Ceylon and

Sri Vijaya

By

K. A. NILAKANTA SASTRI

In a paper entitled 'Ceylon and Malayasia in Mediaeval Times'

(JRASCB-VII. I. 196o) Dr. S. Paranavitana attemptEd t_o- establish
that the Sinhalese Kingdom of Ceylon was bound with Sri Vijaya in a
far more intirnate political and naval alliance than has so far beeu
realized; this thesislf it is proved on sound and clear evidence would
constitute a new and important addition to our knowledge of the times.
It is essential therefore to test every link in the chain of evidence put
forward in Paranavitana's argument.
He starts by pointing out that the relative geographical positions
of Ce)'lon and the Malay peninsula would suggest 'that the history
of the Sinhalese and of the Malays would have been influenced by each
other,' but so far the only instance of historical contact between these two
regions recognized by historians is 'the episode of Candrabhanu's raid
on Ceylon', in the thirtee.nth century A.D. He then cites a rhetorical
descriirtion of Candrabh6nu's prowess fi-om the HatthavanagallaVihdraaahsa and says that 'this description, particularly the reference
to feudatory ntlers, would call to one's mind a potentate like the
Mahdraja oI Zabag whose might and wealth have been extolled by
Arab geographers, rather than a local ruler of obscure orlgin__who had
recently ihaken off his allegiance to the suzerain of Sri Vijaya as
Candrabhanu is generally believed to have been by historians' (3).
But this is exac[ly what is warranted by the Jaiya inscription of
Candrabhdnu whgre he is assigned to the PafrcandavarhSa or Padmavarh6a, and not Sailendravarhsa; and knowing as we do lnow praiasti
writers boost their patrons, we must hold that there is really no evidence
other than Paranavitana's wish, in favour of Candrabhanu being
regarded. as of the line of Maharajas of. Zabag (Sri Vijaya). His
soldiers are called J6.vakas in Pali, Sinhalese and Tamil simply because
that is the name by which Malays and Javanese were known in South
India and Ceylon at the time.
Then Paranavitana discusses the home of Dhammakittithera
who came to Ceylon at the invitation of Parakkamabahu II in whose
reign Candrabhdnu's invasion of Ceylon also took,place. He shows
thtt the Pujaaatt calls it Tamalingam, while tlne Culauathsa calls it
Tambarattha. Hence, he says: 'it follows that Tambalinga country
rvas also known as Tambarattha. In fact, Tambarattha appears to be
an abbreviation of Tambalingarattha'(4). The last surmise becomes
the basis of the view that Parakkamabahu II got down Dhammakitti
from Candrabhd.nu's court, (though the name of the King of Tamba'
rattha is not given in the originaf after sending presents to him inclu-

L26 JOUII,NAL, I],.A.S. (CEYLON) VoI VIII, part | (New Seriesy, \962
ding the Buddha image said to ha'e been taken from cevlon to Dharpara-j.a;Na-Sara (Ligor) in the Jinakatatnatinn; aIl thii despite the
hostilities between the two rulers. But this ail too hastv combination
of surmises with data from.desparate sources is directly precluded b1,

Paranavitana's own citations from pali rvorks. Buddharakkhita's

description of his orvn qualifications is as follows:L ad.dhd,b hi
L

anktttale

eko a ar a- p anQitehi
C

oliy a-T amb aratthe

Here. the last.phrase cannot possibly mean ,Coliya (country) and the
Tambaratfha' as Paranavitana intlrprets it, birt ieally in Tambaof thecola (countrJ'), note the ibsence of alocatir,'eending a{ter
1at'!na
cotrya anl the compound rvord coliya-Tambarattha, rvhich is" clear
warning that even if there be any other Tambaroiina' (which mav be
gerrated with rambaralinga), that is not what is meant in this coniext.
Likewise Anuraddha Thera's mention of his birth in a familv of Kd.viranagara in the excellent,Kaflcipura Ra!_tha, ancl his living in TaAja
nagara of rambaraltha leaves no doubt about the pro'enince of the
thera; obviously it was South India. But paranivitana discredits
this pri-rna facie view o{ 'some Pali Scholars,, saying: ,but there are
many.place names in the.Malay Peninsula of r,vhich Tinjong (meaning
'Cape') forms the first elemeni. There was, in fact, a'Tuiifne_pu.u
somewhere in the Malay Peninsula, rvhich would very well h^nE t."tt
the Taiij a-nagara referred to in the p ar am.atthaaini cciay a.There is also
a Tanjong Tambeling'(5). .8."t it should be obvious to any one who
has no interest in maintaining an 'original' thesis, that not all the
Tanjongs in Malaya-can help the argum-ent here relating to a passage
which is unmistakably and manifestly South Indian iil content. tVe
may_note further that. Paranavitana's ingenuity can offer no location
for_Kaflcipura in lfalayailgr does he-produce any evid.ence that
Malaya was reputed for Pali scholarship as we kn6w sruth lndia

was {rom many sources.

The method folloi,ved by Paranavitana to establish that Tamal_

ingam or Tarhbalingam is the same as Tambarattha cannot be looked
qpon as sound. He says that the Pujltualn mentions Tamalingam as
the original home of Dhammakitti rvhich is recorded as Tambirattha
inth-e Culaaathsa, and the name Tamalingam is given as the home of
candrabhanu and his Jar-akas in sorne late Sinhilese works rike the
Rdjaratnrkarq, 9nr1 th"erefore the Sinhalese name Tamalingam is the
equivalent of the Pali rarirbalinga as well as Tarirbaraitha. This
arg_ument seems

to rrs highll'fillacious in itself-b.cauie in

the

cul"aaarh,sa itself there is no {race of any con{usion betr,veen Tarhbralinga

an^d rarhbarattha, forms which are ciearly distinguished and used ln

difierent contexts altogether; the argument also"flies in the face of

the clear indications of the location of Tarhbarattha in South India in the

citations Parana'itana himself has made 'irom Buddharakkhita's
Jinalankara and Anuruddha thera's paratnatthauinicchaya (notes zr

CEYLON AND SIiI VIJAYA

T27

and zz of his article). Geiger has rightiy said that Tambarattha u'as
probably a province in South India (CV. tr. p. r55 n. z). We cannot
follor'v Paranavitana in referring to Tambralinga the data found in
Ceylon writings on Tambarattha (6).

Paranavitana's main efiort is clirected tor'vards showing that

Candrabhanu's invasions of Ceylon are not the isolated occurrences
lr,hich they have so far been held to be, but 'the result of a long historical process and that the people from Malayasia had played a very
important part in the history of this island'(6); and 'the Kalinga Kings
of Polonnaru u'ere of the same race as the Maharaj as of Zabag' (Sr).
This demonstration, if successful, r,vould indeed constitute a notabie
addition to our knorvledge of South Asian history. Let us follorv the
steps in the argument and estimate the measure of its cogency and
convincing character.
The first point he seeks to establish is that like Candrabhanu,
Magha, generally held to have come to Ceylon from I{alinga in India,
rvas also a Malay. The proof runs as follows: Candrabhanu's soldiers

are described as Javakas in the Culauafu,sa and the Pujuuah,; bfi

the RajaualT calls them as army of Malalas; the same work states
that Magha who sacked Polonnaru in rzr3 did so with zo,ooo
Malalas. The Pd,jaaalt also, 'written less than sixty years after
llagha's sack of Polonnam', states that Migha took u,ith him an
army of 4o,ooo of rvhom 24,ooo were Malalas and the rest Tamils.
The equation of Malala rvith Javaka rests on the Rajaualz, a late
rvork, but Paranavitana is not daunted by this and holds: 'But
it is not impossible that the Rajataln hacl recorded, in this instancc,
a genuine tradition, not noticed in the earlier u'ritings' (6). No one can
admit the identity of Nlalalas and Javakas on the basis of such a desparate and wishful guess.
After all, lhe Culaaarhsa is our earliest systematic authority on tire
mediaeval history of Ceylon, and lve should be very slor,v to prefer to
its authority the confusion of later chronicles and the rhetoric or
metaphors of equaily late literary works as the foundation for sober
history. In the Culaaathsa there is no trace of any confusion as regards
Magha rvho is said definiteiy to have come from the Kalinga line rvith
a body of. zq,ooo rvarriors from the Kalinga Country. Later l{dgha's
soldiers are also described as 'Kerala Warriors' and Damila Warriors
(C.V. 8o.6r and 7o), which clearly establishes the Indian and South
Indian character of the invasion rvhich ended in l{agha's rulership of
Ceylon betrveen rzr4 and 1235 A.D., according to Geiger's chronologv.
Ceylon's continued association rvith Orissan Kalinga is attested not
only by the legencls relating to the foundation of Sinhalese monarchy
by Vijaya, the introduction of Buddhism into the island and of the
sacred bo-tree, but by material finds of relatively late historicai
times, such as: (r) gold fanams dated in regnal years r to r9 of Anantavarman Coda Ganga of the Eastern Ganga dynasty found at Haragama
(Kandy Dt.) in r9zo, and the decidedly East Ganga emblems and

128 JOUIiNAL, I{.A.S. (CEYLON) YoI' VlII, Part

1 (t\ctt:

'Se;'iics)'

symbols on the coins of the Arya Cakravartis of Jaffna (Ccdrington-C'ozzs

iy C eyton.,pages 74 and 9o) . In the face of s'ch clear and decisir.e indications of tfie lndlan Origin of Magha, we cannot accept his l,Ialay origi'
the <lesignation o{ 'ir,[alal:rs' conferrctl on
on such flimsy evider-r.i
"r
of Candrabhanu in tbe RdjuL-alt"
as
these
well
his sol<liers as

That being so, \'vc may leave on one side the elaborate disquisition of ParanJvitana calcirlated to shorv that 1lalalas werc lfalays,
anrl to clistinguisb }lalaya of the east {rom I'Iala1'a-Nalabar on the
basis of a sinflc.o--odit1', the cubeb(takkola), said to have figured
among the tributes brouglrt to the Bodhisatta at Beuares; we may
"hower.er,
that lie is not sure of the provcnance ol the Malalas,
note,
wheiher they come from Malay Peninsula proPer or from Jambi (Sum-

atra), but c-ontents himself lvith sa5ting that

in anv case they rvere

Malays.

ThatCandrablranuwasaMalay(.}avaka)is<lircctlystatedby
thc Culqaamsa ancl needed t-tu ptooi. The reacler therelortl rubs his
,ui.n he finds Parana'itana solemnly rvriting: 'Candrabliamr
"y.,
#ho invacled Ceylon rvith a {orce of Javaka or Malala soldiers being
conclusivelv pro,red to be a prince from the Nlaiav Pcninsula, the
inference ttui Uagna, ivho similarly brought rvitir him au army oI
Nlalala r,varriors, r,r'is also a Malay from the same or an adjoining region,
seems justifiabie' (ro). There is nothing neu' hcre, ancl the rvhole

rests on'the word Malala rvliose pr-obative I'alue' .1: *'"

calls liim 'the Kalinga',
been calied 'Kalinga'
1'rave
regions
Malay
the
that
infers
Paranavitana
in the Sinhalese historical r'vritings (ro)' He thus starts by assuming
what he has got to provc if the cirrrent 'ier.v that makes Nlagha come
from Orissan'kaLnga is to be cli.scarclecl' Then h-e qllotes It C llajumJu.;, opinio't that 'tire adoption of a ner'v namt Kalinga for-Ilalal-sia' at
least bi, the foreignerr.*sr'nn" of thcrcsultsof the rise of the'Siriiendra

"rgo**t
have seen is next to ni1. But as the Cut,aaa'irzsa

bv no means a correct statemcnt though lg \1torv

ir-t.i lr"r.t:t .uli.J-tniirns Klings-'ometimcs' possil'11
Sai]en(lra
''t"1lt-'l'1)lt]'ts"
was the hjme of a lrr ge numbcrl ,,I them. Whai the rise ol the
in
)lajumdirl
Elsenhcre
ubscttre'
i:
alc'r
this
ooner has tu d,,,tir'li
Incuan
the
after
namecl
i..i'ia"*iir., Hn 1i"g in Java as Kaliriga,
Kingclom Swr,ar ttadt'r''fa (p. rrz)'
To transport Maghrr to a }Ialaysian home Par.anar'itana actrially
Hc quotes thc statemcnt from a iate
imanu{actures some
"'i,id"r-r.".of P.-,lbnnartr Kingdom came from ,Ian'ipatiiuotf. tliat the clcstrol'crs
rvere people
iiirpi, ^ra prnmptll: sei., that if.tht. soicliers-of l,lagha
it
earlier-they
of
not
sure
was
Sumatra--he
i.;il lh" .1amli t,.i"u'ir.,
Jambidip.a' and tlie
;i;hilt;i" f.",t a...iitr"cl irs having cometo from
familiar Jambu
more
the
ccpyist
a
by
tnil" ,tt"1 have becn changecl
necdless!
clipa. Comment on to.ii i".ttiun-b'iging,argumentation is
'pru\
e(l''
hc
tnn
13y .,tclr -11[,rl> rll) thing

;;;";;: ih;t .;;;;

(-]IIY],ON -\ND

1962

,lese

S]iI

\TIJAY;\

I29

Again, Paranavitana- tells us that in the earlier of thc trvo Sinliarreisions (A.D. r38z) of the Pali I'r'ork,under relcrencc, the expres-

,i,,n Jaml)w-dt:rpi-prade;a occlrrs in the placc of Jan'rb'dvipa of

"f
Fie thcn cites tlie \r5yu Purana on six Jamb'dvipapii,e pati-original.
"establish that all pradeias of
Jambudvipa rvere . outside
to
i,r.l"so,
-Jambudvipa
itself. But rvhy the plain Pali text should be ignored,
,'r"a no"'tire Vayu Purala i.s relevant to an unclerstanding of a fourThe plain_fri.ma
t"""tr, century Sinhale,se tcxt are left uncrplained.:r regi't-t
of Jamb'irr;, -.ur-ri'rg-oI .Jamb'd'ipa-pracle6a is obvio'sl1'
( ame fi om
oI
Polorttr:rlrl
,1-stluyets
ii
tlre
to
. i,lip.. rnrl ir.corilirru
{ridia ond ttollterc cl<tr.
To erplain tbe culattaitsa rerferenue to l{agha's soldicrs as Keralas,
resrtrts to thc tribes arnollg thc Karo iSataks of Sumatra
rr,ho bore the names co!a, PAlclSrar, Pallava zrnd llala_-vaia, to which
Iioln clrcrv attention, but tvith tie clcar car.ttion tlrat no one can tell
|r,hen atncl how thcse lames came intg vogue; Paran:rltitttna is not with-

-Faranervitana

,,"i o" inkling of thc u'eal<ness of his aigument, Ior he arclds: 'but it

rn:ry bc cltubied $,heihcr thcse tribes ancl srrch others r.r'ere numerous
,rrtrrrgh in those cla\,s trl provicle.a {orce of 24,ooa to l'Iagha.' (rz)'
illr",r"h" puts fonvaril thc istonishing proposition 'that "Kerala" is the
,',.,rrr,
,vh'i.h the ancicnt Inclian nir-me ior the pcoplc of Mal11'asia
Lncl l.-urther Inclia hacl assumed in ceylon, and tliat its iclentity of lorm
,r'ith the designation of the peoplc of I'Ialabar is accidental'. (rz)'-'fhe
,lirmonstra.tioir of tlic hrst pirt irf this proposition consists in a philoi,,gi.ol cxcursLls jn rvhich the Kiratas ir'ho inhabit thc l.nds east of
[,ii]nratavarsa accorclingto the Vayu Purlrna are successivelv. identi{rcd
ii'ith the Kirrharloi ol ijtolemy, und thc Cilata of the Nagarjurllkg+da
:llscriptions, :rncl tlien \ve a.re assured tliat the cleriYative lorm Kairata
and
r1l clcrlvent tr plronological progression I{er-ata} Kerata)- Kerada,
r

frim Bhaiuho..l,ito ftirther Inclia ancl thcir Yisits to the

Cct,ion are iuvokccl in support-of this 'normal phonetical
:i,.r-elopmcnt, e'en if the Sinhalese themselr'es dicl not visit thcse iands
lilcl come ilr contact s,ith tiie peopie caIlecl Kjr-atas' (r3)' He- adds
rh:rt the Tamil nan-rc l(idaram comes '{r-om Kir:1clam throlrgh the
r'ru-niliar plionological pr(,cess oI the cerabralization of the dentnl d
and rvlsh just^to say that
:rrrrl rnctaihesis' (i:). I r'n not a
plar-rsible,
,iltile all this souniii insenious anil
'hi1,rlogist, it is also far-fctchcd and
linconvincing. I clo not think tbat u'ithorLt a favourite thesis to maintain
I .rr.,lar it;rrta u,,rtltl ltlr','con.i,lct'erl qttclt algllmenl- rvortlr lris serittts

-.',he

tr-aclcrs

;rilrts ol

rlttrilliott. Until lr, ltel' ,'r irlcttee ['rr lnotlter r ierv js ["]-tlrcumitrg,
to accept the term Kcralas in the chroniclcs
ll Ccvktn in its establisliecl scnse of the people of tlie l'falabar coast in

reaclc.rs u,oulcl continue

i

nclia.

FnraniLvitana stresscs the lact that the Ker:ilas finc1 mention in

I:\e Ct1lat.:aritsd as a peoptre cluring times rvhen thc Kaiinga influence
uas tloinina't in Cetio''politics; [r-anting this is so, it pror,'es nothing
i*r the clecjsion on ii.r" locatiol ,)f Kolir-tgn i1 Inclia or )Ialaysia, ancl

?450-li

30

JOIIRNAL, R A'$ (CTEYLON) l:ot'' l'I

' Ilart | (\'eu;

Series)' 1962

refcrs us to the 'adequate

Paranavitana's concluclilrg statemc-rtt onl]'
Kaliriga t'r be a region in
}lAgha:s
t;kit'g
r{-A-oni'alreadl'glt"tt'iol
i'fli"r;;i. i;;y. iltJf',n.."-,-",.11"ii"3 an1)'r,,.n aclequ-ate reasolls edd.ced
by him.
Paranar,itanaaslrs:rvhys1rouli1}IalayAlissubniittoxfagharv.lro
that the bcst ansr'ver to this
was not of }lalabar ottgi"i'i{" 'Lrggg;ts
ut.,tir-ltiglra und-l(ernlas a' also Maglra's country

ir"to'ruooot" tnat
(rr). Tlre'ugge'tion again
ii"'Ljo-J"^r" oi'-l't,,t.,,1*i.i-prnr, nurrce
tlrr- r'r'ell l<norvn lacts
overlouk:
ancl
tt
1"oi"a
:'JlH: t;l;";i'.:'i;
lristory
tlrrouglrorrt
ulriq.uit,,,'r
,.and
that thc llalayalis r,l, "' rrll*-

r."at'I" *"];;{'h;t"
ot it
""Tifr"t"ll"i"'t

in scarch of service as merceneries' emong others'

much nearer Ceylon than Malaysia'

iil''l'5i

xua's'statemetrts at'e P"tently.\won,s'-^19 yq

l"
the rlepen'clencl'bt ce5'lon on sri
tr.'"ii,ir'i.-iJ

ir.'""

|^f,';#;.,,,,r.
"I
Vij,aya '::*9 b"
Viiava rt'as correct. tr;;;li-iitt:as' Magh'a and Sri
Kalinga and i'e nationalitv
oi
r.,o-,'i.n,t
r-'i.
;;ii,'-i,'.;;Ji,.. ""riii jtt"ntliated to. bc ii ancl lrom Malaysia'
;i;i:.';t;";t h..'" 6"t,-''
i; identiiy Nan-pi undel whose mle
rvhich is by no mean;lit"-;;;;.j"tites the Devundara
4""',,eutu'l^ttituttu
Cevion is piaced Uy Cftutt
Vijayathe.family,of
that
pri'tiu#abrhu
stating
lI
.leh inscriotio,-t of
or his
placethe
and
somaraja'
;i;J'iTi'|u::';;;.,1';ii;;'a N"*bu'" 'Th.e Nan-pi o[ Chau '[u-Kua
birth was Namliabaral^'"na*-ntttraes: tn Vijavahahu llI or his home
must,lherelore, hc t;k;';';;;i;;;;t'
(r4' n' 67)'
town, rvhere

tti, ,n'-t"ioiu'tI"i", i,'tf'ttt than'to-Malabar'

again ingenious, but not probable nor convlnclng'

Then Paranavitana quotes tine Pujnuali, re{erence

to

M.agha as

ooy- thal'l\{agharaia seems

' tlre Kalinga t<ine,.;;;d liagi*ta1t'
"nd
oiXI"ltatalt'. the Arab title
tor*
to be a pali rcnd.erin;';i;;;i;.;'o'rt (Jataka)'
fact
Hestresscs
oiZ"l';g
pott"ititt*
oI tlre Malayan
'the but
Ceylon'
o{
seaports
that Magha'= gnrri,o;t*t;t L"tiiy"i"'"ttre
anv ruler rvho came by
this provcs totni,tg, ;i ii* ;;lt'be so farOrissa or lrom Malaysia'
{rom
sea to take Ceylon *ntti'tt hc srarted
is tlre sam-e as MahaAnd his untr.rr^nt"i ;:;;;Pii";iirat \laglraraja
rate ]l5gha seems
'AL-anv
affirm;
;;i;;;;;;";h lor Paran;rr iiana to interested in- maritime
activities
b.;Ji';i;-p";.
to have mled on
activipiratical
oI
Ilagha
u lriclr Sri Vijal'a ,t'"';'1'41' uite' a.tc"ting
adduced'
been
lta'
prout
ot
ii.t'i". " ni.ii'tio =t,tta
son mentioned in
Paranavitana tl'ren suggests that the Tar'-aka's
rather
}Iagha's-1ni
been
havJ
the inscriptio,t oi vi,? i;iat;. t"ttld
rvhich vira Par.rdya resfor
the.reason
Le.ause
;i;'b;;a;;t11ano,s,
ruied Ceyion' would
torecl Cevlon to him,li,. if*f ftli luthtt had
than to Candraislancl
ivhole
the
.o" Nffiil

;pr;$;:liffi

"rr"'i,,r.J

rvas repulsecl on both ::t:l.^tt^?"t

bhanu whil invadecl Ceylon t'nvice ancl
but not ttuite correct or convlncrng'
O;;;;;;", this iooks vcrr- plausihle'
pat+ya-inscription
thatthc son shorrld
Utt
The rhetoricat statemeii''ii
.ati'fied
iI a part oI thc
prt the islanr.l r.ule. f-,y't.'i-1r,1''". ri'l,u1,'l_ be suggc>tcd
in mv articlc
a' I lrare

il:t,j, J.u';:,r... xi"'*j"- io

"ij1n"t
the prince by the Pandyr conqueror'
rirs macle'over
;;-i3.C.
has rio- force liil llagha- ii.p'o^r'-etl lo be
paranar.itrna's
But

the Culauath'sa
"re,,t.nt
i"hich has ,t;i t'"t" done' on the crther hand' '.Ma'qhadibasaying:
sharplv distinguishes Migl;; irom the.Jivakas
uaanol''rz (E3'4o\ - Lanka *'hich hadbeen

;J;;J;,
)ii'iiri

ilii'ri'ii,-niiiTiothers ot'"' totog"i aner'v by the la-vakas'

by llagha ancl
classed as a Javaka'
statement.utti"n.f."'iy "ti' ogoitttt Magha being
and l(alinga
Paranavitana hnds support for his vierv that Javaka
in the
statements
confuse<l
are interchangeable f;" fil admitteclly
tll,i
t
e
s
ep-ara
thiee
:'".11
late D a iifta ni - a sn a wnich m"ntions
fi*Pf
U1 *::""U
liaja' arrothc,
neainst Palakramaban""if -"n" by Kalinga
ct-'ti{uston
this
from
ancl
Raja'
itt*tt""-R;jt't"Jirtt trtircl by Ji'aka
oI one' ;"t""t 'tlre Kalinga I(ing
-ii,.
rvhic' makes three ';";;i;;'"tit
r<ineao,." of his grandtathcf" Paranavi.t^t.iif
i;;;;;;r;d
'llthe Kalinga King rvas
",
t"""'i..i, iustitied in a-tn'*ing the. inference:
to kings rvho- ruled at
related
t-hls
Cand.rabhanu, f't" *"t,^o"
"vide"ce'
PolonnarubeforethcDadrbadenipcriocl'(r5).\try'g66n'onlvstress
that il this is the
thc r/ withwnitti ttrela-*i ttnttnt" tegin-' end'strte to the Sinhalese
Candrabhami
oi
evidence on which d;;;ti;;ship
kings rests, we must hold it to be not proven'
'Enough evidence has
And now Paranavitana smugiy writes: I'Iagha'rvas-a Malav'
that
iii'i"ft, to"establish
been brought for*.Jl
-iro**ititit he hailecl ruai in Malayasia
ancl the Kalinga
have follor'ved him step.bl ttT, do not
wa";;'h"
(r5).
not in India'
the oropositions laid down
feel that lvc have found '"a'on to accept
llris'point' S'till considering
at
rvcll-siup
may
by Paranavit.n., "nJ'tt.(r
tminenie of the author rvho
tfi"'i-p".t""." "f tf" *tl'1"it o"a the.
lrL tts follow'him to thc
lrislorv'
advocrtes a ladical t""iti""'"iCeylon
thc rest o{ his learned
reasoning'ir1
bettei
discorrer
see i{ r,ve

harassed
a

t's (rz21A'D ) statement

Paranar.itana thcn refers to Chau Ju-Ku
San-{s"-f i (Sri Vijaya)'
ot
r'iUrr'o'iic'.
rhat Cerl.rn *.= "-'n*''ii''
'must
have been undertaken
ir-,^t uagr..'; i;'";i;" uf Cevlon
;;;t;
planned byJrer'
at'tuallv
not
it
ivas
if
Sti
i
ilty^
.f
*itt' th" epDrtrtal

it)1.

(JI'Y],0N AND SII'I VIJA\-A

d' e

end and
article.

the Sinhalesc statement

Paranavitana seems to explain. awav

ii*it'n r'I tlte Ruddlta' (r6)
that XIagha hacl 'no'ttnotut"ag"' o[. t,heprcrailed
'''
Strutlrcrn llalaya
by saying thaL the BuJanittfi whichtantric trpe'irraud the fircravada
lftf"secl
tl'"iy
and Sumatra *". uf
h"tlt ttitti ttl to thesc Budrllrisls
blril<khus .,t C.ulo,-,'ffgf i" tti tt"rf
in clealing rvith Buddlraiiiii"
B"d;i,i:il.'e,ii'"
as isrrorant

""tti.r,

"f
rakkhitcThera'shabitat'Paranrt,r'itan"tgttlumeinti-irredllratthe
a motlcl ft'r Sinhnlece
Jlalav Pt nint,tl^, ttit'io'itt-'a'a11ht-' frrrrli'ire'i Tanjong-pura' somervith'a
Pali iuthors (4-5),;ifi;"iintir lenl"
rvhere in the MalaYa Peninsula'

132

JOLTRNAL, R,.:\.S" (CEYLONI I:oI.

I'III,

Parl 1 (Ncz, .Sei'las)" 196.P

Norv Par:Lna\-itana enters on a clemonstration that thc rulers of

the Kalinga d]'nasty at Polonnaru \vere also I'Ialavs, n.nc1 l(aliriga
must have been situated thcro and not in h'iclia. This section starts.
with emphasizing tlie difficulties in re{erring to Orissan tr{alinga ttre
details given by NiSfarikamalia in his epigraphs. He quotes a long

paragraph on these from D.C. Sirkar; that scholar hnds a dif&cultv in

accepting Geiger's identification of Sihapura (Sirhliapura), thc tapital
of Kalingain thc timeof Vijayabaliu tr, rvith a to$'n in RadhA said to hat'e
been founded b1' Vija-va's father; the Kalinga capital 9I-the same narne
is to be idcntifiedu'ith the modern Singupurarh ne.ir Srikahuladr; but
this rvas the capital only in the fourtli and fifth ccnturicrs, and the later
capital was at Kalinganagara. And Sirkar accolrnted for the mcntion
of Silraprrra as the capital in Vijayabahu's time in tlie Cfi,latarhsa l>y
saying;_ 'I'he represent-ation of Sirirha-pur-a as the capital of dalinga
inthe Mahavalns&tra"dition seems to be due to the fact that thc ctiro-,
nicle rvas composed in the fifth century, l,hile the Culaaatitsa appears
merely to harre continued the same tradition, although the later capital
of the country \\ras at Kalinganagara' (r7). This explanation seems to
us quite satisfactorv, but not to Paranavitana, rvho says : 'This procedure,

to say the lcast, throu's

withrvhich

to the

rve approach

reasonable doribt on

the assumptions

the question' (r7).This hypercritical attitude

reasonable suggestion of Sirkar is in strihing contrast r'r'ith

the many facile assrimptions that abound in Paranavitana's argumenta-.

tion in this rrery article.

Then Paranavitana sets out to shor,r, that for the Sinhalese litcratii
of the tenth to the thirteenth centuries A.D., the pcriod with lvhich
we are concerned, the country named Kalinga is not the region o{ that
name in Eastern India, but a region in Malaysia, and to state tlie evidence on the question (r8). Tlie first piece of evidence is a st:rtement
in the Vinaydrthasamuccaya (later half of the trvelf_th centurv) that
'Andha is the language of the people o{ the Andha (Andhra) country,
and the Andha country is the same as the 'famalinga, tliat is to say
the Javaka country.' (The worl< is still in manuscript and is an extensive gloss in Sinhalese on a vinaya treatise). Pritna.facie this palperbly
erroneous statement has no bearing on Kalinga or its locatic-rn, ancl so
Paranavitana notes that (a) Telugu u'as spoken by inliabitants of
Southern Kalinga in r,r,hich rvere located Dantapura and Sirirhzrpura,
(D) that by the term 'Andharata' the author of the gloss cited probably
meant a linguistic and not a political tcrriton', cornprising all the
areas in which Telugu u,as the larnguage of the people, and (c) the
Siamese chronicles clerived from Sinhalese traclitions locate f)antapLrra,

the capital of Kalinga, in Andhra<lesa. 'I'hen he refcrs to the pzrrt of

the Telugu countrv in the Colonization mor.ement ar-rd the trans{er
of geographical names from the home countrJ. to the colonies, and
then jtrmps back to his original quotation {rom the l'-irtaya sanile as
evidence that Telr-rgLr rvas spoken in Tarirbalinga up to the tu'elfth
century, at least br-the ruling classes. 'This', he conclucles, 'is in accord
rvith the fact that in the Ligor region therre arc people sti1l n'ith an

CEYLON AND SIiI VIJAYA

T33

Indian cast of featuresl (rg). Can special pleading go further. The

simple pr obability that there has been some unaccountable mistake
in the manus crrpt sanne is not even suggested, but an imaginary chapter
of history is evolved by Paranavitana who suggests that the old relations betr,r,een Buddtrism of the Krishna valley and Ceylonese Buddhism

attested by the Nagarjunakortda inscriptions had by the twelfth

century given way to similar relations between Malayan Telugu Buddhists and Ceylon, and rve are solemuly told: 'Telugu speaking Buddhists
from Malavasia probably visited Ceylon frequently, and the opinion
gained ground here that Telugu r,vas the speech of the country from
whiclr thev came. Thus, tothe learnedtheras o{twelfthandthe thirteenth century Ceylon, of '"vhom the author of the Culauahsa was one,
Andhrattha (including the southern part of Kalinga) r,vas the same as
Tadrbalinga or Jdvaka' (r9). This is not history, not even Pur1na,
but pure fable, and in this fable ltlalaysia is at once a land of holy
Buddhism and one rvhose Buddhism was so degenerate that its people
could be considered no Buddhists at all!

The rest of Paranavitana's article which is more or less of the

same piece as the foregoing should be dealt with more summarilv
to save time and space. Paranavitana next enters upon an excursus
on Da{l,tnvarhsa and connected literature, and discusses the location of
Tdmralipti; again he discovers the forms Tamalingama and Tamlingam
in late Sinhalese books, and that is enough to activate his imagination
torvards the Kalinga-Malaysia identit5z, and he does not hesitate to
transfer Dantapura also, like so much else, to his imaginary Kaliiga
irr. the Malay Peninsula, although he cites no evidence of the existence
of a Dantapura there. He imagines that the name Tdmalitti did not
occur in the original Sinhalese account which formed the basis of
Dathiitarhsa, that Dhammakitti added it in that form in the poem
for exigencies of metre, but gave the true form Tarhbalinga in his
Sinhalese sanne when he was 'not circumscribed by considerations of
metre, rhythm etc.', and consequently this later form 'is more rvorthy
of being taken as reflecting the actrial usage of the time, than that in the
Pali verse' (zo). Thi^s is not all. The Dathatantsa states that the north
rvincl rvas blorving r'vhen the ship started on its voyage to Ceylon, and
so Paranartitana cites Chau Ju-Kua *'ho also mentions the north
lvind for a voyage in zo days from Lambri in north Sumatra to Ceylon,
and concludes that the ship with the tooth relic sailed from Sumatra
or the southern part of the Malay Peninsula. And so Dhammakitti's
Kalinga rvas in illalaysia. Readers will not fail to notice the utter
indefiniteness of the location of this imaginary Kalinga rvhich wanclers

from Grahi, via Tambralinga to Jambi, and is always 'somervhere

in lVlalaysia'!
By tliis time Parana-u'itana has so convinced himself o{ Timalingam a,q the port of departure of the ship that he can rvrite: 'The form

Tamalitti for Tan'talinganru (Tdmbalinga) in the Pali of the Dathavamsa is also found in the corrcsponding section of the Daladdsivita, and

134 JOURNAL, R.A.S. (CEYLON) Vol'. VIII, Part I

(New

^Ser'jes),

I9{i2

needs some explanation'(zz); which means reaily that the literary

tradition is strongly in favour of the form Tamalitti, and that Paranavitana offers to explain this awayto favourhis own choice of Tamalingam.

But it is not easy to gather what exactly his explanation is;

in the paragraph that follorvs he discusses the various renderings, Chinese, French and English, of the name of Tambalinga, prefers Tam,ali,
as the correct reading in the Niddesa passage discussed by Sylvain
L6vi who rejected that reading; he then applies Tamiii and Vanga
of the early Niddesa passage (first or second centurl' A D ), to Baika
near Sumatra, derives Tamalingam fromTamali, anddra"vs tire inference,

it

is by no means clear, that 'The Pali and Sinhalese writers of

Ceylon thus had justification for referring to this Malavan seaport
as Tamalitti' (zz). He assures us that these writers :use Tdrnalit for
the port in Bengal but Tamalingam for the same port after the Dat'
hdaarit,sa. A11 this comprises a series of speculative acts of faith in
which others do not find it easy to follow Paranavitana. 'Ihe same
may be said of his references to the traditions current among the Buddhists of Ligor in the next paragraph (zz-3) knowiedge of rvhich is attributed to Dhammakitti, and from which he thinks Tambalinga should
be identified not with Ligor, but some place in South Nlaiaya rvhere
Braddell located it. Ail this has little bearing on the main issue, rvhich

how

has long been by-passed.

Mr. L Mahadevan of the Inclian Administrative Service, who was

to study the article of Paranavitana under reference
with some care at my request, and to whom I owe many suggestions
that have gone into this critique of Paranavitana, has summed up his
impressions of Paranavitana's treatment of the question of the identity
of Tamralipti port: 'The point made by Paranavitana here is not clear.
He concedes that Dantapura from where the 'Iooth Relic was-taken
to Ceylon was in India. But he believes that the Port of Tamalitti
from which the ship sailed to Ceylon carrying the relic is not the same
as Tamalitti in Bengal, but another port somewhere in the Xfalay
Peninsula. Even if his vie.'v is correct, which is ver], improbable, as
no one would sail a ship from India to Ceylon uia Malaya, it does not
help to locate Kalinga in Malaya'.
good enough

Next Paranarritana goes to a Sinhalese version of the [{aayadaria,

the Siyabaslakara of King Salamevan (perhaps Sena IV 956-72 A.D.)
r,vhere there is question of a Kalinga not well knorvn for its elephants
unlike Indian Kalinga, and so located elsewhere, and as the Sinhalese
sanne mentions Aramana (Lower Burma) in contrast as teeming with
elephants, the Kalinga under reference must be near Aramana i.e.
in Malay Peninsula (zS-z+).We ma1, rvell refuse to accept the inference
suggested. The error, if it is one, inthe Siyabaslakara mav have arisen
in quite a number of other ways, and Paranavitana's o\trtt remarks
do not rule out a misunderstanding of the Sanskrit original, and Indian
Kalinga had rather close relations with Aramana and rnay rveli be
considered near it also in vier'v of their historical connections.

CEYLON AND SIiI VIJAYA

I35

Paranavitana then cites a report of Diogo di Couto of information

he got from a Sinhalese prince saying 'that the father of Vijaya, the
first King of Ceylon, was a ruler of Ajota which is the same as Tanacarim (Tennesarim),' (24). In this traveller's tale, Paranavitana assures
us Ajota must be taken to stand for Kalinga famed in the Vijaya
tradition, and in order to locate Kalinga in the Maiaya Peniniuia,
Paranavitana would extend Tennasserim to the narrow neck of the
Malay Peninsula, of r,vhich indeed and of Ligor further south of Kra
it clearly stops short. This is supported by another quotation from

Queyroz that Vijaya came 'from the Kingdom of Telingo or Calingo

in the neighbourhood of that of Tenacerim.'(24). Sucli isthe evidence
cited for the proposition: 'The belief that Kaiinga r,vas in further India
continued to be heid by the Sinhalese literati down to the sixteenth
century'! And rve are asked to accept that these beliefs were shared
by 'the writers of those chapters of the Cuharhsa relating to the times
beginning from Mahinda IV and ending with Magha' (25). In all this
there is an astounding vagueness of geography and disregard for
chronology.

By way of evidence for the use of the name Kalinga for a country
i\{alaysia, Paranavitana recalls I-Tsing's Ho-ling and its capital
-and
9lro-plo, and prefers the identification of Ho-ling (Kahnga)
(Javaka)
Cho-p'o,
with places in the Maiay Peninsula, and once
again refers to the Vinaya Sanne equaling Tambalinga r,vith Jdvaka
_(rS).,H. then refers to a country called Kalangi in the storyof the
legendary founder o{ T ankaSuka tn the Kedak Annals, and says that
this is a form of Kalinga and has been identified with lower Burma
which agrees rvilh the datum furnished by Couto cited above (25).
Again the late Sun-da chronicle Carita-Payahyangan includes Keling
ana its ruler sang Sri Vijaya among the conquesls of King Saiijaya.
'This would establish that to the author of this chronicle Keling (Kafinga) w_as the name of Sri Vijaya' (26). The NagarakritAgamilikewise
includes Kelang in the Nlalay Peninsula among the dependancies of
1\{ajapahit'. In Seiangor again there is a place called Klang or Kelang
which has yielded important bronze antiquities, and 'its approximation in sound to the name Kalinga is clear' (26). This play with
names of like sound drar,vn from all and sundry sources leads Paranar.itana to the studiedly vague inference: 'Thus there is evidence for
the name Kalinga har-ing been in use in former times for more than
one, area in lfalavsia'(26), and he ascribes it to a desire on the part of
Malays to trace their descent to the mythical Kalinga Cakiavarti
famed rn Buddhist legend!
implausible suggestion in many
- a highly
rvays. Then he seeks to redeem
the position by trying to identify th-e
exact locality in Malaya which the Ceylonese chroniCles had in mind
when they spoke of Kalinga, and resorting to the name of the capital
Simhapura (Siliapura), identifies it with Singora on the basis of
Chinese evidence. We may well accept this identification of Singora
as a Simhapura in Sanskrit and Chinese parlance, and yet dechnl to
associate with it the Kalinga under refeience, unless the association

in

CEYLOI{ AND SR,I

136JOURNAL,R,.A.S.(CEfLON)tr'ol.VIIl,Prtrtl(Neer'Series),1962
is established by tangible evidence. Towards this end, Paranavitana
orooounds the iheori that the name Ch'ih-t'u ctt Teh'e-t'ow oI Ihe
itatle *hose capital Si-h"potu was, generaifV tak91 to mean 'Red
Earth', should 6e taken to represent Sanskrit Setw,bidge or cause\'vay,
as this suits the region of theharrow neck near which Singora is located
and also Couto's original home of Vijaya (zB). It is on such gossamer
proo{s that Paranavitana wants us to rely, after rejecting.the very
ieasonable explanation of D.C. Sirkar for the occurrence of Simhapura
as the capital of Kalinga intlne Culaaaizsa.

Next Paranavitana proceeds to argue that certain expressions in

Ccvlon inscriptions which have remained obscure receive s3'y cluci.laiiorr on the basis oI the 'hypotkesis that Katinga meant, to the
Sinhalese of this period, a region in Malayasia' (28). 01 this I rvorild
rnake two observations: first ihat even if Paranavitana is right in this
1,js11,, that rvould not mean that the hypothesis should be necessarily
acceptecl in the absence of more direct proof ol it. Second' one like
the present writer, who is not a scholar in Sinhalese' can judge of
.o.h'"tgo*ents only with much diffrdence. Nolv to the expressions
and their interpretitions proposed by Paranavitana. First, is the
phrase der.ntunw tniiizdti wpan among th9 eulogistic refelenc$;. to queen

bundaramairadevi 'rvho iurpassed Siri in beauty' (28). The e-arlier

editors, Belt and Wickremasinghe, agreed to refer the phrase to Vikaramabihu and interpret it as saying that both his parents rvere crownecl
monarchs. So it is not quite true that the phrase has remained obscure;
a meaning has been found for it' However, Paranavitana thinks that

not add anything to the King's prestige',

tlt" queen and men,t-o
tions her plaie of birth, and cites quite needljssly, other instances

such a st"atement 'does

and that the phrase shouid be taken to refer

plaies of birth are noted. He also says: 'Being not.native r'vith

regardio birth and accomplishments was e,vidently a.mark.of distinctio"n in those days, as it now is among the Sinhalese' (28-zg)-another
assumption to sitpport a tendentious argument. A1l that fhe Culaaahsa
says ii that Sundaramahadevi came from Sirhhapura in Kaiinga'
But Paranavitana is so sure that Kaliriga is in l{alaysia that he holds
that the phrase under discussions must be the name of a-region there,
recalls T6-p'o-teng to the west of Ho-ling, the conjectual Duaw'nvatan
of X{oens, ionnecti Votunu with Sanskritaarkn'a, affilms tbat tle is trvo
and. mriird& means'between', andinterprets the whole phra-se as meaning 'the land betr'veen the two routes', i.e. the two trade routes, one
frdm India and Jurther west and the other {rom China. This admirably
suits the part of the Peninsula where Singora is sit-uated' 'The
name traniliterated as To-p'o-teng in Chinese would have been
a cosnate Jorm in the local vernacular' (29)' Al1 this seems to be a continuat"ion of the fanciful equation of l'ch'e-t'ou rvith Setu, and there
is little grace in the description of the queen's birthplace as-int-erpreted
by ParJnavitana. The same idea is ridden further into the Nalandd.
Ctpper-plate of Devapaladeva where for,the name of princess Tdrl's
fatlrer, ihe reading vannasetw is preferred to Dhavantasefar, and then

r,vhere

VIJAYA

137

amended into uartmasetr,t to come into line with Paranavitana's fanciful

geography (3o). Equally unwarranted is Paranavitana's attempt to
iead ttie iitle Maharaja in the hne: Rajfr.ak Sorna-kuld,nvay?sy.q rnahatall,

SrE Vartnasetolt, suta, for makatah' may qualify sotna-kuldn'vq'yasye

rather than rajfiah, and so this attempt to postulate a connection for
the Ceyion rulers with the ruiers of. Zabag must be pronounced a_failure.
For obvious reasons Paranavitana also identifies by a round about
inference the race of Kalinga Kings of Ceylon with the Soma VarhSa,
the family of Tara's father (3o-r).
Another expression discussed is Ruvandafiibu. A friendly official
of Vijayabahu II 'was engaged in guarding the person o{ the royalty
from Ruvandadrbu' (3r). This name, so far unexplained, Paranavitana
thinks must refer to the country from which Vijayabahu came (Kalinga)
or some place therein. He does not explain why it cannot be the name
of person. He offers the explanaiion'. ruvan is either suaarna (gold\
or ratna (precious stone); 'd.atnbw lvoulcl be the result of the namer
Jabaka (not Jd-vakahu) undergoing phonetic changes rvell attested
in Sinhalese', and tlius Ruvan dambu would be equal to SuvarlaJavaka or Ratna-Jivaka, the former may be an abbreviation df Suvarna-dvipa-Javaka, Ptolemy's Golden Chersonese. And Ior ratna
rve have the Ramayanai t atnaaantam, Y auad,ar,panr, (3r) . From so much
u'ishful philologizing, the comfortable conchision emerges: 'thus we
find that a person to r,vhom favours were granted (the oflicial mentioned above) by a Kalinga King is said to have been protecting the
person of that King from the time he rvas in Javaka. Kaliirga must,
therefore, be Javaka or Jabaka' (32).
Here is another far-fetched support for Paranavitana's theris;
an inscription of NiSSankamalla {rom Polonnaru mentions l(ambojiV6sala, and another inscription of the same King at Anuradhapura
records that 'bestowing on Kambodin gold and cloth and rvhatever
kind of wealth they wished, he commended them not to catch birds
and so gave security to birds' (32). So Ni3Sairkamalia r.vho had a Kambojan body guard, must have collected them before he lelt Singora
to guard his person which he rvould certainly not have entrusted to
Sinhalese troops! There lvere Khmer speaking people even ai Grahi
(Jaiya) . 'A prince from Kalinga in India would hardly have had Khmer
people in his service'. The fallacy of ignoring other possibiiities in
which the name Ktmhdji-vasala could have arisen has not struck
Paranavitana.

Yet another: NiS6ankamalla established an alms house in Kalinga

Vijayapura; there is a Nepalese manuscript of the tenth or eleventh
crentury containing a miniature painting of a Buddhist icon as from
Sri Vjjayaprrra in Suvarnrpura. Ergo this Srivijayapura is tiro Kalinga
Vijayapura of Ni3Sankamalla's inscription! A chief l{allikd"rjuna
rvho escorted Sahasamalla to Ceylon is said to have macle 'the searoute free from danger', rvhich implies sea-power for the people of
Kalinga and the Nlalay people of Sri Vijal'a empire had it!!

r38 JOUII,NAL, R.A.S. (CEYLON) 7oI. tr'III, Part I (Netu Series), 19t32

of

Paranavitana then refers to prima facie non-Sinhalese names

officials occurring in inscriptions ancl finds their analogues in

sound from Malay sources e.g. Tavuru, 'fuvavrlravan; no purpose

will be served in repeating here all the detail. as this pastime of hunting
parallels in sound can lead nowhere.

Even allowing for exaggerations, Ni36ankamalla's inscriptions

bear witness to a lavish expenditure on charities and monuments;
all the resources for these were not raised by taxation in Ce1rlqn, but
must have come from his home country, and 'the 1\{a1a5' grnpils .1
the time possessed great resources and the control of this island through
a ruler prepared to act in its interests rvould harre been of advantage

to it in its maritime and commercial activities'

(S+)!

It is needless for us to add to the length of this article by discusin detail Paranavitana's further surmises and postulates tvhich
are equally unfounded and qllestion-begging: his assumption of a
sing

Malay origin for Ni3Sankamalla on the ground that he must have had
a navy to harass all the coasts of South India (:+), as also on the ground
of his Buddhism (34-5); his postulate of Vijaya who made LankS"srlka
fit for human habitation being a replica of the rve1l knor,vn first King
of Ceylon (35); that of a Vijaya as founder of the Sumtaran Kingdom
of Sri Vijava (SS-6); his suggestion that Ni6Sankamalla came from
the family of Dantakumdra, though admittedly the King makes no such
claim in his many epigraphs (36); his location of Ayodhya of Jagatipala
and Kannakucci of Vihasalameghan in the Nlalay Peninsula, through
Ajotalay in Tenaserim and no Kannai<ucci could be identified in Nlalaya
66-SZ); and lastly, his identification of Viradeva with Viravamma
and of Palandipa with Palanda of Ptolemy identified rvith Perak by
Gerini (37-B), Paranavitana quotes Queyroz to give a Gujerat origin
for the Ariya Cakravartis of Jaffna; but rve have contemporary'Iamil
accounts from Jaffna directly deriving them from the rulers of Kalinga in India. (His. of Ceylon i. p.69r).
Paranavitana makes cne last jugglery with sounds; even though
undermines his location of Kalinga in North }Ialay Peninsula.
The Cillaaarhsa describes LokeSvara, a Kalinga King, as sulaltatayhsika
t,hich is translated by Geiger, correctly as we think, as 'who had been
u'ounded in the shoulder by a spear'; but Paranavitana denies the
nreanings 'spear' and 'shoulder' respectively to lula and ah.sa though
these meanings are given by the Monier-Wil1iams, he then affirms that
'the plrrase as it appeals in the text of lhe Culatath.sa is clearly
colrupt' (38); and runs to the sea of Salahat, the Arab name for the'
Strait of Singapore, and adds the l\{alay rvord laslA (sea) to it, and
concludes: 'Perhaps tl're error is due to the author of this part of
Culattarhsa himself, rvho did i-iot comprehend the meaning of a phrase
lll<e Salahat-tasih and rendered it as rve find it in the text nolv' (38).
Such is the hypnosis of the idea of a Malayan Kalinga on Paranavitanr's mind.

it

CIIYLON AND SRI VTJAYA

T39

Paranar,'itana proceeds then to dispose of certain arguments which

aclducr.:cl in support of an eastern Indian home for the Kaliiga
Kings of Cer'lor-r. A kinsman of Vijayabahu's queen from Simhapura

might be

bore the name }I:r<lhukdmdrnava, a typical E. Ganga name: qlreen

Kalvarlavati (of NiS3ankamalla) is said to liavebeen of the Gangavarhsa; a nepherv of Ni33ankamalla who succeeded him was called CodaGanga; another King of Polonnam rvas Anikanga (i.e. A4i ga"nga).
This is met b1' saying that kings of Malaysia o{ten bore names that
were in fashion for the time being among the dynasties of India (39).
Paranarritana adcls lhat-arnaaa names were not unknorvn in Malaysia
(u itncss ( irrr.r5r'nrvr) rncl marliagc rclations rvitlr Indian ,lvnaitics
mav accorlnt for some o{ the names. Anvthing, except the references
to the Indian Kalinga Ganga dynasty forthe nanles. 'The GangaVarh3a to rvhich K:rlyarlavati belonged cor-r1d very rvell'have bcen the
ruling familv of this Galga-nagara' of the Xtalay Attnals, though
lristory has no record of such a taritia. Again, NiSSankamalla relers
to his homc as Sirhhapura in Darirbacliva (Jambudvipa); this is explained arval' on the ground that the term could very -nvell include 'further
India' as rvel1. Lastly, it is recorded that Sahasamalla traveiled from
Sirhhapura in Kalinga to Gangaikondapattanarn r'vhere he stayed for
trvo 1zsx1s before setting out to Celrlon. Paranavitana says, rather
surprisinglv that 'lve do not knorv where Garigaikofdpattanam was
(4o)', and'there are instances recorded of travollers from the Malay
peninsula to Cer'lon sailing to Negapatam, and from there taking ship
to Ceylon' (4o), as if that compels us to locate Sirirh:rpura and Kalinga

in Malaya!

In the last paragraphs of his article Paranavitana applies the

conclusions o{ his research to earllz Ceylon histor_v and makes inferences and suggestion {or which there is no real evidence rvorth the name.
He affrrms that Mahinda IY (956-72) married a Kalinga princess for
politicai reasons, to secure allies against the rising Cola sea power and
so the new ally must have been MahAraja of Zabag and the queen a
Nlalay princess; does not, Masudi include Sirandib (Ceylon) amongst
the possessions of the Maharaja ol Zabag? We may rvell refuse to base
a chapter of Ceylon history on a traveller's error. Again, Sena I (833853) after a de{eat by Pa4dyan invaders is said to have 'turned to-

wards Malaya'; this refers, according to Paranavitana, not to the mountainous Malaya region of the island, to which Kings in distress went
for re{uge, but the Malay Peninsula. He finds support for this vierv
in Sena reaching the confluence of Mahaveli Ganga and Amban Ganga

(according to Geiger) or the delta of Mahaveli Ganga (according to

Paranavitana himself), whence in case of necessity he could have
gone to Trincomalee to embark for Malay Peninsula; and the Pandya

invader made terms with Sena to prevent a possible alliance between

Ceylon and Zabagl This is imaginative history indeed! Then Paranavitana cites a Nan Chao chronicle which mentions several Sinhalese

140 JOURNAL,

R,.A.S.

(CEYLON)

Vol,.

VIII, Port I (New

Series), 1962

expeditions against Lower Burma and says these expeditions rvould

hav-e been possible

of Sri Vijaya.

only with the aid of the considerable naval forces

And so Paranavitana concludes that the period between the

of Parb.kramabdhu I and the accession of the second King
of that name must be called the Malay Period of Ceylon History.
demise

'Not yet, nor for the considerations brought forward by Paranavitana'

is our reaction; for throughout his long and learned article, we have
not got one new historical fact or well sustained interpretation calling
for the modifications of current views on Ceylon History, but only
vague surmises and plays with phonetic similarities, actuated possibly
by a desire to cut Ceylon history adrift of India and find a high imperial
origin from outside India for an important line of Sinhaiese rulers.
The attempts have not succeeded.