INDIA NEVER HAD ONE CIVILIZATION – SO HOW CAN SRI LANKA BE ITS “CIVILIZATIONAL TWIN”?

 

India is taking pains to feature Sri Lanka as its “civilizational twin.” India’s High Commissioner to Sri Lanka has used the expression repeatedly. In October 2024, India’s High Commissioner Santosh Jha said: “We are not merely geographical neighbors, we are civilizational twins.”

In February 2025, he went further: “As civilizational twins, our partnership is a necessity and not a matter of choice.” And in May 2026, he again described India and Sri Lanka as “civilizational twins”, saying the relationship represented a civilizational bond and that the two countries were “inheritors of a shared past.” That deserves a serious response from Sri Lanka.

 

TWIN OF WHAT?

What exactly is meant by Indian civilization.

Today’s India was not the same in the ancient political map of the Indian subcontinent.

The modern Republic of India became independent in 1947.

Before that, the subcontinent was a vast and constantly changing collection of kingdoms, empires, regional powers and princely states. None had any shared civilization nor history.

 

There were

Mauryas.

Guptas.

Cholas.

Pandyas.

Cheras.

Pallavas.

Rajputs.

Marathas.

Mughals.

Vijayanagara.

Mysore.

Bengal.

Assam.

Kashmir.

And many others.

 

They did not speak the same language.

They did not eat the same food.

They did not worship in the same way.

They did not have the same political systems.

They did not share identical customs & rituals

They did not have one uniform cultural identity.

 

The British brought these vast territories under a common imperial political and administrative framework, while hundreds of princely states retained their own rulers until the period of independence and integration.

After 1947, those territories were integrated into the Indian Union and reorganised, through the States Reorganisation Act of 1956.

 

So let us make one distinction absolutely clear:

A modern political Union does not prove the existence of one uniform civilization.

 

India itself demonstrates this.

NORTH INDIA IS NOT SOUTH INDIA – SOUTH INDIA IS NOT NORTH INDIA

If India itself is presented as one civilization, how do we explain the enormous differences between North and South India?

Look at the languages.

Hindi, Punjabi, Bengali, Gujarati and other northern languages belong to different linguistic traditions from South Indian – Tamil, Telugu, Kannada and Malayalam.

Look at food.

Large parts of North India developed strongly around wheat and breads such as roti and chapati.

Much of South India developed around rice, coconut and tropical agriculture.

Look at architecture.

Northern temple traditions are not identical to the Dravidian architectural traditions of the South.

Look at music.

Hindustani and Carnatic traditions are not the same.

Look at dance.

Kathak is not Bharatanatyam.

Look at dress.

Look at festivals.

Look at marriage customs.

Look at funeral practices.

Look at village traditions.

Look at religious institutions.

Look at social structures.

Look at historical kingdoms.

 

North India and South India are geographically connected — but they are not culturally interchangeable.

And even South India itself is not one homogeneous cultural block.

Tamil Nadu is not Kerala.

Kerala is not Karnataka.

Karnataka is not Andhra Pradesh.

Their languages, food, architecture, histories and customs differ.

 

So the first question must be:

If India itself contains such enormous civilizational diversity, why is Sri Lanka being placed inside a single, homogenised “Indian civilization”?

 

SRI LANKA DID NOT BEGIN IN 1948

Sri Lanka became independent in 1948. That’s far different to the birth of an Indian by British in 1947.

 

Sri Lanka’s civilization did not begin in 1948.

Long before modern India existed as a sovereign state, Sri Lanka had its own political centres, kingdoms, law, social order, rulers, language, literature, Buddhist institutions and distinctive systems of agriculture and irrigation.

 

Anuradhapura flourished as the political and religious capital of Ceylon for approximately 1,300 years. UNESCO specifically describes it as a Ceylonese political and religious capital.

Sri Lanka developed an extraordinary hydraulic civilization. The first of its kind in the world.

• The tank.
• The paddy field.
• The village.
• The temple.
• The monastery.
• The king.

These became interconnected parts of Sri Lankan civilization.

Sri Lankan Buddhist monasteries developed their own distinctive architectural and planning traditions. Royal monasteries at Anuradhapura and Polonnaruwa formed integral parts of the ancient capital cities and followed distinct planning principles.

This was not a civilization waiting for modern India to define it.

 

THERE IS A PART THAT CANNOT BE IGNORED

Sri Lanka did have contact with the Indian subcontinent.

There was

• trade
• migration
• Religious transmission.
• Diplomatic contact.
• Cultural influence.
• And warfare.

But these are relationships between societies.

They do not automatically establish one common civilization.

And some of those relationships were not peaceful in the least.

 

There were invasions of Sri Lanka from South India.

There were occupations.

There was mass murder & destruction.

There was political displacement.

And there were attempts to control Sri Lankan territory.

That history cannot be converted retrospectively into a story of harmonious “civilizational twins.”

 

ANURADHAPURA IS THE TEST

Anuradhapura was not a small settlement.

It was the centre of Sri Lankan political and Buddhist civilization for centuries.

Anuradhapura flourished for 1,300 years and was abandoned after the invasion of 993. UNESCO’s detailed description identifies the invading force as the Chola army from the mainland.

The consequences were enormous.

The political centre shifted.

The old capital was abandoned.

Polonnaruwa became the second capital after the destruction of Anuradhapura.

UNESCO records that Polonnaruwa became Sri Lanka’s second capital after the destruction of Anuradhapura in 993 and contains monuments constructed by the Cholas during their occupation.

The archaeological record goes even further.

Sri Lanka’s Department of Archaeology’s submission concerning Rajagala records that the monastery was vacated following the South Indian invasions of 993 and 1017 and describes the impact of the Chola invasion on the Anuradhapura civilization and the movement of population southwards.

This is not “shared civilization”.

This is historical contact that included invasion and occupation.

And that distinction matters.

 

WE CANNOT TAKE ONLY THE BEAUTIFUL PARTS OF HISTORY

If Buddhism came to Sri Lanka from the Indian subcontinent, we acknowledge it.

If people travelled between the two regions, we acknowledge it.

If ideas travelled, we acknowledge it.

If trade existed, we acknowledge it.

But if armies crossed the sea and invaded Sri Lanka, we acknowledge that too.

If Anuradhapura was destroyed and abandoned after invasion, we acknowledge that.

If Sri Lankan political power was displaced, we acknowledge that.

 

History cannot be made “shared” simply by selecting the parts that create a pleasant modern narrative.

 

There is a difference between:

contact

and

common civilization.

 

There is a difference between:

influence

and

identity.

 

There is a difference between:

religious transmission

and

political belonging.

 

There is a difference between:

neighbourhood

and

civilizational sameness.

 

AND SRI LANKA’S STORY DID NOT RUN ONLY NORTHWARDS

This is perhaps the most important part missing from the “Sri Lanka–India civilizational twin” narrative.

 

Sri Lanka’s Buddhist civilization developed connections across the Indian Ocean.

Toward Myanmar.

Toward Thailand.

Toward Cambodia.

Toward Laos.

Toward the wider Theravada Buddhist world.

Sri Lanka was not simply a cultural recipient.

It became a major centre of Theravada Buddhism.

And the relationship eventually became reciprocal.

In times where Buddhism was under attack – it was our theravadi relations in Burma & Thailand who came to our rescue. That bond can never be broken.

 

A particularly powerful example is 1753.

Sri Lanka’s Buddhist higher ordination tradition had declined.

The Most Venerable Upali Thera travelled from Ayutthaya in Siam to Kandy and restored the higher ordination of the Sri Lankan Sangha.

This established the Siam Nikaya.

Sri Lanka’s own Ministry of Foreign Affairs describes the 1753 mission as the restoration of Upasampada and the beginning of the Siam Nikaya, an enduring Sri Lanka–Thailand Buddhist connection.

 

When Sri Lanka needed to revive an important part of its Buddhist monastic institution, the historical connection was not simply with modern India.

It was with Siam — Thailand.

 

THE BUDDHIST MAP IS BIGGER THAN INDIA

Sri Lankan Buddhism belongs to a wider Theravada world.

Sri Lanka.

Myanmar.

Thailand.

Cambodia.

Laos.

There were monks.

There were scriptures.

There were ordination lineages.

There were religious journeys.

There were royal connections.

There were exchanges across the Indian Ocean.

Sri Lanka’s contemporary Ministry of Foreign Affairs continues to describe the relationship with Thailand as based on centuries-old Theravada Buddhist ties.

So why should Sri Lanka’s civilizational identity be reduced to a single relationship with India?

Why should the map stop at the Palk Strait?

 

NOW COME INTO A SRI LANKAN HOME

Forget kings for a moment.

Forget diplomatic speeches.

Forget strategic partnerships.

If someone says two countries are “civilizational twins”, examine the civilization as it is actually lived.

 

Walk into a Sri Lankan kitchen.

Look at the rice.

Look at the coconut.

Look at how spices are prepared.

Look at how curries are cooked.

Look at kiri bath.

Pol sambol.

Hoppers.

String hoppers.

Kavum.

Kokis.

Jackfruit.

Breadfruit.

Goraka.

Maldive fish.

Coconut milk.

 

The way food is served.

The way people eat.

The food prepared for Avurudu.

The food offered at a dana.

The food associated with weddings.

The food associated with funerals.

The rituals associated with the kitchen itself.

This is civilization.

 

Then look beyond food.

How do we greet an elder?

How do we approach a monk?

How do we conduct a Bodhi pooja?

How do we organise pirith?

How do we conduct dana?

How do we celebrate Vesak?

How do we celebrate Poson?

How do we conduct a perahera?

How do we mourn the dead?

How do we marry?

How do we observe auspicious times?

How do we build our temples?

How do we organise village life?

How do we relate the temple to the community?

How do we relate the tank to the paddy field?

How do we dance?

How do we drum?

How do we tell stories?

How do we build our homes?

How do we practise hospitality?

These are not diplomatic concepts.

These are lived civilization.

 

And they deserve to be examined honestly rather than simply declared “shared” because two countries are neighbours.

 

SRI LANKA DOES NOT NEED TO DENY INDIA

This is not about denying India’s historical importance.

It is not about denying centuries of contact.

It is not about denying South Indian influence.

It is not about denying the existence of Indian-origin communities in Sri Lanka.

All of those histories we acknowledge.

But acknowledgment does not require surrendering distinction.

Sri Lanka can acknowledge influence without accepting identity.

 

And there is another fundamental problem.

India itself cannot be treated as one culturally uniform civilization when its own regions developed through vastly different historical experiences.

If North India and South India themselves cannot simply be treated as culturally identical, why should Sri Lanka — an island with its own political history, its own kingdoms, its own language, its own Buddhist institutions, its own hydraulic civilization and its own cultural practices — be absorbed into an all-encompassing definition of “Indian civilization”?

 

THE QUESTION INDIA MUST ANSWER

India’s official narrative describes the relationship as more than 2,500 years old and speaks of “strong civilizational and historical” connections.

 

India is entitled to describe its relationship with Sri Lanka as it wishes.

But Sri Lanka is equally entitled to ask:

Where is the evidence that Sri Lanka and India were one civilization?

Not evidence of contact.

Not evidence of trade.

Not evidence of migration.

Not evidence of Buddhism travelling from the Indian subcontinent.

Not evidence of South Indian influence.

Evidence that Sri Lanka and the territories that became modern India constituted one civilization.

 

When the historical record contains invasion, occupation, destruction and the displacement of Sri Lanka’s political centres, the claim becomes even more difficult to sustain.

 

WE MUST NOT LET A MODERN POLITICAL NARRATIVE REWRITE AND REPLACE AN ANCIENT HISTORY

The modern Republic of India was born in 1947.

Sri Lanka became independent in 1948.

But both countries inherited histories far older than their modern independence dates.

 

The difference is that Sri Lanka’s history is the history of an island civilization that developed its own kingdoms, institutions and traditions.

India’s modern state brought together a vast and extraordinarily diverse subcontinental political landscape.

 

The two countries subsequently became neighbours.

They developed relations.

They traded.

They exchanged people and ideas.

They cooperated.

They also experienced conflict.

But none of this automatically makes them civilizational twins.

 

SRI LANKA IS NOT AN EXTENSION OF INDIA AND SHOULD NEVER TRY TO BE

Sri Lanka is a distinct island civilization.

It has been influenced by modern India.

It has interacted with South India.

It has suffered invasions from South India.

It has traded across the Indian Ocean.

It has maintained and developed Theravada Buddhism.

It has formed deep religious links with the wider Buddhist world.

It has developed its own language, literature, architecture, rituals, food, social practices, music, dance, irrigation systems and political traditions.

This is what makes Sri Lanka unique

 

DO THE CONNECTIONS BETWEEN SRI LANKA & INDIA MAKE US CIVILIZATIONAL TWINS?

NO.

If India itself contains multiple distinct civilizational traditions, if the modern Indian state emerged only in 1947, if Sri Lanka had already developed its own civilization for millennia, if the historical relationship included invasion and occupation, and if Sri Lanka’s Buddhist civilization also developed deep links with the Theravada societies of Southeast Asia — on what historical basis should Sri Lanka be defined as India’s “civilizational twin”?

NEIGHBOURS — YES.

HISTORICAL CONTACT — YES.

RELIGIOUS AND CULTURAL INFLUENCE — YES.

TRADE AND EXCHANGE — YES.

A SHARED POLITICAL HISTORY — NO.

ONE CIVILIZATION — NO.

CIVILIZATIONAL TWINS — DEFINITELY NOT.

 

Sri Lanka has its own civilization.

And Sri Lanka — not another country — has the right to define what that civilization is.

 

 

 

Shenali D Waduge