D. B. S. Jayaraj and the history of the Kok-aththana-kulama area.
Posted on June 25th, 2011

Chandre Dharmawardana

D. B. S. Jayaraj, in http://dbsjeyaraj.com/dbsj/archives/2374 (dbsjeyaraj.com/dbsj/archives/2374 ) writing under the title:

“165 Sinhala families settled in Tamil village Kokkachchaankulam in Vavuniya”, forgets, or fails to mention, the ancient history of this area. Jeyaraj says that “Kokkachchaankulam is a Tamil village in Vedivaithakallu GS div under Nedunkerny divisional secretary in the Vavuniya North Piradesha sabhai.”

Kokkachchaankulam is the Tamil form of the Sinhala place name “Kok-aththana-kulama”. See <a href=”http://dh-web.org/place.name/index.html#Kok-aththana-kulama”> place-names website: “kok-aththana-kulama”</a> for details.

The word “Kokkachchan” has no evident meaning in Tamil. However, in Sinhala, “Koku-aththana” is a type of <i>Datura</i>, for which the Tamil name is “Oomathai”, or “Vellaiyumatti”.The fruits of this type of Aththana have spikes, and hence the appellation “Koku” in Sinhala. It is possible that the “spiky” form of Attana is also called “kokkaimattai” in Tamil.

So Kok-aththana-kulam is an original Sinhala village settled by Tamil speaking people in the relatively recent past. It is hence not unreasonable that some of the kith and kin, descendants of the of the original settlers, as well as their language – the official language — return to this area to produce the varigated cultural tapestry that is Sri Lanka.

The Sinhalese – really, Sinhala speaking Sri Lankans -may also have “traditional homelands” where even the names are of Sinhalese origin. They are not preventing the Tamil speaking Sri Lankans from settling or living in Koku-aththana-kulama. The numbers of the Tamil speaking Sri Lankans living in these areas have already dwindled a lot, while swelling the numbers in ” Wellawattai, Kottachenai”, and Scarborough. Indeed, there is a case for calling the latter “Iskaappurai” by Tamil residents. The word “borough” can be etymologically connect with the Indo-Sanskrit-sinhala word “pura”, for “town”, and “ur” in old Tamil.

Vedivaithakallu is a place known in ancient times as “Vaedavasgala”, and is said to be the location of rocky caves used for meditation.

Nedunkerny was known in ancient times as “NaedunKaenna”, or Naedunkurana, and has

important ruins that are associated with a stupa, remnants of a temple, and a small tank, recorded in the annual reports of the Archaeological dept., 1980-82. Around it there are many stone slabs, inscriptions etc.

Interested readers should pay some attention to the history of these areas before making claims of ethnic exclusivity. After all, what is found, even in Lewis, Gnannaprakasar, K. Velu Pillai in Yalpana Vaibhava Kaumudi etc., is instructive in this regard.

5 Responses to “D. B. S. Jayaraj and the history of the Kok-aththana-kulama area.”

  1. Samson Says:

    Well said Chandre.

    If this is the level of racist protest we get even when the central government is in total control, just imagine how bad it will be if a regional TNA controlled council is operational. Unthinkable.

  2. Susantha Wijesinghe Says:

    Long years back, around 1965, I applied for 100 acres of Jungle Land in Vavuniya, and I was asked by the Vavuniya Kachcheri to clear some Land in Cheddikulam. I got on the road that connects Cheddikulam to Poorvasanakulam on the Jaffna Road. We put up a Vadiya on land near a stream. All the villagers on this road from Cheddikulam to Poorvasanakulam were Sinhalese. There were no Tamils. We interacted with these humble Sinhalese folk. They were very hospitable and nice. I abandoned my Agricultural Project due to financial constraints.

    Subsequently I heard that the MF LTTE had KILLED ALL THE SINHALESE FARMERS ON THIS ROAD. They killed most of the Sinhalese in the Vavuniya area. I wonder whether the Government has settled any Sinhala People in this area of late. They should do it right now. That is a part of RECONCILIATION.

    DBSJ is a RACIST and is PRO-LTTE, and always talks through his hat.

  3. AnuD Says:

    DBS runs his little dictatorship with full freedom of expression to some people who support his views while not publishing from those that he does not like his views.

    What ever it is, he always supports Tamil Tribalism and expansionism in Sri Lanka.

  4. Leela Says:

    AnuD, you are absolutely right. Mr. Jeyaraj is not what he portrays to be.

    Jeyaraj is a separatist in his own right. One could see this clearly if he/she follows his writing carefully. I call it ‘Jeyaraj road map’. In that, he and his band of separatists propagate that Tamil aspiration for Eelam is the result of their grievances. And to redress that, political power must be devolved. And it would isolate the Eelamists. And, I say, that’s their carrot for us.

    Jeyaraj writes and act as if he is a defender of free thoughts, views and expression. From my experience, that had not been the case. Whenever I quoted Jeyaraj’s own writing to validate my comments that were written to his website, he had not published them in at least two instances. Thereafter, I stopped writing comments to it.

    I have quoted Jeyaraj’s own writing to show that a Tamil named Visvalingam had firsts mooted the demand for separation in 1928 when there couldn’t have been any grievances whatsoever for Tamils. We all know that many prominent Tamils followed that separation demand in different ways and methods.

    Actually, Jeyaraj mentioned that Visavalingam’s demand with a different motive; he wanted to show that though separation was mooted long ago there was no demand for it or a support base at the time. According to him support for separation came with the rise of Tamil grievances. This is where we differ from Jeyaraj’s theory. We say, grievances of Tamils has arisen from that Visvalingam’s aspiration not vice versa.

    Mr. Jeyaraj didn’t publish my comment to his write-up. That was one, and the other was when I mentioned his wrong interpretation about devolution to Tamil Nadu and its subsequent voting pattern. Jeyaraj wrote, separatist parties had decreased their voter base after devolving more powers to Tamil Nadu. I proved it is the contrary.

    Truth is; with the rise of the separation demand by Tamils of Tamil Nadu in 1962, Nehru had introduced the 16th amendment to the Indian constitution in 1963 that prohibited separatist parties and individuals contesting elections. And Jeyaraj didn’t like his error highlighted in my comment.

  5. Chintha Says:

    All the powers the Tamil racists are asking is to discriminate and chase all non Tamils from the North and East. North and east belongs to Sinhalese as well. All these are original Sinhalese areas.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.



Copyright © 2024 LankaWeb.com. All Rights Reserved. Powered by Wordpress