sangam.org/articles/view2/621.html
by Peter Schalk
Uppsala Universitet, Uppsala 2004
ISSN 0439-2132, ISBN 91-554-5972-2
(distributed by Uppsala University Library, www.uu.se [use the search engine for Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis])
This is a very important book for the understanding of the relationship of the terms ilam and sihala from ancient times to the immediate present. Because of the contemporary political situation, this relationship is of interest as historical arguments are frequently used to back up political ones.
The book is a reaction to the assertion of certain philologists that the word ilam is derived from the word sihala. The assertion is of consequence in the world today because many assumptions flow from it. An example given in the book is:
In 1981, he [R.A.L.H. Gunawardana] published an often quoted and stimulating paper called “People of the Lion. The Simhala Identity and Ideology in History and Historiography.” Even if the word sihala occurred in the Dipavamsa only from the 4th centure AD, Gunawardene found it reasonable to stipulate a somewhat earlier date. He took up the well-known [Caldwellian] interpretation that the Tamil word ilam was allegedly derived from sihala. Therefore, whenever and wherever we find the word ilam, we can conclude that this word has been preceded by the word sihala/simhala. As the word ilam first appears in the Brahmi inscriptions of South India from the 1-2nd centureis AD, he concluded without further ado that the term sihala was used at this time.(p.31)
In the constant ideological battles about who are the ‘real’ owners of the island, this philological argument that ilam is a derivation of sihala hands those interested in claiming the island for the Sinhala a convenient tool, one of the “ideological pillars in Simhalatva, which is ethnonationalist in character…instrumentalizing Buddhist terms.”(p.5) “Caldwell has been made use of in a political and pseudo-linguistic debate that concerns the rise of Simhala assertiveness as against the rise of Tamil assertiveness.”(p.31. See also p.157) Wherever there is a mention of ilam, then there is an implication of sihala and this sihala preceded ilam. The argument is part of the effort to show that the Sinhala people belong to the island, while the Tamils are merely ‘vines which grow on the Sinhala tree.’ It is argued that the Tamils on the island have never had an independent existence, even in the language they use, and therefore should not have an independent political existence now.
Schalk says that his interest in the subject of the origin of the words was piqued by the entry in A Dravidian Etymological Dictionary (DED) by T. Burrows and M.B.A. Emeneau which puts a question mark after the formulation ilam<sihala. Schalk has dug deep into this question mark in his 250 page book. He answers the question, ‘What connections do the words ilam and sihala have to each other?’ (p.28) and the two subordinate questions of “which are the first written sources for the words ilam and simhala/sihalala/cinkalam?”(p.32) and what does the word ilam refer to (an island, toddy, a plant and gold) and what is their relative chronology?
Schalk concludes that “ilam and simhala/sihala/cinkalam are unrelated phonemes [speech sounds] and morphemes [collection of phonemes], albeit with the same referent [the island].” Schalk finds it unlikely that ilam could be derived from sihala through phonological transformation. Certain sounds change into others according to certain rules and that transformation would have been farfetched. The first reference to ilam is in about 150 AD in Tamil Nadu (or Tamilakam as he calls it) refering to the island as a whole, and the first reference to sihala is about the same time on the island itself. Because the two words appear about the same time and in different locations, Schalk concludes that ilam could not be derived from sihala.
Schalk’s discussion of the things that ilam refers to is interesting, if not a happy one for the teetotalers among us.
I conjecture that ila first referred to a milky juice that was then applied to both toddy and the white juice of the spurge plant. They show a diachronic [relating to phenomena as they change over time] and synchronic [at the same time] relatedness of meaning. They form therefore one cluster. ilam was made to refer to toddy, to the spurge plant and to the place where toddy was cultivated abundantly, to the island….
I suggest that ilam meaning ‘gold/metal’ should be handled as a different homonymous [words spelled alike, but different in meaning] lexical item because it shows no synchronic or diachronic relatedness of meaning to toddy and spurge plant.(p.235)
(Some of you may be confused, not knowing this reference to toddy. “Evidently this femented sap was called ilam in Tamilakam in the premodern period, and only there. Yet, there is no evidence that it has ever been used in Ilam as signifier for toddy. Even in present day Tamilakam, ilam has been replaced by kal(l)u.”(p.200))
Not only do we delve into the use of words two thousand years ago, but Schalk also brings us up-to-date with a discourse on how Sinhala and Tamil nationalists use the different terms and what the terms mean to them.
Even in the beginning of the 20th century, the toponym Ilam was used to refer to the whole island…When in the 1920s, a conflict arose between Tamil and Simhala learders about the future of the two communities in an envisaged decolonized island, a semantic shift in the use of Ilam became discernable…Gradually there was a gliding of referent from a cultural aspect to a political territory, to an independent Tamil nation-stae. This gliding reached its accomplishment in 1956 as a reaction of Tamil leaders to the Simhala-only program…(p.225)
…Soon, however, a terminological confusion arose. Some political leaders started to talk about Ilam, but referred to Tamililam. They also talked about ilavar, but they did not refer to toddy tappers or to inhabitants of the whole island of Ilam, but to citizens of the new state of Tamililam. This new political use can therefore be regarded as retrieval from the past only with regard to the signifiers, but not to their historical referents. These were completely new.(p. 226)
…Today, an ilavan is a person who promotes a type of state formation known as Tamililam. ila-v-an in this case is a regular derivation from ila-m through affixation. (p.229)
The book is a fascinating read in a great mix of history and linguistics, with dashes of politics, sociology, numismatics [study of coins], religion, etc. thrown in, for those interested in the southern tip of South Asia. It is, however, more of an academic monograph than a book for the general public. One must contend with an alarming variety of linguistic terms such as polysemous, ethnonym and alveolar, so keep your dictionary handy. There is no concession to the poor mortals who do not know Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, German or French. Be prepared to know what a demos is, for instance. If one remembers the root of the word democracy this is not too hard, but takes thought, as does just about everything in the book. The introduction and conclusion are more complex than the other chapters, however.
It must be recognized that this book is not an easy read, but is very worthwhile for anyone with an interest in the subject of the origin and subsequent use of words that have become charged with meaning in the current political climate.
Some of you may remember a discussion on this same subject, the relationship of the words ilam and sinhala a few years ago in the Tamil Circle that did not progress very far because many of those in the discussion did not have the tools to take it forward. This book takes the discussion so far forward it is out of sight.
Review by Avis Sri-Jayantha