Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="xx_varun_xx" data-source="post: 1463585" data-attributes="member: 82138">Tamils and the Meaning of HistoryBy: Dr Hellmann-Rajanayagam   Article Tools <img src="http://www.tamilcanadian.com/templates/image_ver2006/bluearrow.gif" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /> <a href="http://www.tamilcanadian.com/php_tools/suggest.php" target="_blank">E-mail this article</a> <img src="http://www.tamilcanadian.com/templates/image_ver2006/bluearrow.gif" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /> <a href="http://www.tamilcanadian.com/tools/print.php?id=29" target="_blank">Printer friendly version</a> <img src="http://www.tamilcanadian.com/templates/image_ver2006/bluearrow.gif" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /> <a href="http://www.tamilcanadian.com/page.php?cat=52&id=29#comments" target="_blank">Comments</a> <img src="http://www.tamilcanadian.com/templates/image_ver2006/bluearrow.gif" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" />  [ - ] Text Size [ + ] Dagmar Hellmann-rajanayagam (1996),Proceedings of the International Conference on conflict in Sri Lanka:Peace with Justice, Canberra, Australia.German-Malaysian Institute in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Doctoral thesis on Cultural Nationalism in Tamil Nadu, India, Sometime Visiting Fellow at the Institute of South East Asian Studies, Singapore and at St Anthony's College, Oxford, Sometime Associate Professor in Asian History at the University of Kiel, Germany * Preliminary versions of this article were read in Colombo and Hongkong. I thank all my colleagues who made helpful comments and suggestions, especially Sudipta Kaviraj and Dietmar Rothermund who read drafts of the paper. The research was financed in part by the German Research Council and the Stifterverband für die Deutsche Wissenschaft, both of whom I also want to thank in this place. IntroductionAt the moment, there seems to be a lull in the Sri Lankan crisis with the army apparently in control in Jaffna and the LTTE lying low. Nobody, however, should deceive themselves that the problem is solved or that the army is finally in command and the LTTE beaten. More has to happen to effect a solution in Sri Lanka than just military actions. Still, from the outside, nothing much can be done but wait and see. In the final event, the Tamils and Sinhalese in Sri Lanka have to find a solution among themselves, not one that is imposed from outside. What we can do, however, is make suggestions and give advice, maybe in the manner of Bismarck's famous `honest broker'. But what is the place of the historian in this scenario? How can he give advice? Well, maybe not. That is not the task of historians. Their task is to elucidate the origins of events, to say why and how things happened to enable society to take actions on the basis of this. If, however, we try to do that, several questions arise at once, first, what is history, and second, what is the meaning of it for different societies. This is what I want to explore in this paper: what does history mean for the Tamils of Sri Lanka, and how does this perception influence the conflict and the shape it takes? I intend to demonstrate in this article that <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">1) the Tamil perception of history is different from that of the West even if the definition of history itself is borrowed from there, 2) that the political use of history determines its perception and limits its functions, and 3) that wider functions which we assign to history are, for the Tamils, located elsewhere (we will see where later in the discussion).</li> </ul>Before describing the Tamil perception of history, however, it will be useful to consider, in some preliminary remarks, some fundamental points about history and to state somewhat boldly some assumptions about the `Tamil view of history' which will be substantiated in the latter part of the article. History: a technical termHistory is the relation of the past to the present. The remark made by the historian E.H. Carr[1] in the 60s might seem a truism nowadays, but that does not make it less true or less crucial to the craft. In the meantime, the concept has been polished, extended and modified, but its basic significance has lost nothing of its power: history is the link between past, present and, by extension, future. What we see much more clearly now is the nature of this relationship: from the past that exerts its influence on the present, we have now come to the present that influences and shapes the past as well: historical perception extends the present and its preoccupations into the past and thus sees the past with the eyes of the present. The problem to address then is not so much what is history, but how is history used, to say it with a word by Habermas,[2] the 'public use of history', to what purposes is it put, by whom, and with which objectives? The use of history is inseparable from historical research and historiography. To discuss history nearly always also means to compare. This, however, immediately raises questions about these comparisons:[3] If one's own history is comparable to that of others, what does that imply? In the first instance it implies several different histories, that, moreover, belong to different and distinguishable groups. On the other hand it means that they show certain common features as well, so that one is able to evaluate them against a given scale and see how they perform. But what is this given scale against which history can be compared: one of values, of achievement, of civilisation, of antiquity? The second point then is, in what ways is this (my?) history different from others, in what way does it exclusively belong to me (or to us), in what way can it enhance my perception of identity, of being myself, of having a place in the world. And how does one judge the differences? Are they simply neutral in the sense of 'it takes all kinds to make a world'? Do they show up one's own sordid traits the more starkly? Or do they tend to enhance the sense of one's own worth: how much better are we than others? This is the all-important question: what is the yardstick for measuring the differences and evaluating them? How and why do we compare? What makes my history so similar to another history that I consider it the same, but sets if off from a third one? Who decides about these differences, who draws the borders? From what common base do we proceed to discover differences, or is it all 'relative'? Is there a 'common base' at all, or are we all 'incomparable'? And there also lies the crux of this term 'the use of history': use of history for precisely what purpose and what function? And above all: who uses it? Today in popular Tamil attitude the religious texts are often considered 'historically true' and much religious matter still finds its way unquestioned into historical tracts. But still there is a thin, but visible line between what is considered a historical text and a religious text. The difference between the two conceptions of history could simply be that in the West religion has become subsumed in history and in South India, history is subsumed in religion. While this might well be the case, we are still plagued by the contradiction shown above: if we broaden our concept of history as described earlier, we would have to include in Tamil history a number of texts not hitherto considered as such by the Tamils themselves, as seen in the example of ÅArumuka Nåvalar. Historical texts were not deemed necessary for Tamil identity: history was not necessary, since it served other purposes. To establish identity, stories of the past were sufficient . Distinctions start to get blurred in the case of the talapuranams which relate the (hi)story of certain temples, their gods and founders in time and space, and always in Sri Lanka itself. These therefore often carry other, historical information. This is especially true for Trincomalee where the available historical information is tied up in the Kø~[[perthousand]]car Kalve++u, the story of the Kø~[[perthousand]]car temple and the history has to be reconstructed from this.[20] This again proves the point: these talapuranams concern temples located in time and space, with a definite beginning. The god who causes the temple to be founded by his appearance has always been there, but chooses this particular spot to manifest himself.[21] The fact, however, that the Tamils had secular stories of the past to draw upon made it easier for the Christians and later for all of them to fashion a history not tied to religion and therefore to Tamilnadu, but tied to Jaffna and Ceylon. The contradiction might be solved if we realize that we are caught in a circular argument: by our concept of history, the Tamils did not need it to estab</blockquote>

Verification: Dawasata paya keeyak thibeda?

Top Bottom