Revisiting the sins of - Leslie Gunawardana with KNO Dharmadasa (Part 1) By Darshanie Ratnawalli

Sunday, 15 February 2015 00:00

Pic by Chandana Wijesinghe

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).
Professor KNO opened up to Darshanie Ratnawalli about this debate and its
repercussions.

DR- I am sure there are many subjects I could talk to you about. But my main interest is in your
debate with Professor Leslie Gunawardana. I think it was one of the high points of interest in Sri
Lankan studies in the 1990s. What struck me about the whole exchange was how little you were
challenging him on linguistic grounds. I felt that even though Professor Gunawardana was making
many linguistic gaffes, you missed them because you were concentrating too much on historical
narrative and interpretation.

The periodization of the Sinhala

language
Its a sad but amazingly true fact
of Sri Lankan scholarship that
some of its most high profile
members (of whom Professor
Leslie Gunawardana is almost a
text book illustration) do not
grasp (among other things) the
periodization of the Sinhala
language. This is partly due to the
great age of the language. Sinhala
is one of the oldest attested
languages. I write about Sinhala
in 2015 AD. Buddaghosa wrote
about same in 400 something AD,
using the identical name that I
use today. Even though we are
using the same name for the
language, an evolutionary gulf of
more than 1500 years separates
my Sinhala from Buddaghosas
Sinhala. Periodization schemes
simply seek to clarify this
evolutionary process. The earliest
attested form of Sinhala from
3rd century BC to 3rd/4th century
AD is termed (by Geiger and
Jayatilaka not by the speech
community of that
period) Sinhalese Prakrit. The
more evolved form of Sinhala
attested between 4th and
8th centuries AD is termed (again
by Geiger and Jayatilaka and not
by the speech community of the
period) Proto- Sinhalese. The
version of Sinhala which is
evidenced in inscriptions and
records belonging to the period
from 9th to the 13th centuries AD is
termed (again by G and J, need I
say?) Medieval Sinhalese. The
language qualifies for the
term Modern Sinhalese only
after the 13th century AD. A host
of Sri Lankan scholars (the most
prominent being Leslie
Gunawardana) have been misled
KNO- For example?
by the periodization scheme into
thinking that Sinhala as a
DR- For example, on p11 of his 1995 work Historiography language came into being only in
in a Time of Ethnic Conflict, which was sort of a response the 8th or 9th centuries AD. They
to your 1992 paper, Prof. G is discussing the Vallipuram
inscription. He says; The identification (by Paranavitana in take one look at the periodization
1939 in Epigraphia Zeylanica, Vol. IV, pp.229-237, my terminology and think
parenthesis) of the language of the inscription as Sinhala HmmProto Sinhalese! Surely
runs counter to opinions which have remained dominant in
that means before or prior to
the field of historical linguistics for more than half a century
Sinhalese and therefore not yet
KNO- This is bullshit. Its no such thing. Actually it goes fully Sinhalese?
with the dominant view.

DR- But this is one of the gaffes you did not tackle?

KNO- So tell me the others

DR- The reason he says the identification of the Vallipuram inscription language as Sinhala is wrong
is because (pg14) 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
Prof G seems to have been under the impression that Sinhala and Prakrit were two separate,
mutually exclusive terms. He seems to have believed that if a language is classified as a Prakrit, it
disqualifies it from being identified as Sinhala. He seems not to have known that Sinhala like all
Indo Aryan languages had a Prakritic (or a Middle Indo Aryan) phase followed by a New Indo Aryan
phase and that in both phases the language was known as Sinhala.
KNO- Exactly. Its not Prakrit. Its Sinhala Prakrit. When you look at the Sinhala there, its not the
Prakrit found in India. Its a completely modified or evolved Prakrit.

DR- So I was wondering did Professor Gunawardana know when he wrote that paper that the
language we call Sinhala today was called Sinhala even during its Middle Indo Aryan (Prakritic)
phase?

KNO- Well I think he knew. He should have known

DR- He should have known if for nothing else because of your 1992 paper. You had clearly stated
there; The available evidence would appear to suggest that the earliest references to the Sinhala
language is in early 5th century. Buddhaghosa the famous Indian scholar who translated the
Sinhala commentaries to Pali refers to the Sihaladipa as well as the Sihalabhasa. Referring to the
Buddhist commentaries he says that they were brought to Sihaladipa by Maha Mahinda (who was)
endowed with self-mastery, and were made to remain in the Sihala Bhasa for the benefit of the
inhabitants of the island.

KNO- Yes he fully well knew that. But he wrote to impress certain people.
DR- In the early 5th century AD the language the vising scholar monk Buddhaghosa was referring
to as Sihala bhasa was a Prakrit/Middle Indo Aryan language?

KNO- No actually it had evolved a great deal from Prakrit. There were traces of Prakrit there but it
had become very much an individual language of its own.

DR- No what I mean is Prakrit is a very broad classification. By 5th century AD Sinhala

KNO- was not a Prakrit.

DR- No I mean taking its broadest meaning, any Middle Indo Aryan language can be called a Prakrit.
Sinhala in the 5th century AD was still a Middle Indo Aryan language or a Prakrit.

KNO- But in the process of becoming a New Indo Aryan language. By 8th century Sinhala had
become a New Indo Aryan language.

DR- But Prof. G insisted that it was wrong to call the language of 5th century AD Sinhala. In his
1995 paper (pg12) he says; Geiger and Jayatilaka (1935:xxiv xxix) characterized the period from
the third or fourth century to the eighth century AD as one of transition from the Prakritic genre to
Sinhala. It is important to note that the two scholars carefully refrained from calling the language of
this period Sinhala: instead they chose the term Proto-Sinhalese. So it was a dilemma for Prof.
Gunawardana right? On one side Buddhaghosa was calling it Sinhala. On the other Geiger and
Jayatilaka were calling it Proto Sinhala. That seems to have created a conflict in his mind. He was
wondering who to accept.

KNO- You mean Professor Gunawardana?

DR- Yes. Maybe that was the reason

KNO- Yes. If you give him the benefit of the doubt! But he fully well knew Buddhaghosa was not a
modern linguist. In his mind, this is the Dipa bhasa, the language of the island and it is Sinhala for
him. Because this is not the language he knew in India.

DR- So to give him the benefit of the doubt, maybe Professor Gunawardana decided to blank out
Buddhaghosa and go with Geiger and Jayatilaka?

KNO- Ah yes.

DR- But its not really a dilemma right? You dont have to choose between Buddhaghosa and Geiger
and Jayatilaka because they are both right. You dont confuse natural names of a language used by
its speech community with the academic, artificial terms used by linguists.

KNO- Thats right. As you say it was an artificial term.

DR- So members of its speech community never called it proto-Sinhala?

KNO- Neither did strangers, people from outside

DR- People of those days didnt know anything about proto-Sinhala and such things

KNO- No

DR- So dont you think this was a huge opportunity you missed: of educating the general public, the
academic community and Professor Gunawardana of the basics of your specialty, which was
linguistics?

KNO- Yes I agree. Perhaps I should have gone more into details.

DR- Was linguistics an esoteric and obscure subject in those days? Not accessible even to ancient
period historians like Professor Gunawardana?

KNO- Well this is historical linguistics not structural linguistics. I have a feeling that this knowledge
was available to Leslie. He was not a fool. The kind of education given at the Peradeniya University
at that time, which was a great institute of learningThere were great historical linguists like Prof.
Hettiaratchi, Prof. P.E Fernando. Some of them were Leslies teachers. Prof. P.E. Fernando would
have taught him epigraphy.

DR- I am asking because this knowledge is broadly available today. Its obvious even to people like
me that you should not confuse the artificial academic names linguists use to denote the different
phases of a language with the natural name of that language.

KNO- Exactly

DR- To us modern Sinhalese, the language Buddhaghosa called Sihala Bhasa would have
sounded largely unintelligible?

KNO- Ah yes. For example, you wont understand even the Sigiri Graffiti now no, most of it.

DR- So thats why modern linguists call it Proto Sinhala. But that doesnt make it a lesser Sinhala. It
was as much a Sinhala as today.

KNO- Yes

DR- On the other side, to the speech community of the 5th century AD modern Sinhala would sound
like gobble-de-gook?

KNO- (Laughing). Oh yes.

DR- If they had heard modern Sinhala, they wouldnt call it Sinhala?

KNO- Yes. They would have called it some other language.

DR- But that does not make modern Sinhala a lesser Sinhala?

KNO- No. Thats evolution.

DR- As a result of your challenging Prof. Leslie Gunawardana, was there any blackballing of you in
certain academic circles, like in the USA?
KNO- Maybe. Because he was kind of a hero in certain circles and I think they were hearing
something which they wanted to hear. My response actually came about ten years after his original
article

DR- Of 1979?

KNO- Yes. All this time nobody challenged him. That was really strange.

DR- Yes. For example, I heard from Dr. Michael Roberts that Prof. Sirima Kiribamune had told him
that even though she had spotted various things in Prof. Gunawardanas argument, she refrained
from challenging him because of their friendship

KNO- Yes. He was her student and they were in the same department and friends.

DR- Is that kind of thing good for the scholarly tradition?

KNO- No that was wrong. Strange thing with Leslie Gunawardana was that he took this very badly.
For the first time in his life somebody was challenging him.

DR- I heard through the grapevine that you were not even talking to each other?

KNO- That isnt true. We were talking but he did a lot of things damaging to me.

DR- You mean institutionally?

KNO- Yes. Before he became Vice Chancellor I was the Dean of Arts. Prof. Madduma Bandara was
the VC. During the Chandrika Bandaranaike regime the Vice Chancellorship fell vacant. Then there
was an election in the council. I was a member as Dean. Madduma Bandara got 12 votes and Leslie
only 9, if I remember right. But I think Chandrika liked him personally.

DR- Same ideological persuasion?

KNO- She made him a minister later. They were friends I think. She appointed him VC overlooking
Madduma Bandara. A VC has a lot of clout over a Dean. There were many things he tried to do. My
wife was the head of the English Language Teaching Unit. She was there for ten years. She was a
good administrator and very popular. He tried to remove her. But in the Council there was a lot of
opposition from the other Deans and he couldnt do that. That is the kind of lengths he went to. But
strangely all this time he was very nice to me personally, smiled with me and that kind of relationship
we carried on.
Last modified on Sunday, 15 February 2015 02:15
Read 2354 times

See http://www.nation.lk/edition/fine/item/38291-revisiting-the-sins-of-leslie-gunawardana-with-
kno-dharmadasa.html or http://www.nation.lk/epaper/sunday/2015/02/15/index.html#19/z for
the original publication of the article