are sri lankans mix of tamils and odiyas(kalingas)?

Posted in the Sri Lanka Forum

sahil gupta

Delhi, India

#1 Feb 8, 2012
are sri lankans mix of tamils and odiyas(kalingas)?
read in national geo book about sri lanka. They say srilankans are mix of tamils and odiyas(kalingas)

“Hindu God- Dhanwantri”

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#2 Feb 8, 2012
These distortions of the Sinhalese history by a frustrated bunch of Tamil Separatists, is an eye opener to the International Community who had been gullible enough to believe their previous fabrications such as discrimination, oppression etc (which helped them to get refugee status in foreign countries and live on free social benefits from the tax payer’s funds), to what low levels these people could stoop to, to continue to deceive the Westerners and live on their handouts.
These Tamil separatists with no self esteem, might as well say that the whole of Sri Lanka (in pre-colonial times known as Sinhale ) as well as the whole of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, were populated with Buddhist Tamils, Hindu Tamils, Christian Tamils and Muslim Tamils, who spoke different languages used in those regions and therefore, today have the right to demand separate states in each of the Indian states as well as Bangladesh and Pakistan?

Applying their own stupid fabrication one could ask, who are the Tamil speaking Tamils in Sri Lanka today? Are they recent migrants, as these distortionists claim the early Tamil migrants spoke sinhala and were buddhists? In any case, since these Sinhalese speaking buddhist Tamils are not calling for the creation of a separate state, are those calling for such a state the recent Tamil speaking Hindu migrants and labourers brought from Tamil Nadu?

One day will these jokers say that the Aboriginees of Australia and Canada were also Tamils who spoke other languages and followed different religons.
sahil gupta

Delhi, India

#3 Feb 8, 2012
naIan wrote:
These distortions of the Sinhalese history by a frustrated bunch of Tamil Separatists, is an eye opener to the International Community who had been gullible enough to believe their previous fabrications such as discrimination, oppression etc (which helped them to get refugee status in foreign countries and live on free social benefits from the tax payer’s funds), to what low levels these people could stoop to, to continue to deceive the Westerners and live on their handouts.
These Tamil separatists with no self esteem, might as well say that the whole of Sri Lanka (in pre-colonial times known as Sinhale ) as well as the whole of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, were populated with Buddhist Tamils, Hindu Tamils, Christian Tamils and Muslim Tamils, who spoke different languages used in those regions and therefore, today have the right to demand separate states in each of the Indian states as well as Bangladesh and Pakistan?
Applying their own stupid fabrication one could ask, who are the Tamil speaking Tamils in Sri Lanka today? Are they recent migrants, as these distortionists claim the early Tamil migrants spoke sinhala and were buddhists? In any case, since these Sinhalese speaking buddhist Tamils are not calling for the creation of a separate state, are those calling for such a state the recent Tamil speaking Hindu migrants and labourers brought from Tamil Nadu?
One day will these jokers say that the Aboriginees of Australia and Canada were also Tamils who spoke other languages and followed different religons.
no man you guys are indians. mix of kalingas and tamils.
Ashoka sent his only daughter Sanghamitta and son Mahindra to spread Buddhism in Sri Lanka. Colonists from Kalinga settled in Sri Lanka, Burma, as well as the Maldives and Malay.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#5 Feb 8, 2012
sahil gupta wrote:
<quoted text>no man you guys are indians. mix of kalingas and tamils.
Ashoka sent his only daughter Sanghamitta and son Mahindra to spread Buddhism in Sri Lanka. Colonists from Kalinga settled in Sri Lanka, Burma, as well as the Maldives and Malay.
some say Ashoka is a greek .

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#6 Feb 8, 2012
sahil gupta wrote:
<quoted text>
no man you guys are indians. mix of kalingas and tamils.
Ashoka sent his only daughter Sanghamitta and son Mahindra to spread Buddhism in Sri Lanka. Colonists from Kalinga settled in Sri Lanka, Burma, as well as the Maldives and Malay.
There are many theories and one such theory is that the sinhalese are a mix of tamils and oriyas.

Personally, from whatever I read, I understand that the ruling class of Srilanka (i purposefully avoid the word sinhala here, though normally that word is now used to describe them) comprised of two streams. One stream were the Pandyan Tamils called Aryan line. Another stream was the Oriya line called Kalinga line.

These elite ruling families never considered the non-elite sinhalese to be part of them. The sinhalese comprised of mainly veddhas, rodiyas and the like. There was some mix of external races with this helu community since they never had concepts such as chastity, family, monogamy etc (in the olden days, i don't mean to denigrate present day sinhalese or for that matter even those in the olden days since this is their culture and we should not judge them by today's standards).

There were fights between those from the Aryan lineage (mind it, it is not the 'aryan race' as it is misunderstood today) and the Oriya lineage among the ruling clans of Srilanka. This clan followed buddhism. It was a buddhism with some remnants of their old hindu practices.

Subsequently, when Cholas ascended to power after the Kalabhra interregnum, they started waging war against the buddhists there. Linguistic nationality was not a prevalent notion then. Those who are derided as Demalu or Demalas or Dramelas in Mahavamsa are these Cholas (+ Keras and others) who are non-buddhists.

Buddhists considered Aryan as those who follow the noble precepts of buddha. Aryan was used in this context. Those who don't follow buddhism were considered 'infidels' or simply 'Demalas'.

So, those Tamils of Pandyan country who were mainly followers of buddhism / jainism and similar philosophies were considered as Aryans and the Cholas who were Saiva zealots were called as Demalu by the crazy buddhist monks who went half mad due to sexual frustration and isolation.

This is what I understand after doing lot of reading on the subject for the past six months.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#8 Feb 9, 2012
Indian99 wrote:
<quoted text>There are many theories and one such theory is that the sinhalese are a mix of tamils and oriyas.

Personally, from whatever I read, I understand that the ruling class of Srilanka (i purposefully avoid the word sinhala here, though normally that word is now used to describe them) comprised of two streams. One stream were the Pandyan Tamils called Aryan line. Another stream was the Oriya line called Kalinga line.

These elite ruling families never considered the non-elite sinhalese to be part of them. The sinhalese comprised of mainly veddhas, rodiyas and the like. There was some mix of external races with this helu community since they never had concepts such as chastity, family, monogamy etc (in the olden days, i don't mean to denigrate present day sinhalese or for that matter even those in the olden days since this is their culture and we should not judge them by today's standards).

There were fights between those from the Aryan lineage (mind it, it is not the 'aryan race' as it is misunderstood today) and the Oriya lineage among the ruling clans of Srilanka. This clan followed buddhism. It was a buddhism with some remnants of their old hindu practices.

Subsequently, when Cholas ascended to power after the Kalabhra interregnum, they started waging war against the buddhists there. Linguistic nationality was not a prevalent notion then. Those who are derided as Demalu or Demalas or Dramelas in Mahavamsa are these Cholas (+ Keras and others) who are non-buddhists.

Buddhists considered Aryan as those who follow the noble precepts of buddha. Aryan was used in this context. Those who don't follow buddhism were considered 'infidels' or simply 'Demalas'.

So, those Tamils of Pandyan country who were mainly followers of buddhism / jainism and similar philosophies were considered as Aryans and the Cholas who were Saiva zealots were called as Demalu by the crazy buddhist monks who went half mad due to sexual frustration and isolation.

This is what I understand after doing lot of reading on the subject for the past six months.
good .
Tamils belong in TamilNad

Montclair, NJ

#9 Feb 9, 2012
Indian99 wrote:
<quoted text>
There are many theories and one such theory is that the sinhalese are a mix of tamils and oriyas.
Personally, from whatever I read, I understand that the ruling class of Srilanka (i purposefully avoid the word sinhala here, though normally that word is now used to describe them) comprised of two streams. One stream were the Pandyan Tamils called Aryan line. Another stream was the Oriya line called Kalinga line.
These elite ruling families never considered the non-elite sinhalese to be part of them. The sinhalese comprised of mainly veddhas, rodiyas and the like. There was some mix of external races with this helu community since they never had concepts such as chastity, family, monogamy etc (in the olden days, i don't mean to denigrate present day sinhalese or for that matter even those in the olden days since this is their culture and we should not judge them by today's standards).
There were fights between those from the Aryan lineage (mind it, it is not the 'aryan race' as it is misunderstood today) and the Oriya lineage among the ruling clans of Srilanka. This clan followed buddhism. It was a buddhism with some remnants of their old hindu practices.
Subsequently, when Cholas ascended to power after the Kalabhra interregnum, they started waging war against the buddhists there. Linguistic nationality was not a prevalent notion then. Those who are derided as Demalu or Demalas or Dramelas in Mahavamsa are these Cholas (+ Keras and others) who are non-buddhists.
Buddhists considered Aryan as those who follow the noble precepts of buddha. Aryan was used in this context. Those who don't follow buddhism were considered 'infidels' or simply 'Demalas'.
So, those Tamils of Pandyan country who were mainly followers of buddhism / jainism and similar philosophies were considered as Aryans and the Cholas who were Saiva zealots were called as Demalu by the crazy buddhist monks who went half mad due to sexual frustration and isolation.
This is what I understand after doing lot of reading on the subject for the past six months.
yep...Velu is in a laggoon. donkey...there will not be an eelam.

dream on
Soulja

Richmond Hill, Canada

#10 Feb 9, 2012
sahil gupta wrote:
are sri lankans mix of tamils and odiyas(kalingas)?
read in national geo book about sri lanka. They say srilankans are mix of tamils and odiyas(kalingas)
They are part african, part dravidians, like those Jarawa tribe in Andaman island. Its proven beyond any doubt.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#11 Feb 9, 2012
Tamils belong in TamilNad wrote:
<quoted text>
yep...Velu is in a laggoon. donkey...there will not be an eelam.
dream on
Ado kotiya kari balla pervert,

I am least bothered about your eelam or lanka. stu[pid kariya what is the connection between my post and eelam?

are you a nut case?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#12 Feb 9, 2012
Soulja wrote:
<quoted text>They are part african, part dravidians, like those Jarawa tribe in Andaman island. Its proven beyond any doubt.
thanks for clarifying the origins of your kind- but he was asking about sri lankans not sakkili tamil terrorists.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#13 Feb 9, 2012
naIan wrote:
These distortions of the Sinhalese history by a frustrated bunch of Tamil Separatists, is an eye opener to the International Community who had been gullible enough to believe their previous fabrications such as discrimination, oppression etc (which helped them to get refugee status in foreign countries and live on free social benefits from the tax payer’s funds), to what low levels these people could stoop to, to continue to deceive the Westerners and live on their handouts.
These Tamil separatists with no self esteem, might as well say that the whole of Sri Lanka (in pre-colonial times known as Sinhale ) as well as the whole of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, were populated with Buddhist Tamils, Hindu Tamils, Christian Tamils and Muslim Tamils, who spoke different languages used in those regions and therefore, today have the right to demand separate states in each of the Indian states as well as Bangladesh and Pakistan?
Applying their own stupid fabrication one could ask, who are the Tamil speaking Tamils in Sri Lanka today? Are they recent migrants, as these distortionists claim the early Tamil migrants spoke sinhala and were buddhists? In any case, since these Sinhalese speaking buddhist Tamils are not calling for the creation of a separate state, are those calling for such a state the recent Tamil speaking Hindu migrants and labourers brought from Tamil Nadu?
One day will these jokers say that the Aboriginees of Australia and Canada were also Tamils who spoke other languages and followed different religons.
excellent. the best part is these sakkilis can't even get these stories straight among themselves. eg there's one pakaya here who's howling about how sinhalese are actually tamils from shit nadu and how demalu are totally different, then a few minutes later another tamil turd comes and shits something about how demalu are the same as madrassi piss drinkers- ROFL.
sahil gupta

Delhi, India

#14 Feb 10, 2012
Soulja wrote:
<quoted text>They are part african, part dravidians, like those Jarawa tribe in Andaman island. Its proven beyond any doubt.
i'm in no way expert or even closer to it. but i read that dravidians were not black. rather, they were brown in complexion with brown eyes to black eyes. My complexion is medium brown and I have brown eyes but everyone in my family has black eyes. I met one afghan guy( may be a true aryan). He was very fair with greenish eyes. He looked so different from rest of the populace of delhi. Are People of delhi Dravidians or aryans??
ponnalingam

Europe

#15 Feb 10, 2012
I now present the pure white Tamil Dravidians (native to Africa)

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ZM1MXUVrRUk/TuZtlOZ...

LOL!
malkumara

Sri Lanka

#16 Feb 10, 2012
sahil gupta wrote:
<quoted text>
i'm in no way expert or even closer to it. but i read that dravidians were not black. rather, they were brown in complexion with brown eyes to black eyes. My complexion is medium brown and I have brown eyes but everyone in my family has black eyes. I met one afghan guy( may be a true aryan). He was very fair with greenish eyes. He looked so different from rest of the populace of delhi. Are People of delhi Dravidians or aryans??
populations of south asia is a mixture of many ethnic groups you cannot find clear boundaries between them

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#17 Feb 10, 2012
sahil gupta wrote:
<quoted text>
i'm in no way expert or even closer to it. but i read that dravidians were not black. rather, they were brown in complexion with brown eyes to black eyes. My complexion is medium brown and I have brown eyes but everyone in my family has black eyes. I met one afghan guy( may be a true aryan). He was very fair with greenish eyes. He looked so different from rest of the populace of delhi. Are People of delhi Dravidians or aryans??
They are remnants of the army of alexander. You find such people in remote corners of pakistan (nuristan) as well as India (remote corners of ladakh - GOI has now denied access to those tribes since they were being viewed as zoo animals by researchers).
sahil gupta

India

#18 Feb 12, 2012
read this
A substantial body of loanwords has been identified in the earliest Indian texts. Non-Indo-Aryan elements (such as -s- following -u- in Rigvedic busa) are clearly in evidence. While some loanwords are from Dravidian, and other forms are traceable to Munda or Proto-Burushaski, the bulk have no sensible basis in any of these families, indicating a source in one or more lost languages.
were lost languages a form of dravidian or munda?
and
Thomason and Kaufman state that there is strong evidence that Dravidian influenced Indic through "shift", that is, native Dravidian speakers learning and adopting Indic languages. Erdosy states that the most plausible explanation for the presence of Dravidian structural features in Old Indo-Aryan is that the majority of early Old Indo-Aryan speakers had a Dravidian mother tongue which they gradually abandoned.
I think this explains that most north indians are descendents of mix of dravidians and munda.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Sri Lanka Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Does bogus muslim refugee Punc enjoy a bacon sa... 9 min Muzzies R terrorists 2
Colombo Badu pot 2 hr no name 9
Full body massage srilanka (Jan '13) 6 hr Sha2123 19
16 black demalu immolate in TN after Jayalalith... 11 hr Ponnapillai 4
British diplomat in Sri Lanka describes surveil... 11 hr Ponnapillai 1
Sinhala Chat (Feb '13) 22 hr airtel 176
&#20116;&#26376;&#22825; Mon Tan 1

Sri Lanka People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE