Did You Know ‘Eelam’ originally referred to the Island of the Sinhalese?

 

Eelam — a word that triggered a 30-year conflict — must be urgently re-examined.

The term “Tamil Eelam” has come to symbolize demands for a separate Tamil state in Sri Lanka. But few stop to ask: What did “Eelam” originally mean? Contrary to separatist claims, historical, linguistic, and literary evidence shows that “Eelam” once referred to the entire island of Sri Lanka, long recognized as the homeland of the Sinhalese people. This article unpacks how a term rooted in Sinhalese identity and Buddhist culture was later repackaged into a political slogan to justify ethnic separatism. The United Nations, foreign diplomats, and Sri Lanka’s own Foreign Ministry must take serious note of this historical distortion.

 

1. Linguistic Roots: ‘Eelam’ and the Hela or Elu People

The term “Eelam” (ஈழம்) is widely accepted by scholars to be a cognate of “Hela” or “Elu”—terms used to refer to the ancient Sinhalese people.

 

The Madras Tamil Lexicon (University of Madras, 1924) defines “Eelam” as a Tamil adaptation of the term for Sri Lanka, without linking it to Tamil ethnicity.

 

Scholars like Dr. K. Indrapala and Kamil Zvelebil confirm that the word denotes the island of Lanka as a whole, rather than a region specific to Tamil habitation.

Thus, even etymology refutes the notion that “Eelam” was ever inherently Tamil.

2. Early Tamil Literature: Eelam as a Foreign Land

Contrary to modern claims, ancient Tamil texts portray Eelam as foreign, distant, and Buddhist island—not as a Tamil homeland.

 

1.Purananuru (circa 300 BCE – 300 CE)

Verse 56 praises a Tamil king for conquering Eelam, implying it was a separate, external territory. (you do not conquer what is yours – if it is yours)

 

2. Silappatikaram (2nd century CE)

Refers to Eelam as a land across the sea, confirming its distinctness from Tamilakam.

 

3.Manimekalai (6th century CE)

The heroine, Manimekalai, sails to Eelam, depicted as an island inhabited by Buddhists, with established shrines and monks.

This aligns with the Sinhalese Anuradhapura Buddhist civilization, not a Tamil Buddhist presence.

 

Zvelebil, in The Smile of Murugan (1973), writes: “The Eelam referred to in the epic is not a Tamil land, but a foreign island known for its Buddhist establishments.”

 

Indrapala, in The Evolution of an Ethnic Identity (2005), affirms:

“In Manimekalai, the land of Eelam is presented as a distant Buddhist island… [reflecting] Sri Lanka’s Sinhalese Buddhist identity even in early Tamil imagination.”

 

The classical Tamil literary corpus consistently portrays Eelam as an island distinct from Tamilakam, inhabited by a Buddhist civilization linked to the Sinhalese. This evidence refutes the modern separatist narrative that claims Eelam as a historic Tamil homeland.

 

3. Colonial and Scholarly Consensus

 

Both colonial records and modern scholarship consistently affirm that “Eelam” referred to the island of Sri Lanka as a whole, and never denoted a Tamil ethnic homeland or separate polity.

 

Colonial Evidence:

• Portuguese (16th–17th century)and Dutch (17th–18^th century) administrators referred to the island as “Ceilão” (Ceylon) and described the dominant native polity as the Sinhalese Buddhist kingdoms of Kotte, Sitawaka, and Kandy.
• The so-called Jaffna Kingdom was regarded by the Portuguese as a subordinate, South Indian-linked outpost, not an indigenous Tamil kingdom. It was militarily subdued in 1619 and was never recognized as a sovereign entity.
• No treaties were signed with a “Tamil kingdom” as equal parties. The colonial powers negotiated with Sinhalese kings, indicating who held recognized sovereignty.

 

Scholarly Commentary:

 

Prof. K. Indrapala, in The Evolution of an Ethnic Identity (2005), states:

“In early Tamil literature, ‘Eelam’ appears as a geographic term for the island of Lanka, not as a designation for a Tamil polity or homeland.”

 

Dr. Kamil Zvelebil, renowned Czech linguist, confirms in The Smile of Murugan (1973):

“The usage of ‘Eelam’ in classical Tamil works referred to the island as a whole and did not imply an exclusive Tamil cultural or political domain.”

 

Colonial Chroniclers and Observers

 

Even 19th-century British administrators, like Sir Hugh Cleghorn and Robert Percival, made clear distinctions between “nations” on the island, consistently identifying the Sinhalese as the majority indigenous people.

 

Philippus Baldaeus (1672)

In his work “A Description of the East Indian Coasts of Malabar and Coromandel”, Baldaeus clearly identifies the island of Ceylon (Sri Lanka) as the land of the Sinhalese, and not as a Tamil homeland.

 

• He refers to the Sinhalese as the original inhabitantsof the island, describing them as having a well-developed civilization with their own language, religion (Buddhism), and system of governance.
• The Tamil (Malabar) population is described as migrant, and their presence in the North as relatively recent.
• Baldaeus never uses the term “Eelam”to describe a Tamil land — nor does he identify any part of the island as a Tamil homeland.
• “The Chingalese (Sinhalese) are the proper natives of the island, very jealous of their independence…”
  – Philippus Baldaeus, 1672

 

Fernão de Queyroz (17th century, translated 1930 by Fr. S.G. Perera)

• In “The Temporal and Spiritual Conquest of Ceylon”, Queyroz describes the island as a land historically ruled by Sinhala kings, with references to Buddhism, Anuradhapura, and Kandy.
• He identifies the island consistently as Ceylon, ruled by a Sinhalese Buddhist monarchic tradition — with no ethnic Tamil kingdom described as native or sovereign.
• The northern kinglets are mentioned as tributaries or rebels, not sovereign rulers of an ethnically distinct Tamil homeland.
• “Ceylon, the land of the Chingalas [Sinhalese], is ancient and noble, long governed by their own kings until our conquest…”

– Fernão de Queyroz

 

Robert Knox (1681) “An Historical Relation of the Island Ceylon”

• Knox, an Englishman who lived in Kandyan captivity for 20 years, provides detailed firsthand descriptions of the Sinhalese as the native peopleof the island.
• He never refers to the Tamils as native rulers or original inhabitants.
• “The Chingulays (Sinhalese) are the natural inhabitants of the Island… The Malabars [Tamils] dwell in the North and are fewer in number.”

 

Sir Emerson Tennent (1859) Ceylon: An Account of the Island

• British colonial administrator who described the Sinhalese as the principal raceand custodians of the island’s ancient civilization.
• Noted the Buddhist heritage, irrigation systems, and citiesas products of Sinhalese rule.
• “The Sinhalese are the true representatives of the ancient races of Ceylon… The northern Tamils are comparatively recent immigrants.”

 

Hugh Cleghorn (1799) – British Colonial Secretary

• Famous Memorandum (June 1799):

Often quoted (though sometimes selectively), Cleghorn distinguishes between “nations” within the island but emphasizes Sinhalese historical primacy.

• “…two different nations from a very early period have divided between them the possession of the island… the Sinhalese, the proper natives, inhabit the southern and central parts…”
• Key Point:Even though Tamils are acknowledged as a group in the North, they are not described as native to the island in the sense of political or civilizational primacy.

 

Dr. John Davy (1821) An Account of the Interior of Ceylon

• British physician and military officer.
• Describes Kandy as the heartland of Sinhalese civilization, with a clearly Buddhist identity and governance structure.
• “The interior of the island is the stronghold of the Kandyan Sinhalese, guardians of the island’s ancient faith and culture.”

 

Henry Parker (1909) “Ancient Ceylon”

• British engineer and historian.
• Acknowledges that the island’s irrigation systems, megalithic monuments, and religious institutionsare clearly of Sinhalese origin.
• “There is no evidence that the Tamils were responsible for the great irrigation works of Ceylon. These are attributed to the ancient Sinhalese kings.”

 

All these authors — colonial administrators, missionaries, scholars, and captives — independently affirm that:

• The Sinhalese were the native and dominant populationacross the island.
• Tamil settlements in the North were recognized as South Indian-origin migrant communities, not indigenous rulers.
• The island’s name, culture, and identity were associated with the Sinhalese— not with a separate Tamil homeland.

 

4. The Modern Hijack: From Literature to Militancy

 

The term “Tamil Eelam” as a designation for a separate Tamil state or homeland did not exist historically and was only politicized in the late 20th century, particularly during the 1970s.

 

• TheVaddukoddai Resolution (1976), adopted by the Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF), formally demanded the creation of an independent Tamil state called “Tamil Eelam.”
• This political demand marked thefirst major appropriation of the ancient term “Eelam” for ethnic separatism.
• Soon after, theLiberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) emerged as the militant force seeking to realize this separatist agenda, using the term extensively in propaganda and warfare.

 

Key Points:

• The ancient term“Eelam” originally referred to the entire island of Sri Lanka, with no exclusive Tamil ethnic or territorial connotation.
• The modern usage as“Tamil Eelam” is a retroactive political construction, deliberately designed to fabricate a historical and cultural justification for separatism.
• This is aclassic example of linguistic revisionism and political rebranding, which distorts historical facts to serve contemporary nationalist and militant objectives.

 

Implication:

The political and militant use of “Tamil Eelam” today is detached from its historical and linguistic origins, and should be understood as a modern ideological invention rather than an ancient or indigenous Tamil homeland claim.

 

If the term “Eelam” originates from “Hela”—the name used for the ancient Sinhalese people—and historically referred to the island ruled by Sinhalese kings, then a critical question arises:

• Are Tamil separatists demanding a homeland on behalf of the Sinhalese?
• How can international actors and human rights bodies support a movement whose very name undermines its ethnic and historical claims?

This contradiction is not trivial. It exposes the historical and moral bankruptcy of the “Tamil Eelam” narrative and its fabricated foundations.

 

Restore Historical Accuracy

• The word“Eelam” was never Tamil—not in origin, literary usage, or territorial association.
• It consistently referred tothe entire island of Sri Lanka, which was historically inhabited, governed, and defended by the Sinhalese for over two millennia.
• Themodern appropriation of this term by separatists is a deliberate distortion—a linguistic hijack aimed at constructing a false historical justification for a political and militant agenda.

 

Let’s ask the Right Question:

 

The next time you hear the phrase “Tamil Eelam,” ask:
Isn’t it, in fact, referring to the island of the Sinhalese?

And how many billions have been spent globally—by NGOs, governments, and lobbies—to fund a separatist campaign for a land whose very name proves it was never theirs but always belonged to the Sinhalese – —who, both in history and today, have always stepped forward to defend it, even sacrificing their lives.

 

 

 

Shenali D Waduge