Revisiting The Sins of Leslie Gunawardana-2

Revisiting the sins of Leslie Gunawardana - Part 2 By Darshanie Ratnawalli Sunday, 08 March 2015
00:00
Professor KNO Dharmadasa, the present Editor in Chief of the Sinhala Encyclopedia goes
down in history as mounting to date, the only direct, authoritative academic challenge to
Professor Leslie Gunawardana, an ancient period historian of Sri Lanka who became a
darling of certain social anthropological circuits through his The People of the Lion: The
Sinhala Identity and Ideology in History and Historiography- (1979) and Historiography In a
Time of Ethnic Conflict, Construction of the Past in Contemporary Sri Lanka- (1995). This is
the second instalment of Prof. K.N.Os conversation with Darshanie Ratnawalli continued
from 15 February, 2015.
DR- Heres something serious. In page 14 of Historiography in a time of Ethnic

Conflict Professor Gunawardana implies not only that Prof. Paranavitanas identification of the
language of the Vallipuram inscription as Sinhala is wrong but that Paranavitana realized several
decades later that it was wrong and instead of admitting to the error openly, tried to cover it up by
quietly dropping that identification in his second edition of the Vallipuram inscription.
KNO- (Laughs aloud)
DR- Let me read; It will have been evident from the preceding discussion that, according to the
periodization of the evolution of the Sinhala language which came to gain general acceptance
among scholars, the appearance of the Sinhala language as a clearly distinguishable linguistic form
was dated in the eighth or the ninth century. It has also come to be accepted that the language of
the early Brahmi inscriptions in the island should be classified as Prakrit. Since Paranavitana was
not a scholar who limited his scholarly activities merely to epigraphy but had also studied the
development of the language, it would be justified to expect that these views would come to bear a
modifying influence on his original opinions on the identity of the language of the Vallipuram
inscription several decades later. In the introduction to his second edition of the record, Paranavitana
(1983:79-81) does not refer to the language of the Vallipuram record as Sinhala or even as Old
Sinhala.- That last statement is a lie.
KNO- Its a lie. Exactly.
DR- Far from NOT referring to the language of the Vallipuram record as Sinhala or even as Old
Sinhala, in the introduction to his second edition of the record- I have it now- Paranavitana starts the
introduction with the sentence; THIS is the only example, so far known, of an early Sinhalese
inscription engraved on a sheet of gold. It was brought to me by
KNO- so and so. Thats right.
DR- So this sentence fairly leaps to the eye. It occurs right under a big heading; NO. 53.
VALLIPURAM GOLD SHEET INSCRIPTION. How could Prof. Gunawardana get away with this?
KNO- People like you who question this kind of thing were not there at that time especially among
the historians of this country. I think maybe they were scared to challenge
DR- I think when an accredited, high profile historian like Leslie Gunawardana makes a statement
like this, a lot of people would take it on faith and not bother to double check. Anyway Inscriptions of
Ceylon Vol. 2, Part 1 where they could have checked was maybe not widely available. Its not in print
now. Even I got hold of it with difficulty.
KNO- Maybe. But this is something really lacking among our historians. It was lacking even at that
time. I dont know how this could happen. At that time who were the ancient historians of this
country?
DR- Sirima Kiribamune. She was refraining from criticizing Prof. G out of friendship
KNO- Yes she refrained. And Amaradasa Liyanagamage
DR- Another friend
KNO- A very good friend. They were very close. Then there was Rohanadheera who was not taken
very seriously by some scholars. So he would not have wanted to come forward. Anyway he did not
write much in English. So these were the people who could have challenged him and did not due to
personal things.
DR- Do you think this was a mistake or deliberate dishonesty?
KNO- You mean by Leslie?
DR- Yes. This particular instance.
KNO- Well this happens to people. Maybe he was trying to salvage his reputation. If you take
his Historiography in a time of Ethnic Conflict, its a very silly pamphlet. He is trying to call me
Goebbels and various unnecessary things.
DR- In that pamphlet he informs us that his research for that particular paper was facilitated by an
invitation from the University of Chicago to be Numata Visiting Professor and the award of a
Rockefeller fellowship at the same university. He says it provided him the opportunity for utilizing
the magnificent resources of the University of Chicago library. After all this facilitated research is it
natural or unnatural to make this sort of mistake?
KNO- (Laughing). I mean you dont have to go to Chicago toAll these things are there in Sri
Lanka. This is just to impress people.
DR- So Professor Gunawardana creates this fable of Paranavitanas revised views and repeats it
several times (p15-16, Historiography). He says; It is interesting to note that, in the Sri Lankan
case, groups on both sides of the barricades have found Paranavitanas views of 1939 more useful
for their purposes in comparison to his revised views of 1983.
KNO- Revised views!!
DR- There were no revised views!
KNO- No revised views. Exactly.
DR- In another sentence he says; In more recent times, with the gathering momentum of the ethnic
conflict, most writers have tended to ignore the change in Paranavitanas views and his earlier
statements are continually cited by rival groups embroiled in contemporary controversies. Again he
says; In his recent comments on the Vallipuram inscription, Professor Veluppillai (1990) objects to
Paranavitanas use of the term Old Sinhala, but he makes no mention of the change in the latters
views. There was no change.
KNO- No change. Exactly. Unfortunately Paranavitana was dead by the time this was said. This
reminds me. By this time when Leslie was writing Historiography , a lot of people, especially the
American scholarship who invited him to Chicago, etc. that circle were I think impressed by Leslies
stance.
Senarat Paranavitana, the Outsider
Professor Senarat Paranavitana had one great

disadvantage. He was not a product of Peradeniya or
any university for that matter, despite the letters after
his name. He was the product of practical training,
professional experience, enterprise and innate
Southern brilliance, much the same as Martin
Wickramasinghe. He was a trail blazing scholar with a
unique intellectual footprint.
On the down side Professor Paranavitana enjoyed none
DR- Which was politically correct
of the cushioning, sheltering, cosseting and the
KNO- Exactly. And my stance was covering up that belonging to an institutional fraternity
not. Actually one of these people, I typically gives. The institutional fraternity came
dont want to mention names, said
"I have a feeling that Leslie is crushingly down on him during his last years, when a
correct. But I dont have enough fixation on Malaysia had him in its thrall.
evidence to say so. He said that
openly! I think that was what they
Professor Sirima Kiribamune, a mild non-
wanted to hear and not what I had
to say. Although what I had to say confrontational historian by all accounts, said, This
was correct, they thought it was not has sparked off a great deal of controversy, his most
politically correct. But historical severe critics being Professor Nilankanta Sastri, Dr. K
truth is historical truth.
Indrapala and Dr. RALH Gunawardana. Prof.
Paranavitana's approach to this problem and the
DR- Prof. G was insisting that methods adopted by him to establish his case have
Sinhala had become distinct only
after the half nasal had emerged. caused a great stir among historians. Whether Prof.
But did Sinhala need the half nasal Paranavitana will be accepted as a scientific historian
to become distinctive? among scholars will largely depend on the outcome of
the test he is being at present subjected to. He once
KNO- No. Actually half nasal is one
feature. But we also have , enjoyed a respected position among historians. That he
which Kumaratunga insisted was will keep this is not beyond doubt (Some
the most distinctive sound in Reflectionson Professor Paranavitanas
Sinhala, which you find only after
the 8th, 9th centuries AD. Before Contribution to History).
that it was . For example we have
the now. But say in 6th, And yet, when Professor Leslie Gunawardana, a
7th centuries it was . There are Peradeniya luminary started displaying gross
so many other features which gives
Sinhala the identity it has today. dishonesty at worst or gross incompetence at best, the
Half nasal is another feature which fraternity was curiously silent. Perhaps the prevalent
is not found in other Indic feeling was Whats a few lies among friends?
languages.
DR- Buddhaghosa said in the 5th century AD that he was translating the Sinhala commentaries
because the monks from outside cannot understand them. The moment a language is not
understandable by other speech communities, it is distinct right?
KNO- Yes. Even people who knew Prakrits of India could not understand our commentaries.
Because it had become a distinct language.
DR- Even mutually understandable languages can be distinct right? For example in ancient India
Prakrits and Sanskrit were mutually understandable but belonged to different cultural registers.
Prakrits were the common peoples and
KNO- Sanskrit was the higher classes

DR- They were mutually understandable but still they were distinct because nobody would have
confused them?
KNO- Yes. Nobody would have confused them.
DR- So languages can be mutually understandable and still be distinct?
KNO- Yes
DR- So when two languages are not mutually understandable they are definitely distinct?
KNO- yes definitely
DR- They dont need a half nasal or an ?
KNO- No that came much later.
DR- Professor Gunawardana hung on to them and tried to insist that because the half nasal and the
werent there before the 8th, 9thcenturies, Sinhala wasnt distinct up to that time.
KNO- This is something which no other linguist has said. He was going into fields where he is not an
authority.
(Continued next week)
Last modified on Sunday, 08 March 2015 15:21
Read 4587 times
See http://www.nation.lk/edition/fine/item/38892-revisiting-the-sins-of-leslie-gunawardana.html or
http://www.nation.lk/epaper/sunday/2015/03/08/index.html#20-21 for original publication site

Revisiting The Sins of Leslie Gunawardana-2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Revisiting The Sins of Leslie Gunawardana-2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Revisiting The Sins of Leslie Gunawardana-2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Revisiting the sins of Leslie Gunawardana - Part 2 By Darshanie Ratnawalli Sunday, 08 March 2015

DR- Heres something serious. In page 14 of Historiography in a time of Ethnic

KNO- (Laughs aloud)

KNO- so and so. Thats right.

KNO- Yes she refrained. And Amaradasa Liyanagamage

DR- Another friend

DR- Do you think this was a mistake or deliberate dishonesty?

KNO- You mean by Leslie?

DR- Yes. This particular instance.

KNO- Revised views!!

DR- There were no revised views!

KNO- No revised views. Exactly.

Professor Senarat Paranavitana had one great

KNO- Sanskrit was the higher classes

KNO- Yes. Nobody would have confused them.

DR- So languages can be mutually understandable and still be distinct?

KNO- yes definitely

DR- They dont need a half nasal or an ?

KNO- No that came much later.

You might also like