KAMALIKA PIERIS
The
first census of Ceylon of which there is a record is the
census of 1824. That was an
incomplete census which grouped the population by caste. The first complete population census of Ceylon was the census of 1871. This
census left out ‘caste’ and introduced ‘race’ and ‘nationality’,
two European concepts which were
in vogue at the time. Race appeared for
the first time in this census. There
were 72 nationalities and 24 races, including foreign ones such as
Chinese, German and Irish. The local
‘races’ were Sinhalese, Tamil, Burgher, Chetty, Malay and Moor. Sinhalese and Tamils
were ‘races’ as well as ‘nationalities’.
The
Sinhala, Tamil and Moor races were officially recognized for the first time in
1871. The proportions were Sinhalese
69.40%, Tamils 22.21% and Moor 6.79%. There
was a census every ten years or so after 1871. At the 8th International Statistical Congress
1872, it was agreed that a census must include language, religion, birthplace
and nationality. The 1881 Census
referred to 72 nationalities in the text but classified the population only by
‘race.’ The races were ‘Europeans, Sinhalese, Tamil, Moors, Malay, Veddahs and
Other’. Race became the main category of
classification thereafter. The 1911 Census had ten races, ‘Low country Sinhalese,
Kandyan Sinhalese, Indian Tamils, Ceylon Tamils, Indian Moors, (also known as Coast Moors) Ceylon
Moors, Malays, Burghers, Veddahs, Europeans and Other’.
The 1911 Census said Sinhalese and Tamils
are distinct, clearly
differentiated races. They have their own religion and speak
different languages. ‘Their settlements are clearly defined.’ Intermarriage between them is very
rare. Even a
superficial observer could see, it said, that there are marked physical
differences between the Sinhalese and the Tamils. However, the 1921 census has photographs of the
‘races’. They all look alike. The
difference was in their costumes, not in facial or physical
characteristic.
Ponnambalam
Arunachalam in his introduction to the 1901 census used history to show that
the Sinhala and Tamil races were genuine and long standing. Arunachalam added a
chapter on the history of Ceylon to the 1901 census. This was not there in the earlier reports. He wrote that the Tamils and Sinhalese have
lived in the island for two thousand years. He drew attention to Dutugemunu’s
fight with Elara. Denham in 1911 said
that the Sinhalese and Tamils had been in Sri Lanka for centuries, fighting
with each other. However, he added that
only
the Sinhalese could ‘regard Ceylon as home’. It was the ‘shrine of their
national traditions.’
Each district was designated ‘Tamil’ district’ and ‘Sinhala district’ according to the racial percentage.
This created geographically contiguous ‘Tamil areas’ and ‘Sinhala areas’. Census
of 1871 showed 50-90% Sinhalese in all provinces except Jaffna, Vanni, Mannar
(5%) and Trincomalee, Batticaloa (10%). Tamils were 90% in Vanni and Jaffna,
70% in Mannar and Eastern province, 40% in Central province and 16% in Badulla.
Moors were 35% in Batticaloa 30-20% in Mannar, Trincomalee and Puttalam.
The Census of 1891 has three separate
maps indicating the ‘relative proportions of races’ for Tamil, Sinhala and
Moor. Jaffna, Vanni, Mannar, Trincomalee and Batticaloa districts were assigned
in bright pink to the Tamils. These figures ignore the important issue of
population density. The 1911 census
showed the following population density. In Northern Province, Jaffna with 998
sq miles had 326,510 persons. Mannar had 904 sq miles and 25,603 persons,
Mullaitivu had 1466 sq miles and 17,336 persons. In Eastern province, Batticaloa had 2800 sq
miles and 153,943 persons Trincomalee had 1048 sq miles and 29,374 persons.
Sometime
after the Sinhala race” was invented, it got bisected. Ponnambalam Arunachalam, Superintendant of Census,
divided the Sinhalese into Kandyan and Low country for the 1901 census. Then he
said that Tamils were equal to each of the Sinhala groups when taken
separately. Census of 1921 stated that the Kandyan Sinhalese differed from the
Low country Sinhalese in all respects except those of color, religion and
language. Kandyan villagers saw the Low country Sinhalese as a separate race
(pahata rata minissu), probably due to the impact of Portuguese, Dutch,
British, Malay and Chinese influences (sic).
Census of 1911
however, stated ‘ the distinction between Kandyan and Low country
Sinhalese is every year lessened, intermarriages are on the increase and in
many parts of the ‘Up country’, it is difficult to
distinguish between Kandyan and Low country
men and women’. Then in 1922 a
district court case dealing with property rights in marriage went
into appeal and Supreme Court
ruled that that Low country Sinhalese and Kandyan Sinhalese were the same race.
(NLR vol.24 p245)
But as late as 1946, persons from the Central,
North central, Uva and Sabaragamuwa provinces, the Kurunegala and Puttalam
districts and the ’Sinhalese divisions’ of the districts of Batticaloa,
Trincomalee and Vavuniya continued to be Kandyan. Persons from Western and
Southern provinces and Chilaw and Puttalam districts were Low country (Census
1946). Arthur Ranasinghe, Superintendant of census for 1946 cited the 1922 case
and observed that this division made no sense. Kandyan and Low- country Sinhalese were treated
as two separate
census groups from 1901 to 1971. They were combined in the 1981 census.
Ponnambalam
Arunachalam said in the 1901 census that the ‘modern’ approach at that time was
to identify ‘aggregations of persons believed or presumed to belong to the same
stock and having a common language, character and political institutions.’ But no objective criteria were devised for this. The answer given by
the respondent was accepted by
the enumerators
in 1981. Denham had said
in 1911 that it is inconceivable that any Sinhalese would enter himself as
Tamil or vice versa.
In the Census of 1946, the enumerators were
offered a list of races and had to slot people into one of them. The enumerators were instructed, ‘ enter the
race of each as Low country Sinhala, Kandyan Sinhalese, Ceylon Tamil, Indian
Tamil, Ceylon Moor .Indian Moor, Malay,
English, scotch, Irish etc. also state whether Malay, Parsee, Borah. Do not use general terms such as British , Ceylonese.
The children were given their fathers’ race.
In 1946, the criteria for deciding if a person
was a Ceylon Tamil ,was ‘racial stock’. Ceylon
Tamils are those who can trace their origins to a ‘Tamil district in Ceylon,’ said
the Census. A Ceylon Tamil therefore was
a person who traditionally had his origins in a Tamil district. It was ‘stock’ not birthplace that decided.
For language, 1946 census said’ Enter in this
cage the language of the race to which the father belongs. For Moor, Burghers,
Eurasians the language used in the home.
The census asked for ‘mother tongue.’ But father’s tongue must be stated
for the mother tongue. Enter father’s
language in the mother tongue column”, the Census instructed.
The Census asked whether a person could speak Sinhala or Tamil. There
was a separate question for literacy, which asked can they read and write
Sinhala or Tamil. Jennings said the
census would have been more useful if it has asked, instead for mother tongue, for languages spoken, literacy in mother
tongue, literacy in other languages. The
1950 Whitepaper quietly dropped mother tongue and substituted the language of
the home, noted Jennings.
The 1981 census
classified the population into six ethnic
groups: ‘Sinhalese, Sri Lanka Tamil, Indian Tamil, Sri Lanka Moor, Burgher, Malay and other.’ The 2012
census added ‘Sri Lanka Chetty’ and ‘Bharatha’ to the list. The ethnic pattern
in 2012 was: Sinhalese (15,250,081) Sri Lanka Tamil (2,269,266) Indian
Tamil (839,504) Sri Lanka Moor (1,892,638) Burgher (38,293) Malay (44,130) Sri
Lanka Chetty (5,595), Bharatha (1,717) Other (18,215). Total 20,359,439. (Census 2012).
The
Population Census, which is based on the Census Ordinance, has a great
deal of authority and influence, observed Tudor Silva. Its statistics are used as
the base for many economic activities, such as distribution of state resources. Its ethnic
categories, which are utterly artificial, are accepted as official. This has led to other complications. These artificial ethnic Identities then started to develop a life and history of their own and become fixed. Now they
are claiming land rights and sovereignty,
Tudor concluded. (Continued)
