Talk:Jaffna kingdom/Archive 1

Er...
What on earth is going on here? A total revision on known history it seems.Pubuman 18:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Reliability of sources
Hi friends

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which presents trustworthy information from neutral sources.

This article relies heavily on websites which support an organisation known as the LTTE which is conducting an insurgency in Sri Lanka.

According to following sources tamilnation and tamilnet are clearly pro-LTTE sites

- reuters refers to tamilnet as a pro LTTE site - tamilnet itself refers to tamilnation as a pro LTTE site - A Phd thesis which clearly names sangam.org as part of the LTTE media network

Therefore Wikipedia should not present a version of history which has probably been concocted by pro-LTTE nationalists to support their argument for an independent state.

Facts about history need to be sourced from independent reliable sources. otherwise we will have situations like where people have denied the existence of the holocaust appearing as the official version of history. Similarly the Serbian and Croation websites have vastly different accounts of the Balkan war but we should not present either side as the absolute correct version of history in wikipedia because both versions necessarily contain lies Dutugemunu 23:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Agrred Wikipedia should not be link farm should be based on WP:RS books and references RaveenS 16:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hoax tag
Please state why this qualifies as a hoax or is this an attempt to hoax the wikipedia community ? RaveenS 17:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Some references if people want to improve this article


 * Modern references


 * De Silva K M, A History of Srilanka, UK 1981., [2] The Mahavamsa. Geiger W 1912., [3] The Mahavamsa. Geiger W 1912.,  [4] Mudaliyar C Rasanayagam. Ancient Jaffna. New Delhi 1926,  [5] Senaratne S P F. Prehistoric Archaeology in Ceylon. Colombo 1969.,  [6] De Silva K M, A History of Srilanka, UK 1981.,  [7] Chopra PN, Ravindran TK, Subrahmanian N. History of South India - Vol 1- Ancient Period. New Delhi 1979.,  [8] De Silva K M, A History of Srilanka, UK 1981..  [9] Chopra PN, Ravindran TK, Subrahmanian N. History of South India - Vol 1- Ancient Period. New Delhi 1979.,  [10] De Silva K M, A History of Srilanka, UK 1981.,  [11] Mudaliyar C Rasanayagam. History of Jaffna. New Delhi 1933.,  [12] Chopra PN, Ravindran TK, Subrahmanian N. History of South India - Vol 1- Ancient Period. New Delhi 1979.,  [13] De Silva K M, A History of Srilanka, UK 1981.,  [14] De Silva K M, A History of Srilanka, UK 1981., See Rasanayaga Mudaliar History of Ancient Jaffna, Chap. VII; Paranavitharana, article on the Ariya Chakravarti Kingdom in North Ceylon, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Ceylon Branch (New Series), Vol. VII (1961), p. 119; Natesan, “Early Kingdoms in Jaffna", Parameswara College Magazine; Nilakanta Sastri, History of South India, 3rd ed., p. 216.,


 * Medieval references


 * 17.Segarajasingham (Astrological work) Sirappurayam, verse 11., 18. Arasakesary of Nallur, Raguvamsa Padalam (ed. Ponnambalampiliai), v. 223., 19.Segarajasingham (Astrological work), v. 5; p. 40., 20. Segarajasegaramalai, Satasatram No.8; Bell’s Kegalle Inscription No. 6; “lbn Battuta’s Travels “, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Ceylon Branch, Extra No. 39 (1882). See also Dr S. C. Paul, “The Overlordship of Ceylon during the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth Centuries “, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. Ceylon Branch, Vol. XXVIII, p. 83.21. Segarajasegara Malai p. 40, v. 5., 22.He honoured Tamil poets and gave them gold; see Tamizh naavalar carithai, v. 243., 23. Dakshina Sirrappurayam; Kailasa Puranam by Pandita Rajah (ed. P.P. Vaitilingam Desigar). 24.Dakshina Kailasa Puranam, 25. “Ibn Battuta’s Travels “, J. R. A. S., Ceylon Branch, Extra No. 39 (1882); Travels of Ibn Battuta, trans. Samuel Lee, pp. 183f.

Further comments on the article
I'm going to have to agree, after doing some quick research, that the Jaffna Kingdom did not exist. Undoubtedly there were individuals who seized power for periods of time in regional areas of the island after the Tamil Pandyan Kingdom retreated, some of whom were likely Tamils remaining from the Pandyan Kingdom. However, as for an independent Tamil kingdom based on the island being in existence either before or after the rule of the Pandyans, that seems to have been thoroughly debunked by historians.

The only reason the idea remains is that it serves as propaganda to further the idea that Tamils "deserve" a separate state because they "used to have one". As a neutral individual (I am neither Sinhala nor Tamil—I'm a white-as-they-come Canadian), I find the question of whether or not a former independent Tamil nation existed on the island completely irrelevant to that question—the state of affairs today is all that should properly be considered.

This article, while not a "hoax" in that the existence of the kingdom is likely genuinely believed by its main contributors, and is in fact postulated to exist by several Tamil scholars, is also likely not a proper subject for Wikipedia. Lexicon (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Very interesting perspective, may I add the first time I have heard this. You make very interesting comments


 * as for an independent Tamil kingdom based on the island being in existence either before or after the rule of the Pandyans, that seems to have been thoroughly debunked by historians


 * Who are these historians and what is the references for that, are they mainstream historians or nationalist but Sinhalese historians ? I want to see a single non Singalaese or non Tamil accredited historian say that Jaffna kingdom and the Arya Chakaravarthi dynasty did not exist at all.


 * and is in fact postulated to exist by several Tamil scholars, is also likely not a proper subject for Wikipedia


 * I would say that your conclusion is too hasty, there are independant corraboration of the existance of this kingdom throughout the historical period by the chronicle of the country called the Mahavamsa, the existance of the 16 century manuscript called Yalpana Vaipava Malai which talks about the history of Jaffna Kings history (Tamil translation)


 * Anyway I am not a historian nor am I in the possession of all these documentation to contribute to this article becoming a truly encyclopedic article. I like my documentation work on Human Rights issues. Also I want to point out the current political situation today should have no bearing on whether such a kingdom existed or not. RaveenS 19:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like this is the source of your comments that that seems to have been thoroughly debunked by historians. It is hardly neutral but even reading that shows the level to which he argues that there was not an independant kingdom concedes that at least for 150 years there was one. It had a dynasty and concluded agrrement with others in Sri Lanka and abroad. It even minted coins. It cant be all made up RaveenS 20:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The term "Jaffna Kingdom", "Kingdom of Jaffna" or variations thereon come up exactly three times in searches of scholarly articles through a multitude of scholarly article search engines that I have access to through my school (and all three seem to be written by the same person, debunking the idea). If such a kingdom existed, there would be multitudes of scholarly articles on the subject.  I will try to look into the situation myself after I have finished my exams and essays for this term, but I do not believe that reliable sources supporting the idea of a Sri Lanka-based Tamil kingdom are to be found anywhere in accepted academia.  Lexicon (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You make a good point but you also have to remember that not all issues third world gets the attention of a reseracher from the western world. I found that out when I wrote about TamilNet. Hardly 3 people wrote scholalrly journal articles about it. But about Al Jazeera I am sure you will find a lot more people. Also like I said I am not a historian and I dont have acess to these volumes. They are


 * De Silva K M, A History of Srilanka, UK 1981
 * Geiger W The Mahavamsa. 1912
 * Mudaliyar C RasanayagamAncient Jaffna. New Delhi 1926
 * Paranavitharana, article on the Ariya Chakravarti Kingdom in North Ceylon, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Ceylon Branch (New Series), Vol. VII (1961)
 * Nilakanta Sastri, History of South India, 3rd ed., p. 216.,
 * “lbn Battuta’s Travels “, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Ceylon Branch, Extra No. 39 (1882)
 * Dr S. C. Paul, “The Overlordship of Ceylon during the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth Centuries “, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. Ceylon Branch, Vol. XXVIII, p. 83.21.
 * Travels of Ibn Battuta, trans. Samuel Lee, pp. 183f.


 * A wikipedian with a history minset will be able to locate the right kind of books in the right kind of chronology and write an encyplopediac article about the subject matter including a section on the refutation of the so called Jaffna kingdom as a section. It needs to be a balanced article. Current version is not neutral.RaveenS 20:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Lexicon as a fellow Yorkie I know exactly what "search" you are talking about. It does not contain ALL the articles and books ever written. Let alone about a kingdom on a lonley Island off the toe of India. Not trying to say that it existed or not but my point was that to base an argunment from a search from york is allmost like saying that "no result was found on google". Watchdogb 03:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Article is much better now.BUT.....
Actually this is not the same article which i disputed a couple of weeks ago..The earlier article we had here was hilarious and a complete twist of the history..The Jaffna Kingdom came to existence in the 13 th century ,after the rule of kalinga maga and its wrong to attribute the demala kings who ruled northern part of SL as Jaffna kings.While historians still do not universally agree with this term, to my knowledge its not 100% false to call this as Jaffna Kingdom..BUT we should definitely state the duration of this kingdom,which is 13th to 16 th century..Having said so, we definitely know Prince sapumal acting as commander of the king Parakramabahu's army invaded and ruled Jaffna in the 16 th century and from what I read in the books written by Portugese and Dutch writers tamil Kingdom was heavily depended On foreign rulers since early 16 th century..So we are not sure how independent was it in the 15 th century.So i believe it is better to say that there was an independent tamil kingdom from 13 th to 15 century.This MUST be mentioned in the article otherwise we are giving a wrong picture to the readers. I still haven't gone through the whole article, But this looks much better than the previous edition..BUT, the very first sentence is completely false and though i prefer to have citations ,I doubt whether editor can provide anything at all. thanks Iwazaki  会話. 討論 14:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

>Iwazaki. Pararajaseekaran prosperously ruled from 1478-1519. (16th century) And After Pararajaseekaran, Sangkili ruled and fought against the Portugese. The Kingdom officially gave up sovereignty to the Portugese in 1621.

1621 indicates 17th century. The Arya Chakravarthi dynasty ruled from the 13th to 17th century. --> FACT 13th to 15th century gives the wrong picture to wikipedia readers.

THe article should mention the wars fought with the Portugese. The article should mention the Kingdom of Kotte's brief rule over Jaffna. The article must state the facts correctly --> 13th to 17th century. (Arya Chakrawarthi rule) Sapient26 03:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Also Velapilli Arachilage Prabhakara will be furiously recreating the Govigama supremacy myth article in wikipedia rather than to send suicide bombers south:)RaveenS 15:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * On even lighter note, thanks for accepting what we all knew from the right beginning..The ghost of Govigama supremacy myth was non other than the person who is responsible for the creations of lot of other hoaxes and blatantly POV template(s) in Wikipedia..many thanks Iwazaki  会話. 討論 08:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I sometimes wonder what happens to all those raped and killed, assassinated and shelled and plastered people’s souls. The country must be full of them in every nook and corner of tortured souls from the more than 200,000 people killed since 1971 alone. But anyway Wikipedians are smarter than silly Sri Lankan ghosts. They have a ghost catching device called request for check user in ghost language it is called WP:RFCU. No need to have loose sleep over ghosts or go to sorcery temples to pay a shaman some dead chickens to resolve this matter as we do in Sri Lanka. Just go to a human Administrator and say boo we have ghost in Wikipedia and they will nail it to banyan tree. Otherwise the ghost is going to get you banished for WP:ATTACK ing him. Sleep well:)RaveenS 13:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This may be the first time ever in the GHOST history that a ghost has accepted the use of Sock Puppets to manipulate human beings..While some says ghost can be what ever they want, it was here,for the first time in the GHOST history where a ghost changed it appearance, by being a tamil and sinhalese at the same time!!While admitting the fact as a human being I was astonished with that, may be ghost has its own reasons for changing colours and even races..And the ghost, once again for the first time in the ghost history, trying to be funny(thought it failed miserably)toooo..Its even copying human way of expressing sarcasm with limited success..Well, I am glad that we humans, at least ahead of ghosts in this thing call "sense of humour".Any way I am happy that even ghost taking interest at my country,good or bad they are contributing and keeping our motivations high.who would have ever thought that !!?? Iwazaki  会話. 討論 17:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Now is he a Tamil or Sinhalese. I know it is so easy to get confused in Sri Lanka. Anyway coming to the point, are you now confused that User:Wikramadithya who created the Govigama supremacy theory is me. Well come out and say so instead of hiding behind humor. We can all have a belly laugh about your deductive ability to connect dots between a Sri Lankan IP and Canadian IP. Seriously, ROFLOL! RaveenS 17:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ghost must have been a very afraid person for not even coming to vote to save the article it seems to love a lot..Afraid of getting caught for sock-puppeting ?? If ghost can be Sinhalese and tamil at the same time, why can't it pretend to be In Canada and SL at the same time ?? (See the word pretend is bolded here) ..Ghost can do wonders,including belly laughs,how wonderful is that. Iwazaki  会話. 討論 18:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Enough confusion between Pushpakumaran for Sinhalese, Fonseka for a Tamil today, may be it is too many sakes. RaveenS 18:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Complete rewrite
Those who find reputable sources please post them here. A good example fo follow would be Gangas. Well done by Dinesh RaveenS 23:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Old manuscrits and their translations

 * Yalpana vaipava malai
 * well the reliability of this source is some what disputed by historians..This may be good to quote era after 15 th century,esp after the arrival of western colonial powers to SL..But the history before that is very specious and sounds like more myth than real


 * Mahavamsa
 * says nothing about the Jaffna kingdom

Treaties and travelogues

 * Ibn Batuta's travelogue

Recent history books

 * Sri Lanka by Peter R Blood, Chapter Historical setting
 * Sri Lanka by Comptons by Brtanica
 * Hutchinsons chronolgy of world history (2005)

Recent journal articles

 * Vijayan colonization and archeology of identity in Sri Lanka, in journal Antiquity 09-01-2000, by Robin Connigham et al

Biased Source
This page cites http://www.jaffnaroyalfamily.org/index.php, which is run by a man claiming to be "HRH Prince Remigius Jerry Kanagaraja" of Jaffna over 400 years after the the last king of Jaffna was deposed. As this individual has a vested interest, I question the neutrality of any information from his personal website or as he calls is, "The Official Website of The Royal Family of Jaffna"

Hoax tag
Please state why this qualifies as a hoax or is this an attempt to hoax the wikipedia community ? RaveenS 17:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Some references if people want to improve this article


 * Modern references


 * De Silva K M, A History of Srilanka, UK 1981., [2] The Mahavamsa. Geiger W 1912., [3] The Mahavamsa. Geiger W 1912.,  [4] Mudaliyar C Rasanayagam. Ancient Jaffna. New Delhi 1926,  [5] Senaratne S P F. Prehistoric Archaeology in Ceylon. Colombo 1969.,  [6] De Silva K M, A History of Srilanka, UK 1981.,  [7] Chopra PN, Ravindran TK, Subrahmanian N. History of South India - Vol 1- Ancient Period. New Delhi 1979.,  [8] De Silva K M, A History of Srilanka, UK 1981..  [9] Chopra PN, Ravindran TK, Subrahmanian N. History of South India - Vol 1- Ancient Period. New Delhi 1979.,  [10] De Silva K M, A History of Srilanka, UK 1981.,  [11] Mudaliyar C Rasanayagam. History of Jaffna. New Delhi 1933.,  [12] Chopra PN, Ravindran TK, Subrahmanian N. History of South India - Vol 1- Ancient Period. New Delhi 1979.,  [13] De Silva K M, A History of Srilanka, UK 1981.,  [14] De Silva K M, A History of Srilanka, UK 1981., See Rasanayaga Mudaliar History of Ancient Jaffna, Chap. VII; Paranavitharana, article on the Ariya Chakravarti Kingdom in North Ceylon, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Ceylon Branch (New Series), Vol. VII (1961), p. 119; Natesan, “Early Kingdoms in Jaffna", Parameswara College Magazine; Nilakanta Sastri, History of South India, 3rd ed., p. 216.,


 * Medieval references


 * 17.Segarajasingham (Astrological work) Sirappurayam, verse 11., 18. Arasakesary of Nallur, Raguvamsa Padalam (ed. Ponnambalampiliai), v. 223., 19.Segarajasingham (Astrological work), v. 5; p. 40., 20. Segarajasegaramalai, Satasatram No.8; Bell’s Kegalle Inscription No. 6; “lbn Battuta’s Travels “, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Ceylon Branch, Extra No. 39 (1882). See also Dr S. C. Paul, “The Overlordship of Ceylon during the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth Centuries “, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. Ceylon Branch, Vol. XXVIII, p. 83.21. Segarajasegara Malai p. 40, v. 5., 22.He honoured Tamil poets and gave them gold; see Tamizh naavalar carithai, v. 243., 23. Dakshina Sirrappurayam; Kailasa Puranam by Pandita Rajah (ed. P.P. Vaitilingam Desigar). 24.Dakshina Kailasa Puranam, 25. “Ibn Battuta’s Travels “, J. R. A. S., Ceylon Branch, Extra No. 39 (1882); Travels of Ibn Battuta, trans. Samuel Lee, pp. 183f.

Complete rewrite
Those who find reputable sources please post them here. A good example fo follow would be Gangas. Well done by Dinesh RaveenS 23:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Old manuscrits and their translations

 * Yalpana vaipava malai
 * well the reliability of this source is some what disputed by historians..This may be good to quote era after 15 th century,esp after the arrival of western colonial powers to SL..But the history before that is very specious and sounds like more myth than real


 * Mahavamsa
 * says nothing about the Jaffna kingdom

Treaties and travelogues

 * Ibn Batuta's travelogue

Recent history books

 * Sri Lanka by Peter R Blood, Chapter Historical setting
 * Sri Lanka by Comptons by Brtanica
 * Hutchinsons chronolgy of world history (2005)

Recent journal articles

 * Vijayan colonization and archeology of identity in Sri Lanka, in journal Antiquity 09-01-2000, by Robin Connigham et al

Java
This article contains Category:History of Java, but this relevance is not evident based on a quick skim of the article. Any ideas why it is categorised as such? regards --Merbabu 06:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, this should be part of Javas.A major city in the Jaffna is Chavakacheri. Chavakar... means Javas. And Cheri ... means A village inhavited by one cast of people
 * There were definitely Javas living in Jaffna Kingdom. This is an excerpt from the History of the Kingdom of Jaffna by C. Brito
 * In the reign of Vijaya Bahu (the usurper) there was a numerous army of Yavakar in the king's pay. Their numbers underwent constant diminution by deadly feuds among themselves and by the oppression of kings. The remnants of them inhavited the villages of Sava-kach-cheri and Savang-kodu But Sangkili drove them also out of his kingdom.
 * There you go :)  Sapient26 02:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * He was an unsurper who was one of the many kings of the Kingdom some unrelated to each other. Further he was a Malay not a Javanese but we Sri Lankans call all South Esat Asians Javakas because that's what the classical Indians said. We call Arabs, Sonakas because we confused them with Ionian Greeks from Asia Minor. We call all Europeans Parangis becuase we confuse them with Franks. Anyway this does not belong in Java but as see also in the Tambralinga kingdom that I have already doneTaprobanus 05:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Reference to Mr Remigius Kanagarajah should be removed
Do not destroy Sri Lankan History.

Listing the vast number of deluded "claimants" to a kingdom that came to an end in 1619 CE is uninformative and uninteresting. Wikipedia runs the risk of becoming a platform for self-promotion among such people. The wikipedia entry on Mr Kanagarajah in both its incarnations has been deleted for not meeting the wikipedia standards of notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.135.168 (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I second this, otherwise it will open the flood gates for other so-called "claimants". No one can with any degree of credibility lay claim to a title that has ceased to exist for close to 400 years in a democratic country.

Gunasingam
Who is this person ?? never heard of his works !! IF you quoting from him, please let us know why we should take him seriously. After all, he seems to maker rather fairly tale claims, as in the first paragraph of the article. Sri Lanka do have some great historians who have done a lot of historical works.We have worlds oldest chronicles back up by thousands of inscriptions. Why don't you show us inscriptions issued by jaffna kings ?? This might be a sound proof. Iwazaki  会話. 討論 17:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've never heard of this guy either, and doubt his books can be classified as reliable sources. Also, exceptional claims require exceptional sources. 28 hits on Google say to me that he is neither widely recognized nor an expert on the subject. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 03:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've never heard does not satisfy any Wikipedia rules. Sri Lankan Tamil Nationalism:A Study of its origin by Murugar Gunasingam is a PhD Thesis awarded by the University of Sydney that was published as a book in 1999. It is reliable source by any standards and dont try to remove it without getting the Wikipedia community to agree to it. If you guys disagree then you know where to take it to. There is a Reliable sources board that people will be able to explain the difference between reliable, notable and biased that most people seem to get confused sometimes deliberately.
 * About exceptioanl claims, it is not an exceptional claim. It is just a claim. All what it says is that there are people who belive in such a scenario and I dont have to prove anything except the get some citations for it. But fortunately I have more than one citation for this:) Taprobanus 04:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

K.M. De Silva's A History of Sri Lanka
The book A History of Sri Lanka by K. M. de Silva is widely used to cite this article. I have the book, and the said page numbers do not correspond to the citations. For example "p91-92" is used to cite 3 sections of text


 * But what most historians agree about the history of what eventually became the Kingdom of Aryacakravarti began with the devastating invasion of an previously unknown Chieftain called Magha (1215 - 55), from Kalinga in India.
 * He deposed the ruling king Parakrama Pandu and began a process of destruction with the help of his soldiers and mercenaries from Kalinga, Kerala and Damila regions in India.
 * After the devastation of Rajarata he moved his capital to the Jaffna Peninsula and ruled as a tribute paying client of the Chola empire in India. During this period, in 1247, Sri Lanka suffered its only invasion ever from South East Asia. A Malay chieftain and a sea pirate named Chandrabhanu from Tambralinga invaded the politically fragmented island. Although one Parakramabahu II (1236-70) from Dambadeniya was able to defeat him, Chandrabhanu moved north and secured the throne for himself around 1255. This prompted the Pandya's to intervene on behalf of the Sinhalese king from Dambadeniya. They forced Chandrbhanu to submit to Pandya rule in 1258. When Chandrabhanu embarked on a second invasion of the south, the Pandyas again came to the support of the Sinhalese king and killed Chandrabhanu in 1262. They eventually installed one of their ministers in charge of the invasion, one Aryacakravarti as the King. When Pandyan Empire in India became weak due to Muslim invasions, successive Aryacakravarti rulers made the Jaffna Kingdom independent and a regional power to be recon with in Sri Lanka. It should be noted all subsequent Kings of Jaffna Kingdom claimed descent from ‘‘Magha’’ while maintaining their Pandyan progenitor’s family name."

p. 91 and 92 of my book, while covering the same period, does not mention the Kingdon of Aryacakravarti, Magha, Parakrama Panu or any of the other characters in the 3rd section. p.91 describes the arrival of Arabian traders to Sri Lanka and their absorbtion into society, their casts etc which is carried on to the next page. p.92 has the heading a little way down, "Religion and Culture", and starts off descibing the culture during Vikramabahu and Parakramabahu's time, going on to Buddhism and it's relations with Mahayana and Hindu deities. (Given the "omg your a damn liar" claims that usually follow such comments, I can scan the page and email it to anyone who wishes)

It appears the two editions of the book are different, I have the 1981 University of California Press version and that mentioned in the article is from 2005. I would guess the two editions changed stuff like text size, moving about the page numbers. But just in order to verify that, will the editors who believe the citations are accurate please mention the section the above material comes from? For example the content above from page 92 on my book comes under

Part II: The decline of the Sinahalese Kingdom -> The fragmentation of the Sri Lankan polity from c. 1250 to the end of the fifteenth century -> Religion and Culture

which is immediately after the "Aspects of economic and social change" section. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 04:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2005 edition Polonnaruva Kingdom:Foreign Relations: South East Asia 91, 92.. there is an entire section on Jaffna kingdom called Th periphery stakes claim chapter 8, page 128... that I will be using extensively on the other articles. Taprobanus 04:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:SLR
There is an ongoing discussion regarding this article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation; interested editors are invited to share their thoughts. – Black Falcon (Talk) 02:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

My comments
I will go through this article and see how I can help, though it will be limited to format, presentation, cpedits. I have consolidated the history section. There are some improvements that could be made right away, to be inline with other history related articles.


 * Let the territorial map of the kingdom show in the "former country box" ✅
 * There is special provision for the kingdoms flag in this box. ✅
 * All images should be at normal magnification. Currently they are pinched.✅
 * Try to create subarticles for red-links, or dont link them untill you have the subarticles ready. ✅
 * The map currently shows "Pandyan tribute paying areas". But we need a map of the Jaffna kingdom. Please have this drawn.✅
 * In the Kings box, try to avoid "epithets" for kings names or second names they were known by. It makes the box crammed up for space and lengthens it. Use the most popular name and mention (in brackets) the other name in the history section in prose format.✅
 * It is important to cite often, instead of at the end of a large paragraph, such as in the "Literature" section, even if all the info was obtained from a single page in the source book. Also, writing a few lines explaining the content of few classics adds depth to the section.✅
 * Its generally important to minimize number of choppy sentences (sentences with < 10-15 words)while it is also good not to have very lengthy sentences (sentences with over 40-50 words). So far I have seen many of the choppy kind.✅
 * inline citations should be seperated from next sentence by a character space. Thought I noticed a few that violated this. Unless absolutely necessary, avoid citations in the middle of a sentence. If you cant avoid it, a comma helps.✅
 * I dont understand this paragraph. He helped the re-founding of the Kandyan kingdom under Kings Vimaladharmasuriya I and Senarat during the period 1593-1635 with the intent of securing help from South India to resist the Portuguese. He however remained independent (autonomous?) without provoking the Portuguese. What is a client? Do you mean trade partner? or a ally or a subordinate? If he was installed on the throne by the Portuguese, how was the king independent? I can see he trying to covertly align with the Kandyan kingdom and such, though. Also, when mentioning kings names, no need to add the era if it already exists in the kings table. When mentioning names of persons, no need to use the term "one so and so", just "so and so" will do.
 * I am using the terms from Tikiri Abeyasinghe's book. The citation says that EC was a client because he was installed by the Portuguese under stiffer tribute conditions. But then the Portuguese withdrew to Colombo.As far as Portuguese colonial documents were concerned the Kingdom was still independant but paying 12 elephants instead of the 10 elephants as tribute. The Kingdom was officially incorporated into the Portuguese Empire in 1621 (although they had military and political control from 1619) when the surviving son of EC in Goa signed off the Kingdom to the King of Portugal.

Taprobanus (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC) Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC) Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The sections Literature, Religion, Architecture and Society are rather skimpy. Please try to add one additional paragraph for depth.
 * For instance, in Religion, you dont have to only describe religion in the Jaffna area. You may discuss developments in rest of Sri Lanka and even Tamil Nadu region, if they had an influence on Jaffna kingdom.✅Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The society section should give description of life of women, sports, food habits and other recreational activities, dance etc for completeness.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)✅

Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you ver much for your contributions. I will work on them Taprobanus (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

GA Review
Move Jaffna Kingdom to Jaffna kingdom, as only proper nouns should be in Capital letters. See Manual_of_Style. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 09:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Requested an admin to move over redirect

"Although the circumstances are unclear, by 1582 The Jaffna King" - punc and Capital letters in between. THe words "King" and "Kingdom" should begin with lowercase k as common nouns, throughout the article.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"It should be noted that not all payments in kind were converted to cash, offerings of rice, bananas, milk, dried fish, game meat and curd persisted." It should be noted are Words to avoid as gives undue importance to 1 fact. Rephrase. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Link charm in Religion to proper article than disambig.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅Taprobanus (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Also i suggest moving Image:Sangili2.JPG as the text is getting squeezed betn img and template.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅Taprobanus (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * NOT DONE. The img is creating the same problem.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Pass--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Eventuallys
"Many of its kings confronted and eventually made peace with the Portuguese colonials. Eventually Cankili II, an usurper to the throne, confronted the Portuguese but was defeated, thus bringing the kingdom’s independent existence to an end in 1619."

There are a lot of "eventually"s in the second and third paragraphs. Excessive repitition of words can lead to loss of impactfulness, in terms of style, particularly when the words are very close together, as in the example above. Consider using a synonym, like "ultimately," or something else. Otherwise great. AaronCarson (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

False history
This is all a false history!! Portuguese records eg Friar De Quayroz. States clearly that the 1st king of jaffna was prince Sapumal, around 1450. Also after him their were in fact only two more kings. The last been Cankili.
 * I think there were "kings" in the Jaffna Kingdom, before that. SriSuren (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It must be stated that during the Portuguese era their are many works regarding Cankili. One of the most interesting facts are from the books by a christian priest by name of De Quayroz. He asserts that the ceasefire agreement signed by the Portuguese forces and by Cankili's emissaries was in fact in the Portuguese and Sinhala languages. A question does arise, as to why Tamil king be using Sinhala as its mode of communication? Maybe he wasn't a Tamil... Also it is clearly said that the confident of Cankili was Modeliyar Anandayana Amarakon, which is very much a Sinhala name.
 * Use of Sinhala was most probably because Jaffna was under the Sinhala King. SriSuren (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The so called kingdom was nothing but a province under the rule of the Sinhala kings of Kotte and then of Kandy. For much of its history it was. SriSuren (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

More questions arise when hearing that the Jaffna peninsular is in fact depopulated, except for a small population in Nallur and also without agriculture. Which is asserted to by the British Gov report "Colbrooke Commission 1833", which states that their are no permanent settlements in Jaffna except for the fishermen who come into the peninsular to do their fishing and then back to India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gayan76 (talk • contribs)
 * There were Tamils residing in Jaffna, who came after the Jaffna Kingdom was established. Also many came in the Portuguese and Dutch time. So what is small, could be argued. According to Rober Knox's account also it seems that the socalled Tamil area was very scarcely populated. SriSuren (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This article is a GA quality, the best sources of history Jaffna Kingdom comes from K.M. de Silva, Tikiri Abeysinghe, Prof Pathmanathan etc. All have been quoted appropriately. ThanksTaprobanus (talk) 20:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * GA quality or not, there is a deliberate attempt to mislead the reader here, by manipulating facts. Eg. Origin - There is no obscurity to what you are mixing up there, namely of a presence of an independant Tamil Kingdom in Jaffna prior to the one in discussion. The answer to that is: NO, there was no independant Tamil Kingdom there. Your own article however much you try to avoid the fact and confuse the reader, shows clearly when the start of an "independant" Tamil presence in Sri Lanka is. It is just to look at the first "king" in the Arya Charkravarti "dynasty". :) SriSuren (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There are other local sources in Sri Lanka, namely Kokila Sandesiya, Medawala inscriptions, Kotagama inscription and pffcourse the travelogue of Ibn Batuta amongst others. Taprobanus (talk) 17:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply to False History
Also it is clearly said that the confident of Cankili was Modeliyar Anandayana Amarakon, which is very much a Sinhala name.

^^ Gayan shows his ignorance by claiming a Tamil Name as a Sinhala one. The So called "Modeliyar Anandayana Amarakon" is as Tamil as a name could get. Mudhaliyar/Mudhalali (Mudhal = money Aali =owner-of) is purely Tamil. "Amarakon" is Tamil too. "Amarakon = Amarar + Kon", Amarar means "the immortals/demigods" and Kon means "king" or "Shepard". The Sinhala names of Amarakon; Tennakon are all derived from Tamil names/Tamils who settled in the southern part of the island. The name "Tennakon" means "Tennavar + kon" = Southerner's King. Tennakon is a common name in the Pandya Country of Tamil Nadu. Furthermore, one of the titles of the Pandyan king was "Tennavar kon". Kon also means "Shepard" In Tamil.
 * It is no secret that there are Sinhalese with Tamil ancestory.
 * Amara is not Tamil. It is Sanskrit. There are many Sinhalese words which come from amara.
 * I looked up "Kon" in the Tamil dictionary. It doesn't mention King as a meaning. Do you know of a dictionary which states this? I have seen this written in other places too, and have always wondered about this. SriSuren (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is Ko that is King DED would be agood place to start. Taprobanus (talk) 22:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The same goes for Mudhaliyar/Mudhalali as they too are Tamil words that have become part of the Sinhala vocabulary

So Gayan; before you go about displaying such abysymal levels of ignorence; i would suggest that you go through this article

Sinhala words of Tamil origin

I will revert the silly and untenable changes/argument you have made to this article. Pls do not edit without discussing it in the talk page

Starsiege (talk) 05:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Starsiege

LOL! Kon is a Tamil word indeed. which dictionary you are refering man. Also Sampumal is not the first king of jaffna Kingdom. Amarar is a word used in Sankrit with diffrent meaning. Amar which prevalent in hindi. Amarar in tamil always denote HEavenly people especially devars. Even that word used in Thirukural. if you want prove feel free to contact me, i give you the source and proves. dont spread false history dude. --BlueLankan 03:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Guyan46's Alternative History of Jaffna
This is currently being discussed at Talk:Sri Lankan Tamil people. Obi2canibe (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The way Jaffna Kingdom is presented by the Tamil nationalists, is in itself an alternative history of Sri Lanka. I think its importance was almost nothing, until the Tamil national question came into being. Most of its history is like the rest of the Tamil history in Sri Lanka - if that, then this, type of talk. SriSuren (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

central discussion
I have created a central spot for discussion relating to the history of Jaffna, which seems to be a topic on several talk pages. Please raise your concerns and suggestions there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation#Sri_Lankan_Tamil_people.2C_History_of_Jaffna.2C_Jaffna_kingdom Jasy jatere (talk) 12:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

History - early period
This sentence is deleted: "The origin of the kingdom is obscure and still the subject of controversy among historians. Some historians believe that there was an independent kingdom in Uttaradesa (northern part of Sri Lanka) during the classical Sinhalese kingdom period, which is contested by Sri Lankan historians".

There is no obscurity as to when the Jaffna Kingdom started and how it came about. It is described clearly here, and you yourself have defined the Jaffna Kingdom as the Aryachakravarti dynasty. Therefore there is no need to attempt to confuse the reader by refering to undocumented theories about an independant Tamil Kingdom in the North, prior to this, which displaced the Sinhalese rule in the north. There is absolutely no proof of an independant or semi-independant or any considerable Tamil presence in Jaffna prior to this. Magha or Kulingai Cakravarti, didn't fight against any Tamil Kings in Jaffna, but he fought against the Sinhala king of Rajarata. If there were any independant Tamil kings in the north he would have fought them to get controll over the area, would'nt he? --SriSuren (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Chandra bhanu fought against Rajarata kings in pollanuruwa.. We cannot deny there is sub kingdoms in North before Jaffna kingdom. Even during Chola and Pandya rule in Sri Lanka there was sub kingdoms or feudal lords who ruled north. We have to give details of Mummudi konda chola puram and Pandyan feudal lords in North Sri Lanka. We may start those with new article also. During Second century BC to 8th century there were local rulers in North it may either Tamil or sinhala rulers. Especially Pallavas had a control over Sri lanka during that period the name Pallavarayan Kaddu or Thondamanaru shows there is Pallava connection with North Sri lanka atleast during Nissanka malla period. so lot of hard work on this article is needed because such are quite sensitive . --BlueLankan 16:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed the offending sentence, but as recorders of what is happening out there we have to let the readers know that this obscure history of the kingdom is of some considerable controversy in Sri Lanka. Taprobanus (talk) 21:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear SriSuren. Please take a look at the Galle Trilingual Inscription. It is written in chinese, persian and tamil. Not in Sinhela..Sinhala..hela..prakrit or like this...You have to accept the tamils and their history in Sri Lanka or Ilankai or Eelam. Accept the Tamils as your neighbor, the whole Island can live in peace!--Tamilstyle (talk) 14:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice read
This article is very interesting and looks good. Keep up the good work! Omegastar (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Conquest of Jaffna Kingdom
The title topic seems to have attracted an edit war, User:Obi2canibe as a certain point regarding POV on certain wording, this is no reason for deletion. Rewording would be more appropriate. Cossde (talk) 03:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The whole section is a copy paste from another Wikipedia article. Who ever did it should be warned not to do it and the section needs to be rewriten. I have pruned it to fit this article's scope. More work needs to be done. Kanatonian (talk) 14:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Early History
Who ever added that portion of the article, did a good job in researching and finding sources. But I am afraid that it has nothing to do with the Jaffna kingdom article. There is clear consensus between Sinhalese, Tamil and Western historians about the origins and conduct of the Jaffna kingdom. Nevertheless in a poisonous ethnic environment in Sri Lanka non historians and extreamists tend to deny even the kingdom existed. To add sections such as early history that has nothing to do with this kingdom only adds fodder to the line of thinking that the whole concept of Jaffna kingdom is false. That section belongs in an article called History of Tamils in Sri Lanka that is yet to be written but most materials for it can be found in Sri Lankan Tamils, Koneswaram temple, History of Eastern Tamils and now in early history section of Jaffna kingdom. If ever the History of Tamils in Sri Lanka is written, then that can be linked to this article in a sentence or two but a whole section on that only makes the whole Jaffna kingdom article suspect. Kanatonian (talk) 14:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Migration of Sinhalese
I am not sure why the users here are are denying that the following sentence is relevant, His reign (Kalinga Magha) saw the massive migration of native Sinhalese to the south and west of Sri Lanka, and into the mountainous interior, in a bid to escape his power. Although this may be just one small sentence why would it not be relevant, or how come these editors do not want to see this information in the article? It illustrates the huge change in demographics, at a time where the history of Sri Lanka greatly changed. And a whole turn in events of subsequent geopolitics, future history and ethnic relations of the island. Of course at least just a mention is required here, which is what has been done, yet both Tamilan101 and HudsonBreeze casually dismiss it, calling it irrelevant with out a reason. It is a constructive edit that is properly sourced and therefore I will re add the information. And may I stress to all who are involved in this discussion please do not start an edit war! Please discuss in a civil and logical manner, unlike previous discussions. Thanks--Blackknight12 (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * because it is synthesis, Jaffna kingdom was founded by Aryachakaravartis, some modern Historians claim Kalinga Magha started the kingdom. Then some Sinhalese chronicles claim Kalinga Magha chased Sinhalese away. Then you guys put it together and somehow combine it together and it is called Synthesis. Kanatonian (talk) 05:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kanatonian, the Jaffna Kingdom was founded by the Aryachakravartis and have nothing to do with the migration of Sinhalese people. There is no link between Kalinga Magha and the Jaffna Kingdom other then the fact that the Jaffna kingdom was founded after the invasion of Magha. Even if Kalinga Magha chased the Sinhalese away from the north, this article is about the Jaffna Kingdom and the information you are editing here is irrelevant to the topic.(Tamilan101 (talk) 06:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC))
 * I agree with Blackknight12, inclusion of this sentence is relevant, as it is important to establish the background relating to demographics. Just because Christopher Columbus's landing in the Americas is not marked as the start of the history of America, but another chapter since the history of the native peoples in the Americas forms the basis of the history of the new world. Cossde (talk) 13:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreeing with people have nothing to do with it, Synthesis is Synthesis. If you want detailed discussion then using Jaffna kingdom to do it is simplistic. Failure of Hydraulic civilizations in Sri Lanka, Cambodia and Southern Mexico happened all at once. Many scientists disagree as to the causes but in Sri Lanka  the Sinhalese chronicles blame it on the boogey man Kaling Magha a monarch only known from fables,  who left behind  not a single record behind, a simplistic, racialist view on a global phenomenon. Not many mainstream historians even from Sri Lanka believe in that simplistic narrative anymore.


 * If one keeps to the primary sources then Tamil Chronicles of the Jaffna kingdom claim Sinhalese were always present within the kingdom, the appropriate place for it is in


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffna_kingdom#Society


 * which I will add when I have time or anyone can add it with rs citations.


 * but not in the lead because it violates undue. Jaffna kingdom did not cause a global phenomenon, Jaffna kingdom did not cause the Sinhalese to move south infact it moved with the Sinhalese to the south as the Kottagama inscription indicates. The boogeyman Kalinga Magha did not create the Jaffna kingdom, it came about after his so called invasion only known from chronicles. The Arychakaravartis consolidated it and their own Chronicles only mention Kulingai Chakravarti and only modern (Tamil) historians link it to Kalinga Magha which the article makes very clear. Kanatonian (talk) 17:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Violates Undue Weight in regards to what - can you please explain, what exactly you are comparing it with and what elements are affected if it is added in the lead section? --SriSuren (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As for your suggestion to add this sentence in the section "Society (of the Jaffna kingdom)" I do not think it is appropriate since we are talking about the situation prevailing in the area at the time of the establishment of the Jaffna kingdom, not about what happened after its establishment. Therefore I do not think the displacement/movement/migration of the pre-existing native population of Sinhalese from the north should be mentioned under Society of the Jaffna kingdom, a kingdom which came later on. Calling Magha a boogey man is a synthesis on your part, since his existence and the invasion is an accepted historic fact, by respected scholars. What reliable sources say is what we can write, since our own opinions are not allowed. But I agree with you on a couple of points, especially about some scholars giving the sole blame of the fall of the Sinhalese civilisation to this invasion, and ignoring other important facts. A simple question as to why the Sinhalese didn't rebuild it again, when they were quite capable of building other kingdoms after that, would answer many questions. So it has something to with enviornmental issues too, not just this invasion. For all we know the movement might have started prior to this invasion. But I think it is not unreasonable to say that this invasion triggered the final fall and also Jaffna kingdom did not cause it, but it contributed to it, by its existence, an existence which was periodically hostile, for example the attack where the Kottagama inscription you mention was left behind. I really do not think Blackknight has made any mention to any of this, but to the fact that the Sinhalese fled Magha's persecution. I think you are taking this sentence and making your own interpretations. Also, I do not think that the fall of the Sinhalese civilisation could be even mentioned in this article, without writing long pages to explain all sides of it. If that is mentioned in a single sentence, then I agree completely it would be undue weight, and even a synthesis. Anyway, insulting the Sinhalese people's chronicles and saying that Magha is a boogey man, is not going to make Magha and the historic fact of that Sinhalese moved away from the most troubled areas, during the rule by Magha, go away. There is some mention by Pathmanathan about Buddhist priests seeking refuge in Tamil nadu too, to avoid persecusion by Magha. So I think there are other documents about this incident/invasion than just the Sinhalese chronicles. Also, as said I do not think Blackknight has mentioned anything about the fall of hydraulic civilisation, and adding the sentence he wants to be added in the lead, is not a synthesis. I also agree that Kalinga Magha was not the founder of the Jaffna kingdom. Whether Magha was a Tamil at all is also very doubtful in my opinion - then again, we can't write our opinions in the article. As far as I can understand the situation it was Mudaliar Rasanayagam, who first made this link, almost a century ago, which you say modern scholars have done. --SriSuren (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with lot of what you say, but it is misplaced to include migration of Sinhalese to the south with the genesis of the Jaffna kingdom. For its part, Jaffna kingdom did not occupy the Rajarata but lands further north and west that was not subject to the environmental factors that effected the failure of the hydraulic civilization. It had within its borders considerable number of Sinhalese and in fact the local chronicles mention the fact all the time. Further sociologically speaking survival of the Sinhalese place names indicate that Tamilization of the north was just skin deep not a total eradication of one population over the other. Even today scholars would agree that number of social groups in the North and even the east (not part of this discussion) have Sinhalese speaking ancestors. It is no different that many Sinhalese of various origins speaking Sinhalese today in the rest of Sri Lanka. Kanatonian (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Rajarata was abundant due to regular wars for the Rajarata land. Sinhalese kings tried to re established Rajarata, but they weren't allowed by Pandyan empire. They had full control of the Sri Lanka in 1450. They got real opportunity after 235 years from the Tamil invasion. That time people adjusted to wet zone so it is possible that descendants of the engineering families didn't had the practical knowledge to rebuild the dry zone hydraulic system. It wasn't that much simple. Even British couldn't understand how the system works. So clear major reason is they were adjusted to a another system. Also non existence of expert knowledge to rebuild the system could help to not to go to dry zone again. But clearly it is not enviornmental issues. It was run more than 15 centuries. I don't see Magha is irrelavant here. Magha doesn't mean only Magha. He couldn't do all the things alone. He was supported by his army. Even king didn't had child army had children. Those are the people who came to Jaffna. --Himesh84 (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)