OEYLON AND MALAYSIA

Ceylon and Malaysia:

to Nilakanta Sa.stri

Rejoinder

Bv S. Pen,rN,c.vrrlNe

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,
Journal,

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

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

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?

-=.

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

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.

2. Ibid. p"

65.

331

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
On this identification, which to anv unprejudiced mind must

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-

balinga country was also known as Tambarattha. In Jact, Tambarattha

appears to be an abbreviation o{ Tambalingarattha"'

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
Nilakinia Sastri has totally omitted the first trvo proposipaiagiuptr.
-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),

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-

barattlia.

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

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

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

distortion of our proposition, and his assurnption that the sources

utiiised are disoarate.

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

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

CI'YLON AND MALAYSIA

1963

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

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

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

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-

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

it as a d'rtctnd,t"a compound, interir iaatptwu.,.a ciass. We iri'c to take'lambarattha''
pt"iiig it o, 'ir-, ColiS'o-rattha

and

Coliyt't' is a

derivalile

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
"fro
ni*'t touo are jcrined together as a d,ttanch:tr,co:mpound, and C-oliya-lawba
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.

Nilakanta Sastri has another argunent for his vierv that Tamba-

rattha tvas in South India. 'I-ikervisE Anrirucldha Tirera's mentiorr of

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

i
e

333

3.

note 20.

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),

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

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

th;;; *"*"r1ity

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

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

.l

as

CEYLON AND MALAYSIA

t96B

Anurudd-

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

left that region io reside in a place which is not in South

lot,.h"yj
rndla. we

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
- ,., 9,u.
wrth
the 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;
to a passage which is"unmistakably and. mani_
l.-C-y"fnt
testly
southlr"-.erelaring
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

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

335

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

rvas piesented

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

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
-becauseand
the Cdlaaarirsa itself there is no confusion between Tambalinga
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

4.

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

1924, p. 46.

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

(Neu; Serias), 1963

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,

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

ncc3ssary one,

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.

'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.

to

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

states

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-

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 {.).

CilYLOr\ ANI) IIALAYSIA

337

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'.

'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

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',

338 JOLTIINAL,

R,.A.S.

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

1968

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'?

With regard to general principles to be observed in historical

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

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-

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

5. Tijdschrift

1937,

p.

z6o.

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

Deel LXXVII,

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:

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

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.

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

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

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'

later chronicles

CEYI,ON AND MAT,AYSiA

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

zrnd.

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

as'it do"s to that before it. In fact, the history of Ceylon from the
Kuruniigala period has to be pieced together from information gathered

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

the necessity to satisfy the requirements of versification, such

as

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

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

as the name of a

1sls6

of place names in Iiurope to the

be t;ited from ther

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

transference
statemen.t

part of Siam.s Analogies rnay

34r

Ner,v

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

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.

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

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'.

JCBRAS, Vol.

XXXII (No.86), pp. 258-3o9. Iior

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

by G.H. Irhilips,

1';y2.

7zfI.

Oeylon. In {act, there is not a single mention of Kaiingar in that chronicle.

Sinhalese historicalliterature.

S"

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

I.S. Irldition, p.

r6E

:J.12

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

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'
.

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

cliapiain

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

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

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

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

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

(_lEYt,oN,\ND 1t,L\t,AYSl,\

:11.3

Ni36arhkanalla, u'ho i' our

from Maraysiti, refers
'ie' c:Lme
inscriptions to the rerations, rrostiii:
or frienciiy, iir"i 1r.'rrlri *iir,

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',
cmb,lcml.and symbo.ls'.'lJre liasrt,rn Gairgas had no,,;;;;ii.'.,idorigo
rl,.
coucr)ant hrril

*.',o.

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'
;-gir,
it does n.t cs{alrlislr tri'cit eontuct n"irr""n C.vton'."a Ga.,g"
o}i"li."-ii-,,,..
-rur.a
is reli.ble e'idence- esiablishing tirat the Aryn cnt ro.,nrii*
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

l'he er.iciencc

tiitirl,l

aclclucecl bv Niiakanta Sastri as attesting

;rss ,(.iirtiorr ,tr('1.1 lqrl1 ,,;tf.r Clri;*o-u fiaii"g,
i;

the

ih;;';it;:i

con_

r-rnrorr.r,r.irrcl,r.arrr, brt i]e i, _o irr.pr"".*,i".,n

n,
i,Tlll"^ll;
put' ll:,.i:i11"1,
rtcv thnt. lir. rlct lr)-r',;; 'f n {lrc iac,. 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
",,.rr
u.ho is lr,.iicrrrl 1,, l:,r,..,. livrrl i,r
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
arid )li;ir:r rrt,,,,1.,i,i,. ii,,ni 6riiirra \\;rs,)i i,riii.,r
il',i'nq.
{.t)
tn tiry loqerrd< rclrrtinr rr, 1lrt, inir,,,lur-ii,,rr ,,1 j lrrrl,lJiir;:n
trl':,',,,
to (,i\ lr)1r, tlierc 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

\ijrrkrrnta Sa*11i. Irrrrrr'\'t r', is s,' j;111;1g5s,'d ri iiir iri:; ,,,1 11 p1

1is1.
prescrrring rhis 'r'r iJr.rr.t'ro'rrre [,r,ii,rr;,,riii,i nl ti:eii,,r't'i,rt,
ljtj[,'irr
ln tn(' tir'r:{ l)traqrrplr. ir,, srrrrrglr 11 mitrlis : .l hut iir ing io, .\.(.
lna\.
lea'e on,nr. strlr.ttre clabur,ric,lis,
,,I i,rr,in;rr iirni (.;,!,irlatccl
lrii,ition
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.
,,'-

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

'?'
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

_,

3414 .}OUI{NAL,

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

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

for the vierv tirat the sun mor:es round

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

;."p1;

Tamils.

Nilakanta Sastri considered aclequate-enough

The reason \,vhich

t, ,l;;;; o' orr" siclei-our evi<lence

establishing the ident-ity of Malala

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

CjEYLON Ar\D

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

X{ALAYSIA

;]4rl

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

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

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

in the

Cil,laaathsa

that Candrabhanu was a Jivaka does not

neces-

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

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

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'.
demonstrated that Magha was a Malay, we confront
- Having
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

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

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-()\

ilrgrilil{:nt, liillsL:li arlmits that

(jl,l\'1,()N,\Nl) ll,1

rve lrirrrc

'iult:rrr,'d tlial- tiri: r\lalay

,riigiiral leadilg Jutnbii{lf.,a, lrcing

rr,:p,;ions

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
irtrtlr{)rjti,itivr:is

tJirt,:r:t

eviilencr:, ancl hc hirs no justilica.tion to rc{et'

hiillclI as a-ir assnrnption.

rlo rr'lriit lias bccn t:iLllr:d an infererrce lrt,

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

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

occr.rrFi"

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

tir.Li

1l-iL;,;ha

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

() 'r.tr"

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

wl,tf.r,"ta Sastri,

l'1

ot'L

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

tlte possibilitr"of

an

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

.,qj-(

]\i:lrir:is

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

ri 5rrni1tr.,,

tl'n-"f,,.1

iii"i

ht'gins_ rvitli 'but' inrlica.tes thlrt llr havc not ziccepteil

rvhat.renl.nct'
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"
r

hrs

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 thc nairre
('-\arnpje,
"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,

lr',rr'.

;r

'f

[i-c]111 i1.r.r

_\\'ith rr:garr1 to .ur inter-p,r..etatio' rf thc e,.,i-rression

in rlrc riarlicl sirrlr:rlest. tri,rrslati,,n

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

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

'''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

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

tt,l;'t

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

f
K,ilrla:esti'r rl\s durr,rr urllr.Jum
crrnlldt.rrte

jjttllrtitt-

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

[-niver.itr ol

{rtnL_

ttta.rt'l-r'il'r'

l'hir:h i1

irv la.tcr c6pyistl intr

'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*

InciiaLns Iilirgs sonrclilncs, poir.lriirl'; bot:atLsc {i:,rlirrga

large nucrbcr- oI thc:m'. 1f, bv lhesc u'olc1s. Ni]akant:i

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

altr:r-cci

)1i

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

havc hct:ri ciLllccl

:'.s

L-\r"St;\

tht

\chool. oJ

lro1

11

(.i11i(]t

, ls

illr

6f lris rrrrlaLniii,iritt. u-itlr

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

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

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

Ii tirat meaning lvas intended,

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

carne from a region of Jambudvipa. It rvouid have been cluite sufRcient

to have said that they came fronr Jambudvipa, {or nobody wotlld

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

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

20.

G. Coedis, Les Etats IJittrl,tr,tists

d' Inl.o-Chine

et tL'[tzdottLisie,p.278

CEYLOT\ AND MAL;\YSIA

3+f)

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.).

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.
Continuing his criticism, Nilakanta Sastri states: 'Paranavitana

asks why should Xfalayalis submit to Magha rvho was not of Malabal

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

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.

:l;il

.lOtittN.\1,.

t-i,.A.S.

(C|l\ll,()\

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

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

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

l;v histolia"nr.
'His chapter

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

ol

{lhao Iu-I(ua:

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

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
years befole this c1ate, Magha
time he r,vrote iris lvork, i.e. 1225. Ten
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

family was cailed Nembara or Nambara. His d,e ju,re reigt is

trontz3z, the year in rvhich he became the possessor oi the

counted

2r. History of Srz Vijaya, op. cit. p. 88.

22. History of Srn Vijaya, op. cit.p.9o. note

r.5.

tlltY{,ON .\^\D

}L\1,;\YSI-.\

35t

'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.

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

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

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

,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

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{

caiformot'Maharaja' is not an unwarranted assumption,

dialecti-

as Nilakanta

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

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-

:l5z

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

l'lll , I'urt )

(Ncr 5'a'ir:r),

CIEYJ-ON

lLtXili

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANll I\{ALr\YSIA

353

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

.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

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:

(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).

CantLrabhanu's soldiers are referred

diers u'ele also Malalas.
I,Xalalas 'overe the people
coinmanclecl them.

to

as Nlalalas; l\{zigha's sol-

of Malaiyir, hencc Jivakas;

Candr:rbirdnu, rvho sirnilarlv commerndecl l{alalas,

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

to

clefinitelv

clrarv the necessarY inference lrom

T i jdsc;triJl uorsr IndistittT-utl-l-a,tttl-en-lloL]tct,th,uutlt:,

'r59-2bo"

2.3.

is

Magha

DeelLXXVII, r937,

)i4

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

(UltYl-O'\)

l'ol

. I'lrr.l?r't

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

'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.
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

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

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

tregitimate

previonslv, or s,hat is to folktiv.

,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

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

UEjYLO]{ AISD

}t!L,t1-lj1:\

:lr}-

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
jrrdgmcnt free froil bi;rs, in'vethe 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
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

that the

habita.t

of

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

irorrL

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.

: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-,

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

round Ligor, 'lanjong-pura \vas

It

l'o1.. l:111,

in

tire northern hal{ of the

Maiel.v

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
ireninsulal

parents; but thoLrgh the iristor-y oi tire Indlan Kalinga of the twelftlr

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

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
Culaaamsa

by saying. 'The

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

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

;-Ii,;

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

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
in this matter,
the Inclian l(alinga ri'hich crtmes into coirsicler-ation
'Ia'rba1i'ga, rvhich
i.e. Ancih:rbliasa iTclLrg.), rvas tlrr i;ingirage of
is also t:alleil .lil\,aka. C,ritsiclt.riilg tlris state:mcili rvitir an historir:al
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,,

c!tY.r,,oN AND

Ir.A.S. (CUYL0N)

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

rs'palpably

L.r:rorlcous'.

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,

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

{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.

If

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

;t51}

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

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

,,rpp(

"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
.it all. f,,

11i1i1u

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

Coto

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.

l|';i:,it

Nilal<anta s:rstri,
pointing ont that rvhat rvc stated ;rbout
"vhiic[alrle errd noI lli5trrr)'. lras rt.rt
-\l"dJrrrhknra-thr'ra is prrrc
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

reputc_are o{ opinion that dispossessed princes of Inclia founded kingdoms

in Malaysia, and transferrecl there lhe
of their homerJnds.2s

in
lglitt)
Nilakanta

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.

. .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.

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

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

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

irevate'rt

"7"
:8.

I{ALAYSI.\

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

29.

the thircl century il.C.'32 This, no doubt, rvill be hiiled by

Sastri as 'true history', not Prlraf a and not fable.

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

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

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

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

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 Sinhawas a

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.

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:

d,'isjecta ntentbra, of

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

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,

(.l1lYLON r\ND M/II-AYSTA

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

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.

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 Malay-

sia-a

pc-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

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.

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

{(llt\ i.o-\)

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

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

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:
is nothing incoilbv l{ilaliauta Srstri ltlotn othcr- corrtexts. Ililt tirerr:
'l
ris
rt.ltdr't's.
ilr (rrairi.
r
r'onriri
lo
lrics
ri
Slrsi
Ju,,,,.. ils \illi<:ril1:r
another
was
i"irnbraiirig... aurrl f ambi bc.ing inciudecl in lialinga, wh]c!
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'

:lll irr'thc regiori clllntl )lalaSsia i'r'lristo'ians'

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

'lhe otherolace r,vas reached by fraveliing southrvar6s from l=)antapura.

aiso
knolvtr
$,as
(Tarnbalinga)
tossible conclusion, that Tanralinga.ma

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

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
t5e f{'liriga l.: irad in
that
2-r'*1
*,, ,,,, ;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

,i,',.lut

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

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
is
expliinarion
ortr
ri'triat
gafii..r
tc
it
ilifhcLili
fincL;
ite
that
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

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
Ii..,ue.,,lcr-, sLr rir'.iclL

:1iii5 lus

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

frl' i'{ilahanta Sa-iltri t1

l',i:tlillisin to (lt:vion ctc"

Ceylon, 'trrd' str
I(riiriila..u'itil
1ri(ir..r., tltc ,.:,,,ttiitu,,,l i'iilttiolig of {)ri;{i:ill
Cairr:rvariis oI
Arltil
iire
6crir-r
tlr
;-i-:si't-''t'
ir
irlr.rr:lr li:,rr t. br iittirt
oi I.,aiiriga jn Irrciilr, that hc iras nothiilg
tLt'r'rilrr;-r
{ftrin
aiiit:r
tjir.r:ctl',-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,

|.s-'trrt that thr:1..'Cenri! o{ titt: irrtr-ridrtr:i-ion of

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

tilat'no

one $rorilci sai1.a sliip Irorn Indirr

We
lo {-e_..":lo,r rri:L lrialai'a' J'}iis ]s exrrctly lvhat rve otlLsclr.cs ira',-i' slici.
beginning
pa-i-'el
of
our
tLrat
rr:trd
agaitr
l;ortion
to
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
t]he
ott
Di.ttltatrdrtitsd
:ntha
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 biYoyage
a
$'e
l1{relt
clcare<l
irrr:
llosit
1rointe,l. otit tba.i the ilbsurciitir.:g
-ovorlld
ir,ru*., rrrgion in. tire l{iJay ljc.i.srla. T5is conclisi'n c{.rtrs
Malay
1he
of
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'

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..
the
in
l.,larl'n o-| [)entaprrra- rvoulrl acltriil5lV s*ii the nzrrratilc
tla'red r5t,,t5, rcprocluccci

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

UEYI-ON AND NTAI,AYSIA

t9t,4

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'

Part r" o.

rr.

t.he Kalinga country has also r.!" ti""rplantecl i" trre

1f
Peninstla.

suited his

purpose.:r6

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,-

ind.icating that formeily

to be

rcgard

arisen-

*"y f..""

in,quite a number of other r,vays, and paranavitana,s

own

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

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

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?
to c91 qa\e !ir1 folS,et what he kne."v? Suppose that
Pil,,h.,trip
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

Nilakanta Sastri, hor'vever, hasnot himsel{ been averse

tales in historical studies when it

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

Tennasaritm rnentioned in tiris extract frorn do Liouto may not

be wholly in the Malay Peninsula,at present, but the name is-l\[alay,

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
""tiory.
is an astounding vagueness ofgeography and.disregard
for chronology'. This is an estoundingly baseless accusatlon. It ls

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
the standards by wlichtle attempts to refute
-uny oih., instances,
our thesis do not obviously apply to himself' Does Nilakanta Sastri

ivhen he r'vrites: 'I agree with Coedds

i".i-t;; ;";graphical
are variants of ,the same name applieq Yague]y
tftut 1a""1u "und, Z^bug"r.".iitn'a"
to thi whole of Malalsia, ancl in their general accounls neither the
greater

,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

that, to the writers o{ the chapters of
contention
our
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
evidence
this
peninsula.
summarises
brl_.flI
Sastri
Nilakanta
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

we have quoted autirorities

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

l'o!. l'lII.

evidence for the name I(aririga- herving

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

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

a'ea whcrc si"

r'n

locatcd. Kaliirga, is drrc. r,r Sir

dis.crning judg., 'rras

''ai*,'.r standarci,
to a new and highly critical
,i"J f",", openccl up several fresh

.What is \vr.onq Mrr, Jrr*!ng .,

lll,,tli.'l:j *pproactr'.
an.,
-sundr)/' sorrrccs, ir trre inaterirrl is reiiabt,. n',.r

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

t.

tj."."'i*#,"rr

onlr,-

;;f".;;;:"b,,,,*
.ne

source?

\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

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

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.u-a"o:;;;;;;^;';:;*r"
,{te'' changed ancr tric br-,t-rnr'iar-ies ;;r;;;i;i;"s
"",i,lri "".i.ri
e.xtenrlecl or contracterl

of tlie vario*s statcs iir the

,Ial.y tj;il;,;ir.
a r,ii.i ,..L""i1"g
of our crriclencc, Nilakantrt s..tii l,rii.i,i.i.,,, Aftcr
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

il**i

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.

rrf tire liirrl-ralese

f.lk

1alc,:ti'.-c

-nu

,r.0.,"-,"

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

'J/' I'frc i.rl<-t:rle arirrciecr to is

tirirc, so*: cxiler-is
,i.ig'rcp'te calDe frcn .1pry1d zrsl;;1'.rc;rrs: oncc'po'a
,ri'r','"".toir., i;i'g a.'cl ofcr&l t,
!"
;triiiic irrr lrinr.a garmcnt c'ar\erl iiicrrttt-t
";,;ri
oi ,urri.i, i" f,;;i;;;1,"'
'..'r"'. il.rr. ilrr' r.'L(.i.1 i {1.., J,rr,.rl. rr,, "inii,"tii.iilr"
,,i,,,.,. I.;r1,,,-r11./ is r,,r lir:ir- il r.
:t ';'i t" l L', cuuitr ieL: ir- The
"i,,
:iir",,r
t ir'g
u"o euaagccr ;reir serr.jcr:s
on their orvn ter.ms. Iire],,. uaci.c' ,t,treri"*,.i
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
to arcimirc

a.nrr

sp.ari

vr:i:-v-

of tlre p;:rrrnent th:rt iire lrl-'g

ab.ut to \r'c.r,r. r{a.ving ta.rieri:rs"irtr,,,rtl,irt
",triy
r-tt,r"tt tiiir"
i'cl reoeivcci ,* ;;.r;;'-,";g",
:rs 1'..' *.irhi,cl,
a""i,;;ri;lr;;;il;"^;;";:,_"*.
#:y.
hc king 'lir, str.rl lrir,r rolfli,tl,tir"
liir",r1r"ri,
r,rl,e.., irn(l tltr.*1,",,. nrrde., .J,.rv,,f y,rtt,,,c
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 .",: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
rvas

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

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

a'd matcriat
'l

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, ;; ii;;';ir;i,i::,,i'ir:.ri].-.,i,,
ilr,'.p, ll rr,rs l,roli,.rr. i'1,,. 1;i;1-. i,,.l ,," 1 f' ,,,.,..i
.:
1;,,,, :,, rlrr.r,rl.r,,,,
crtli:tiLri. clothcs, ;rn11 Llrirrllcd tirr: o;ilrrlrts
,,"t ,ri f,;, t.r,rlion.l "' l,rir 1.,.

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.

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!

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

fiom Sidrirapura in Ka.lilgrr.

l]',gslaysia tliai irc irolcl-"

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

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
llre f:rctsthat tlic

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

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

*.lras

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

Po,r't

2 (Neu Series),

lfl63

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:

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
l

nalif

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

rrse

the rvord 'unr,varranted'

rlrralifying

if

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?
r

aj

iiaQ; thercfore

it is eqnivalent to that

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

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

CEYLON,\.\t) fLII,AYSI.T
We give yet another example o{ distortion b1' Niiakanta

Sasl.ri

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

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

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

has said that, accorcling

:i;u

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

(tr[yLo]i)

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

;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
reing rirat

_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 to the notice of scliolars.:ts
\(', \\'e lra"e rl,rnt rio ir)iilj.ticc ta tri.' ,-t'r'rL
car<ra'artis.[.i;riTrrr.
l

r[ tlte cdta.rrtcnceharo-,tilni

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

.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{

jxer-ious nilcr-s

o{ tlte {amihr, the rlrct

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

eulogises

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:

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

staieinent oi 1is.

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*,

\-,

:lli.

Seo

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.

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

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

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

it

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

CEYI,ON AND

MALAYSIA

37I

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

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 the familv from the iiry'a

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-

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

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

in the fourteenth century or

thereabouts.+2 Thus, there are many

possible expla_nations of the titles KJrilra i-ttitan and, Kankai-1,-Ariya4,

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

and

t.56.

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

l57ri-6

T94 {.

CEYLON AND MAI,AYSIA

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

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.

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

ascribed

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

II,

and gives information about events of that king's reign, is contemptuously dismissecl as a 'late work', not admissible for historical research

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.

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

;}?3

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
have followed Sumangala and Batuwantudave, who have interpreted

it

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

region. Our statement

that 'rve do not know where Gangaikor.rda-

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.
Masudi's statement connecting Ceylon and Zabag is dismissed by

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

44. Sinhalese translation of tine Maltduait'sa by Sumangala and Batuwantudave, B.E. 2455. p. 265. The Sinhalese rendering of the phrase is hulin-bhagna43. See llniversity o{ Ceylon, Ilistory of

A.ntiqu,ary and, L.i,terary Register, Voi. V, p. r7.5.

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

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

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.

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

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

CIiYL(

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

3i5

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,

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

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.

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
"lfrift
an
important line of Sinhelese rirlers'. He"has, in these words, ascr-ibed
hl*,

b::"

to us a motive

i'

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.

justification--If ceylc,n, at

.It

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

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

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

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

rSerieo), 1063

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.

lineage'.ao Rijesekhara,

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

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

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
are not found

rve have marshalled-, and t|.e

46. Rd,jd'i Katharit'

legitimate inferences that

rve have drarvn

rtdd,ttaaaria1a-prabhauasya Sirit'haleiaarasya 1/ihrama'

by Sri Chandra Caliravarti, Dacca, rgoz' p' r4r '

bahor al.maj'eyant-Ratnduali., edited

pp. 69-7o.

47.

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

48.

Kathdsa.ritsdgara, Taraitga tzz.

49.

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+.

CEYLON AND

IVIAI,AYSIA

from them. But we are

377

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

arguments.

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.