Might is right!
Can the Sri Lankan nation claim a proud beginning? What do you think?
Well, lets briefly brush up our memory about that beginning:
The origin, in a nutshell, is as follows. The Sinhala nation descended from a lion, who kept his family virtual prisoners in a cave. The eldest son saved his mother and sister and became king. The same son had to kill his paternal lion to save his kingdom. Ironically, his own Vijaya, a playboy of sorts was wreaking havoc in the country and the father was forced to deport him and his 700 followers. The gang landed in Sri Lanka, and made their home. That is not before marrying a local queen (Kuweni), and who later turned traitor to her own clan and helped Vijaya to massacre the entire clan and take over the land. The two children escaped into the jungle and the Veddah nation flourished from there.
What is the fuss about, you will ask? Most of the great nations have evolved along the same lines, haven't they?
Take the world leader: the U.S. We all know how it became to be populated by white Europeans, and later with the enslaved Africans. It is quite ironical that the original Red Indians, who are the owners of the land, have ended up in far worse situation than the imported slaves.
While the natives languish in misery in their "reservations", descendents of the slaves have risen to such heights that they occupy the highest levels in Government. The current president Obama, is only has an African descent, not rooted in slavery.
Yes, I hear you mention Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the islands in the Pacific, The entire South American continent…
Oh! The list is endless. It is worth noting though, that most these land-grabbing and ethnic cleansing took place within the last 600 years? Well, Americas were discovered in 1405AD. Australia was discovered in 1705(?), and the "transportation" did not commence until much later.
Do we see any signs of coexistence among the natives and the invaders? Even when the invaders now preach peace and democracy to the countries still struggling at the poverty line? Perhaps those countries also had "invited" to be invaded and taken over, they too would have ended richer and powerful?
Now, returning to the Sri Lankan situation, the first immigrants arrived more than 2500 years ago, roughly speaking. From then on, the pattern of events has been quite consistent with what happened elsewhere.
In Sri Lankan history, there had been a few attempts to dislodge the immigrants by subsequent invasions from South India, by another racial group. But their domination did not last long.
The Europeans, of course, in their competition to spread their empires, had their visits to Sri Lanka over the past 450 years or so.
Today, we are living off their legacy. That is another point to discuss one day.
The noteworthy fact is, because of Sri Lanka's unique geographical position, it was inevitable that it would attract many nationalities into the country. The beauty is that they all lived and prospered together. They understood coexistence. Some might claim that this coexistence was a mere façade, only kept together by the political skills Europeans. I wish to defer on such claims. Multi-nationalities lived in coexistence in Sri Lanka, long before Europeans even set foot in Sri Lanka.
The question is, why is that not possible now?