The Silences of the Syllabus: Reclaiming Sri Lanka’s Suppressed Antiquity

© Nila Bala @ Small Drops — Balananthini Balasubramaniam

07/09/2025, 13:53, United Kingdom

Executive Summary

The prevailing history curriculum in Sri Lanka privileges a singular Mahāvaṃsa-centric Sinhala-Buddhist narrative, eclipsing the island’s deeper and more plural past. Archaeological, epigraphic, and linguistic evidence attests to a Tamil presence on the island from at least the first millennium BCE, yet the official syllabus locates the origins of “civilisation” in a later, Sinhala-Buddhist polity. This selective historiography not only distorts historical truth but also obstructs genuine reconciliation in a post-war society.

1. The Problem of Selective Chronology

Textbook Bias: National Institute of Education (NIE) materials present Sinhala-Buddhist polities from the 3rd century BCE onwards as the nucleus of Sri Lankan civilisation. Tamil contributions are reduced to later “migratory” or “external” influences.

Erased Antiquity: Excavations at Kandarodai,Keerimalai, Anurathapuram and Vanni reveal megalithic burials, Tamil-Brahmi inscriptions, iron artefacts, and imported Roman and Pandyan trade goods, all securely dated between 700 BCE and 300 BCE. Yet these are peripheral, if mentioned at all, in state syllabi.

2. The Archaeological and Linguistic Record

Megalithic Culture: The cultural matrix of the Jaffna peninsula belongs to the same megalithic horizon that shaped Tamilakam, confirming a common Dravidian cultural and linguistic milieu by the 1st millennium BCE.

Inscriptions: Artefacts such as the Anaikoddai seal and the Vellavely Brahmi inscription demonstrate Tamil-Brahmi script usage from the 3rd century BCE, pre-dating Sinhala as a distinct linguistic entity.

Sinhala’s Late Emergence: Linguistic scholarship places the crystallisation of Sinhala around the 7th century CE, with standardisation only by the 12th century. By this time, Tamil had already enjoyed an unbroken two-millennia presence on the island.

3. The Politics of a Single Narrative

By enshrining the Mahāvaṃsa as the cornerstone of the syllabus, the state conflates literary myth with national identity. The narrative that civilisation began with Vijaya and matured through Sinhala-Buddhist monarchy denies the island’s older plural heritage. This distortion has political consequences: it legitimises Sinhala primacy while casting Tamils as latecomers, fuelling suspicion, exclusion, and ultimately violence.

4. Towards a More Honest Curriculum

Recommendations

1. Curriculum Reform: Place Tamil-Brahmi inscriptions, megalithic settlements, and Sangam references at the centre of early Sri Lankan history.

2. Plural Histories: Present Mahāvaṃsa as one account among many, contextualised against archaeology and comparative literary sources.

3. Independent Review Panel: Convene a multidisciplinary, multi-ethnic commission to audit history teaching materials.

4. Teacher Training: Equip educators with the tools to present contested histories as sites of critical inquiry rather than settled dogma.

5. Public Archaeology: Invest in museums and community heritage projects in the North, East and Colomboto showcase the continuity of Tamil antiquity.

5. Public Voice: Op-Ed for Media

“Sri Lanka’s textbooks teach a dangerous half-truth. Children are told civilisation arrived with Buddhism in Anuradhapura, while the evidence of Tamil-Brahmi inscriptions, megalithic burials, and bustling maritime trade networks from 700 BCE lies buried in footnotes, if mentioned at all. By denying that Tamils are the island’s oldest continuous people, the curriculum manufactures division instead of healing it. True reconciliation will come not through myth, but through courage: the courage to teach history as it was, not as ideology demands it to be.”

6. Annotated Timeline (For Infographic or Teaching Aid)

700 BCE – 300 BCE: Megalithic settlements at Kandarodai; Tamil-Brahmi inscriptions; iron artefacts; early maritime trade.

200 BCE – 200 CE: Sangam literature references to Lanka; Roman coins and Pandyan imports in the North.

3rd century BCE onwards: Buddhist polities at Anuradhapura; Mahāvaṃsa narrative begins.

700 CE: Sinhala language begins crystallising.

12th century CE: Sinhala becomes standardised; Tamil heritage already two millennia old.

13th–17th centuries CE: Arya Chakravarti dynasty formalises Jaffna Kingdom, institutionalising but not initiating Tamil rule.

Conclusion

Sri Lanka’s history is not singular, but braided. To teach otherwise is to choose propaganda over truth. A curriculum that silences Tamil antiquity is intellectually dishonest, politically dangerous, and morally indefensible. The future of reconciliation demands an unflinching confrontation with the past: the recognition that Tamil civilisation is not a later arrival but the island’s oldest, continuous voice.

© Nila Bala | Small Drops