara thela coulcl harre becn brorigirt irbout. llilakanta Sasiri's rcactiorr to this is to clisniss the stiitenrent of ,'i{edhankara-tircra as 'palpabtry erroneous', ancr to ca.r-il:r.t orrr interPretatioir o[ the historical facts. Nilakanta Sastri does n.t gi'e any reason whatevel for his rlismiss:rl of l\'{er1}renrkara-thcra's statnltnt

rri tlie I igor regiol2). on the othcr hand, the cvidence for relisious 'nd culturai interco*rse betr,r,een cevlon ancr the Anclhra .,,.iroiry reases altogettrer after thc fi{th century.
,,rpp(

rs'palpably

L.r:rorlcous'.

"i l{i}akanta Sastri's or,-,'n lvritings, rvhc,re }re has attempted reccnstmctions of histor,v on data rnucir less ieliai;le thair the aboie, o. or-, ,ro .l"tn
irrrrglrt ,rr 1lr,' sirl,' ,,I llrc i)rrr]rirs in tlr..gri'at "l,atflc rrtSril'tirarn.lti-t'arl, aitdthis prince, i1 hiseai'lrr career, r,r'as-a fclclatory ,'l tht' PtLllrva king Apariiirt,lrnrr) rrir,,irr llc r.,.,.cir.crl [a\,,iirs [r,r tltt. part h'"r playe'J in tirat battle.rl Thcse stalerncnts ale not a.ttestcd xr' any inscription of the Pallarr:rs orcf the coliLs, c' of thr p''dvas. o'r i,i.."ly ltlrer Sr,rttlr Irrclial rh rr:,'tr', ol h1 ;rny litr r.:r;.r sr,nir.r.{''l.i^in, Nilakanta sastri says tha"l- serna it of cl'eytoir rriie'J irirnsel{ ri-it}ithe Pallairas when he irn.a-cled thc Pilnrh,'a counlr\,.,:r1 a staternent Jor u,hich no e'iti.once {rorrr Sinhaicsc or- froin,piill:rr,a or from lra'rdva
i;ing_a11it5r
_1.

on tliese unrler-riabie {acts, t}re reconiitrrrc.tirr' oI llistorv sirould ar quitr. plllsihln to anV irrrl,iasscd pers(,r|. l-u \ilrliarrti Sastr:i, hor,vever, it is'not historv, not even Frirana, but pure fable,. If this -".ir-i.if;- {;;* !._._pyr" fabie, r,r'e ,:u. goihc. qriite zr- c.liection

reputc_are o{ opinion that dispossessed princes of Inclia founded kingdoms in Malaysia, and transferrecl there lhe of their homerJnds.2s

in r'vhich Mcrlharhkara-trrera. mc-.r,ed hacl no acquaintancc: rvith the peoplc of the Telugu cr.runtr-y' itseli, ltui wcre acquaintcri with these Telugu speakirr proplc frr_,rn tho, l\{alav peninsula, tilere is nothing strange i' his statement tirat tl'rc Andha (Telug*) l'.nguage rvas that spokerr in tirr: Ter:rnbalinga country. The migratLn of p"eop-le irom.1-e1*gu-speaking parts of soirtii .1*clii is acimitt"ecl by uilat<anta sastri hi.lnsel{; eiser,i liere. he says that the earliest epigraphs of the rulers of 6ii Vijal.a 'are all lvriiien in an unmjstat abt'yioutir Indian script, very si'rilar to that cmployecl in the early insi'iptions of the i!.ndhr-a country and of the pallavas.2; 'lhe carti ealiais irad more to clo rvith the ;Lndhra countrlz than with thc Dr:Lo,i,1o. Ot1r", scholars of
the circles

{probabi.; thr-..rt:gitn ro*ncl Ligor:). Wc i.;rioiv tirat toclay, there ar.e large cornrnu'ities in tlrc l\,Izriiiy Feninsr,rla rn'hose speech is Tanil.

that-part o[ tire lfalav ]leirii'rsulir- ancir:nt1y rcrov,,ri as f ar:rbraliiga

whether a stilter'e't is creclible .r not has to bc crecided oir hvrr consiclerationii: r'li.rthcr tire persou wirn ulljlc.o the starternent is rvortllv 'rI r'r.tirr)t. r]r \\'lri'rlrr'n tlrere i";rrrytlrinii irrlr,.r'rntlli:r,.rrdiblr. irr thr. sLaternent.. 1\,'e har.c airt.rtl-r., ili r,rrr 1r,.p"r, given the cred-entiir-ls ol 1{tc'l.harjrkar:i-i}rera, t'hicir l{iia-liairta Sastri h:is not cailerl ir-r qucstion. ;\nd tirerc is nothini; inhcrentjv unbeile'ab1e in the statcmenl, r,hicir i- tr' {lrc rllct i lir:it -ir i;rqrr, , 5'rrrtlr lndil, r:Lrr(u;r{c, r,i:s spolicrr ir,

.it all. f,,

11i1i1u

t*,o i'stances: Nilal<a.ta S^rtri says it ot tt

Coto

l|';i:,it

If

Maiay Feninsuia. In fact, an old map of l.-urther India brr p. placiclc p'blished in tV4 (Fournerau, Le Siatn Ancien,ne, plate facing p. 3z) siroi,vs a region named Talinga to tlie north of Llgor, in the same area as Ilennasarim. The presence of people who stiil Lear physical resemblance to Indians in this particular iegion lends further suppc,rt to this view.

'.nres f-hus it sliould cause no surprise to fincl an Anclhareittha in the

lglitt) in Nilakanta

Nilal<anta s:rstri, pointing ont that rvhat rvc stated ;rbout "vhiic -\l"dJrrrhknra-thr'ra is prrrc [alrle errd noI lli5trrr)'. lras rt.rt rrs guessirrg irrs to rvhat he takes tirrr: history to be. 'Charity.begins at ho!ne'; 've inay therefot:e Dresur'ie that Nila.lianta Sastri's ioncr.pt of true hisioly hers been communicated to, a'cl imbibed by, his feliorv citizerm witir responsibilities for histcrical research. And, this is rvhat v,e reacl abo*t the scriPt of tire few Brilimi r-ecorcls in the 'ramilnad in a r^,ork published witli the imprirnatur of the llf.dras l\,Iuseum: ,Whcn these inscriptions,are comparcd rvith tire edicts (though Asok., in the third century 1.C,, adopfed Pali kinguage) tlle script employed by hsol<a secnls to irc irrrt a soplristicatctl ririely of ,,Tarnil Nad Sciipt". . . This Tamil script- was borr,oled and adbpted by Asoka (Brehmi

the thircl century il.C.'32 This, no doubt, rvill be hiiled by Sastri as 'true history', not Prlraf a and not fable.

. .Io take some specimens of 'history'fror.n ldilakanta Sastri's own rvritings. We are assu.red b), him:Ilanabharanawas a title taken bv the rulers oI Jaffna, too; possibly they bore ihe 1i1lc l\ldnabhrrsanaalso'.3r -\o authoritS"is giver-r for tlris statement. Ir no sourcc tor ihc lristorr.
Builelbt. de I'Ecole Fytrttcu.i.se d' Ettytnta-Oyient, 'lome, XLII, pp. ro5_ XLIX, pp. 63r-636. A.r'tibws A;iae, Special Nurnber, Irelicitation \roluu e presented to Professor Georgc Coedds, pp. z4r fi. 30. Nilakanta Sastri, Tlte Colas, p. ir3. Sr. Nilakanta Sastri, I l:Iistory of Soutlt Intlia, p. t5q. 32. Scripts i.'n cr,nd Ayouttd Ind.i.tt, ll{tdras, 196o, p. 3.
,r_r3; Tome

Penins'la in these centuries rras been estabiished by epigraphicil e'idence, as rvell as frorn the stucly of ar iistic styles that i"ere

That there r'r'as brisk intercourse between ceylon and the l\[alay
irevate'rt

29.

"7" :8.

History of Sri. Vijaya, op. cit. 1t..:.7, G. Coedds, I,s litct!s l:[in.dou,ises rt'tntlo_Cltine et

d'

[ttdonesit:,

p. tj7 f

3(i0 .JOUIiNT\L, ll,.A.S. (CE\lloli)

was a

l'oL. l'lJ I, I'urt 2 {,\ea -qcncd" i963

(.l1lYLON r\ND M/II-AYSTA

title of JalIrra rulers. Nilakanta Sastri has produced -[affna kings having the titic of 'Ilanabharana' and 'Marrabhu;ana' rvith the same ease as that oi a rnagician who produces rabbits out of his hat. Yc1 another bit of history a la Nilakanta Strstri: In tl I{istary oJ Sottth In'di'r (p. :Sr), wc fincl this stated about the Ju.nahlh,arana of the great Sinha-

of .|affna is there e\/idence supporting this claim that 'Manabhara4a'

trvo forms of l]uddhism. Tiris is exactly what rve harve saicl, that there rvas 'fheravdda Btiddhism in Tarnbralinga, u'hiie in Southern Ma1aya ancl Suirratra tirere rvas Tantric Nlahn-varia lluddirisnr, r,l,hich to Ceylon Iluddhists 1,r'as no Ilu<ldhisrn at a1l. l-lut, for his rile as the critique of our thesis, Nilakanta Sastri has assumed a ne',^/ pose, tJrat it is

lese poet, I(umdradasa. 'lhis poem had a curious historrlt; till recently it rvas only knorvn from a Sinhalesc paraphrase and a re-translation of it into Sarnskrit in a poem of fiItcen cantos by a certain Rajasunrlara

(c. 16oo)'" The only Raja.sundara, having any connection witLr the -f clnaktharand, was an Avurveclic uhysician of Ceylon, J.S. Rajasunclara, '"vho lived about half a ccntury ago, and irl crllla.boration with Ven'ble Hikkaduve Srlrnarigala Thera, r'estored, not translated.
d,'isjecta ntentbra, of

the lir-st and second cantos of that poem into -Sanskrit froin the the oliginal ilohas lound in the Sinhalese sawne,sa at the sarne tiile as l)hammalama 'lhera restored the poem, so far as tlrc sd.1l71,e w?\s pi:eserved, and published it in r89r."Io ignorc completely rvh:rt Yen'ble Dhammarama 'Ihera did to restore thr:

absurd for one conntr\r to have tli'o di,lerent forms of rcligious faith in tr.l'o diflerent regions. On ttris basis, it rvoulcl be :L inatter for Nilaka.nta Sastri's derision if one u,cre to salz that there are Hindu 'f:rmils in -faffna, while tliere are Sinhalese Budcl]rists in othcr parts o{ Ce1:16n. 5o, there are oniy Hindu Tanrils in Ceylon, Nilakanta Sastri r,vould say. Similarly, according to Nilakanta Sastri's sense of propriety, it would be ludicrous to sav that .Dr:a.r,ic1ian languages a.re spoken in South lndia, whiie Indo-Aryan is spoken in tire Nortir, for wliiLt applies to religion should apply to language also. If one is to avoicl Nilakanta Sastri's derision, accordilg to the standards adoptcd b]t him in this 'critique', one tras to sav that the t'hole of India is Drar.idian in speech.

Jdnalfiharana, and to make a Sinhalese Ayurvedic physician die nearly three hundred years before he was born, are no doubt lvhat Nilakanta Sastri rvould call genu.ine history" Ttris digression u'as necessary to shor,v Nilalianta Sastri that scorn is no substitute {or a.rgurnents ba.secl on facts. 'This is not history, not even Puraqa, but pure fable, and in this fable X,Ial:r.ysia is at once a larnd of holy Buddhi-sm, and one whose l3uddhism was so clegenerate that its people could be considered no lSuclcihists at ail': So concludes Niiakanta Sastri his observations in this section. We can alnrost hear tl're applause from the gallery" Had

sia-a

A{ter this masterpiece of rhetoric r.r'hich ridictrli:s the possibility of the existence of two forrns of tsuddhism ilr tire vast regions of Malaypc-rssibilit1, r,rhich hc himself had previously acknorvlcdged* Nilakanta Sastri goes on to say: 'The rest oI Paranavitana's article, rvliich is more or less of the sarne piece as ttre foregoing, shotrld be dealt with more summariil,' to serve tin-re ancl space'. Tire rvord 'foregoing' in thissenterrceought to refer to the simultaneousexistence of Theravdda Iluddhism and lllahayina in Malaysia, rvhich $'e harre sholr,u is a very souncl and reasorable proposition, rvhich is in accord rvith the facts as asserted by scllolars o{ repute like Coedis, and not atrounding in arguments based on non-e>ristent facts whicli as rve harte seen abor.c, are what Nilakanta Sastri accepts as'clear and decislve' (see above p. rz f . ). .\ilakanta Sastri's undertal<ir.rg to deal more suirlnlarily lvitli the rest of our papcr is, in efiect, an excuse for gi.,'ing a gartlled account of our

Nilakanta Sastri been an a.dvocatc arguing a brief , rve could have seen. in our mincl's eyc, the faces of his clients beaming with smiles. Let us.
horvever, see horvthisrhetoric, indulgedin by an historianlvho discredits rhetoric, r,vould har.'e to be seen by an iilpartial judge" 'I'he jibe about 'pure fable' has alrcady beeir rt:turned back to Nilakanta Sastri. The cbncltrding rvords cottvey the idea tliat it is an absrirdity for llalaysia to have bcen at once a land ol trvo types of l-iuddhism. But Nilakanta Sastri has elsewhere quoted lr,ith approval an opinion of G. Coedis in the iollor'ving lvords, 'Coedds has pointed out that a. grorving antagonism betrveon the I']ali (Hinayana) Buddhisrn of Tarnbralinga and Sukhodaya and the l\{ahiyana of Sri Vijaya had some'rhing to do with the establishment of the inclepenclence of T:1mbralinga.35 So, once ttpon a tirne, Nilakanta Sastri did ncit see anvthing {unn1r in l{alaysia having

i3" IJnivcrsitlr ol Ceylon, FIistLriy of Ceylott, Yol. l, p. bgo" 3+. Jior ltir.jasundiir::r, see Catalogtte of tha S.inhalese Pv'inlcd lloolts itt lltt l-i,bltu'1,of tlLc ilritish llfuseunt, by Don t\Iartino de Zilva Wickremasinghr-', J,onc1orr, r90r, p. t66, and D. I)airr"rasiira, llhera, 'Sorls,tril Li'Iet'a,ture. p, :9r {. 35" llistory of ,trt, Vi,jal'a, af . ci't. p. 95,

arguments, omitting important linl<s and misrepresenting others. As rve have shot n above, lvhen Nilakanta Sastri distorts our argurnents in order to mai<c our position look absurd, and proceeds to criticise the sanie, he is, in fact, criticising hirnself, and not us. A {urther glaring example of such distortion is furnished by the version he has given rif our argunrent for the cxistence bf a Katnga in l{alaysia, from data culled froin tlte Dfitharu.thsa and its Sinhalese Sanne, both from the hand of l)hanmakitti, rtncl rvritten in the reign of Lilavati (rzrr-tz). We have pointed out that, in l)hammakitti's Pali narrative, he makes the {ugitives frr,rm Dant:rpura travel scuthrvards for a considerable distance, and arrir.e at a port caliecl Tamalitti, from rvhere thev take ship to Ceylon. Tliis Tamalitti cannot be the same as "lAmralipti in Eengal, becatise one dcies not rca.ch that por:t by traveiling south from Dantapura. And tlic doubts aroused by this fact are confirmed b), ttre Sinhalese sari,ne which gives "larnalingama' as the ecluivalent of Timalitti. As u,e havc seen, "Iama.lirigama' is the Sinhalese form of 'Tambralinga', the name of a scaport in the Malay Peninsula. I)hanr-

:l{iz

.loL. l:ix',\.l,. t},.,\.s.

{(llt\ i.o-\)

('ll\ l.()\ -1\i) 11'\1,,\\ sl.\

tiurt ir.i i,;,,r,r ''l'lirLiLliLti'1Ilil-\'or illllv lloi ilt'acl:t:i-'tecl ll,\'otlLt:rs'.but a.i'ltcl. tht: r'alit1it.rr til i'tl t:otrchrsion tirat l)ll:r:rnnral<iiti rnatit' ilt:vlon e:ribalk from'I'zrrir'atriil f irit i:ouplc ltri[61i11g thc'lirot]r tlelic to 2-r'*1 that t5e f{'liriga l.: irad in *,, ,,,, ;n' the U;la; 1)grinsrila, 'ie'i lir,r,, j,, t1r:rt p:rr'1- tif the l'orlil. lncicic:ntallv, ive lllali zrlso arlci tltat rt'lr Irivr lltt ciiscLisiutci tllc lirencli .nrd Englisit l'endei:ings oI tltr l-ianlt: oI

special set o{ r:ircurnstances, u'hich rve irarre briefh'_rct.apituleiteri ,nir.]r", th:it lec1 to r.rLir: conciuiiion. nr-incly that the l{aliirga oi tlrr Sitrir;Licse lilelirti oi tl-re tri'el{th ccntut-v n'ar.t itt l\'lalavsiir. lhe i:]retoricir-l flourjsh rvith r,virich Nilakatt:r Sastri brines this passage to :,r ctrr:gc is as l11ucil bcsicle Lhe point, :rncl cllciilatecl to thr:ot <1ust in ttLt: t:r;cs o[ ihe re;rilcr, as is ihat at t].re cnll ol tire prcvious paragrapi]. Iambraliirga is r-lie ouly plilcc in tht: l' ai:r-y Pe;rilrsula that i-q mentiolltrl in tlie courJc of this ai:gumcnt. Llrairi arlcl .Jarnbi have bc,eil brougirt hei t: incoilbv l{ilaliauta Srstri ltlotn othcr- corrtexts. Ililt tirerr: is nothing (rrairi. 'l Slrsi ri lrics lo r'onriri r ris rt.ltdr't's. ilr Ju,,,,.. ils \illi<:ril1:r i"irnbraiirig... aurrl f ambi bc.ing inciudecl in lialinga, wh]c! was another
name for }iiaia.ysia. Nilal<a.nta Sastr-i hirnsel{ }ras stertecl e1s':nltere thal 'the nerrne I/,aliriga Jor-ftI:rlarrsia occurs in Chinese .nnals even befo* .h" oDo.oruuce of the Sa.ilcnclras'. Grahi. T;rmltraliriga .nd .Ia:mbi ar-t'

r-iiscorrcrv of the fot:ms ''larnalirigam:r' a.nd 'Ta,maiiiiga.rt' is etroliglt activilte our im,agin:rtion to',vards f(a.Linga-hfala.)'/sia..It i.q not the nrer cli,qcorrcr-rr of thc name jn some Siniiatreric ttr:<ts, brit its ocrltrl^li:nce in a

rnithitti's lil.iiliga, llorri u'lricir tirc fLrrritilc crtriplr r::,rmc to (lr:r.i,r;r rvith the ]'o0th'itciic, $'l-s thct'e{orc ilril in Inrli;r. l'ru.L in tlie ,'r, aiai ircninsul:r. srrch in bi-ici is our afgiiinent. hr \il:1katrta. liast';i's risnm-1. hr: nra.ires tto urctttiott <-,I t]tc Iirqitii,es tra.r'cllirrg siitttltt'i i:r1s iro,l't 'laln:ilitii ('I'ai-riainigaliru)'--thc ;nt-,st i'n;Ltr'ri:rl -{)anta.prlra tu ltrrivt iit linl< in-t1r<: cha.in r.r{ orir cyidt',rrccr, ri'iilir,r'it r-"irjcli thtt argr-ttttctrt r;a.l 1,, rn.aclet t,t lo0l<:rbsurcl. Of coLrrsC, t.ht,Oinii{tiiln iriis ltecii i1lilC 'tf s:l','i iitnc :Lnti sirit-ce', ,\161.[Cr- es1mplc oi inisl-i:itr.'errr,ntatilir rif orir position is lilrilt:,lt 'l lrf,' hlilaka.ntl Slittri's u'ox1s: 'r\qain llc tlistlor-ti-s 1.irer lorirrs "la-Lnt,.ij., 6arila'antl ''lar,i.i:Liiirgain'irr la.tc Si;-rira.itstl borlis, allci tirat is elrouig| t,r Irctivatr: his in-railina1ir-rn ioiviLrrjri triaiiriSti llalaysia i,l{rrilil,v'. Tlrr' i'ol-:n 'Ta:nlLlirigaiiiit"', u,hicir is tlti: irasi.s rrf oLrr ar-gumcnt in thisr tieclio;1, iii frtpqtl in a. woili r.'f tlLe tivt:lltlr celtuiy, ar-i{. tirlt js tfuc pt-'ri1rl ]r,;. .,\-hicir r,r,t: nre prc-<entinil err-i,-let'rcr. 1t i-q tircrefi)re no1.'liite" blrt 'conternpora.l._r-'. l he 111ii.1t1lei'irr ri-lricli the rvrtril'latc'is uscci,-srigq61slto the rcack:j: tha,L \v: ir:rve utiiised f ialeuoo u,hich is jnvajicl a.s it i. trate; but tlrr: far:1- i$ <it.ri.l-c oilieri','ist-r. -4.gaiin. he sal-r tlrat tire"ireit' .i-ii

,i,',.lut

L',""i*fii,g",-'i,tri.li, is \ilalianta saLsli:i h:rs nr:,t bccir lrlrk'to ililprr:ci:tti: tirisr distinctiotr, it of that ite fincL; it ilifhcLili tc gafii..r ri'triat ortr expliinarion is ii, r-,:iin,-ier ilii: .rrrirrcncc ol tlre ior-in f irrlaiitii in tbe Dtt,lii,cii!.sirito. \\iith regard ,Lc.lrrti:iliar-rtu. Salllti's Li'{erctlct trl specr.llat'rie atris o{ fa.itir, n'e 'trra1'
"materirl

and l:rrni.;aliirglL, bili- l,rointrci ofit. tlrii iliflcrerrt transcripts bt'lll'rglish ol tlrc r.ra.r:1.,.' 1.1iinc-ce retrdcr-ings ril tllc.na:le oI l'rr".f. Sii-.,,,tugi--iu, it rvill bc.irse*.ecl, art: Lrt'ci differr:nt things. As

point ilrrt iitlt u,h.rn tirorir: rVh() ,trt, ,',oi. Sinoirrgists itrahe u.*e o{ ilr.'rn ilhirli:;it solllrct)s, thcl itave nccessrrily to p1:rcc their faith otl p:ist' :.irrr,i,,lris'rs rt'jrich iiilali,rilta Srsli:i, Lo', ltas ,ftr:rt c]olte in the
|.s-'trrt that thr:1..'Cenri! o{ titt: irrtr-ridrtr:i-ion of
Ii..,ue.,,lcr-, sLr rir'.iclL

l',i:tlillisin to (lt:vion ctc" I(riiriila..u'itil Ceylon, 'trrd' str 1ri(ir..r., tltc ,.:,,,ttiitu,,,l i'iilttiolig of {)ri;{i:ill oI irlr.rr:lr li:,rr t. br iittirt ir ;-i-:si't-''t' tlr 6crir-r iire Arltil Cairr:rvariis jn Irrciilr, that hc iras nothiilg aiiit:r tjir.r:ctl',- {ftrin tLt'r'rilrr;-r oi I.,aiiriga -j Ir1'r'.,I tlru1; t:otnmoiliit' lol rIL]itr Pii!lloseli 'L-llr.r ilrjI:tiii"s i-ri ,\llLjirLrlcr-iur rilt() ltitr assistctl Nili,Llianta Sastli iil ccl our af [ju] i]e nt ' t lr is i::ritigisl r .l lt Lr. plpor siro r',, tlrat he li.as 1ot {olloi,
We lo {-e_..":lo,r rri:L lrialai'a' J'}iis ]s exrrctly lvhat rve otlLsclr.cs ira',-i' slici. to rr:trd agaitr tLrat l;ortion of our pa-i-'el beginning ri'oulii invite hiin u'ith: ''j'hus lr.e ltat,e the irositit-,ir..la-n,l encling r'-,tiih "lambalingtl af in tire l{a1ar. Peninsul;r' on t,. ,t. \\/e nrigirt reit.eratc that lve lt:rve :ntha Di.ttltatrdrtitsd ott t]he fritna.faci tirst tried to interpret the cl.at;r rLss,.im.ption oi iire ftigiti\:cs cclning to ccvktrr fro.m Ii:'.iiirga in India; ttrat, rLncl, ci;tfi,,ilted rviili-thc ab-qnrcl pir-*ition lo ilirich 1{''e l:Irc 1ec1 biirrr: clcare<l l1{relt $'e llosit a Yoyage 1rointe,l. otit tba.i the ilbsurciitir.:g -ovorlld ir,ru*., rrrgion in. tire l{iJay ljc.i.srla. T5is conclisi'n c{.rtrs of 1he Malay nr.ltp;sitatr the c.tistcncc <iI l1)antaptir:a. i', thi.LL region 1l,:*insula r",,here 'l'arnalirigarla is ]tirla1.e'-1. b't in our p:rper-\ve have rrot lreerr irbLe to siro.,r.' ihat it u'as rto. ]-']r. ll.}1'E. lieirlando has since tlra,-vn our lrttellic.rn to a P'ortr.gutse jla.p of the lixtrimc-Oricnt' tla'red r5t,,t5, rcprocluccci

:1iii5 lus

l.-,r.cn ncr)ersriiLr-),

frl' i'{ilahanta Sa-iltri t1

l:ic sa.,ts, ;ri"ilLliltFi ng.'o,lrot ris,

tilat'no

one $rorilci sai1.a sliip Irorn Indirr

ls Tainalitti, is therefore the one that has to be accepted. It is with tiris bactgrouncl, necessarily arising {rom u'hat is stated in the previotls ,.r*o.^ot]r, that the paragraph beginnirrg rvith 'The form Timalilti i"t..; jr^J to be read. Oirr expJa-nation as to horv Tamaiiirgarna t'eceir-ecl

'lhe otherolace r,vas reached by fraveliing southrvar6s from l=)antapura. (Tarnbalinga) $,as aiso knolvtr tossible conclusion, that Tanralinga.ma

:lll irr'thc regiori clllntl )lalaSsia i'r'lristo'ians' Ilharnm:rtr;itti refers to one and the samc ,seapoit as 'Tamalii.tr in th.e Fali poern, anrl ''l;rmalirigama.' iu il-s Sinhalese sarlrls. r'nvr., js that Tamaiitti (Tamrirconclu-qions aire possibh lrorr this. The hrsl the well-knorvn port in Bengal, rr':rs ca.iled Tamalirigaina' Thir. [ipti), lrtr.,,6o-er, l..as to be reje.cted because lllia:nmakitti har; stated tirat the

Lnl'L Fourncrau iit ltis I'e Siant' Art'cictt (facing 'l'r,rt.l;rl,r;i'!11*'1.-,11tlr nl. J[r'r'(rri. a l, lt). irr"llri"',rrrp r,t, tlricl lr 1,lrr,, ionsiclcrable distalnce to i-he norlh of Ligor. lt ,''ii1 be cr-ide;it iirat' 'Tandalori' trias resulted frgit1 tlLe Sanskiit llaI:Ie.tr)antapr.rrL passing 'j'iris tlirough thc molrths O{ the local populr.cc antl t1.re Portrrgr.rese.. in the l.,larl'n o-| [)entaprrra- rvoulrl acltriil5lV s*ii the nzrrratilc

364 JOUITN-{L, R,.A.S. (CEYLON) Vot. VIII, part 2 (r\iew Series),

t9t,4

UEYI-ON AND NTAI,AYSIA

1f t.he Kalinga country has also r.!" ti""rplantecl i" trre Peninstla.
rcgard

Dalhiiaarhsa when we take Tamalitti*Tamatingama rnentione<l therein a seaport in the region of Ligor. Thus we see that, like the names of so ma_'y other cities or ancient, I"ndia, the name of trr"o".i..rrt c"pit.t -M'oiu'

to be

i. *^r.i"g use of real travellers'

suited his
purpose.:r6

Part r" o.

rr.

Nilakanta Sastri, hor'vever, hasnot himsel{ been averse tales in historical studies when it

arisen-

. yith Jo o_9r quotation from the Siyabas!,akara, its san,ne and the santtc of the Kaayutlarra,and our i'fereirces drau,n iherefrom, I'filakanta Sastri observ"s: 'we may well refrise to accept the inference suggested. The error, if it was orr", in the Siyabasta[irr,in,quite a number of other r,vays, and paranavitana,s

ind.icating that formeily

Tennasaritm rnentioned in tiris extract frorn do Liouto may not be wholly in the Malay Peninsula,at present, but the name is-l\[alay,

*"y f..""
own

and Indian Kalinga had ratrrer crose reraiio"s ,vitn aiam"q;l-."a it, also in r.ierv of their historical connec, 'ear tions'. we are not deaiing rvitli an error of the author oi th;-i;i;irtlakara, but an instance where he has adapted the original to *riit ttr" ideas. of .hls contempora'ies, as the expJanatic,ns oI rlre rwo s(rnires clearly rrrdrcatc. Kaliirga of India and Arainana rna.\.have had 'rather clos-e- relations', but is that a reason {or a sinhalese a.uilror of flre trvelfth century to mention them in the same breath? were these 'rather ciose relations' known to the sinhalese writers? Does the fact of tr,vo countries having lia.cl close reiations and historical connections justify them to be considered as near each other? ceyron had close relations and historical connections with portugal. rvili xii"rr""to Sastri, on that account, say that Ceylon is near p"ortugal?
may w9!I be considered

remarks do not rule out a misunderstanding of the Sanskrit original.

it formed a part of the Malay world. After citing thJ quotation from De Queyroz-which supports do Couto, .Nilakanti Sastii exclaims: 'Such is the evidence cited for the proposttron' ;;1n" n"ii.f tirat Kafinga *or l" further India continued to^be heid by the Sinhalese literali dorvn to the sixteenth century''. Nilakanta Sistri thinks that an exclamation marli is suffrcient to demoiish the proposition. Nilakanta Sastri continues; 'And we afe asked to accept that these beliefs rvere sharecl by the writers of those chapters_of the iitroo;;;t;o relating to the times beginning from -Mahinda lV ,and .rrdi.rg with Maghi'. This gi'es the impression to tlie reader that we tor'' the"prevalen.e b_f th" belief in the sixteenth "rg""-frr.tit"ia". ."iioty. The reacler of our paper lvould of course see that lve have

gi""" ,i".".rary evidence {or tire'belicf in the period from the tenth to.the Nilakanta Sast'i concludes this section by.saying' ?nltt"""ift ,inall this there is an astounding vagueness ofgeography and.disregard ""tiory. for chronology'. This is an estoundingly baseless accusatlon. It ls

Nilaka'ta Sastri attempts to clismiss our q'otation from Diogo c1o !9qto by calling it'a traverler's taie'. It is not crear whetirer the Srnhalese prince who supplied the in{ormation to clo couto, or the latter, is the 'traveller' of Nitat anta sastri. If it rvas the Sinhalese prince, do couto assures us that he rvas well versed in the traditionai lore o.f his_country, and that the porlugucse lr-riter listened to his chanting of the Rujiuat'i. The prince ttrnyl" cailecr atraveller because he travelled from ceylon to Goa. But cioes that fact afrect his credibility? Pil,,h.,trip to c91 qa\e !ir1 folS,et what he kne."v? Suppose that Ntlakanta Sastri visited the united States of America and he[vered a lecture on South Indian history. I)oes the fact of rri. u.i"g .tiu""iilr, in the States make the^information give' in his lecture"unworthy of " credence? If Nilakanta sastri refers t6 do couto as ,trarzeller, does"the of his having.travelled to India, before he began *illi"g ,1""t 1".,a, rndra, make l'm less worthy of credence? Had he written ivithout travelling to India, r'vouid thai have made him more reliabre? S";p;;i"g that an American travellecl to India before he r,r'rote a book on India, does the fact of his being a 'travelrer' make him less creditable than if he wrote about Inflia without being a 'tra'erier' t" tt;t;;;iryi*no, an estimate of do co'to as an historian, we might refer Nilakanta Sastri to Father S.G. percra's knoi,vnt."nrf"iio" oJD. A;#;", 'vell

well-known that there is a certain ,r"goJtt".. in all geographicai studies relating to ancient India and Furthe-r India. But, in this instance, we tave lo'cuted the region that lve are dealing with in a restricted area, i.". irr" pto"i".. of iennasarim and the relion round Ligor' As in so to refute -uny oih., instances, the standards by wlichtle attempts Sastri our thesis do not obviously apply to himself' Does Nilakanta

i".i-t;; ;";graphical "r.".iitn'a" ivhen he r'vrites: 'I agree with Coedds tftut 1a""1u "und, Z^bug are variants of ,the same name applieq Yague]y to thi whole of Malalsia, ancl in their general accounls neither the greater
we have quoted autirorities

,tab writers nor the ieylonese chronicleri need have aimed at p.G.ir";iaistory o;f Siz v;ioyn, p..66r n. 15): As regards chronology'

aitaUi" in the tenth to thirteenth centurtes our contention that, to the writers o{ the chapters of in suppoit of CAtr:oiit"to clealing with the history of tle Island from N{ahinda IV io lnaglru, Kalingi was not in Inclia but in Further India, and rve have q;;a;A J; 6o"tj tot our contention that the belief continued to the t'i"i"""tfr century. How can Nilakanta Sast'i point- out 'an astounding clisregard for chronology'in our treatment of the subiect? \r1'e now come to the eviclence that rve have collected from the in the -\[alayan side for the existence of a regi-on known as Kalinga peninsula. Nilakanta Sastri brl_.flI summarises this evidence M;i;i iuitftL" occasionalobservation ancl finall1' gives his arbitrar.v judgment' ,This play with names o{ like sound drawn from all and sundry sources t*a*'p"iu""r,itana to the st*cliedlv vague in{erence. Thus there is

366 .lOL'|RN;\L, R,.A.S. (CFlYLON)

l'o!. l'lII.

Part,2 (.t\t:to tierie.s), l!)fiil

(]1I\] LON AND L\'[,TI,A\-ST:\

is. thc opposite oI this, i.e. barsecl on the existent. Ancl, in spite of thr., high arrthority oI Nilakanta Sastr-i, lve prefer the existent, er.en thouglr t-t be 'gossanrer'', to the non-e-xisteirt proofs of tlre 'sky-cloth' or 'skyflorver' typc.

evidence for the name I(aririga- herving bce' for more than one area in Mara.ysia'."\vhat in use in former tirqes Niiakanta sastri caiis 'play ri'ith names of like so''d'i- ;; ;;" iirot ou" have invented. It has becn nxrde use of bv schorars "r trr" s*;i*st rcputc, Nilakanta Sastri himseti tras quoie,r iuitir'.,nquutiricd*.hosc opiuions -ii,irr"gi"r,:iih approval. F.orinstance trre idcirtifica.tion of I(aringa arrd its rocatio' i n the s.t fsrmc
''ai*,'.r to a new and highly critical standarci, ,i"J f",", openccl up several fresh

dis.crning judg., 'rras

locatcd. Kaliirga, is drrc. r,r Sir

a'ea whcrc si"

i *" l.t i;; ;';;'in: -r r r"i,iii'."":l;",, rtichr.i irnua"i",rr,",'...'"ii;'?" , rrrn riuJ;'; ii;;;, riir,"ri.ri*l"gi"pnv
r'n

Nilakanta Sastri rvant ur tn co,rfi,ri,-"i;;..i;.t

.What is \vr.onq lll,,tli.'l:j *pproactr'. ir trre inaterirrl Mrr, Jrr*!ng ., an., is reiiabt,. n',.r -sundr)/' sorrrccs,

tj."."'i*#,"rr
;;f".;;;:"b,,,,*
.ne
source?

t.

onlr,-

rrf tire liirrl-ralese

for l,{ilarrantir Sastr.i trei,ril pr,"rr_ (iir :1.^tf]5,._l -.:y l-".'r"atrie' rire rron_t_.xrsLclt, sirnilar to ilre ,_white sJiy-ctoilt, (it;unbiio_ii;_l
j-1.

,Ial.y tj;il;,;ir. of our crriclencc, Nilakantrt s..tii l,rii.i,i.i.,,, Aftcr a r,ii.i ,..L""i1"g rt ;, .,, *oi, g;;;., |r'oo[< thaL I]al:rrrrL'iii:ir;.r.\\'.'i'rs's l" ,,1y. irrr,,r r-,,j.,ctirq thr. r.^. rr:asonilble. e.<pi:rnation ,rf I) C. S.rrj;rr lui tl'rC occl1ul-cnce of SiiirSaoura as. the capit:rl o{ llal iri ga in the Cal&i, r,rir i ul .,{., ;;;;;;:;;;':;t;.,, triris 'v''rv ;,';rqrrn:ihrc lrl,rarrat;,,',t'i.'i,,*,1j cjl :r,-,)rlthing rlrri,.rr j. claiirrcrl to be fouacl n-, tit; r{a',rfir;,r ;r,'il;:"rricrr is nct in firct foun,f

soo'e exanrpri:s to ris? we might aclcl that f[r" clefinite]rr iJ."lla.o as Ka-liilga is nrt far froin Singora "u.ua"o:;;;;;;^;';:;*r" ,{te'' changed ancr tric br-,t-rnr'iar-ies ;;r;;;i;i;"s "",i,lri "".i.ri

Niial<arrta Srsiri rrrc;Lns i.rv ,trrngil,lt.'. rr.J,;;"i.;;';r'*,,..".1; il'ir-., sa'.o as thc 'clcar and _deciiir-e' inclicatio*u, uf *,hi.h r."''nr,u i-o,r.r-r*ut"a
e.xtenrlecl or contracterl

\ilakarrta Srrstt'i acccpts flre irlclrtifir.rtiorr,,I Silr3.url ryitli I sirnhapura, b't clecrines to issociate witnli trrc lr.Llinga nnterl.iu.r*." trnless the association is estahridrla"^ilv iangible evidence,. wir'i

of tlie vario*s statcs iir the

Nilal<anta Sastri starts his rrlrrarks on our interpretation of tht plrrase Deuotuu,w'w,ii,iidtr.-upan in the Maravidiye inscr-iption with thc admission that he is not a Sinhalese scholar, and that he can judge ot our argurnents ivith nruch diflidence, but he gains confidence after il few sentences, ancl delirrers his judgment rvith his usual conrplacencl,. Nilakanta Sastri says that the phr:ase has not rernained obs.,ure, b,:caust, Bell had given his conjecture about it. If a mere conjecture abouttht: meaning of an obscure r,vord or phrase removes its obscurity, nothing in any la.nguage shcul<l remain obscure. He qriotes our reasons for lejecting f3ell's cotjecturaL interpretations only partially, {or lve halre p6in1".1 out rvhv the phrase as interpretecl by Be1l does iro'," iitltl anything to the hing's prestige. We havc also sta-tccl thert the pltr-as,r itself ('bor-n betr,r'een tr,i,o crorvns', tl act,ttrt.rt, is taken as ilreaning'ci-olvn') does not oonr.rev that nreaning. Nilalianta Sastri -.,lso says that we ha.".c 'quite needlessly' given othcr instances lvlicre places of birtli are rroted. But'"ve did not irnorv that hc, without bcing reminclecl of tl-rr:se instance-". rvas already convinctcl tha*i tlLc pllrase inclic:rted the piarce of biltir If so, rvhy docs hc refrr to J:3eii's conjectur:a.l e-xpianation oi thr: pirra-*i, rvhich lias nothing to clrt.r,,ith the place oi bilth? Il- is antusing to finr!

il**i

f.lk

1alc,:ti'.-c

-nu

,r.0.,"-,"

tfl,ri'in" :;;:::#;:{r:;trif!

rr1.,rJ,iril,lr:r".,r.tiJ^ tot rvo:.iins ..r'r.u. ctothr,:s, ()il;trs t..ti .1, 11q1,,,,,,rr,t_',o,,i"j,,,,.'f,ui),];'",1.,. ,.rr.',r, ilr,'.p, ll rr,rs l,roli,.rr. i'1,,. 1;i;1-. i,,.l ,," 1 f' ,,,.,..i ;; ii;;';ir;i,i::,,i'ir:.ri].-.,i,, .: 1.,. crtli:tiLri. clothcs, ;rn11 Llrirrllcd tirr: o;ilrrlrts ,,"t ,ri1;,,,, :,, rlrr.r,rl.r,,,, l,rir f,;, t.r,rlion.l "'

of ab.ut to \r'c.r,r. r{a.ving ta.rieri:rs r-tt,r"tt tiiir" i'cl tlre p;:rrrnent th:rt iire lrl-'g "irtr,,,rtl,irt ",triy reoeivcci ,* ;;.r;;'-,";g", :rs 1'..' *.irhi,cl, a""i,;;ri;lr;;;il;"^;;";:,_"*. #:y. hc king 'lir, str.rl lrir,r rolfli,tl,tir" ",r1r"ri, irn(l tltr.*1,",,. liir r,rl,e.., nrrde., .J,.rv,,f tl u;1lt.t,,t;,,f,11.r,,rr lrir:r.'l l,usrl;r,1.',"rr:,,.'i ,i,,i,, ,:i-"".iif..llil.i;;'1,,::l y,rtt,,,c .",:1,,r, rnornt((i urr Lli 'ri,i,"'ror,ii;.rrrl. arrJ 1,r,'"i, ,,rf.,.,:u., rrrr,,rio,, ,ii,.ui ,'t,,1"',,n"r"t 'rhat hc "r:rs rvc:.r'in s ri.c,.,'1:;rli,,'i ,r p ft,r.i iir" .nd :li'isters bv the il'oorL Irco.[o;tl:r';.nr,.rr..,.:,)r].r.rtil.r

'J/' I'frc i.rl<-t:rle arirrciecr to is ,i.ig'rcp'te calDe frcn .1pry1d zrs 1'.rc;rrs: oncc'po'a tirirc, so*: cxiler-is !" l;; ;triiiic irrr lrinr.a garmcnt c'ar\erl iiicrrttt-t ";,;ri ,ri'r','"".toir., i;i'g a.'cl ofcr&l t, i" '..'r"'. il.rr. ilrr' r.'L(.i.1 i {1.., J,rr,.rl. rr,, "inii,"tii.iilr" oi ,urri.i,is f,;;i;;;1,"' :t ';'i t" l L', cuuitr ieL: ir- The "i,, ,,i,,,.,. I.;r1,,,-r11./ r,,r lir:ir- il r. :iir",,r u"o euaagccr t ir'g treri"*,.i ;reir serr.jcr:s on their orvn ter.ms. Iire],,. uaci.c' ,t, oi,o-n,--,ri- *Javrni,., ;111i ats no olie \(,:rs a'bsolutely certai'o'flre poi't."r,ict cris,1uaiii,".i ,,rr":iicrn seoing thc croi:ir, :Lrl 'rirc courtiers and the'.rrfutoi's, tiro,rgr, i-i,;,riJ r-r,,t."" anv crrth..n drc ioo', cir:rtinued
rvas

ldilalianta Sastri characterisiilg orr obser..'ittir)1.1 .r-borit ircing nr,rr As 'an a-ssulnption to sLrppori a ir:nilr:nl-ii:ris argurrlcnt'. i:Iir"virr5i conclriderl 'that Devatutttt-nt,iida r.,,as whc:ftr Sunrialramalrlclevt ll'as born, r've have r,irittcn: 'S!rc (Sunrlaralltah5-Cevi) cainc from Siririrapura in Klrlinga, ancl must have i.iecn lioru sorneurheit in ihat ri:gion. lleuotu,na-t,rtlild rnr-1gt a{-rcorclingly be tlrc ;rat'nc c-f thai rcgio:r, ancl iI l.e t:an satis{actoriiy locaie it in the }{alay Fciiinsula, it rvoLrld arld fur ther -qr-rpirolt to the corrterrtion tiiat I{alirig:r, tire honrc oi Snnclir-;:a taethirdevl, lvas not in India'. (iompare rvirlr this the manner in r,vhiclr ldilakanta Sastr-i has urriLeiritood thc ari;u:irent: 'A11 that tbe Culaud,ttts.t'
nativc
sa1's

iii that

Sunciai:aiaahiidovi ciLrne

lJut Paranervitarna is sc surc tirat Kaliri;,,a tr lrt

to arcimirc

a.nrr

sp.ari

vr:i:-v-

a'd matcriat 'l

that tire phlase uncler discnssion nrust bc the nantc of a reg-ioir tirere'. We liave i'rot stated that tire C,ukrlo.titsa sii]riJ an\rtlrini.l Ttiore tiran tha.i slic camc Ircm ;:iriirapura it -lialii'rga. We havc r-rot arqcecl on tire lraiii, that thc phr:ise urrrlcr dist:usi-rion;nusi ltc tile ]ratr-te of :r rr:gion iir Malaysia, but in l{a.linga, n'hctlicr tlir: latter be irr Inciia ,,r 1i2in-7sia
i-iarne l) nottt.nt;-.intidil, rccalls,ltyits s.nrnrl, the narnc oi in l\'f:rlaysia a.s renrlerrrL in to Chintse, and lha t thc neanin{ rr,'h.ilh can be giveil to it agrees both u'ith the ;rrcar:ring strggestecl to that }{ailyan toponvin. as rvel1 as ther situa-tic,n of that lancl, arc the rca--qons rciriclr led us to the conclusion thiit thr: birtli-place o{ Sunt'llLrir-mahlidelr
a pJacc

fiom Sidrirapura in Ka.lilgrr. l]',gslaysia tliai irc irolcl-"

llre f:rctsthat tlic

*.lras

in thc n'{alay Pe1ilsula, in a rcgir,rn u'Jrerr: theri: q':.s a citv niulrt-:rl Sitirhapur-a. Otrr argnntent has thoreforc lrecn rnisrcil'i'qi'.rtrrc1 tri

3t)g "fOURNAL, R.A.S. (CEYLOT\) l'ol. l:II-t,

Po,r't

2 (Neu Series),

lfl63

CEYLON,\.\t) fLII,AYSI.T

in tlee description of the <1ueen's birthplace as interpreted by Paianavitana'.-Coming to our interpr-etation of :r verse in the copper-plate of l)evapd.ladeva as containing a reference to the Maharaja, Nilakanta Sa.qtri says it is unrvarrantecl, the reason being that mahatah may
mal t ul dn a a.y asy a r ather than r aj ii ah,. Nilakanta S astri cannot if he uses the rvord 'may' in the reason give.n tlere{or b1; li6. Soma]u1luna&)tesyd ts a bahy,ayr,/zr. compound
r

Nilakanta Sastri. llaving giverl it thc trvist that he clesires, he concludes: 'A1l this seems to be a continuation of the fanci{ul equation of Tchetou q'ith Setu'. No comments Irom us are necessary. We fail to under:ri;l11fl 11:113.1 Nilakanta Sastri rneans I'hen hc says 'there is little gracc:

nalif

rrse

the rvord 'unr,varranted'

r

it is eqnivalent to that

ipalifi es somaltuliinu iy asy a, rljiiah. So, even according to the reason givcn by Nilakanta Sastri, the title mahr1raja emerges fiom the line. Hon', then, is our attempt to reacl the title untvairanted?
aj

rlrralifying

iiaQ; thercfore

if

mahatalr

r,vord qualiff ing

Nilakanta Sastri, in h.is observ:rticlns on our discussion of the sigrrificance of the namc Ruaand,arhbu, blames us for not explaining \x,h-)r it cannot be the name of a person. No one tvith ttre stightest :rcquaintance .*'ith Sinhalese will require an explanation why this narne, rvhich is usecl rvith tlrc locative terrnination in the inscription, t annot be the name of a person. We did not give the explanation ,'alled for because rve did not consider it possible for a person with no knorvledge of Sinhalese to be presumptuous enough to give judgrnent on matters relating to Sinhalese history. Can one conceive of :rnybody ll'ithout cven a ,qmatter-ing of Latin coming foru'ard to say the last rvord on questions of Roman history or archaeology? Ttre rlilfidence to which Nilakanta Sastri confessed in the previous paragraph seems to havc left him when he characterises our interpretation bf tlre n'orcl Runa,nclafirb,w as 'rvishful philologizing', withouf giving any

partiality for marks of exclamation 'Ni66ariikanralla established an :rlms-house in Kalinga Vijalrapura, there is a Nepalese manuscript of the tenth or i:leventh centur5' containing zr miniature painting of a Buddhist icon as from Sri Vilrajapura in Suvarn:rpura. "Ergo this Sri \-ijayapura is the I(aliiga Vijayapura of NiS6arhkamalla's inscription'" The r-eader is no.uv invited to read the lirst paragraph on p. 33 of our paper. He rvill notice that Nilakanta Sastri has omitted to mention the follorving facts to u,hicir we have dralvn attention: (r) the alms-house in Kalinga Vijayapura is one in a list of such alms-houses l,hich, it is statecl, r,vere establishecl by NiS6arirkarnalla in Cevlon as u'ell as abroad, (z) that Kahnga Vijayapura cannot be Polonnaru, because the alms-houses at Polonnaru have been separately mentioned in thc inscription, (3) that no city of this name is knorvn {rom Indian Kaliiga, (4) that it is admittectr by scholars, rvhose cipinion Niiakanta Sastri hirnsel{ has accepted, that Suvarnapura is a mistakc f,rr Suvar-nadvipzr, rvhich u'as thr. ancient Inriian name for l{ala1'61 :Lnd Sumatrel, (5) and that Chinese transcriptir.rns of the name Sri \,-ijaya estiiblish tirat the namc was also culrent u.ithout Sli, i.t. Srivijayapura, tlie capilal ol the Slr Vijaya ernpirc, lr';ls also callcd Vijayapura. We bcing not responsibtrt. for the absurclitl' u,hich results frotn slrch omissious :rntl clistortions, it is Nil:rkanta Silstri irirtrself rvho tvouirl br: itit bV these marlis o{ exclamation, if they are enclolved tvitir letiral po\ver. Tl-rese rematks apply also to other place.r rn"'herc cxclamation marks follorv distortiolts and absurdities of Nilakanta Sastri's creatio:r. We have aheady given our reply to Nilakanta Sastri's use of the mark of i:xclilmation whel'e he is unable to bring an1, r'a1id oltjection to our arguments. In vieiv
of our argume nts so as to satisfy his
r

We give yet another example o{ distortion b1' Niiakanta

Sasl.ri

its r.alidit\'. 'Ilo Nilakanta Sastri, our argument based on the occurrence of iinrnb6ji-vasala ancl the Kamhodz-u. in inscriptions oI NiSsarirka-malla is 'far-fetched'. We leave it to the intelligent and impartial reader to iuctrge whethcr this or Niler"kanta Sastri's re{erence tb the legends uf tire Sacred IJo-tree to pr-ol'e Ceylon's 'continued associatioriwith {)rissan I{:rliriga' is in {act far-fetctred. He also says that there is a 'lailacv', in our argtrnent here. oI ignoring other possibilities in which thc name KSrnbrlji-r'5"saia coulcl have arisen. He does not say rvhat ttresc othcr possibilities are; possibilities like the one rvhich Niiakanta Sa.<tri sirggested rvith regard to llttaan-daritbu cou\cl. be of indefinite number rvith rcgard to tlie interpretation of any word. fhe reason {iven for the fallacy, theretorc, is overrvide, and does not fincl its t.arget. The, objections raisecl bv Nilakanta Sastri in these two para{raphs really -shor,r' to rn'hat desperate straits he had been trought in irnding material to criticise our paper. No rvonder that he hac11o go tn an 616..t of the Administrative Service for a helping hand.
rcason agzr.inst

of what has been stated already, rvr: necd not tvaste tinre a.nd space over expressions lil<e 'qucstion-begging' and 'leads norvhere' used bv Nilakanta Sastri rvithout giving an.v rcasons, in connection r,vitir otrr propositions.

Nilal<airta Sastri lincls {ault u,itli us ior quoting dc Queyroz to trace the origin of the Arya Ca.kravartis of JaffneL to Gujar-at, and says: 'but we have contemporary Tamil accounts frorn .Ja1{na directly deriving them from the rulers of Kalinga in India'. For thjs statement he quotes'Tlrc (Jniuersity of Ceylon, History of Ceylon'Voi. I, p.69r as anthority. What the writer of the reicvant chapter r>f tlne H'istov\ of Ceylon, states is: 'According to the Scgaraiaiekaram,itlai (Ceharacacd,kara-mal,ai), tire Arya kings of Jafina belonged to the Gariga dynasty'. Stanza rr cri the Ciyafpuppayiyant, of the rvorli nermed is given as

has said that, accorcling

authority for that statenrent. 'fhrec sentences before this, the writer to ttre sarnc rvork, 'the Ar)ra Cahravartis o[ Jaffna traced therir r.rrigin to llame3r.'aram,' and referrecl to verses r to 5 of thc s:rme CiyappuffAyiyatn as authoritlr. Wrat these five verses say in higJrly ornate and artificial langr-ra.ge is that tht' -\rya Cakravartis of Jaffna were the descendants of RameSvaranr Ilrahmins, nlio had conre thcrr.. alor.rg n-ith Rlma r,hen that hcro

:i;u

J{}ultNA1.,, t-i.A.ri.

(tr[yLo]i)

I or. r.'llr,.r)ttrt 2 (tyut:,so'iies), r96J

CEYI,ON AND

MALAYSIA

37I

;iIr;{' t,t-ilrt' lr,lt pllct' [r,tr1 Nt_,r{.[r lntiia. Norv, liris itct.t rLnt is itr :rtbs{arrlial;r{rr.,.;lrcntrvillrtlrrr{-gir,.rrlrrticprrcvr,,z,tlreorrlr.diifcrence
_the .Irr-rrtugucsc rristor ian,,i.1.s iirat' trrcse il,rya' Br;Lhmins c:Inle to ]li1nx:ivararn. frrin ciLjarai, ltrtreas the 'l.mil'poet asserts that tirey rverc brouglrt b1' rizLin.r. 'lhis ag'eement bctrveen tire tw<r sourccs has beern noinfed o't i';L {oot.rte iyt}re u,riter in the lristory r,tt' Ceylorz,."r.,u"it as Failrnr Gn;;;;;;i;1r'. who first brougtrt tlie l,istorit al siilrifir'erir;c of tircsc'I'arnil i-erscs \(', \\'e lra"e rl,rnt rio ir)iilj.ticc ta tri.' ,-t'r'rL to the notice of scliolars.:ts car<ra'artis.[.i;riTrrr.
l

reing rirat

.l:ihn:r .riir, r lll ri,.rii'in3- tlrr.rn f;,rni f11,. r.islo1.,r i,I i(:rlirif:r itr india': '\ftcr gi::i'51 the tradition.l, accrunt of the crigi't,{ tiLe .lira Cui.i,iottis, anrl iraving, i' fi-re rnorc stanzas, referred to the achiei-eincnts o{

ttt"ce:+the or-igin of the rri-.,.a cakravartis of JafTna to thr: llrahmins of nir'ire6r;ararn, ivr-ro hact oi;$nait;omc lronr North Indi. rviih li:lma, ho*,dirtr trre *,riter ;," tli" ii;itolry o/ cc:"'!',1n, on tjrc authoritv uI ti..xt sanre u-uLli, :issert ilrat these rulerg i-leto'gt'cl to lir,. []unfl.a c\.;r'sty, a..ri Nilakanta Sastri, on iire authorittr ,ri tilet rir-ilr.r, saV.that '1.',tc harrg crintemporarl laniil accounts fro'r

r[ tlte cdta.rrtcnceharo-,tilni

iristorical passageij fouud in the Tamil riterar.y'nrori<s rvritten under tht: .'Lrva Ca-1ii:avarli-c 6f Jaffnir. We chailenge Nii:ik:rnta Sastri to rluott: rrry other arithoritrr, or n referrence to Iiaiinga i. these rvorks, roppoitil,g
'rhi.q

in a stanzzr. in i,o.hicl, tlrat princcr is gir.'e' the Ji.-iiliii ,l I{atiltai-n,;tiit. A rriler of tlic sam. t tarne i,q given the saile epithcl in t]ne C i rapl:,,|pA1,i,n n of, tl*: Taksiltr.t_ ltailica-f,'rdtia*t. Tlte slmilar titlc of t<i;rni;-i-Ati^,tart, is foririd in r:Lriogics addressed to ;r cekaracackara* i* tu'6 .,".s'e, of t:-ri iyinr, t'tw;tnticr,trn. 'lhrse trito titles, occrlrring nor"rhere else, constitute tht: *,rlt'brsis [or- [trt'statr-mcnt lhrt rlr,.. .1r\.a ki,rr* cI ir{,[na bel..,nsetl t,r Cefrg:r ri'rr:r.ir'. nrrd tlr,' more gr-arrtlio*.,.laiir,,l iitat:l,nlr iasiri ourttecl irbove. In {act thele is no nic.nLion at al1 of lialinga in thr:
staieinent oi 1is.

),ilt,- -ttir;tunerI ( tkarfuat llirrlrr, tire reigliing piincer of tris c1a}i,

jxer-ious nilcr-s

o{ tlte {amihr, the rlrct

eulogises

No*', rvhen *,e examinc thrse tiv' epithets, tirt: first nrerirber o{ issrcn to jrr.irr lhr- [orm thatthcSanskr.it ('o-itgl , a.tl not cniga,'ssllmcs ^tthhai, in 'lamil. wiierer.ei there is clear refercncr',ttr the G1ilgrr_ famil.y i' Tamil literatui:e or epigraphy, the iorm thet ivc 1;ci is I{utilto rvhe' the n:rrne is thc first'member ot rr compound , !{o"it,i*t11r'i'}icn it is the ncmin:itir.e singtila r, and Kafi,kay rr:l tlre pl'rai.30 As thc q,orcl occrira.n*po,,*,1.rtl r,r;itir ar,il,art :n onc ep,itlrcl , it;n:r,r.l,r.tlk,,n aq Ilrc rltinc nf . .,,r,r,",,niti. fifrcii,,, -\ryas. "lhe TamiL Lexico, {.s.e.) gives Katihai-hu,ran,t, r.tithtlrt'meani'g
rIrr'trvoeurnprririr<t*,
\-,

by Ptolemy, is obviousLy the same as'Ganganagara'changed its,pronunciation by peopie o{ Bengali and Dravidian speech.+r lhrlugh It is possible 'that the name-Ganganagara"'lr'as carried to the Nlalay Peninsula by people from Kaliig"a. O"n tire other hand, one cannot exclude_the possibility of Gangipeople having settled. down in the trIalay Peninsula about the same time as they Jstablished themselves in Kalinga and l{ysore. The Arya Cakravaitis, as rulers of Jaffna,
nese give.n

6f RameSvaram, he would. have conti:aclicted himself if he used the epithet Karikai-ttdta?l to indicate the descent of the Arya Cakravartis from the Gangas. Even if the feminine ending of Kahkai be not considered an obstacle to seeing a reference to the Ganga ciynasty in the first word of the two titles Kahkai-niitan and KanEai-y"-AriyaA,nhat reason is there to restrict the applicaiion of tiiat n"d" to ihe bastern Gangas of Kalinga? There_ u'ere Ganga rulers in other parts of India, notaEly i: GaAgapa{i in Xfvsore. There was also a Gan'ganagara in the l{alay Peninsula.'l(onkonagara', the name of a place'in the Golden Cherso-

of the familv from the iiry'a

familv in these trvo titles, as to u'hy the iorm K ahkai instead. of K ahha is found in them. It rvill_thus be sebn that to give a Ganga origin to the Arya cakravartis on the eviclence of these iwo epithet-"s i* u**,i*o"i tion which fails to take into account the diffrcufties of interpretatidn detailed above. Moreover, it should be pointed out that, as the poet who composed the Ciyappwfpayiram of. tine Cekaracecakara-ridlai begins his eulogy of the klng by recounting. in fir e stanzas, the origin -Brahmins

of 'velala tribe, rvho claim t_c' ha'e migrated frorn the Gangetic region'. As the Jaffna tradition refers to Arya Cakravartis rvho"had l,tUaU consorts,ao it is very likely rhat Kaithniin brth these epithets is used rvitir that meaniug. A prince ',r'hose mother \vas o{ the Karikai or Velldia caste, ancl father rras an irya, could rrerY rvell have been referred to as a Kankai-y-Ariva4, just as a prince born of a Cola princess, to a Gangzr- father *as knorvn as coqlaganga. No satisfactory explanation has been given b1r those r,vho find a ieleience to the Ganga

in the fourteenth century or

n'ere the-successors of Jd"vaka kings, due to whom rvas the name J"avagama by which the northern part oflhe island. was known to the Sinhalese

gtven to an Arya Cakrar-arti. 'Contemporarv,, in this context, muit be conremporarl' with the alleged nrigin oi the .iry.a Cakravartis, lrom the rulers of Kaiinga in India, but the poet refers to a number of Arya Cakravartis, r,vh"o flourish.d. b.fo." his tirne. Trvo titles, one comprising a compound of four syllabies, and the other of fir,e, can
_., 4o. Yiilppdna-aaipaua-ntdlai, translated into English bl. C. Brito, Colombo, r87o, pp. 13 and .:6. _4r. Paul \\rheatley. The Golden Khersonese, T{uala Lumpur, t96o, pp. r4o
t.56.

thereabouts.+2 Thus, there are many possible expla_nations of the titles KJrilra i-ttitan and, Kankai-1,-Ariya4,

,i, \", p. r :r,.

:lli.

Seo

liattrer S. Grr:lna.|''lias;rt,

it

Cel,lon ,lntiqu.u,ry attcl Litera,ry Register,

{ntli,a,tt, In.sct,i.!lzorzs,

39.

Sce 7-antil LexiniL, s:,r,.l(ailruitt, fiatikttr, Ka,ti/iam an.d Kutlha.priti; sor,tttt \ro]. I, Ir. 9.i; \rol. \rI [, 1r. :qS.

and

42. 'l'his Journal, Vol. V, p.

l57ri-6

T94 {.

:172 JOUF,NAL, R,.A.|J. (OEYLON) l/ol, VllI, Part 2 (l{eu; Serdes), l96il

CEYLON AND MAI,AYSIA

;}?3

hardly be called 'accounts', which word would raise expectations o{ details regarding the time and circumstances in which the alleged derivation took piace. Much has therefore been smugly assumed bY Nilakanta Sastri when he says 'we have contemporary Tarnil accounts deriving them from the rulers of Kalinga in India'. And it is this Nilakanta Sastri who accuses us of facile assumptions. We have seen above that Nilakanta Sastri has rvoefully blundered in making use of the data in the Pali chronicles of Ceylon. 'fhere may be an excuse for these blunclers, as the Pali chronicles are unfarniliir terrain to him, though he does not sho'tv auy reluctance to give judgnrents on.matters pertiining to them. But one is surprised that, in the manner in which he has deilt rvith data from the Cekaruca-cakaramdlai and other works produced in Jafina, he has done no better rvith sources in Tamil.
ascribed

reiute our argu:nents having failed. Hence the expressions such as 'cluestion-begging', used by Nilakanta Sastri rvith a view to discredit them have no relevance. With respect to some points of detail in this section, we have taken sula and arhsa as Pali words as they occur in a Pali work, and it is not Monier-Williams' Sanskrit dictionary, but a standard Fali Dictionary, that has to be consulted to ascertain their nreaning, The P.T.S. Pali Dictionary does not give the meaning of 'spear' to sd,Ia. The word arhsa,has been taken by us to be that which is the counterpart of Skt. athla, f.ot which there is no meaning of 'shoulder'. (See ,4 Critical Pali Dictionary,by Trenckner.) In this we
accordingly in their Sinhalese translation of the Maltaaarhsa.aa Their view on this matter should command respect as the reading sd,la-hatafu,sala is due to them; none of the manuscripts utilised by Geiger has the full compound in that form. If we interpret s,i7la, giving it a meaning found in Skt. idla, and ahsa as equivalent to Sanskrit arhsa, the translation of Geiger, 'wounded in the shoulder by a spear', may be justified. But the phrase itself is an emendation effected by Surnangala and Batuwantudave, and our statement that the phrase :rs it appears in the text of the Cd,laaarhsa 'is clearly corrupt'is supported by the evidence of the manuscripts, and does not depend on whether Geiger's translation is accurate or not. And it is from this fact that our {urther inferences are drawn. Even if our conclusions in this paragraph are found untenable, that does not affect the validity of the other arguments in our thesis. Nilakanta Sastri says that history has no record of a Ganga family in Malaysia. That does not necessarily mean that there was no such family. A few decades ago, history had no record of a Sailendra family in Mala)'sia. The Eastern Ganga dyirasty of Indian Kalifrga has not been referred to in dealing with certainnamesborne byKaHnga princes figuring in Ceylon history as we
have, at the beginning of the section on Kalinga kings of Polonnaruva, pointed out the difficulties encountered in connecting them rvith that

it

have followed Sumangala and Batuwantudave, who have interpreted

The astrological rvork called Cehardca-c4kara-mr?laa has been by one scholar to the fourteenth century, and by.another to the fift-eenth,a3 but its date canuot be precisely determined. In

this r,vork there is mention of tobacco, a plant r,vhich was introduced to these parts after the arrival of the Portugueset. The Tahsina-I{ail,ucapuranam and the lraku.aamtnical?t' ate believed to be of the same periorl as the lirst narned work. It is noteworthy that these astrological, religious and poetical works, in v'hich there are vague references to persons and events conternporary with their authors, as well as to those of an undefined and undefinable past, are respectfully relerred to as 'contemporary accounts' by Nilakanta Sastri, at-td the m.ogt" historical

information iontained in them is made the basis for exaggerated or unjustihable claims, lvithout any murmur of their being rhetoricatr or literary works, or containing similes and metaphors, in spite ot,the fact that we read in them of a certain king who 'inscribed the buli flag and Cetu in profusion on the nine continents' and of another who 'give the name of his dynasty to the north r'vind and the south wind" and similar effusions. On the other hand, a work like the Hatthauanagalla-aihdra-t{nhsa, whicir was lvritten in the reign of Parakramabdhrr
and gives information about events of that king's reign, is contemptuously dismissecl as a 'late work', not admissible for historical research

II,

region. Our statement

that 'rve do not know where Gangaikor.rda-

relating to the reign, as being literary, rhetorical, and containing metaphors and similes. Obviously, Nilakanta Sastri has different standards of judgment for different people. And it is this Nilakanta Sastri who aicuses us of special pleading and defending a favourite
thesis.

pattanam (in Sinhalese Kaf,gakonda-patuna'the $eaport, Kangakon{a) was'need not cause any surprise, forit has been referred to as a seaport (patwna); the u'ell-known Kankaikoltapuram rvas not a seaport.

The proposition that Nilakanta Sastri has summarised on pages r3B and rJg,becomes significant due to the fact that the Kalinga of the later chapters of the Culavathsa has been conclusively proved by us to be in the l\{alay Peninsula, the attempts made by Nilakanta Sastri to

Nilakanta Sastri as 'a traveller's error'. Elselvhere, Nilakanta Sastri says of this Arab geographer: 'His testimony on the condition of the empire and its external relation.s may, therefore, be accepted as that of a contemporary eye-witness'.a5 There is no suggestion here at all of unreliability with regard to the information furnished by this writer

Masudi's statement connecting Ceylon and Zabag is dismissed by

44. Sinhalese translation of tine Maltduait'sa by Sumangala and Batuwantudave, B.E. 2455. p. 265. The Sinhalese rendering of the phrase is hulin-bhagnaA.ntiqu,ary and, L.i,terary Register, Voi. V, p. r7.5.

43. See llniversity o{ Ceylon, Ilistory of

Ceylon, Yo1. I,

p. 69r;

Ceylott

utr, aritsayah-d.ti,.

45. History of Sri, Vijayu, op. cit. p. 7r.

37-r JOtIR-\AL, R..\.S. (trlfYLON) Vol. VI[1, Part 2 (r\cu: Stie"'), l9ttg

CIiYL(

)r\ ANI) ]'1AI".\YSIA

on the Sri Vijaya empire. But non,, rvhat lIasritli states about the relations betu,een Zabag and Ceylon is a 'trar-e11er's error'. Silnilarlv, as rve have seen above, Chao"fu-Kua, rvho is quitc relia1>le u'ith regarci to the details he girres ai>out the llaiayan possessions of the Sri \-ijeya empire, gives 'patently .,vrong' information about Cer'lon. Horv is it that these tlvo rvriters, one from China and the other from the Arab lvorid, who are quite credible in their general accounts of Zabag and San-{o-tsi (Sri \iijaya), become untrustr.vorthy t}re moment they come to speak of the relations that Ceylon had r,vith that empire? Our proposition that Sena I, after his defeatby the Pafdya invader, intenderd to flee to l{alaya, is countered by the usual mark of exclarnation and the remark: 'This is imagin:Ltive history incleed'. But Nilakanta Sastri does not explain why Sena I, ."vent to the confluence of the l,Iahavdli Gairga and the Arirban Gaiga (or thc delta of the l'Iahav:ili Gairga) if his intention was to go to the rnountainous region of Ceylon itsel{. What is more natural for a Ceylon ruler rvho had sufiereci defeat at the hands of a South India potentate, than it is to seek aid from a porverful Matrayan ruler rvho lr.'as of the same faith as he t'as? Nilakanta Sastr-i, afterdrawing attention to our refelcnce to a Nan Chao chronicle lvhich
mentions several Sinhalese expeditions ag:rinst Lou'er Burma, attributes to us tire statement that 'these expeditions rvouid have been possible onlv u'ith the aid of the consider-able navai forces of Sri VijaS'a'. Contrast rvith this rvhat u,e have actually stated: 'To nndertake several expeclitions against Lox'er Burma, the Sinlialese of this time must have had considerable naval forces at their disposal. There is

3i5

reason, this source of information about tlie ancient world cannot be disregardecl. Some of the nrost epoch-rlaking discor.,eries i" .".i."i n;-tory.have been made by this rnethocl; r'itness for example the identification of Sandrocottus of the Greek rristorians rvith ci,rai.g-"p; or Indiarr IiLerary traditiorr; rvhich has prur ided the shecr ,i.ho, oi rnoran chronot( )gy. As rn flre case uf other m.t hods uf hist.rical research, that rvhich depencls.n the identification of names in aitereni ta"d;g.* has to be carried out rvith due_ caution, and has to be tested by .orit orutory evidence from independent lines of in'estigation. In irraking'se of the ide'tificatirn of nanes in clilTerent ,o.rri.* basecl on phJnetic sirnilarity, we ha'e rarely reliecl on this alone; conclusions thus' arrir.ecl at, have also been supported by other eviclence.

prtlaits, lust as oilrer tlrpes of research have theirs. But, for that

themseh'es ha'e rirt remained static, but the ph.netic systems ha.ve undergone normai dertelopment, ancl the fr;rn.,s of ,rurrr"* h1ve beel subjectcd to such changes iogether u'itir other rvords. But these changes are .not arbitrary', they follorv certain larvs, ancl b\" exainininrr il.re renderings of the foreign names by the rvriters of a paiticurur ioffir,g,,, lve can corne to certain conclusions about the original fornrs. Hisiorical rqg9a.1ch based o' phonetical sirailarities of naies has of .u"i." it,

no means for us to ascertain the attitude of the i\ alay empire of i _ Sri --., \-ijaya, rr'irich.,r'as at the height of its porver ert this tiine, to the Sinhalese interrrention in a iand close to its borders'. \\re quote these rvorcls of our:s, together rvith .'vhat Nilakanta Sastri has made of them, as a finai rvarning to the reader tha.t he is not at all likelv to have a faith{ul representation of the points at issue, should he read Nilakanta Sastri's 'critique' rvithout or-rr original paper by his side to compare rvith it at every step.

clocuments in one lairguage, rvith corresponding ones in another. It is rvell-knorvn that names of places and persons of foreign lands werc transcribed by i,vriters in ancient ianguages, in the manner they heard them pronounced, and according to the phonetic peculiarities ol their orvn languages, rvithout rnaking a special effort to rerproduce exactly the phonetics of the language to rvhich such names belongecl. The languages

Nilakanta Sastri's objections to 'plays on phonetic similarities' can be brought against almost alt1/ comparative studies based on iiterary sources in varioi.Ls languages. Infcirmation about intercourse betrveen pcople of one region and those o{ another in the a-trcient u,orid rnust necessarily be gathcrecl fronr the clocuments left by one or other or both of such peoples, or by a third partv rvho had intcrcourse r,r'ith both of thenr. And the interpretation of these documents clepencls on the identification of the proper nane$ of persons and places, occurring in

undertaking this stu<ly, which is q'ite wiih'ut any a ceitain perioil of iier histoiy, Ira,l deuJ,,p.<l rclatiorrs *'ith p-ople across lhe B'av of Bengar--peiplc rvho tlrJmselvcs.iraced tlreir origin to Irrdia. or'had ati,,piecl th" lir.lian ,.',ltrrre. Iturv do,.s that [act cut ('erlon lristor.r.a,li-lft fr,,nr ]nclia? No sanc person u'ill deny the close relati'nship that exists betrveen the htstory of Ctylon a'd that of Iirclia, a'd1hat the'ast majority of the peooie_o{ tlie Island, togethrr *'ith their religion ancl cultuie, hacl been derived from the neiqibouring sLrb-continE't. B't that tini'ersaily admitted fact cloes ,roi r,..ur-,. that tlie ancient Sinhalese haci relatio's with none but the people of trnclia. Thev had tracre relations rvith the Romans and the Arahs. and religious intercourse, as rr.ell as trade relations, r,vith the Chinese empiri.

Nilakanta Sastri encls liis critique bJ, suggesting that our thesis 'actu^ated possibly by a clesire io .nt" Ceyli,, ni*tnry of Ilrdia and find a high irnperial .rigirr [r,,rir orit*ide Inriia Ior an "lfrift important line of Sinhelese rirlers'. He"has, in these words, ascr-ibed hl*,

b::"

justification--If ceylc,n, at

to us a motive

i'

marriage alliances rvith the ancieni lire of Sinhalese"rulerii, ancl that Ias a]1 adequate reason for them to hoid their heacls irigh in the rvorld. For the Sinhalese roval race enjoyecl high prestige in the Inclian rvorld of ancient times. The great emperor Sri"Harsa, in his Rara,; ta,li, rerers to the ki'g of Ceylon as 'the Lord of Sirfihalas, born in an exalted

'a high imperial origin' frum outsicle india to enhance their importa*ce. From rvhater''er quarter these Kaliilga rulers carner, they had cJntractecl

.It

is puerile to sr-rggest that anv line of Si'liarese nilers reqr-rirecl

376 JOIIIINAL, R.A.S. (CEYf,ON) VoI. VIII, Part 2 \)ieu

lineage'.ao Rijesekhara,

rSerieo), 1063

CEYLON AND

IVIAI,AYSIA

377

in his Bala-Rir.mayo.na, considerecl tire king o{ Ceylon impoitant enough to be invited, t<lgether with the scions of teading Indian royal houses, to the sa6va.lhaol& of Sita.aT The Kathuseribagere consider"s the Sinhalese monarch of suffrciently high status for a daughter of his to be espoused by that model among Indian kings, Vikramnditya.as Similarly, in the Prakrit work Ltrlfi.urt'ti, a great Sdtavdlgana emperor is represented as espousing a daughter. of a Sinhalese monarbh. In this ivork, the Sinhalese king is described in the following words: 'There is a monarch named Silamegha, the Lord of the Sirhhala Island, whose fame is spoken of in the 'I'hree Oceans as well as over the whole Earth, and'w'ho is of unbroken might'.ae These references are of course found in poetic works, but theSr indicate the opinions prevailing among literary men in India during ancient times aboilt the Sinhalese royal family. These literary men moved in, and wrote for, Indian couri cjrcles, and their opinion no doubt reflected that rvhich prevailed about Sinhalese royalty in the courts,o{ Indian kings. No filsification of history is therefore needed to enhance the prestige of any line of Sinhalese monarchs.

arguments.

happ_y to say that there are many students o{ history r,vhose Inderstanding has not been cloggecl by such imperli*""t*, and are therefore able to appreciate the sigilficance of thdfa;is that rve have brought forr,vard, and rvere convinded by the soundness of our

from them. But we are

lVe corrclude with the words of Bhavabhrlti: Ye ndyna he.cid iha nalt, t'ratkayanty auajiiarit Jtlnanti te kim a.l>i tdn, priti naisa yhtnah.

oI his, the final conclusion is whai is to be expected. But it is- not due to our fault that Nilakanta Sastri has not been convinced of the reasonableness of our thesis. In the course of our examination of Nilakanta Sastri's 'criticism' of our thesis, rve have shorvn many instances of his inability or re{usal to grasp an argument in full without distorting it, his proneness to confuse- one fact r,vith another, his attributi6n to hist^orical sources of data or statements rvhich in {act
are not found

From the method.s employed by Nilakanta Sastri in this'critique'

in them, his insistence on evidence based on non-existent clata as 'clear and decisive', and its corollary of refusal to accept evid.ence based on existent data, the arbitrary brushing aside by him of facts by characterising them as 'palpably erroneous' and sirnilar condemnaiory phrases, rvien these facts do nbt conform to his prejudices, his readiness to accept any absurd proposition which is calculated to confirm his prejudicei, his biassed and partial attitucle in assessing the value of sourcl materials, and finally in arrogant attitude which ill suits an historian. No wonder that, with all these impediments to clear understanding, he has not been able to recognise the facts that
rve have marshalled-, and t|.e

legitimate inferences that

rve have drarvn

bahor al.maj'eyant-Ratnduali., edited

46. Rd,jd'i Katharit' 47.

rtdd,ttaaaria1a-prabhauasya Sirit'haleiaarasya 1/ihrama' by Sri Chandra Caliravarti, Dacca, rgoz' p' r4r '

1)a,Ia-Rd'ntdya4,a, Benares, 1869,

pp. 69-7o.

48. 49.

Kathdsa.ritsdgara, Taraitga tzz.

A tth, i t i s anr.w rl tl a - p wh a:t - a i h h iiy a -j a s o ah k ath di lt o- p qlt d'u o N am,ena Sild,meho Sirit'hala-d"i,ac7hiu a-ltarirhdo

'

Li.Iduni of Kohula, edited bv A.N. tlpaclhyc, Borntray, rg4g p' r2+.