Connect with us

Opinion

JULY 1983: TAMILS DO NOT BLAME SINHALESE PEOPLE

Published

on

Mobs on the rampage. 1983 anti-Tamil violence in Colombo.

By Jayantha Somasundaram

(This articlecontinued from yesterday (25) is based on reporting by the international media on the events in Sri Lanka forty years ago.)

“For day after day Tamils were beaten, hacked or burned to death in the streets, on buses, on trains – sometimes in the sight of horrified foreign tourists. Their homes and shops were burned and looted. Yet the security forces seemed either unwilling or unable to stop it – indeed, in Jaffna and Trincomalee, some members of the armed forces themselves joined in the fray, claiming an admitted 51 lives. And not until the fifth day, did President Jayewardene finally appear on television. In that address he did not utter a single word of sympathy for the victims of the violence and destruction.” (Paul Sieghart Sri Lanka: A Mounting Tragedy of Errors International Commission of Jurists 3/1/84)

“Mr Athulathmudali, who was later to be appointed Minister of Security on the same television programme, nearly wept with ponderous histrionics over a sight he had never dreamed he would see – lines of Sinhalese people waiting to buy food as a result of the riots! He had not a word to say in sympathy for the frightened Tamils crowded in indescribable conditions in refugee camps. In the first days after the holocaust neither the President nor the Cabinet, nor even a single prominent Sinhalese politician visited them,” wrote Harvard Professor S. J. Thambiah, in Ethnic Fratricide and the Dismantling of Democracy.

The British Guardian said that “The President has decided that his immediate task is to placate the majority Sinhalese mobs which are still rioting, burning, looting and murdering at the expense of the Tamil minority. He has· effectively outlawed the only serious Tamil party (TULF). Instead of throwing a protective Gandhian arm around the minority population, the President has thus at a stroke disfranchised the great mass of them and turned them into a race of untermenschen or institutionalised second class citizens. The danger is that the President’s decision may be seen both by the Sinhalese mobs and the Tamil masses as a virtual endorsement of the blood bath.”

“When presented with evidence that the Army or the Police have committed atrocities against defenceless Tamils, the Government has reacted with a shrug of the shoulders,” wrote Francis Wheen in the London Times (30.7.83). “Police misconduct has actually been rewarded. In two separate cases the Supreme Court found that police officers had acted illegally; in both cases the officers concerned were promoted.”

“On the first day of violence in Colombo,” wrote T.R. Lansner in the London Observer (14.8.83) “when thousands of Tamil businesses and residences were gutted, police had orders not to intervene, it is claimed. Certainly hundreds of armed Police deployed through the city could be seen standing idly by as mobs broke vehicles and looted homes and businesses. Even when Tamils were set upon and beaten and burned to death, police armed with automatic weapons did nothing.”

Conspiracy Theory

Having watched silently for almost a week as anti-Tamil violence engulfed Sri Lanka, Indian Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi finally telephoned Jayewardene on 28 July and expressed concern about the situation in Sri Lanka and the fate of its Tamil population. She also informed him that she was sending her External Affairs Minister Narasimha Rao on the following day to Colombo. “The Indian Foreign Minister, P.V. Narasimha Rao, met with President J.R. Jayewardene today to discuss the situation.” (New York Times 30/7/83)

Given international media reporting and diplomatic concern, the Jayewardene-Premadasa Regime now found it necessary to change its position and distance themselves from the perpetrators of violence. Government spokesmen thereafter laid claim to an anti-Government plot, a Communist Conspiracy and foreign involvement, to explain the unchecked anti-Tamil violence of the previous week. To substantiate this they proscribed the Communist Party, the Nava Sama Samaja Party and the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP). “The Colombo Sun called for the closing of all Soviet bloc embassies, specifically those of the Soviet Union and East Germany.” (New York Times 2/8/83)

But in a letter to the President, TULF leader Amirthalingam said: The Tamil people do not believe that Left parties had any hand in the attack on them. They regard this as an attempt to win the sympathy and support of the Western powers. The attack on the Tamil people was executed by the same forces that attacked the strikers in July 1980, attacked Professor (Ediriweera) Sarachchandra and demonstrated outside the houses of Judges (in June).”

“Initially Mr. Jayewardene hinted publicly at an Indian-Soviet Conspiracy and rumours spread that he had asked Western powers for help,” wrote John Elliot in the Financial Times. “Then he said he had no ‘direct evidence’ of a foreign power’s involvement but he was sure that army officers loyal to the JVP planned civil disturbances. Recently in an interview in Colombo he told me that the trouble was caused by the JVP together with people in his own party who are violently anti-separatist.

“Cyril Matthew, a member of the rigidly Buddhist Jaggery caste and boss of the UNP’s trade union is widely suspected in Colombo of having a guiding influence over the riots.”

John Elliot continued: Many foreign and local observers regard the claims of Mr. Jayewardene and his fellow Ministers as an attempt to cover up the fact that a few leading members of his own Government may have played a role in the plot which was partly aimed at striking a death blow at Tamil activists and at removing Tamils from their positions.

Mrs B: Govt. looking for Scapegoats

In an interview with Asiaweek (12.8.83) former Prime Minister Mrs. Bandaranaike dismissed the ‘conspiracy theory’. “It is definitely racial,” she said. “Anyone who says the violence was anything else but racial is living in a fool’s paradise. This government since it came to power in 1977 has been trying to encourage lawlessness. The UNP (United National Party) and its members have been on the wrong side of the law all the time. Now they are telling lies – that this is a plot to overthrow the government. They are only interested in looking for scapegoats.”

“There is a wealth of theory and a remarkable shortage of fact,” comments the International Commission of Jurists, “(State Minister Ananda Tissa de Alwis saw in the master plan ‘the minds of certain foreign elements’. He had previously said much the same about the 1981 outbreak. In a press interview in December 1983, he identified those foreign elements as the KGB. In parallel press interviews his colleague Cyril Matthew saw ‘the dirty hand of India’. For simpler-minded Tamils the answer is only too obvious: the entire blame falls on the Government but interestingly and encouragingly they do not blame the Sinhalese people as such, nor have they attempted any reprisals against them. What I find most extraordinary is that to this day there has been no attempt to find out the truth through an official, public and impartial enquiry when the situation in the country cries out for nothing less.”

“Virtually every Tamil I met was of the opinion that the violence against them was organised by the Government,” reported Princeton University Professor Gananath Obeysekera in Political Violence and the Future of Democracy.

“Both the Tamils hurt by these events and even Sinhalese people, as well as the foreign press, openly stated that the government either condoned the attack or it was done by factions within the government. As a response the government came out with its own theory of an international and local Communist conspiracy,” continues Professor Obeysekera. “According to this anti- Government plot scenario the Muslims and Christians were to be massacred next. All three of the proscribed parties were sympathetic with Tamil language aspirations. Similarly it is difficult to believe that a government so promptly informed of (Vijaya Kumaranatunga’s) ’Naxalite’ plot by the CID a day after the presidential elections were ignorant of a more serious plot by Marxist groups to create race riots. In other words, the government was forewarned of a plot that did not occur but not warned of one that did! If the race riots were caused by Marxists why did the government imply that it was a popular uprising by the Sinhalese and why in heavens name did no one offer sympathy for the dispossessed?”

The Jayewardene Regime now carried the pogrom to its logical conclusion. First, they made it clear that the remaining Tamil population were hostage against any external intervention to protect them. J.R. Jayewardene told India Today “The worst that India can do is to invade us. If they invade us that is the end of the Tamils in this country.”

Fourteen Hours: Fourteen Minutes

In The Break-Up of Sri Lanka, A.J. Wilson Founding Professor of Political Science at the University of Ceylon quotes Minister Gamini Dissanayake as telling a meeting at (UNP HQ) Sri Kotha on 5th September: “They are bringing an army from India. It will take 14 hours to come from India. In 14 minutes, the blood of every Tamil in the country can be sacrificed to the soil by us.”

The Regime proceeded with the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution which removed the TULF from parliament. Tamil MPs supporting the UNP Regime took the required oath and retained their seats. But none of them: S. Thondaman, Bill Devanayagam and C. Rajadurai, were re-elected to Parliament at the next General Election. Thondaman did return to Parliament, but on the National list.

Second, the pogrom was used to economically marginalise the Tamils. Ananda Tissa de Alwis explained that the ownership of Tamil businesses would be restructured to deny them a majority shareholding. And trade itself would be reorganised. “The Trade Minister has already reorganised rice wholesaling to break the Tamil grip. It is no longer in my interests to allow one community to dominate, insists Lalith Athulathmudali,” in the Irish Times (24.8.83). ‘The Tamils have dominated the commanding heights of everything good in Sri Lanka,’ explained Finance Minister Ronnie de Mel, “the only solution is to restore the rights of the Sinhala majority.’ “

“Today, after nearly a week of killing and burning Sri Lanka’s aura of stability and progress has evaporated. Hundreds of businesses and factories lie in ashes, and economic development, the Government says, has been set back three years, five years, even more. Tamils were dragged from their homes, set fire, stabbed, hacked with axes and run over. The true extent of the killings remains unknown, because many are still missing. Thousands of Tamils fled to refugee camps … Tamil homes were burned down, and Tamil-owned businesses in Colombo were gutted. Seventeen major factories wholly or partly owned by Tamils were turned into ash, including two that employed thousands of people each. Three plants that produced textiles for export were destroyed. Damage estimates are uncertain and incomplete, but the total economic loss has been placed at $300 million or more, and 150,000 people are said to have been rendered jobless. About 10,000 foreign tourists were here when the trouble started. All but about 1,500 have left. ‘If the Tigers take one more Sinhalese life in the north,” T. D. S. A. ‘Jungle’ Dissanayake, a Government official, said, ”I hate to think of the consequences.” (New York Times 4/8/83)

The final toll may never be known but during that week when homes, shops farms, cinemas, factories and vehicles belonging to Tamils were destroyed 140,000 of them fled to refugee camps. Government estimates were that 100 factories and 2,497 shops were destroyed and so large was the collection of burned out vehicles that they had to be carried out to sea for disposal.

Nazism

“Not only may foreign investors now be frightened away, but the island’s once-prosperous Tamils may no longer be counted as a mainstay of Sri Lanka’s economy…. An estimated 100,000 were left homeless. Government miscalculation and inaction have contributed to the violence,” explained The Christian Science Monitor. “So has a breakdown in discipline among the almost exclusively Sinhalese Army and police… Bewildering to even some of Mr. Jayewardene’s aides, is that the President has not made a conciliatory public statement to the Tamils; has offered no compensation; and done nothing to appease. Rightly or wrongly, this is being interpreted as a colossal show of weakness, indifference or isolation, by both Tamils and educated Sinhalese. Rather, he has permitted his Cabinet members to flail on the ”involvement of foreign powers,” a well-coordinated ”foreign plot.” When such statements were received with annoyance and some derision by Colombo’s elite, the President himself spoke only of a Sri Lankan ‘leftist plot.’”

“Half of the 4,100 Tamil shops in this once-gracious capital have been burnt to the ground. Seventeen major Tamil owned textile factories have been gutted in Colombo alone… The export-oriented tea industry in the lush hills has, according to the finance minister, nearly disappeared. For it was Sri Lanka’s Tamils who were the entrepreneurial class. In the greater Colombo area, though they represent only 9 percent of the population, one-third of the capital’s businesses and investments were in Tamil hands.” (Mary Anne Weaver The Christian Science Monitor Boston, Mass. 8 Aug 1983)

“In 2004, President Chandrika Kumaratunga gave a public apology to Tamils for Black July, likening it to Nazism. She appointed a commission, which concluded that nearly 1,000 people died and 700,000 were exiled. And she acknowledged there might be many more unreported incidents. … Despite Mrs Kumaratunga’s gestures, no one has been held accountable for the July killings.” (BBC 23 July 2013)



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinion

“Pot calling the kettle black?” A response

Published

on

I was taken aback by the response of the well-known academic Uswatte-Aratchi (U-A) to my article “Achievements of the Hunduwa”, which appeared in The Island on 15 March. In his piece, titled “Pot calling the kettle black?” (The Island, 23 April) U-A accuses me of belittling Sri Lanka in just the same way President Anura Kumara Dissanayake (AKD) did with his reference to Sri Lanka as a hunduwa. Being an academic of repute, U-A’s comments cannot be ignored and before I proceed further to explain, let me state that I am very sorry if what I stated appeared in any way to be derogatory; my intentions were otherwise.

U-A states, “Most sensible people, even uneducated, judge that the volume of a little drop (of whatever) is smaller than that of a hunduwa; so is weight. When the learned doctor emphatically maintains ‘we are not a hunduwa’ but ‘a little drop in the ocean’, is the pot calling the kettle black or worse?” He implies that my ‘insult’ is worse. Whilst conceding that a drop is smaller than a hunduwa, what baffles me is how an academic overlooked the fact that comparisons should be made based on context. Whereas AKD used hunduwa in the parliament to belittle the country, I used the term ‘little drop’ to highlight our achievements, which are disproportionate to our size. In contrast, AKD used hunduwa to trifle with the country.

“Surely, this little drop in the Indian ocean performed well beyond its size to have gained international recognition way back in history,” I said in my article. This cannot in any way be considered derogatory. In fact, what U-A stated in his article about the achievements of countries, either smaller or with populations smaller than ours, only supports my view that there is no correlation between a country’s size and its achievements.

U-A casts doubt on the assertion that Sri Lanka was once the ‘Granary of the East’; he cites instances of drought and famine. There may have been bad periods, as we are at the mercy of nature, but it does not negate the fact that there were periods of plenty too. Our rulers in days of yore did everything possible to feed the populace by building tanks and extensive irrigation systems. In addition to major works, there were networks of small projects, Uva being referred to as ‘Wellassa’; the land of one hundred thousand paddy fields fed by small tanks. What has the present government done to ease farmers’ burden? Absolutely nothing! Whilst farmers are struggling to eke out a living, rice millers are importing super-luxury vehicles and even helicopters!

I agree with U-A that unfortunately the contribution of the ordinary people is not well recorded in history. This is a universal problem, not limited to Sri Lanka. When one watches some of Prof. Raj Somadeva’s programmes, it becomes clear how ordinary people helped complete gigantic projects. Although there are many documentaries on how the pyramids were built, no one seems interested in exploring how Great Stupas in Anuradhapura were built with millions of bricks.

AKD is doing just the opposite of what he preached whilst in Opposition and does not seem to have any sense of shame. His hunduwa reference, possibly, makes him the only President to have demeaned the country.

by Dr Upul Wijayawardhana

Continue Reading

Opinion

Openness, not isolation, is the bedrock of the West

Published

on

Recent statements from Washington show how global politics is being increasingly framed along civilisational terms. The U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has referred to the idea of a shared “Western civilisation,” describing the U.S. and Europe as bound by common history, cultural heritage, and institutional traditions. At the same time, U.S. President Donald Trump has amplified comments about countries such as India, China, and Iran in the context of migration and geopolitical competition that reinforce a tendency to interpret global politics in civilisational terms. Taken together, these statements point to a broader shift: global affairs are being interpreted not only through the language of power and interest, but also through civilisational identities.

The appeal of such framing is understandable. It offers a sense of clarity in an era of rapid technological disruption, demographic change, and geopolitical uncertainty. But apparent clarity is not the same as analytical accuracy. Moreover, it is not an entirely new framing either. As early as the 1990s, political scientist Samuel Huntington had argued that global politics would evolve into a “clash of civilisations,” where cultural and religious identities would become the principal fault lines of international relations.

Civilisational explanations can obscure more than they reveal, particularly when they imply that cultural cohesion, rather than institutional adaptability, is the primary source of national strength. A historical record of the modem West suggests otherwise.

A look at history

Much of the West’s post-Cold War dynamism has rested not on homogeneity, but on openness — to talent, ideas, capital, and global competitive pressures. Its advantage has been institutional: the capacity to absorb diversity and convert it into innovation within rules-based systems.

Nowhere is this more evident than in today’s innovation economy. AI, in particular, has become the defining frontier of global competition, shaped by deeply international talent flows and research ecosystems. Companies such as Microsoft, Open Al, and NVIDIA exemplify systems in which breakthroughs depend on globally sourced expertise, cross-border collaboration, and the ability to attract the most capable minds regardless of origin.

The COVID-19 pandemic underscored this complementary reality: innovation now operates through globally distributed production systems. Rapid vaccine development and distribution, by firms such as Modema and AstraZeneca, depended on international research networks and global manufacturing ecosystems. In the case of AstraZeneca, large-scale production through partnerships such as that with the Serum Institute of India illustrated how innovation and industrial capacity now operate across borders.

This is not an argument against immigration control. Immigration must be governed effectively, and civic norms must be upheld. But managing diversity is fundamentally different from retreating from it.

In an era of intensifying geopolitical competition, openness remains a critical strategic asset. The West’s advantage lies not only in military alliances or economic scale, but in institutional resilience and its capacity to attract, integrate, and retain talent. Civilisational framing, by contrast, risks misdiagnosing this advantage —privileging identity over capability and boundaries over performance. Demographic realities reinforce this point. Many advanced economies face ageing populations. In this context, immigration is not simply a cultural or political issue, but an economic necessity.

Without sustained inflows of sldlled labour and human capital, growth slows, fiscal pressures increase, and innovation ecosystems weaken.

Openness as an advantage

The defining challenges of the 21st century —including AI governance and climate change —further highlight the limits of civilisational thinking. These are problems that cannot be addressed within cultural silos. Against this backdrop, framing global politics in terms of civilisational hierarchy carries risks. It encourages a narrowing of identity at precisely the moment when cooperation and adaptability are essential.

The question, therefore, is not whether identity matters. It dearly does. Societies require shared norms, institutional trust, and continuity. The more important question is whether democracies can manage change without losing confidence in the openness that has sustained their development. The strength of the West has historically rested on its ability to combine stability with adaptation — to absorb new influences while preserving core principles such as the rule of law, individual liberty, and accountable governance.

Therefore, the policy challenge ahead is not to retreat into notions of cultural purity, but to govern openness with clarity and purpose. This requires strengthening integration frameworks and reinforcing institutional trust. It also requires recognising that engagement with other civilisational spaces is not a concession, but a necessity in a globally interconnected world.

In a world of intensifying geopolitical rivalry, it may be tempting to define strength in narrower terms. But doing so risks undertnining one of the West’s most important strategic assets. Openness — disciplined, governed, and anchored in strong institutions — is not a vulnerability. It is a source of sustained advantage.

(Milinda Moragoda –Former Sri Lankan Cabinet Minister, diplomat and the Founder of the Pathfinder Foundation, a strategic affairs think tank. The Hindu – 08, May 2026)

By Milinda Moragoda

Continue Reading

Opinion

Palm leaf manuscripts of Sri Lanka – 2

Published

on

Ola leaves

Palm leaf manuscripts are now valued as historical documents and collections of palm leaf manuscripts are carefully preserved in libraries, in Sri Lanka and abroad. Most of the palm leaf manuscripts available in these collections date only from the 18th and 19th century. The palm leaf is a perishable item. Manuscripts of an earlier period are rare and are greatly valued.

Sri Lanka has the greatest number of these palm leaf manuscript collections. This indicates the value placed on palm leaf manuscripts in this country. The largest collection in Sri Lanka and possibly in the world, is in the National Museum Library, Colombo. The collection exceeds 5000. It includes the collections of H.C.P. Bell, W.A. de Silva, Ananda Coomaraswamy and E.B Gunaratne as well as the poetry section of the Hugh Neville collection. In 1938, W.A. de Silva prepared a “Catalogue of palm leaf manuscripts in the Library of the Colombo Museum.” This was published by the Museum.

 The Museum library has the oldest palm leaf manuscript in the country, the Cullavagga, dated to 13 century. Cullavagga gives an account of the religious life of the sangha and the legal confines of their conduct. The last chapter carries the earliest known account of the Buddhist Great Council at Rajagaha.

The library has a copy of Buddhaghosa’s commentary on Digha nikaya. The cover is of silver embossed with white sapphires. The library has a copy of Sumangala Vilasini , one of the Bodhiwamsa (Ref No 1823) in Sinhala giving the history of the Sri Maha Bodhi, and the Mahavagga, copied by the Peramuna rala of Siyambalapitiya Galboda korale, completed on October 1802 and offered to Malwatte.

The Museum library has approximately 300 medical manuscripts Saddharmaratnavaliya manuscript says that doctors had to be paid for their services and travelling expenses. It said that physicians jealously guarded their knowledge of medicine and kept their prescriptions for medical remedies in safe custody.

University of Peradeniya has the next largest collection of 4000 items. Peradeniya has the UNESCO recognised copy of the Mahavamsa and the 13 century Visuddhi Magga Tika. The library has the de Saram and Hettiarachchy collections and several collections of palm leaf manuscripts donated to it.When I was studying at Peradeniya in the 1960s, the Main Library displayed palm leaf manuscripts and their decorative covers, in a case, upstairs, by the staircase, where the readers would not miss it. That was our introduction to palm leaf manuscripts.

The National Library of Sri Lanka (est. 1990) has a small but distinctive collection of 523 items which include Sinhala vedakam, Sinhala bana katha and Yantra mantra gurukam . It has a rare literary manuscript, Diya Savol Sandeshaya, dated April 26, 1904. It begins with the evocative phrase “Sarada Sarada Somi Paharusamu.” It provides a unique glimpse into the late-modern period of Sinhala literature. The manuscript is in good condition, with beginning and end intact. It measures 50 cm in length.

Other state institutes also have collections. The Institute of Indigenous Medicine, Rajagiriya has 700 palm leaf manuscripts. The collection includes Besajja Manjusa , the oldest medical manuscript in Sri Lanka . The collection also has a very old, valuable manuscript on acupuncture, written in Sinhala. The manuscript is reproduced in full in the book “Palm leaf manuscripts of Sri Lanka” by Sirancee Gunawardana. She comments, it is well illustrated. The human form is drawn clearly and acupuncture points indicated.

 There are valuable private collections of palm leaf manuscripts, acquired by knowledgeable collectors. University of Kelaniya has digitised and made available the manuscripts of 13 private collections. The Danton Obeyesekera collection includes an ath-veda-pota containing prescriptions. James D Alwis collection has a copy of the Jataka Atuwa getapadaya. L.S.D Pieris has an extensive collection of Yantra manuscripts and medical manuscripts as well as a copy of the Rajavaliya. It was noted that SWRD Bandaranaike also had a collection of palm leaf manuscripts .

Private collectors seem to have been specially interested in the pansiya panas jataka. K.V.J. de Silva’s collection had a magnificent pansiya panas jataka. The collection assembled by Rohan de Silva and Jacques Soulie at the Suriyakantha Centre for Art & Culture, Handessa, also has on display a palm leaf manuscript of the Jataka stories, dated to late Kandyan period, in exceptional condition. Its clarity of script, leaf preparation, and intact binding show the highest standards of Sri Lankan scribal craftsmanship, the Centre said.

The largest collection in a foreign library (western) is probably the collection in the British Library, London, which has around 2464 Sinhala palm leaf manuscripts . The major portion of this collection is the Hugh Neville collection of 2227 palm leaf manuscripts. Everybody has heard of the Hugh Neville collection and most think that this is the only collection of Sri Lanka palm leaf manuscripts in the world and that we must be grateful to Hugh Neville for collecting them. Some probably think he wrote them. They do not know of the much larger collections in Colombo and Peradeniya.

Hugh Neville (1869 – 1886) came to Sri Lanka during the British period as private secretary to the Chief Justice. He later became an Assistant Government Agent. He travelled across the country collecting palm leaf manuscripts. They were mainly 19 century manuscripts. Hugh Nevill observed that just one in his collection may be 100 years old. I have no copy over 200 years old, he said.[1]

 Hugh Neville died in France, but London acquired the palm leaf collection at the instigation of D.M de Z. Wickremasinghe. They were catalogued by K.D. Somadasa and published in seven volumes, titled ‘Catalogue of the Hugh Nevill Collection of Sinhalese manuscripts in the British Library”. The British Library, in 2021, digitized and made freely available online, four Sinhalese palm leaf manuscripts from the Hugh Nevill collections, namely Dighanikaya, Majjhimanikaya and two copies of Mahavamsa.

The libraries of Cambridge and Oxford Universities have Sri Lanka palm leaf manuscripts. Bodleian Library in Oxford has the Mahavamsa manuscript which was used by Turner for his English translation. Jinadasa Liyanaratana has examined some of the manuscripts in Cambridge and has catagloued 24 Sinhala manuscripts of which 6 were medical texts, others were on Buddhism. This was published in Journal of the Pali Text Society, Vol. XVIII, 1993, pp. 131-47[2]

The John Rylands Library, University of Manchester holds over seventy manuscripts from Sri Lanka, “mostly on Theravada in the Pali language in Sinhalese script” . They are probably from the Rhys Davids collection. The manuscripts date from the 17th-19th centuries and include copies made in Sri Lanka for T.W. Rhys Davis. There are complete manuscripts of the Paṭṭhāna-Pakaraṇa and Nettipakaraṇa, which are rare even in Sri Lanka.

There are palm leaf manuscripts at Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, the Azistische Kjust Museum, Amsterdam, and Bavarian State Library in Munich . Paris has the Talapata sent from the Udarata chiefs to Dutch governor Falck. Jinadasa Liyanaratne examined and wrote on the “Sinhalese Medical Manuscripts in Paris” for Bulletin de l’École française d’Extrême-Orient Année 1987 pp. 185-199[3] The Netherlands collection included 135 medical manuscripts.

 The palm leaf manuscript collection in the Royal Library, Copenhagen is well known. It was obtained by Rasmus Rask who came to Sri Lanka in 1822 in search of them. The collection was catalogued by C.E. Godakumbure. The catalogue is available in Gunawardene’s “Palm leaf manuscripts of Sri Lanka”(p 339). This collection contains the manuscripts collected by Ven. Kapugama Dharmachandra who lived in Dadalla, Galle. He converted to Christianity and his extensive collection, went to Denmark, said Gunawardana.[4]

 Small collections of palm leaf manuscripts are held in various other foreign libraries in the west. Casey Wood, (b 1856) an American ophthalmologist who had in interest in medical research, toured the world after retirement. In Sri Lanka he connected with Andreas Nell, also an eye surgeon, obtained palm leaf manuscripts, mainly medical, which he then donated to institutions and individuals all over North America. At least 50 different recipients have been identified.[5]McGill University has a collection of 27 palm leaf manuscripts gifted by him.[6] The Metropolitan Museum of Art, in New York has one manuscript on display[7]. (To be continued)

[1] Stephne C Berkwitz. Buddhist history in the vernacular. P . 115..

[2] https://hasp.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/journals/jpts/article/view/28096/27490

 [3] https://www.persee.fr/doc/befeo_0336-1519_1987_num_76_1_1723

 [4] Sirancee Gunawardana Palm leaf manuscripts of Sri Lanka . (1977 )p 1-9, 35,41-43,50,127,129,140-146,248,286-292,339-,

 [5] https://findingaids.library.northwestern.edu/repositories/8/resources/1303

 [6] https://hiddenhands.ca/sri-lanka-essays/

 [7] ps://libmma.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16028coll4/id/47247/.

by KAMALIKA PIERIS

Continue Reading

Trending