Purifying The Sinhala Language The Hela Movement of Munidasa Cumaratunga 1930s 1940s

Modern Asian Studies 46, 4 (2012) pp. 857–891.

C Cambridge University Press 2011
doi:10.1017/S0026749X11000291 First published online 5 September 2011
Purifying the Sinhala Language: The Hela

Movement of Munidasa Cumaratunga
(1930s–1940s)∗
SANDAGOM I COPERAHEWA
Department of Sinhala, Faculty of Arts, University of Colombo, Sri Lanka

Email: sandagomi@sinh.cmb.ac.lk
Abstract
This paper provides a detailed account of the socio-political dynamics of the
campaign for Sinhala language purism in the 1930s and early 1940s, and
∗
This is a revised version of a chapter of my Ph.D. dissertation submitted to the
University of Cambridge in April 2009. I would like to acknowledge the constructive
criticism received from my supervisor, Dr Sujit Sivasundaram. I must also thank
Dr Sally Church for reading a draft of an earlier version of this paper and making
valuable corrections.
857
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0026749X11000291 Published online by Cambridge University Press
858 SANDAGOMI COPERAHEWA
re-evaluates the impact of the Hela (pure Sinhala) movement of Munidasa

Cumaratunga (1887–1944), a language loyalist and the foremost grammarian
of the twentieth century, for the renovation of Sinhala language. It explores
Cumaratunga’s discourse on linguistic purism, its ideological foundations, and
the means by which he organized his puristic intervention. As the case of
Cumaratunga indicates, his language purism was not undertaken for the mere
love of a language. The paper argues that Cumaratunga’s Hela language
movement was essentially a revolt against the dominant language practices and
ideologies of the colonial government, national political leadership, the pirivena
and the contemporary literary elite of the time. Ideologically, the Hela notion
was designed as an oppositional discourse to the dominant Indo-Aryan linguistic
discourse in the 1930s, and aimed to locate the Hela language at the apex of
colonial language hierarchy. Exploring Cumaratunga’s perceptions of language
this paper demonstrates linguistic purism as a type of language reform which
aimed at the formation of the ethno-linguistic uniqueness of the Sinhalese and
the politicization of the Sinhala language in the early 1940s.
Introduction
Historical and intellectual background
The Buddhist revivalists of late nineteenth century Sri Lanka were

concerned to reform Sinhala Buddhist culture, and in this campaign,
religion was the main target of the reform.1 An important outcome
of this revival was the rise of pirivenas (Buddhist oriental colleges) as
modern centres of oriental learning and scholarly activity.2 The growth
of pirivena education marked a widespread resurgence of oriental
languages through a vigorous interest in the classical literature of
Sinhala, Pali and Sanskrit.3 During the early twentieth century, the
pirivena-educated scholars concentrated more on linguistic activity
than on religious movements, thus paving the way for a scholarly
interest in language matters. These scholars were, however, separate
from the English-educated groups who were the products of missionary
education. Some of them even ‘self-consciously rejected the study of
Western literature as being anti-national’.4 Accordingly, they placed
1
See Kitisiri Malalgoda, Buddhism in Sinhalese Society, 1750–1900 (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1976).
2
By 1917, there were 62 well-established pirivenas in different parts of the island.
Administration Report—1917 (Director of Education).
3
See K. N. O. Dharmadasa, Language, Religion and Ethnic Assertiveness: The Growth
of Sinhalese Nationalism in Sri Lanka (Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press, 1992).
Chapter 4.
4
Ranjini Obeyesekere, Sinhala Writing and the New Critics (Colombo: Gunasena,
1974) p. 24.

PURIFYING THE SINHALA LANGUAGE 859
a high value on ancient Sinhala literature (twelfth to fifteenth
centuries), and these scholars campaigned for the restoration of
the classical norms of written Sinhala. The increasing numbers
of erudite monks and lay scholars who were passed out by the
Paramadhammacetiya (1849), Vidōydaya (1873) and Vidyālankāra (1876)
and other pirivenas, produced scholarly editions of almost all the major
classical works in Sinhala literature.5 The appearance of a large
number of printed editions of ancient Sinhala texts had a vibrant effect
on the linguistic culture. The awareness of the ‘greatness’ of one’s own
culture and language seems to play some part in the revitalization
and development of languages, especially those that have ‘classical
traditions’ of language and culture. This awareness of classical literary
and linguistic traditions, in turn, provided an environment that was
conducive to the rise of reformist ideas connected with language.
Politically, too, the country was undergoing rapid socio-political
changes during the first three decades of the twentieth century, due
to the implementation of various political and constitutional reforms.
The most notable event was the implementation of the Donoughmore
Constitution that granted universal suffrage in 1931.6 The following
years saw an increasing understanding of the problems related to
government language policy and educational reform. The idea that
people should be governed by and through their ‘own language’
(swabhāshā) gained momentum. The middle-class was expanding in
a new economic and intellectual environment; social, political and
labour movements became organized.7 Moreover, the expansion of
formal school education led to a significant increase in literacy in the
vernaculars and, in particular, it led to the emergence of a sizeable
reading public in Sinhala.8 There was a growing interest in the use of
the Sinhala language in newspapers, journals, schools, textbooks and
novels. More importantly, government sponsorship of the publication
of school reading books and other textbooks, helped to increase the
use of Sinhala. Perhaps the most important contribution to the spread
of Sinhala during the second and third decades of the century was
5
See K. D. P. Wickremasinghe, Nūtana Sinhala Sāhitya (Colombo: Gunasena, 1965),
pp. 9–54.
6
See K. M. De Silva, A History of Sri Lanka (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1981).
7
For a useful discussion on politics and labour, see Kumari Jayewardene, The Rise of
the Labor Movement in Ceylon. (Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 1972).
8
According to the census figures, the percentage of literates was 56.4 males and
21.2 females in 1921. Census of Ceylon 1921.

its increased use as a ‘print language’.9 The growth in the number of

printing presses and publishing houses after the 1920s in urban cities
like Colombo catered for the needs of the newly literate public and
gave impetus to various scholarly movements and linguistic work.10
Sinhala national identity has usually been articulated using
linguistic and religious symbols.11 As will be shown in this paper,
during the 1920s and 1930s, the connections between language and
nation became increasingly close and the nationalist ideology became
linked to language. The emergence of language movements prompted
local elites to conceive their own ‘national language’ (jātika bhāshāva)—
in contrast with the colonizer’s language. This is not to suggest that
religion was unimportant to the Sinhalese and Tamil communities
at this time.12 In this era of political and constitutional reform both
Sinhalese and Tamil language loyalists believed that language was
more important than religion for individual and national identity;
new ways of imagining the community, which were associated with
language, came to forefront. With the expansion of Sinhala journalism
and publishing, the issues related to Sinhala grammar and usage
became important topics for many Sinhala writers and editors to
discuss. Having been educated in pirivenas, most of the editors of
the Sinhala (Buddhist) newspapers and periodicals became concerned
about the new usages appearing in Sinhala writings. The question of
using the Sinhala language ‘correctly’ became an important topic. For
instance they complained about current language usage and advocated
a return to ‘correct’ forms.13 By thus admitting the importance
of classical norms in language, they provided an impetus for the
growing movement for Sinhala language reform. Various linguistic
9
This was a trend dating from the 1860s, when the first regular Sinhala newspapers
were published, and the beginning of the twentieth century, when Sinhala novels
started to appear. For details, see Ediriweera Sarathchandra, Sinhalese Novel (Colombo:
Gunasena, 1950).
10
Apart from the Government Press, the following printing presses in Colombo
were important in publishing Sinhala works: Granthaprakāśa Press, Vidyādarsa Press,
Maha Jana Press, Dinamina Press, Sinhala Jātiya Press, Sri Lankōdaya Press, Sri
Bhārathi Press, Jinālankāra Press. See Ceylon Blue Book—1925.
11
See Dharmadasa, Language, Religion and Ethnic Assertiveness.
12
In a study of North India, Paul Brass has argued that, in a particular historical
and social context, one ethnic symbol may be identified as dominant and others
as secondary. Paul Brass, Language, Religion and Politics in North India (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1974).
13
For a useful account on language controversies of this period, see Dharmadasa,
Language, Religion and Ethnic Assertiveness.

movements developed, pointing out the need for ‘language reform’14
as a prerequisite for political independence.
It was against this background that Munidasa Cumaratunga (1887–
1944), the most important figure in the Sinhala literary scene
during the 1930s and 1940s, launched a movement for the reform
and purification of the Sinhala language.15 As a language reformer
Cumaratunga carried out various language planning activities without
any recourse to governmental support. The changes brought about
by this movement are inseparable from the contemporary socio-
political situation and will therefore be discussed in this context
here. As we will see this language movement laid the intellectual
foundations for the politicization of the Sinhala language in the
1940s and 1950s. According to Annamalai, language movements,
like other social movements, bring not only linguistic but also social
change.16 In discussing the issue of language loyalty or ‘language
devotion’ in Tamil India, which arose around the same time (1930s),
Sumathi Ramaswamy has shown how language can inspire speakers
to devote themselves zealously to its cause. She notes that language
can be transformed into ‘an object of devotion in the course of the
social mobilization and political empowerment of its speakers’.17
Cumaratunga’s discourse on the purification of the Sinhala language
thus provides the scope for a discussion of language loyalty under the
conditions of colonialism and the context of socio-political change.
In this paper I shall provide a detailed account of the Sinhala
language purism in the 1930s, and re-evaluate the impact of the Hela
movement of Munidasa Cumaratunga. Cumaratunga was a language
loyalist and the foremost grammarian of the twentieth century, for the
renovation of Sinhala language. His ideas on language were mainly
expounded in the prefaces to his editions of ancient Sinhala texts,
14
In this paper, the term ‘language reform’ is used in a fairly broad sense, covering
any effort to regulate, change or guide the development of language.
15
See Sarathchandra Wickramasuriya, ‘Munidasa Kumaratunga’s Contribution to
Sinhalese Linguistics’ The Ceylon Journal of the Humanities Vol. 1 (1), 1970, pp. 57–75;
K. N. O. Dharmadasa, ‘Language and Sinhalese Nationalism: The Career of Munidasa
Cumaratunga’ Modern Ceylon Studies, Vol. III (2), 1972, pp. 125–143.
16
E. Annamalai, ‘A Typology of Language Movements and their Relation to
Language Planning’ in E. Annamalai, B. H. Jernudd and J. Rubin (eds), Language
Planning: Proceedings of an Institute (Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages,
1986) pp. 6–17.
17
Sumathi Ramaswamy, Passions of the Tongue: Language Devotion in Tamil India,
1891–1970 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997) p. 6.

grammatical works and editorials. This paper explores Cumaratunga’s

discourse on linguistic purism, its ideological foundations and the
means by which he organized his puristic intervention. One of the
major concerns Cumaratunga had was to keep language ‘pure’ and
‘correct’. This puristic streak strengthened during the 1940s when
the reforms for national independence reached their height, and
continued well into the 1960s. At the same time, Cumaratunga had a
powerful ideological influence on the language situation of the period.
By focusing particularly on the Hela ideology which promoted the
linguistic authenticity of the Sinhalese, this paper examines the link
between Cumaratunga’s language reform activities and the struggle
for independence.
Sociolinguist, K. N. O Dharmadasa, recognizes Cumaratunga’s
significance as ‘the ideological pinnacle of Sinhalese language
nationalism’ in twentieth-century Sri Lanka.18 Another linguist, A. K.
Gunasena, has discussed Cumaratunga’s puristic interventions from
a linguistic point of view and recognizes his purism as the second
stage in nativistic efforts.19 Below, I shall argue differently, however,
exploring Cumaratunga’s perceptions of language. In particular,
linguistic purism as a type of language reform which aimed at the
formation of the ethno-linguistic uniqueness of the Sinhalese, and
critique to challenge the contemporary scholarly establishments and
national political leadership. I shall examine the development of
Cumaratunga’s thinking on language reform from a philosophy of
linguistic correction to a much broader programme of ideological
intervention which linked the language (Sinhala) and national identity
with ideologies of a glorious past. We can identify two main periods in
Cumaratunga’s efforts to achieve linguistic purism. The first phase
approximately encompasses the years 1930 to 1938. During this
period he concentrated mainly on the ‘linguistic correctness’ of the
Sinhala language. The second phase, which lasted from 1939 to 1944,
was marked by a clearly articulated purist ideology called Hela (pure
18
K. N. O. Dharmadasa, ‘The Ideological Pinnacle of Sinhalese Language
Nationalism, Part I: Cumaratunga and the Hela Identity’ Ceylon Journal of Historical
and Social Studies, Vol. VIII (2) 1978 (Published in 1981) pp. 1–16. See also
Dharmadasa, ‘Language and Sinhalese Nationalism: The Career of Munidasa
Cumaratunga’.
19
See A. K. Gunasena, ‘The Puristic Movement in Sinhalese, 1922–1970’,
(unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of London, 1976) p. 42.

Sinhala), a quest for authentic linguistic usage as opposed to the Indo-
Aryan linguistic discourse which had an Indic orientation.20
In order to assess the significance of Cumaratunga’s role in Sinhala
language purism in the 1930s and 1940s, the notion of the term
linguistic purism must be made clear from the outset. In sociolinguistics,
‘purism’ is defined as an attitude to language which labels certain
elements as ‘pure’, and therefore desirable, and others as ‘impure’,
and therefore undesirable.21 Discussing language purism as a type of
‘language correction’, Neustupný argues that ‘purism is one of many
corrective processes directed towards culture’.22 In addition, language
purists and puristic movements are nationalistic, thus they often try
to keep the symbol of national identity free from outside influence.
Linguist George Thomas suggests that there are various types of
purism: for example, elitist purism, which scorns non-standard and
regional usages, and archaising purism, which locates the purest, truest
expressions of the language in the remote past. He also mentions
another type, xenophobic purism, which seeks to purge the language
of foreign elements.23 In this sense, purism is a nativistic activity
dedicated to the removal of foreign influences (mostly lexical but
also grammatical) or the adherence to the classical forms and lexicon
of a language. Thomas also says that purism is ‘an attitude towards
language’, and ‘puristic attitudes are closely linked with other cultural
values’.24 It seems clear that judgements concerning the ‘correctness’
and ‘purity’ of language are social rather than purely linguistic. As
will be shown below, the puristic discourse of Cumaratunga was socio-
politically inspired to a large extent and cannot be divorced from the
social, political and cultural context of the period.
Cumaratunga was born on 25 July 1887, the son of an Ayurvedic
physician in Dikhena, a remote village in the southern district of
Matara. He had his primary education in a pirivena and an English
education at St Thomas’ College, Matara. He started his career
as a Sinhala teacher (1909–1917), and was later promoted to the
post of Inspector of Anglo-Vernacular schools (1917–1922) in the
20
The early twentieth century saw the spread of various notions of authenticity
in reaction to colonialism. See Nira Wickremasinghe, Sri Lanka in the Modern Age: A
History of Contested Identities (London: Hurst and Company, 2006) Chapter 3.
21
George Thomas, Linguistic Purism (London: Longman, 1991) p. 19.
22
J. V. Neustupný ‘Language purism as a type of language correction’ in Jernudd
and Shapiro (ed.), The Politics of Language Purism, p. 211.
23
Thomas, Linguistic Purism, p. 75.
24
Ibid. p. 2.

Department of Education. Subsequently, he became principal of the

Teacher Training Colleges at Nittambuwa (1927) in Western province
and at Balapitiya (1929) in Southern province. He died at the relatively
early age of 57, on 2 March 1944, four years before the country gained
political independence.
As pointed out by many scholars, Cumaratunga’s linguistic policy
was best known for its linguistic purism.25 A popular goal in language
reform and revival movements is the purification of language.
However, in different contexts, this purification means different
things. In the eighteenth century, the ‘revivalist’ movement of
scholar monk Velivita Saranankara (1698–1778) paved the way for
the resuscitation of classical literary genres. The main motive of
Saranankara’s revival was to reinstate the pure doctrine of Buddhism
and the orthodox Buddhist order. Therefore, religion was the principal
domain in which the concept of purity operated. Before Cumaratunga,
in the mid-nineteenth century, bilingual scholars like James de Alwis
(1823–1878), had expressed the need to preserve the ‘original purity’
of the Sinhala language and the neglect of the study of ancient Sinhala
grammar.26 His notion of purity of language focused on the influence
of the colonial encounter; it was also disseminated through the English
language.
The need for language reform, 1930–1940
Cumaratunga started his literary career in an era of socio-cultural and

political reform. The second and third decades of the twentieth century
offered conditions which were favourable to puristic and reformist
25
See M. W. S. De Silva, ‘Effects of Purism on the Evolution of the Written
Language’; Wickramasuriya, ‘Munidasa Kumaratunga’s Contribution to Sinhalese
Linguistics’; Dharmadasa, ‘Language and Sinhalese Nationalism’; Gunasena, ‘The
Puristic Movement in Sinhalese’.
26
In 1852, in his long introduction to the English translation of the thirteenth-
century Sinhala grammar, the Sidat Sangarava, De Alwis observed: ‘In the Maritime
Provinces, and in the principal towns, the Singhalese is now no longer spoken in
its original purity; although in writing, persons of education avoid many of the
ungrammatical expressions which they use in conversation. . .the greater portion of
the rising generation, are incapable of carrying on a conversation for any length
of time, without introducing Portuguese, Dutch, English, and even Tamil terms—a
practice which we regret to perceive is gaining ground in the towns of this Island.’
James De Alwis, The Sidat Sangarava: A Grammar of the Singhalese Language Translated
into English with Introduction, Notes and Appendices (Colombo: Government Press, 1852)
p. cclix. For a detailed discussion on De Alwis’s discourse on language, see
Dharmadasa, Language, Religion and Ethnic Assertiveness, Chapter 2.

attitudes towards the Sinhala language. The growth of publications
in Sinhala (mainly periodicals and newspapers), the expansion of
vernacular education, and the emergence of pirivena scholars who had
mastered the classical languages (Sanskrit and Pali) created a suitable
environment for scholarly activities. The publication of a large number
of critical editions of ancient Sinhala classical texts had a considerable
impact on the literary scene of the day. Several Sinhalese scholars
who taught Sinhala in schools or pirivenas compiled grammar books.27
With the expansion of print Sinhala, new forms of literature like
the novel, short story and school textbooks emerged, and there was
much discussion about the best linguistic style for prose writing.28
Due to the absence of clear language norms for written usage, various
writers expressed their views on grammatical rules. Consequently,
the Sinhala language became an important topic for discussions of
language reform ideas in scholarly circles.
In this context Cumaratunga argued that language reform was
necessary for Sinhala in order to safeguard the intrinsic purity of
the language. His reform of Sinhala grammar went hand in hand
with his efforts to recover and revive ancient Sinhala literary works.
Like many other pirivena scholars of the day, he started his literary
career by preparing commentaries and editing Sinhala classical texts
(both prose and verse), beginning in 1922. In all, he edited 28 Sinhala
classical texts, the majority of which were prescribed to be used in
public examinations at the time.29 He hoped that, through studying
these classical works, students would gradually become familiar with
27
For example, Simon De Silva’s Sabdhānuśāsanaya: Sinhala Bhāshāve Vyākaranaya
(1929) and Theodor G. Perera’s Sinhala Bhāshāva (1932) were compiled mainly for
pedagogic purposes.
28
See Sarathchandra, Sinhalese Novel.
29
As Table 1 shows there was a good circulation for these works.
Table 1
Circulation of Cumaratunga’s editions of Sinhala classical works
Title Circulation Publisher Year
Daham Sarana (Part II) 3000 Grantha Prakāśa 1930
Ratnāvali Vivaranaya 6000 Grantha Prakāśa 1930
Gutitla Sāraya 10,000 Grantha Prakāśa 1931
Kusa Jātaka Vivranaya 3000 Grantha Prakāśa 1931
Elu AttanagaluVamsa Vivranaya 3000 Grantha Prakāśa 1932
Saddhrama Ratnāvali (Part II) 2000 Grantha Prakāśa 1932
Source: Ceylon Blue Books, 1930–1931.

correct usage. His goal was to maintain the ‘purity’ of the classical
texts. His editorial work revealed the grammatical rules of ‘classical’
Sinhala to the reader and emphasized the literary prestige of those
works. In his edition to the classical Sinhala poem, Muvadev dā vata,
he stated: ‘those who want to learn the correct and pure usage of the
language, should study these works with great fervour’.30 In his critical
commentaries to the classical works, he discussed various grammatical
rules in Sinhala. He also tried to reform the modern written language
according to usage in the Sinhala classics, such as Amāvatura (twelfth
century) and Saddharma Ratnāvaliya (thirteenth century). In his preface
to Parevi Sandeśa Vivaranya, Cumaratunga observed:
Language is like water. Learned men are like filters. Impurities from the
outside get mixed up with water. However, before being used for drinking,
the water is strained and the impurities are filtered out and discarded. In
language, too, coarse and uncivilized usages seep in. Scholars examine and
discard them.31
Like many other purists, Cumaratunga believed that there was

a ‘vintage year when language achieved a measure of excellence
which we should all strive to maintain’.32 In formulating the norms
of ‘correct’ Sinhala, he looked back at the ancient works and matched
modern usage with the writings of the ‘best authors’ of classical
literature. The classical literary language was the yardstick against
which he measured the purity of linguistic usage; the language of
the classical works was considered ‘correct’ Sinhala. For example, he
pointed out certain phonological and morphological features that were
peculiar to ancient Sinhala usage which he wanted to be reintroduced.
One of these features was the use of the grapheme ‘ ’(pronounced
/æ/) in certain places instead of the contemporary usage of the
grapheme ‘ ’(pronounced /a/).33 In fact he believed that the ‘best’
Sinhala is inevitably that of the past.34
30
Munidasa Cumaratunga, Muvadev dā Vivaranaya (Colombo: 1922) p. i.
31
Munidasa Cumaratunga, Parevi Sandeśa Vivaranaya (Colombo: K. D. Perera and
Sons, 1932) p. 12.
32
Jean Aitchison, Language Change: Progress or Decay? (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2001) p. 13.
33
Furthermore, Cumaratunga pointed out that the grapheme we /æ/ is unique to
Sinhala.
34
As M. W. S. De Silva points out ‘the adoption of the classical language of the
thirteenth and fourteenth centuries for literary purposes was motivated by the belief
that the revival of the ‘golden age’ of Sinhalese culture would only be possible in the

As stated previously, the idea of reforming the language was
prevalent in varying degrees from the beginning of the twentieth
century. However, one can also argue that the ideology of Western
linguistic purism of the early eighteenth and nineteenth-centuries
also influenced Cumaratunga’s linguistic policy with regard to usage
and grammar.35 In the 1920s and 1930s, the idea of linguistic
correctness was part of English teaching in schools. As school
inspector of Anglo-vernacular schools, Cumaratunga may have been
influenced by such prescriptive ideas as ‘corruption’ (dūshita) and
‘vulgar’ (ashista). Cumaratunga’s views on the purity of language
resemble the early eighteenth-century puristic grammatical discourse
of English.36 Like other Western purists, Cumaratunga, viewed any
language change negatively as ‘language decay’ (parihāniya), or as
language pollution/corruption (dūshita), and this motivated him to
launch a programme for language reform.
The aim of Cumaratunga’s linguistic reform efforts was to purify
the language. However, the concept of ‘linguistic correctness’ has
always been a basic notion in the Sinhala and Sanskrit grammatical
tradition.37 For example, the thirteenth century Sinhala grammar
for poetical works, the Sidat Saňgarāva, stressed the value of ‘learned
usage’ (se piyonan, or chekha prayoga). The pirivena scholars of the
early twentieth century also recognized the ‘correctness’ of language
according to the notion of Sidat Saňgarāva, or Sanskrit grammars.
Indeed, the pirivena scholars adopted the grammatical rules of this
treatise as the model for written Sinhala. Like his contemporaries,
Cumaratunga accepted the value of ‘learned usage’ in his 1935
commentary to the Sidat Saňgarāva. He stated, ‘those who are anxious
language of that period’. M. W. S. De Silva, ‘Some Consequences of Diglossia’, York

Papers in Linguistics 4, 1974, p. 79.
35
Ranjini Obeyesekere also points this out in her book, Sinhala Writing and the New
Critics, p. 22.
36
It is worth to comparing Cumaratunga’s notion of purity and language reform
with the ‘doctrine of correctness’ of early eighteenth-century English grammarians.
As one writer put it, ‘impure, or debased language, such as is commonly spoken by the
low people’. See S. A. Leonard, The Doctrine of Correctness in English Usage, 1700–1800
(New York: Russell and Russell, Repr. 1962, 1929) p. 175; Linda Mitchell, Grammar
Wars: Language as cultural battlefield in 17th and 18th century England (Aldershot: Ashgate,
2001).
37
Charles Hallisey makes an important argument about the relationship between
Sinhala and Sanskrit literary cultures. See Charles Hallisey, ‘Works and Persons
in Sinhala Literary Culture’ in, Sheldon Pollock (ed.) Literary Cultures in History:
Reconstructions from South Asia (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003)
pp. 689–746.

about the purity of language must persevere and become involved in

the pursuit of scholastic usage. Grammar is the law laid down pertaining to
the scholastic device’.38
As a grammarian, Cumaratunga was more interested in the
refinement of the written language. His notion of linguistic purity
was based on the grammatical correctness of the written language.
He thus promoted the ‘purity’ of the written language at the expense
of the spoken language, considering the literary language inherently
‘purer’ and more ‘correct’ than all other forms of the language.39
Such arguments were frequently put forward to safeguard the written
language from the flux and variance that is found in the spoken form.
He once observed: ‘We too are not unaware of language change.
But that does not imply that Sinhalese should be a ‘wild language’
(vädi basa). We approve of language change that tends towards
civilized usage’.40 Cumaratunga therefore, considered colloquial or
spoken usage to be ‘vulgar’ (grāmya or aśishta) and abandoned it for
written usage.41
Linguistic correctness, ‘good language’ and civilized society
As a language reformer Cumaratunga paid special attention to the

state of the Sinhala language and called for remedial measures. In
1935, he observed: ‘At present the Sinhala language is like a dense
38
Munidasa Cumaratunga, Sidat Saňgarā Vivaranaya (Colombo: 1935) p. 43.
Emphasis added. In 1852 James De Alwis also remarked: ‘Shall a grammar be
composed according to the standard of the vulgar?—or, according to the vicissitudes of
language?—or, according to the standard of the learned?’ James De Alwis, The Sidath
Sangarawa, A Grammar of the Sinhalese Language, Translated into English, with Introduction,
Notes, and Appendices (Colombo: Government Printer, 1852) p. cclxiii.
39
Linguist John Lyons explains this situation in the following way: ‘The traditional
grammarian tended to assume, not only that the written language was more
fundamental than the spoken, but also that a particular form of the written language,
namely the literary language, was inherently “purer” and more “correct” than all other
forms of the language, written and spoken; and that it was his task, as a grammarian,
to “preserve” this form of the language from “corruption”.’ John Lyons, Introduction to
Theoretical Linguistics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969) p. 42.
40
Cumaratunga, Parevi Sandeśa Vivaranaya, p. 11.
41
It is interesting to note here that in the nineteenth-century, James De Alwis had
also made similar statements in his survey of the Sinhala language: ‘In all countries
languages are used incorrectly by the vulgar, and correctly by the educated’. De Alwis,
Sidat Sangarava, p. cclxiii.

forest. Those who wish to cross it clear their own paths’.42 In order to
reform the Sinhala language, Cumaratunga made a special effort to
constrain what he considered ‘bad language’ (dubasa) and to encourage
what he considered ‘good language’ (subasa).43 The promotion of ‘good
language’ was an important component of Cumaratunga’s language
reform programme, and one which he considered a prerequisite for
the Sinhalese people’s struggle for freedom. From the beginning of his
career, Cumaratunga stressed the important link between language
and nation. He stated: ‘A language that is devoid of innate strength and
devoid of rules denotes a nation that is devoid of a spirit of loftiness’.44
For Cumaratunga, the state of the language was a metaphor for the
state of the nation. His campaign for the ‘purity’ of Sinhala language
gained momentum in the 1930s and the early 1940s when the national
movement for independence entered its most critical phase. Giving
special attention to the status of Sinhala language, he wrote in 1936:
Signs are appearing that Sinhala is becoming the most uncivilized language. . .
With a civilized people what becomes civilized first is their language. . .
Need it be said that people who use an uncivilized language are themselves
uncivilized? The time has come for us to correct this.45
Cumaratunga used the metaphors of law and society to define the

relationship of grammar to language. He often complained about
‘linguistic decline’, and in 1938, in his grammar of the Sinhala
language, he observed: ‘Just like a society without laws, a language
without them would plunge into confusion. The Sinhala language is
facing disaster. A course of action to prevent this is immediately called
for’.46
42
Munidasa Cumaratunga, Mayura Sandeśa Vivaranaya (Colombo: Maryland
Gunasena, 1935) p. 85.
43
Allan and Burridge have stated that ‘language purism seeks to constrain the
linguistic behaviour of individuals by identifying certain elements in a language as
“bad”.’ Keith Allan and Kate Burridge, Forbidden Words: Taboo and the Censoring of
Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006) p. 112.
44
Lak Mini Pahana, 25–12-1934.
45
Vidyodaya, 1936, (1)1. The rhetoric about ‘uncivilized language’ and ‘linguistic
decay’ is an extension of established discourse dating from the late nineteenth century
‘Buddhist revival’, when there was concern about the Sinhalese becoming a ‘criminal
race’, about drinking alcohol leading to social decay. Thanks to Dr John Rogers for
reminding me of this point.
46
Munidasa Cumaratunga, Vyākarana Vivaranaya (Colombo: Maryland Gunasena,
1938) Preface. The notion of linguistic decline is widespread in standardization
situations, and is closely connected to the idea that ‘conduct and morality in society

One of the principal points on which Cumaratunga laid repeated

stress during the 1930s was the link between ‘civilized language’ and
‘civilized society’. The central theme of his argument was that the
terms for the two, sishta bhāshāva and sishta samājaya respectively, are
related. Cumaratunga sums up this attitude as follows: ‘Grammar
is the legal treatise that determines the correct usage of language.
A civilized society is protected by social laws. Likewise, a civilized language
is protected by linguistic laws, called grammar.47 This quotation shows the
important role that grammatical ‘laws’ play in protecting ‘correct’
usage. He believed that ‘correct language’ is preserved by the
educated, who use it, and that the approved language is associated
with the ‘civilized’ society. The following quotation clearly shows his
mission: ‘The national language ought to be given its proper place. The
refined sentiments of the masses must be gradually developed. A base,
corrupted, inelegant and insipid language will produce a mean and
miserable mentality’.48 To him, therefore, ‘correct’ or ‘grammatical’
Sinhala was a means towards social and political progress. Later on
he linked this idea with the concept of the nation: ‘just think of what
might happen to a nation if the law is not respected. The same thing
will happen to the language if the law of words is not respected’.49
We can summarize Cumaratunga’s view on the relationship between
language, society and grammar in the following way:
Grammatical laws → civilized language

= social laws → civilized society or nation.
He firmly believed that by maintaining a proper order in language,

order in society could be established. In other words, Cumaratunga
reiterated the need for ‘social discipline’ as well as ‘linguistic
discipline’.50 His notion of linguistic correctness was intimately linked
with the social norms of the speech community.
are also in decline’. J. Milroy and L. Milroy, Authority in Language (Oxford: Blackwell,
1985) p. 32.
47
Cumaratunga, Vyākarana Vivaranaya, p. 1. My emphasis.
48
The Helio, Vol. I (9 & 10) 1941, p. 74.
49
The Helio, Vol. I (7 & 8) 1941: p. 49.
50
On this point, see Wimal Dissanayaka, Enabling Traditions: Four Sinhala Cultural
Intellectuals (Colombo: Visidunu, 2005) p. 48.

In this connection Cumaratunga recognized the value of the
educational system for raising the status of language.51 In a preface to
one classical work, he noted the state of language teaching in schools:
‘If there is any subject that suffers the most unjust treatment at
the hands of both the teachers and the taught it is the Sinhalese
language’.52 During the 1930s, British officials held high offices in
government. Cumaratunga pointed out that the high officials in the
Education Department possessed no knowledge of the languages of
the land, and were therefore not fit to approve or prescribe textbooks.
He noted that the Director of Education was unable to speak one
word of any local language.53 Cumaratunga criticized the policies
of the colonial Department of Education saying: ‘the Department
has done and are [sic] still doing everything possible to make the
language lawless, graceless, powerless and worthless’.54 He asked
for government intervention to safeguard the ‘correct language’ in
schools. In 1940, Cumaratunga articulated the ‘lamentable state of
affairs’, in an ‘open appeal’ to the Minister of Education, C. W. W.
Kannangara:
What have you got to do? You have only to get the Department to issue an
order that henceforth the language used by both teachers and taught must
be scrupulously correct. I am perfectly sure, Sir that you will have, within a
week, correct language used in all the schools.55
Challenge to pirivenas and historical linguistic scholarship
At the beginning of the twentieth century, Sanskrit and Pali played

an important role in the intellectual life of pirivena scholars. Many
displayed erudition in Pali and Sanskrit; command over these
languages was a matter of pride.56 Accordingly, an admiration and
fascination for these languages and the literature written in them
51
Cumaratunga wrote two series of school reading books, Śikśā Mārgaya and
Kiyawana Nuvana. In 1930, the circulation of Śikśā Mārgaya—III was 10,000 copies.
The Ceylon Blue Book—1930.
52
Cumaranatunga, Subhāsita with Translation and Notes, p. v.
53
Lak Mini Pahana, 1934–7-17. The Director of Education was L. Macrae.
54
The Helio Vol. 1 (9 and 10), 1941, p. 70.
55
Subasa, Vol. 1 (18), 1940, p. 267.
56
‘Proficiency in Pali and Sanskrit was regarded as the qualifications of a scholar
by the founders of these two institutions [Vidyodaya and Vidyalankara]’. See Tissa
Kariyawasam, Religious Activities and the Development of a New Poetical Tradition
in Sinhalese, 1852–1906’ (Ph.D. dissertation, University of London, 1973) p. 337.

formed the central part of the curriculum in pirivena education.

The pirivena scholars also urged that Pali be taught in Sinhalese
schools.57 When pirivena grammarians wanted to standardize Sinhala,
they looked to Sanskrit or Pali models to codify grammar rules. As
a result, Pali and Sanskrit grammatical rules continued to influence
the grammatical description of Sinhala. The pirivena scholarship also
considered Pali and Sanskrit as the ‘mother languages’ (mātru bhāshā)
of Sinhala, and expressed the evolution of Sinhala in relation to those
languages.58 In reaction to this scholarly tradition, Cumaratunga
stressed the merits of Sinhala grammatical features over those of
the Pali and Sanskrit. He stated, in his critical elucidation to the Sidat
Saňgarāva, that ‘it is by scrutinising Sinhala usage that a grammar
for Sinhala has to be supplied, not by scrutinising Sanskrit and Pali
grammars’.59 He was thus criticizing the scholars of the pirivena
institutions for basing their study of Sinhala in the Sidat Saňgarāva
and on Pali and Sanskrit.
In the field of language reform, Cumaratunga stressed the need for
a new Sinhala grammar which would establish the grammatical rules
for Sinhala. He thought that Sinhala should have its own linguistic
rules rather than using those of Pali and Sanskrit: ‘What we have to
do is not attempt to see how far the grammatical analysis conforms
to this language or that, but to discover the system that best suits our
own language’.60 He criticized the ‘handbook’ of Sinhala grammar—
the thirteenth century Sidat Saňgarāva—as an unsuitable grammar for
the Sinhala language. This criticism became controversial because at
that time the Sidat Saňgarāva was an established text in the teaching
of Sinhala grammar.61 All the pirivenas considered it an authoritative
grammar for Sinhala and, with the expansion of vernacular education,
had a pedagogic importance for the teaching of Sinhala grammar
according to the grammatical rules of the Sidat Saňgarāva.62
57
Vidyodaya, 15–10-1927 (editorial).
58
See articles that appeared in the journal of the Oriental Studies Society, 1937–
1947.
59
Cumaratunga, Sidat Saňgarā Vivaranya, pp. 215–216.
60
Subasa Vol.1 (1) 1939.
61
As stated by W. F. Gunawardhana, in 1924: ‘For a man to say “when I was having
the Sidat Saňgarāva expounded to me” was as much honour and pride as saying “when
I was reading for my Degree”.’ W. F. Gunawardhana Siddhānta Parı̄kshnaya (Colombo:
New Jersey Cooray, 1924), p. 17.
62
Consider the following works: D. E. Johannes, Sinhalese Grammar (Colombo:
1916); Punchibandara Pada Nı̄tiya; Theodore G. Perera, Sinhala Bhāshāva (1932);
Simon De Silva, Shabdhānushāsanaya.

Around the 1930s, systematic historical studies of the Sinhala
language, carried out by European Orientalists and local scholars,
helped to identify the ‘Indo-Aryan’ linguistic character of the Sinhala
language. There had been a growing body of linguistic scholarship
discussing the differing degrees of resemblance among different
Indian languages. More importantly, the German Orientalist Wilhelm
Geiger’s (1856–1943) writings on the Sinhala language also had a
pioneering influence on this historical linguistic scholarship. In 1931,
Geiger was invited to direct the work of the Sinhala Etymological
Dictionary Project. Work on the Sinhala dictionary proceeded slowly
and its first part appeared only in 1935. This work laid the
foundation for the study of Sinhala from a historical linguistic
perspective. In the introduction of this dictionary, Geiger and D. B.
Jayatilaka (1868–1944) provided a periodization of the evolution of
the Sinhala language—beginning from the third or fourth centuries
to the thirteenth century—which gained general acceptance among
language scholars.63 This laid the foundations for the study of Sinhala
from a historical perspective, and the editors of the Sinhala Dictionary
stated, ‘it is an indisputable fact that the Sinhalese Language is one
of the Modern Indo-Aryan Vernaculars and stands in a line with
Gujarati, Marathi, Bengali, Hindustani etc’.64 More importantly, the
publication of Geiger’s, A Grammar of the Sinhalese Language in 1938,
was considered to be a pioneer effort in the study of the historical
aspects of the Sinhala language. These studies made a significant
contribution towards expanding the domains of Indo-Aryan linguistic
research on Sinhala. As a comparative philologist, Geiger attempted to
trace the etymology of every Sinhala word to its Sanskrit, Pali or Prakrit
origin, but Cumaratunga challenged him saying that Sinhala, like
many other languages, possesses a stock of words of purely indigenous
origin. Cumaratunga rejected the contemporary philological studies of
Sinhala by scholars such as Geiger, who was one of the advisors on
the compilation of the Sinhala etymological dictionary.65 In his open
letter to C. H. Collins, Chairman of the Managing Committee of
the Sinhala Dictionary, Cumaratunga commented: ‘Professor Geiger,
the great authority on the Dictionary, does not know Sinhalese’. He
63
Wilhelm Geiger and D. B. Jayatilaka, A Dictionary of the Sinhalese Language.
Vol. I—Part I (Colombo: Royal Asiatic Society Ceylon Branch, 1935) Introduction.
64
Ibid. p. xvii.
65
In the 1930s Professor Geiger was the most reputed European scholar on the
subject of the Sinhala language.

noted that Geiger’s ‘great grammar. . .clearly shows how lamentably

defective his knowledge of Comparative Philology is so far at least as
it deals with the Sinhalese language’.66
To counter Geiger, Cumaratunga published a new grammar for
the Sinhala language in 1938, Vyākarana Vivaranaya (An Exposition
of Grammar), in which he set out the ‘authentic’ grammatical rules
and structure of Sinhala. He concentrated more on the structure of
Sinhala than on the etymology, because he saw etymology as a part
of Comparative Philology, providing the resemblances of vocabulary
to other Indian languages. In the preface to his work, Cumaratunga
laid down a policy for Sinhala grammarians, and asserted the value of
linguistic usage over etymology in the compilation of grammar.
Most Sinhalese grammarians have adopted the grammars of other languages
as a criterion for the grammar of their own language. The standard they
adopted was the grammar of Sanskrit or Pali. Since they tried to force
Sinhala into the mould of Sanskrit and Pali grammar, their grammatical
treatises tended to obscure the intrinsic structure of Sinhala to a very great
extent. . .Where a certain grammatical feature exists in Sinhala usage, the
fact that it is present or absent in other great languages is no cause for
perturbation to us. The usages exclusive to Sinhala appear the most valuable
to us.67
It is clear from this discussion that Cumaratunga’s intention was
to demonstrate the uniqueness of Sinhala and its independence from
other Indian languages—mainly Sanskrit and Pali. In making this his
goal, he rejected the dominant linguistic scholarship of the time, which
focused on the history of the language and assumed it was derived
from Pali and Sanskrit. This was a turning point in Cumaratunga’s
career. By this time he had become a well-known personality in the
Sinhala literary scene. The following discussion explains how his ideas
of reforming Sinhala became connected with the question of linguistic
authenticity and political freedom of the Sinhalese in the late 1930s.
The campaign for ‘Pure Sinhala’ and the Genesis of the Hela
Movement, 1939–1944
As noted earlier, most Sinhala writers in the first few decades of the
twentieth century—especially the pirivena-educated monks—used a
66
Subasa, Vol. 1(19), 1940, p. 289. Cumaratunga’s exhaustive criticism of Geiger’s
work, in 13 parts may be found in the magazine Subasa from 24 July 1939 to 5 February
1940.
67
Cumaratunga, Vyākarana Vivaranaya, p. iv.

Miśra Sinhala (mixed Sinhala) style that was full of Sanskrit and Pali
borrowings. They advocated a ‘policy of deliberate and large-scale
‘Sanskritization’ of the language’ which came to a climax in the early
twentieth century.68 The pirivena scholars believed that ‘the Sinhala
language could be raised to a more dignified status’ by employing high
sounding Sanskrit phraseology and this was the language style revived
in the late nineteenth century by the scholar monks of the classicist
tradition.69 The rural intelligentsia, who received their education in
pirivenas, unwittingly became slavish imitators of Sanskrit. The pirivena
scholars believed that a knowledge of Sanskrit and Pali was essential
to have a good command of the Sinhala language.70 Moreover, by
the end of the 1920s, most literary writers and the Sinhala reading
public showed their preference for ‘mixed Sinhala,’ and this became
the most accepted or standard style for prose writing. For example,
the most popular Sinhala novels of this period, such as W. A. Silva’s
Lakshmi (1922), historical novel Avicāra Samaya (1936), and Martin
Wickremasinghe’s historical romance Rōhini (1929), were written in
a Sanskritized style.
Cumaratunga too had adopted the contemporary mixed Sinhala
style in his writings at the beginning of his literary career. Some years
later, however, he opposed the excessive use of the Sanskritic lexis
and advocated the use of ‘pure Sinhala’ (Hela) vocabulary.71 The years
1939–1944 were the climax of Cumaratunga’s enthusiasm for ‘pure
Sinhala’ and hostility to Sanskrit words. In 1939, he declared:
Since recent times we have been committing a great mistake; that is, leaning
towards Sanskrit as much as possible. In the same manner as it is considered
prestigious today to lean towards English, those who lived sometime ago
thought it very important to lean towards Sanskrit. . .Now we have a duty to
perform, that is, to do our best to liberate the Sinhala language.72
68
Dharmadasa, Language, Religion and Ethnic Assertiveness, p. 152.
69
For more details about this linguistic revival movement, see Gunasena, The
Puristic Movement in Sinhalese, pp. 93–100.
70
Sinhala Bauddhayā, 12–5-1906. For a similar idea in the Bengali speech
community, see Monsur Musa ‘Purism and correctness in the Bengali speech
community’ in B. H. Jernudd and M. J. Shapiro (eds), The Politics of Language Purism,
pp. 105–112.
71
It is interesting to note that at the same time, there was a similar ‘pure Tamil’
(tanittamil) movement in South India led by Maraimalai Atikal (1876–1950) to get rid
of both Sanskrit and English words from Tamil. See K. Kailasapathy, The Tamil Purist
Movement: A Re-Evaluation, Social Scientist Vol. 7 (10) 1979, pp. 23–51. Ramaswamy,
Passions of the Tongue, pp. 144–154.
72
Subasa, Vol. 1 (3) 1939, p. 29.

This view lay behind Cumaratunga’s conscious rejection of the

Sanskritized forms of Sinhala prose, and gave rise to the ideals of
‘pure’ Sinhala (Hela language) that were oriented to the past. He
emphatically asserted that the Hela, which is devoid of Sanskrit and
Pali, is the only ‘pure’ or’ genuine’ form of Sinhala. In 1941, he
declared:
What is English to us? What is Sanskrit to us? What is Pali to us? We should
make a point of expressing our emotions and feelings in idiomatic and flowery
language. Only then will we find that the Sinhala language, race, and the
country will be on an upswing.73
As this quote suggests Cumaratunga’s criticism focused on the

three dominant languages of the time—English, as a language of the
colonial government, and Sanskrit and Pali as classical languages in
the pirivena educational system. During the years 1939 to 1944, there
was a linguistic shift in his style of prose—from mixed Sinhala to pure
Sinhala (śhuddha Sinhala or Hela).74 An important consequence of this
shift was that Cumaratunga adopted Hela (pure Sinhala) words rather
than Sanskrit forms. He outlined some principles for the coining of
new Sinhala terms based on Hela roots. The following table shows a
small section of words in Hela with their equivalents in mixed Sinhala
and Sanskrit.
As the examples in Table 2 show, most Hela words were
quite different from their mixed Sinhala equivalent. Cumaratunga
attempted to create almost a new variety of Sinhala prose—Hela
basa or Elu, completely devoid of Sanskrit and Pali words. His desire
was to show that the Sinhala language was an independent language
rather than hybridized by excessive borrowings from, or mixing with,
other languages. Therefore, he condemned the Sanskrit etymology of
Sinhala words.75
Soon after the appearance of Hela usage, the linguistic scene
became more complicated in several ways. Many contemporary writers
found Hela to be more archaic, outdated and incomprehensible than
73
Subasa, Vol. 2, 1941–3-24.
74
The mixed Sinhala alphabet has 58 letters, whereas the pure Sinhala alphabet
has 32. This pure Sinhala alphabet is mainly used for poetical work. The old Sinhala
which is generally referred to as ‘Elu’ or ‘Hela’ is devoid of Sanskrit words.
75
James Milroy labels this kind of purism as genetic or etymological purism. James
Milroy, ‘Some Effects of Purist Ideologies on Historical Descriptions of English’ in
Nils Langer and Winifred V. Davies (eds), Linguistic Purism in the Germanic Languages
(Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2005) pp. 324–342.

Table 2
Some Hela words and their equivalents in Mixed Sinhala and Sanskrit
Sanskrit Mixed Sinhala Hela
Vidyā(Science) Vidyāva Soyun
Sāhitya (literature) Sāhitya Liviseriya
Bhāshā (language) Bhāshāva Basa
Pāthasālā (school) Pāthasālā Pāsala or hik hala
Mudranāla (press) Mudranālaya Paharuva
mixed Sinhala. Although Hela was not acceptable to many writers,

Cumaratunga and his ardent followers tried to impose it on them
as a ‘pure’, ‘genuine’ form of Sinhala. We can describe this linguistic
policy of de-Sanskritizatation of Sinhala as an effort to ‘indigenize’ the
vocabulary of language, but on the other hand it was a reaction to the
dominant pirivena and philological linguistic scholarship. However, this
fondness for pure Sinhala usage was criticized by many contemporary
writers as an ‘obsession or madness’.76 The writers who adopted Hela
words became an anti-Sanskritic group of purists estranged from the
main linguistic stream.
It is also important to point out that in the 1930s pirivena
scholars (mainly Buddhist monks) and oriental scholars in the Ceylon
University College (1921) dominated the academic profession. At the
same time, they were involved in government sponsored linguistic
projects such as Geiger’s Sinhala Etymological Dictionary.77 In 1935,
D. B. Jayatilaka, leader of the State Council and Editor-in-Chief of
the Sinhala Dictionary, had a close association with monks of the
Vidyālankāra Pirivena.78 The Ceylon University College, and academic
associations, including the Ceylon Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society,
also took an active interest in these activities. In Ceylon University
College, the local languages of Sinhala and Tamil, as well as the
classical languages of the country, Pali and Sanskrit, all came under
one department of study. Cumaratunga was not invited to help with
the dictionary nor was he even consulted in its preparation or to teach
Sinhala in the oriental section at University College. He had strongly
criticized the established literati, saying that ‘the pundits of the temple
76
See editorial of Dinamina, 3–3-1944.
77
Geiger worked closely with Jayatilaka and other oriental scholar monks.
78
In his preface to the dictionary, Jayatilaka noted: ‘the measure of co-operation
extended to us by well-known scholars, including Principals of almost all the
leading Pirivenas (Buddhist Oriental Colleges), was most encouraging’. Jayatilaka, A
Dictionary of the Sinhalese Language, p. x.

and the university have created a language of their own which is at

once debased, insipid and inelegant’.79 In an editorial to The Helio
entitled ‘Doctoring to Death’, Cumaratunga stated:
Oh, our beautiful language! Its grammar is to go back to the grandmother,
its style is to be stilled, its spelling is to be expelled and its space is to be
spaded. The ‘doctors’ see nothing wrong in doing so. We have no word in
the matter, for we are not ‘doctors’.80
Thus we can argue that Cumaratunga’a linguistic policy involved

attacking the dominant oriental scholarship of the day. In fact, he
adopted this policy in response to Geiger’s philological works, which
considered Sanskrit and Pali essential to the study of Sinhala. Through
the elimination of Sanskrit, Pali and Tamil words (and also other
foreign words) he tried to distinguish Sinhala from other Indian
languages (particularly Sanskrit and Pali), and to emphasize the
‘genuine’ and ‘unique’ features of Sinhala.81 There was a growing
linguistic consciousness among Sinhalese speakers, at this time
concerning their linguistic affinity to other Indo-Aryan languages.
The University College carried out Indo-Aryan scholarship under the
guidance of reputed oriental scholars. In this context Cumaratunga
attempted to show that Sinhala developed separately from other Indic
languages.82 Cumaratunga and his followers were thus attempting to
construct a new theory concerning the origin of Sinhala in response to
contemporary historical linguistic scholarship.
With the growth of language loyalty in the mid-1930s,
Cumaratunga’s puristic attitudes and interventions became more
clamorous. As a leading literary figure he was well aware of the
reforming role that newspapers could play in language. He restarted
the defunct newspaper Lak Mini Pahana in 1934, and edited it
until 1936. This newspaper demonstrated a strong commitment to
language reform, adopting firm editorial policies on language. In the
first editorial of Lak Mini Pahana, Cumaratunga stated that ‘its main
business is to make room for anyone to express his opinion in a refined,
79
The Helio, Vol. 1 (13 and 14), 1941, p. 105.
80
The Helio, Vol. 1 (7 and 8), p. 50. Referring to Dr G. P. Malalasekera, Head of
the Oriental Studies, University College.
81
One feature was the sound (ä) in Sinhala. Cumaratunga said: ‘It does not occur
in the Sanskrit alphabet, nor is it found in any other Indian alphabet that we know’.
The Helio Vol. 1 (9 and 10), p. 71.
82
Thomas has identified this ‘separating function’ as one of the ‘prime motivating
forces of purism’. Linguistic Purism, p. 182.

elegant language that will be beneficial to the society at large’.83 A
notable feature of his journalism was enthusiasm in the promotion of
‘correct’ language. Although it promoted elegant, correct language,
it did not use Hela. Thus Lak Mini Pahana encouraged students to
write correct language and to make use of it as a vibrant vehicle to
convey their ideas and feelings. In order to publicize his linguistic
views, Cumaratunga also started a Sinhala journal in 1939, which he
called Subasa (Good Language). With the publication of Subasa, Sinhala
language reform activities and the campaign for purism reached their
peak. Various issues related to written usage in Sinhala were discussed
in the journal, and a large stock of pure Sinhala words were presented
and their use encouraged.
There was also a nationalistic motivation behind these purification
efforts.84 Cumaratunga was seeking to construct an indigenous
Hela identity on the basis of the Hela language (Hela basa).
Almost simultaneously with the publication of Subasa, Cumaratunga’s
linguistic ideas crystallized into a new ideology, known as Hela ideology,
the central theme of which was the creation of a new linguistic identity.
This identity was based solely on the Hela language (hela basa), but it
was also used to designate the Hela race or people (hela räsa),85 the
Hela land (hela desa), the music and so on. In 1941, Cumaratunga said:
‘Let all be Hela in nationality, caste, language and religion. . .Let our
aim be one, that is, to work as one for the welfare of our country, our
nation and our language’.86 Cumaratunga had rejected the Mahāvamsa
story about the Vijayan colonization in the island, and upheld the
idea of an independent Hela civilization, using the term ‘Heladiva’
(Island of the Hela) to denote the country. The Hela language was
promoted and based on the idea of an ethnically pure race—the Hela.
Cumaratunga preferred the term Hela (which he called Helese in
English) rather than Sinhala. In other words, the revival of the Hela
language constituted a vital component in the building of the new Hela
(or pure Sinhala) national identity.
Ideologically, the promotion of the Hela notion posited a parallel
but counter discourse to the dominant construction of Sinhala as an
Indo-Aryan language. Cumaratunga emphasized the unique features
83
Lak Mini Pahana, November 1934 (editorial).
84
As Thomas says ‘it is hard to think of an instance of purism which is not motivated
by some form of cultural or political nationalism’. Thomas, Linguistic Purism, p. 43.
85
The term räsa is a Helese coinage for the English word ‘race’.
86
The Helio, Vol. 1 (7 & 8) 1941, p. 56.

of the Sinhala language and distanced it from other languages, mainly

Pali and Sanskrit. He publicly stated:
Know that the Sinhalese language is not a daughter of any language now
in existence. Her idiom is her own. Her grammar is her own. The Helese
people. . .must realize that their beautiful language is not the same as the
debased jargon now in use among ignoramuses whose names have been
variously appendaged. They must begin to feel proud of their language by
finding its singularities which they must uphold and cherish.87
Like the leaders of the Turkish language movement in the 1930s,

Cumaratunga maintained the superiority and uniqueness of Sinhala
over other languages.88 In fact, he went one step further and argued
that Indian languages were all derived from Hela, declaring that ‘the
Helese language is older than the oldest Indian languages’89 Even Pali
was considered a language created by the Hela people.90 The followers
of Cumaratunga also used the Hela ideology to claim the superiority of
Sinhala over other languages.91 This theory that Hela was the mother
of all languages set out to create an authentic linguistic identity by
distinguishing the Sinhala language from other Indian languages.92
It has been pointed out with regard to nationalism that language
is the ‘authenticating device for finding, claiming and utilizing one’s
inheritance’.93 Cumaratunga tried to purify the Sinhala language to
shape it into an adequate symbol of national identity. This linguistic
effort to reconstruct the authentic uniqueness of the nationality—the
Hela identity—inspired feelings of patriotism in the Sinhalese people
and inculcated a sense that they had a ‘unique’ national identity. In this
87
The Helio, I (11 and 12), 1941, p. 87.
88
It is interesting to note here that Cumaratunga’s Hela language theory resembled
the ‘Sun-Language Theory’ in Turkey in the 1930s, according to which Turkish was
the mother tongue of all languages. See Uriel Heyd, Language Reform in Modern Turkey
(Jerusalem: The Israel Oriental Society, 1954).
89
The Helio, Vol.1 (11/12) 1941, p.87.
90
‘Pali, one of the so called mothers of the Helese language, had been fathered by
the Helese themselves’. Ibid.
91
The journal Helio carried articles related to the history of the Helese people and
attempted to revive, promote and elevate the Sinhala language. See articles written
by R. Tennakoon on the topic, ‘The Hidden History of the Helese’, The Helio Vol. 1
1941: (4), (6), (7 and 8), (9 and 10), (13 and 14), (15 and 16).
92
As noted by Shapiro, language purism of all types is frequently triggered by a
desire to strengthen national identity in the face of perceived threat from the Other.
M. J. Shapiro, ‘A Political approach to language purism’, in Jernudd and Shapiro (eds),
The Politics of Language Purism, p. 28.
93
Joshua A. Fishman, Language and Nationalism: Two Integrative Essays (Rowley,
Massachusetts: Newbury 1973) p. 45.

way, the Hela movement was thus concerned not merely with purifying
the language, but was also a political movement, which identified one
authentic language (Hela basa) with one authentic people (Hela räsa).
Cumaratunga’s search for an authentic linguistic heritage shows the
primacy of the language-national identity link pre-independence.
Some of the activities of the Hela movement were aimed at changing
contemporary linguistic practices of the Sinhalese community. For
instance, the Sinhalisation of proper names became an important
feature of the Hela movement. During the 1920s Dharmapala’s
powerful impact led many to adopt traditional Ārya Sinhala names
(mainly Sanskrit) instead of English or Portuguese names. Going
against the prevalent tendency to adopt Ārya Sinhala names in this
period, Cumaratunga suggested the Hela version of Sanskrit and
English names. During the latter part of his career, Cumaratunga
changed his Sanskrit-based name of ‘Cumaratunga Munidasa’ to
a Hela name: ‘Cumaratungu Munidas’. The followers of the Hela
movement also adopted Hela versions of their personal names and,
by extension, also changed the names of towns, streets, and place
names.94 Cumaratunga also adopted a policy of writing the initials
of a name according to Sinhala letters. His followers, subsequently,
rejected the Western style of writing initials, and adopted the Sinhala
style.95
This Hela movement first gained the support of the Sinhala language
loyalists because of its ethno-nationalistic implications. However, like
many other puristic movements, it failed to gain the support of
Sinhala scholars.96 This was due in part to Cumaratunga’s vehement
attack on the pirivena scholars and the university, both of which
were firmly established in the Sinhala linguistic sphere. Scholars and
many public figures withheld support, also because of Cumaratunga’s
puristic ideas about language. As a result, Cumaratunga’s purification
efforts were hampered by inadequate institutional and popular
support. In the early 1940s, when purism had gained ground in
the Sinhala literary scene, many scholars defended purism. Most
94
Below are some examples of the name changes: Ārysena Āshubōdha > Arisen
Ahubudu, Amarasiri Gunawardhana > Amarasiri Gunawadu, Abraham Gamhewa >
Abiram Gamhewa, Saviyel Alwis > Alavisi Sabihela, Don David Mohotti > Donu
Davidu Mohotti. For a similar act in Tamil India, see Ramaswamy, Passions of the
Tongue, p. 145.
95
Consider the following examples: W. M. Perera—Ve. Ma. Perera, K. B.
Jayasuriya—Kū. Bē. Jayasuriya—A. D. Chandrasekera—Ā. Do. Chandrasekera.
96
For an Indian example, see Ramaswamy, Passions of the Tongue, pp. 144–148.

of them were Sinhala newspaper editors and pirivena scholars who

had adopted contemporary mixed Sinhala usage.97 In response,
Cumaratunga and his followers criticized current literary works solely
on the basis of grammatical mistakes. For example, the journal
Subasa carried numerous articles attacking Martin Wickremasinghe
(1890–1976), the well-known novelist and writer at that time, as
a ‘corruptor of the Sinhala language’ by pointing out faults in his
grammar, syntax and idiom.98 As a journalist and creative writer
Wickremasinghe emphasized the need for a simple language that
could be easily understood by the masses, in order to disseminate
new ideas and information. Writing an article to the Subasa, another
leading Hela activist, Jayantha Weerasekera (1895–1949) stated that
contemporary Sinhala journalists and novelists who opposed Hela were
‘enemies of the Sinhala language’.99
Cumaratunga was more interested in language as a maker of
ethnicity than religion. He recognized the symbolic or ‘iconic’ value
of language for national identity and firmly believed in the power of
language as an instrument for moulding the national consciousness
of his countrymen.100 The myth that Hela language is inherently
associated with Hela civilization served as a strong link between
language and national identity. Thus we can argue that Hela ideology
was a ‘purer’ version of Sinhalese nationalism than Ārya Sinhala
because it recognized the centrality of Hela language. In this period,
especially up to the 1930s, Sinhala Buddhist nationalist leaders like
Anagarika Dharmapala (1864–1933) and Piyadasa Sirisena (1875–
1946) attempted to instil the values of the ethno-religious trinity
of rata (country), jātiya (nation), and āgama (religion) in the people
through their speeches and publications. For example, Dharamapla
97
In the early 1940s, Bambarände Siri Sı̄vali (1905–1985), a teacher at the
Vidyālankāra Pirivena who had studied in Bengal, launched a programme for
‘Progressive Sinhala’ (Pragatiśili Sinhalaya) in opposition to Hela usage. In a series
of articles in the journal Subasa, Cumaratunga launched a rigorous and prolonged
criticism of Siri Sı̄vali’s ideas on language. See See Subasa 1(21) 1940, pp. 317–318;
no. 25 (1940): pp. 387–390; II, no. 5 (1940) pp. 79–80. In a column in the The Helio,
Cumaratunga said: ‘Our great painted patriots of today want even the remnants of
our once beautiful language to be Bengalized and Anglisized’. The Helio Vol. 1 (11
and 12) 1941, p. 91.
98
Subasa, Vol. 1 (23), 1940, p. 345. See articles written by Jayantha Weerasekera
on the ‘corruption of language’ (basa kelesuma).
99
Subasa Vol. 1 (2) 1939, pp. 23–24.
100
Robert King uses the term ‘language as icon’ to refer to the symbolic use of
language, to achieve non-linguistic goals. See Robert D. King, Nehru and the Language
Politics of India (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1997).

stressed the affinity between Sanskrit, Pali and Sinhala, as ‘Aryan’
languages, and popularized the idea of an Aryan language ( Ārya bhāshā)
and Aryan race ( Ārya jātiya).101 Cumaratunga, however, tended to rely
on language rather than on religion as a symbol of the community. By
downplaying Buddhism as an element of Sinhalese ethnic identity,
he focused on the Sinhala language as a tool to achieve political
independence. In place of the popular slogan ‘country, nation and
religion’, he adopted another trinity of ‘language, race and country’
(basa, räsa, desa), placing ‘language’ first as the foremost element.
In his view, language transcended religious differences among the
Sinhalese—particularly between Buddhist and Christian. In this way
Cumaratunga was able to get the support of Sinhalese Christians
for the Hela movement. He recognized basa, räsa, desa (language, race
and country) as the ‘Hela Triple Gem’ (Hela Teruvana).102 The trend
of putting language before religion in constructing national identity
reflects the growing importance of the language factor in Sinhala
nationalism and politics in the late 1930s.
Through these efforts Cumaratunga attempted to build a nation
of Sinhalese (Helese) based on language. He said: ‘The only genuine
language of the land is Sinhalese. There is no other spot under the sun
where the Sinhalese language [is] in use. Ceylon must see that her
national language is carefully and constantly preserved and properly
nurtured’.103 Cumaratunga’s identification of language as the prime
identity component of an ethnic group is central to his idea of an
‘imagined nation’. He declared: ‘In order to uplift a nation, the first
step that should be taken is the improvement of its language’.104 Going
further, he argued that independence in the sphere of language was
101
Dharmapala said: ‘The only race which has maintained noble principles down
its generations is the Aryan race. The only language with fully articulated sounds and
complete letters is the Aryan language. . .The Sinhala language developed with the
Aryan Sanskrit and Pali languages as its origin. The only way in which one can know
about the ancient Sinhalese who had noble qualities is through the Sinhala language’.
Sinhala Bauddhayā, 2 March 1912. It is worth noting here that during the nineteenth
century Swami Dayanand—the founder of the Ārya Samaj (1869) in India—gave the
name ‘ Ārya Bhāshā’ to the Hindi language.
102
For Buddhists the word teruvana conveyed the meaning of Buddha-Dhamma-
Sangha. Fishman has pointed out, ‘one ingredient of the holy trinity (holy people,
holy land, holy language), language has been regarded as a defining characteristic of
a nationality, within the sphere of the Judeo-Christian tradition, since Biblical days’.
Fishman, Language and Nationalism, p. 44.
103
See Subasa Vol. 2 (28) 1941, p. 433. An open appeal to His Excellency the
Governor.
104
Subasa, Vol. 2 (18), pp. 278–279.

a prerequisite for political independence. Cumaratunga was the first

to connect the Sinhala language with political independence and the
first to recognize that linguistic independence is intimately tied to
national independence. He pointed out: ‘Whatever anyone may say
we will never obtain freedom if we despoil our own language. Begin
therefore with our own language’.105 It is interesting to note here
that similar views were expressed in the Tamil linguistic sphere in
South India at this time. For example, in 1924, the Tamil scholar
Kalyanasundaram declared: ‘The nation in which the mother tongue
does not flourish will never achieve freedom. . .The first step towards
freedom is respect for the mother tongue’.106 Speaking at a Youth
Congress session in Jaffna, in 1929, he called on the youth to labour
hard to restore the Tamil language to its original glory.107
The decade of the 1930s marked the beginning of major
political developments that altered the language situation. With
the introduction of universal suffrage in 1931, 17 years before
independence, the post-1931 period saw a rapid transformation of the
country’s political system in the transfer of responsibility over large
and important areas of government activity to local politicians.108 The
local political leadership were forced to speak to the people in their
own language, and elite-mass linkages became visible in linguistic
matters. The question of language became a politically significant
one for elite politicians and there was a public interest and debate
about the use of local languages in government activities and in
education. Cumaratunga held the view that before a language could
attain official status and be used as a medium of instruction, it should
be idiomatic, elegant, grammatical and correct. As a Sinhala language
advocate, he campaigned on behalf of the use of Sinhala in government
105
Quoted in D. V. Richard De Silva, Cumaratungu Munidasna (Colombo: Gunasena,
1969). It is worth noting that in 1917, Gandhi said: ‘Until all public activities take
place in Hindi the country cannot progress. Until Congress conducts all its activities
in the rāstrabhāshā we shall not obtain svarājya’. Quoted in Francesca Orsini, The Hindi
Public Sphere 1920–1940: Language and Literature in the Age of Nationalism (Delhi: Oxford
University Press, 2002) pp. 358–359.
106
Quoted in Ramaswamy, Passions of the Tongue, p. 57.
107
Santasilan Kadirgamar, Handy Perinbanayagam—A Memorial Volume (Chun-
nakam: Thirumakkal Press, 1980), part I, p. 53.
108
For a discussion on political change in this period, see K. M. De Silva, Managing
Ethnic Tensions, pp. 49–67; Nira Wickremasinghe, Ethnic Politics in Colonial Sri Lanka,
1927–1947 (Delhi: Vikas Publishing House, 1995).

activities and education, and argued for the purity of Sinhala usage.109
In 1940, in his ‘open appeal’ to the Minister of Education, he expressed
the desire for Sinhala to be used, whilst also indicating its need for
improvement:
We clamour for Court proceedings in the Sinhala language. We long to listen
to Sinhala speeches in the State Council. In short we want Sinhala to be made
the state language at least in the Sinhalese provinces. But how many of us
pay any attention to the language itself, its form, its purity, its forcefulness,
its elegance?110
As a language loyalist he sought to rescue Sinhala from its

subordinate status as a language of a colonized people.111 In one of
his Lak Mini Pahana editorials, Cumaratunga explained his objection
to the use of the term ‘vernacular’ to denote the Sinhalese people’s
language, pointing out that it conveys the image of an inferior
local language in contrast to the language spoken by the dominant
colonial power. He advocated that the word Sinhala be used instead
of ‘vernacular’, which has the meaning of ‘debase language’ (the
language of the slaves). In support of his view that it should be called
‘Sinhala’, he said: ‘if our country is Sinhalese, the nation is Sinhalese,
and if the language is Sinhalese, is there any other name that is far
more suitable?’112
Establishment of the Hela Havula
Unlike many other contemporary scholars, Cumaratunga had a large

number of disciples and followers, the majority of whom were his own
109
Cumaratunga wrote several ‘open letters’ and appeals (in English) to relevant
authorities of the colonial government on the issue of language. Consider the
following: An open appeal to Sir D. B. Jayatilaka Subasa Vol. 1 (17) pp. 251–252;
An open appeal to the Minister of Education, Subasa, Vol. 1 (18), pp. 266–267; An
Open letter to Dr Ivor Jennings (Principal of Ceylon University College), Subasa
Vol. 2 (23) 353–356; An Open letter to the University College Council, Subasa
Vol. 2(26), 401–403; An open appeal to His Excellency the Governor, Subasa Vol.
2 (28), 433–435.
110
Subasa, Vol. 1 (18) 1940, p. 266.
111
For a similar reaction in Tamil language in India, see Sumathi Ramaswamy
‘En/gendering Language: The Poetics of Tamil Identity’, Comparative Studies in Society
and History 35(4) 1993, pp. 683–725.
112
Lak Mini Pahana 1935–10-29 (editorial). In the official discourse Sinhala and
Tamil languages were considered as ‘the two chief vernacular languages in the island’.
See Ceylon—Annual General Report for 1927 (London: HMSO, 1928) p. 2.

pupils.113 In an effort to promote Sinhala, Cumaratunga founded in

1941 one of the most dynamic language associations of the time, the
Hela Havula, (Pure Sinhala or Hela Fraternity).114 The purpose of this
organization was to bring together a group of like-minded individuals:
the Sinhala language loyalists of his time. At the inauguration of the
Hela Havula, Cumaratunga pointed out:
A country with an undeveloped language will not develop. . .This is a small
country. The Sinhalese are a small nation. It is a defeatist mentality to say
that in a small country there is hardly any room for development. . .Let us get
together, form a society, and set up branch societies throughout the island,
in order to make known to the people the work that we propose to do.115
The Hela Havula soon became a puristically motivated language
association to which a considerable portion of the Sinhalese-
educated youth—mainly Sinhala school teachers —were attracted.116
It conducted open meetings, held public lectures, and published the
journal Subasa. Although it was an organized language movement in
character, one can argue it was also as an ideological movement for
the purity of Sinhala.
According to Paul Brass, language movements are closely related to
concerns about economic advancement, social status, and political
power.117 As a language association, Hela Havula attempted to
formulate specific objectives in language politics, and its activities were
linked to the developments of the contemporary Sinhala linguistic
and literary culture. Cumaratunga’s puristic activities gained further
momentum with the establishment of Hela Havula. The three values
of basa, räsa, desa (language, race, and country) were used as the
organization’s main slogan and the adoption of ‘pure Sinhala’ or Hela
was seen as the first step in the struggle for independence. This
113
For details about his followers, see Anandapiya Kudatihi, ‘Pupils, disciples
and followers of Munidasa Cumaratunga’ S. G. M. Weerasinghe (ed.) Munidasa
Cumaratunga Expository (Maharagama: National Institute of Education, 1994) pp. 119–
138.
114
The first attempt of Cumaratunga to establish an organization was the founding
of the Sinhala Samājaya (The Sinhalese Society) in 1935. See Amarasiri Gunawadu,
Maha Hela Vata (Maradana: K. A. Ariyadasa, 1957) p. 148. The name Hela Havula
was proposed by Jayantha Weerasekera, who succeeded Cumaratunga as the leader
of this organization in 1944.
115
Subasa Vol. 2 (18), 1941, pp. 278–279.
116
There were 300 members present at the first general meeting of Hela Havula
held on 15–2-1941. Subasa Vol. 2 (20) p. 319.
117
Paul Brass, ‘Elite interests, popular passions, and social power in the language
politics of India’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol. 27, 3, 2004, pp. 360–361.

was the main language association active in the language politics
of the period, and most of its leaders, for example, Cumaratunga,
Jayantha Weerasekera had links with the national leaders of the
Ceylon National Congress (founded in 1919) and Sinhala Maha Sabhā
(founded in 1934). It is interesting to note that Cumaratunga was
a member of the Sinhala Maha Sabhā, which mobilized Sinhalese
masses under the dynamic leadership of S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike
(1899–1959) from the mid-1930s. Later, Cumaratunga was not happy
about the Sinhala Maha Sabh’s policy, particularly with regard to the
language. In one of its meetings in 1936, Bandaranaike moved that
the name Sinhala Maha Sabhā (The Great Association of the Sinhalese)
be replaced by Swadeśiya Maha Sabhā (The Great Association of the
Indigenes) in order to gain the support of other communities. On this
occasion Cumaratunga defended the retention of the word Sinhala,
and the motion was defeated.118
Until the 1940s, the issue of language was discussed in the
legislature within the confines of education policy. It was now that the
topic of ‘official language’ (rājya bhāshā) became a matter of political
concern, for instance in the political agenda of the State Council of
Ceylon. By this time, the Sinhala language loyalists had had a definite
impact on the national language question. In 1941, ten years after the
adoption of the universal adult franchise, Cumaratunga wrote in his
periodical:
Let us take a new policy at the next general elections. Let us say beforehand
that we shall not give our vote to anyone who does not promise to speak
exclusively in Sinhala in the Council. Let us determine to put this into practice
as well. . .[and] see if our hopes will not be fulfilled.119
The deputy leader of the Hela Havula, Weerasekera, became the

Joint Secretary of the Ceylon National Congress in 1943, with J. R.
Jayewardene (1906–1996), who was the first Sinhalese politician who
proposed a resolution to make Sinhala the sole official language in
1943. Some of the movement’s members were associated with the
Left movement of the 1930s.120 Hela Havula also represented the
ideas of the Sinhala-speaking middle class intelligentsia —especially
118
Harischandra Wijayatunga, Cumāratunga Samāja Darśanaya (Colombo: Maryland
Gunasena, 1962) p. 15.
119
Subasa Vol. 3 (1–8) 1941, p. 35.
120
Personal communication with Anadapiya Kudatihi, present leader of the Hela
Havula (20–01-2008). In December 1935, the Lanka Sama Samāja Party (LSSP) a
socialist party, was formed by Western-educated Trotskyites.

Table 3
Educational and occupational background of Hela Havula leaders and their locality
Name Occupation Education Locality
Munidasa Cumaratunga Sinhala teacher/ pirivena/English South
School Inspector
Jayantha Weerasekera Sinhala journalist English/pirivena South
Raipiel Tennakoon Sinhala teacher/ Vernacular Western
Principal
Amarasiri Gunawadu Railway Guard Vernacular South
Wellala Jayamaha Ayurvedic Vernacular South
physician
Arisen Ahubudu Sinhala teacher Vernacular South
Alauisi Sebihela Sinhala teacher Vernacular Western
Sinhala school-teachers, principals and notaries. It had branches in

some parts of the country, mainly in the Southern and Western
provinces. The leaders and most of its members became emotionally
and intellectually devoted to the promotion of pure Sinhala. Many of
them tried to promote the Hela Havula in their schools and teacher
training colleges.121 There is evidence, for example, that some of
the most important personalities in the movement came from the
Southern province—the locality of Cumaratunga (see Table 3).
Cumaratunga campaigned in Sinhala as well as in English, but
most of the Hela Havula members were Sinhala monolinguals. At
this time, the English language dominated the administration of the
country, and there was a demand for ‘more’ and ‘better’ English in
the educational system. In 1941, the same year when Hela Havula was
founded, Cumaratunga launched the journal, The Helio, in order to
propagate his ideas in English medium. ‘Sinhalese, more Sinhalese and
better Sinhalese’ was the slogan of this journal. In the first editorial,
Cumaratunga explained: ‘Our aim is to give a push, a vigorous push
to the Hela (Sinhalese) language. Why is it in English? Because the
great majority of those who have the power to allow or disallow a
real push for it understand English better than any other language.122
At this time most of the Principals of Colleges and Head Masters of
English schools paid very little attention to teaching the mother tongue
121
About 60 per cent of the members of the Nāgari Prachārini Sabhā,—a leading
Hindi language association in India, also belonged to the teaching profession. See
Jyotirindra Das Gupta, Language Conflict and National Development: Group Politics and
National Language Policy in India (Berkley: University of California, 1970) p. 200.
122
The Helio, Vol. 1 (1) 1941, p. 1.

in their institutions, causing Cumaratunga to complain: ‘What they
seem to want is to make English our national language’.123 In 1941,
Cumaratunga stated:
Our patient is our mother tongue. She is being deliberately neglected, abused,
degraded, starved, spoiled and poisoned. Her own children have already
forgotten the fact that she was their own mother. . .Let us revive our own
mother and receive her own blessing.124
On one occasion, writing in an open letter to Dr Ivor Jennings (1903–

1965), Principal of the Ceylon University College, Cumaratunga said
with great humility: ‘It is very seldom that I write even a letter
in English, not because I despise that language, but because I am
more concerned with my own language. There is a world to look
after the English language, but the Sinhalese language is helpless’.125
Comparing Sinhala with the Tamil language Cumaratunga said
‘. . .the [Sinhala] language is that of a small nation of a few million
people’ and pointed out that in ‘South India there are millions
and millions of people to safeguard the Tamil language’.126 In
connection with the establishment of the University of Ceylon in 1942,
Cumaratunga stressed the task of the University with regard to the
‘preservation and cultivation’ of the Sinhala language.127
In the early 1940s, the Hela Havula, aroused interest in the Sinhala
language and sharpened language-loyalty attitudes. It produced
a brand of scholars with a profound knowledge of the Sinhala
language who became emotionally and intellectually devoted to the
123
Ibid., p. 2.
124
The Helio, Vol. I (9 & 10) 1941, p. 75. In Tamil India, the idea of ‘mother tongue’
created devotion towards Tamil. See Ramaswamy, Passions of the Tongue, pp. 246–247.
125
Subasa, Vol. 2 (23) 1941, p. 355.
126
Subasa, Vol. 2 (28) 1941, pp. 433–435. This sentiment was echoed by J. R.
Jayewardene, in the 1944 official language debate. He believed that there was a need
to protect the Sinhala language from the South Indian Tamil influences: ‘The great
fear I had was that Sinhalese being a language spoken by only 8,000,000 people in
the whole world would suffer, or may be entirely lost in time to come, if Tamil is also
placed on an equal footing with it in this country. The influence of Tamil literature,
a literature used in India by over 40,000,000, and the influence of Tamil films and
Tamil culture in the country, I thought might be detrimental to the future of the
Sinhalese language’. Debates of the State Council of Ceylon 1944, p. 748.
127
Subasa, Vol. 2 (28), p. 433. After the establishment of the University of Ceylon in
1942, there was a move to divide the Faculty of Oriental Studies into four departments,
Sinhala, Pali, Sanskrit and Tamil.

promotion of Sinhala in later years.128 Unlike the contemporary

Indian language movements, the Hela Havula never transformed into
a political association.129 The failure of Cumaratunga’s efforts to
popularise the Hela identity of the Sinhala language can largely
be explained by two facts: the Indo-Aryan identity of Sinhala was
firmly established by this time, and pirivena scholars dominated the
linguistic scholarship. However, the Hela movement created a strong
sentimental and cultural attachment to the language, especially
among the Sinhalese-educated youth. It also created a favourable
sociolinguistic environment for the politicization of language loyalty in
the early 1940s. Cumaratunga died in March 1944, but by that time
the official language question had achieved political significance.130
After the untimely demise of Cumaratunga, Weerasekera became the
leader of the Hela movement and continued Cumaratunga’s campaign
to declare Sinhala alone as the official language.
Conclusion
In the first two decades of the twentieth century, several changes

occurred in the linguistic and political spheres, some of which reflected
a growing interest in language usage and resulted in a demand for
raising the status of Sinhala. Scholars became increasingly concerned
with the notions of linguistic correction, purism and reform, with
language seen as the main determinant of national identity. In
this context, I have examined the language policies and practices
advocated by the Hela movement of Munidasa Cumaratunga, and the
call for language reform involving the creation of a ‘pure’ form of
Sinhala, uncontaminated by foreign influences. Purity of language
was not a new concept for Sinhala but, as I have shown, the notion of
purity that was propagated by Cumaratunga in the 1930s and 1940s
was closely associated with other linguistic practices and socio-political
developments of the day. As the case of Cumaratunga indicates, his
language purism was not undertaken for the mere love of language. I
have argued that Cumaratunga’s language movement was essentially
128
Nevertheless, the linguistic policy of Hela Havula exerted a considerable impact
on various language planning activities in the post-independence era, and it became
a school of thought about language in the Sinhala speech community.
129
However, some national and political movements of post independence Sri
Lanka adopted this Hela label for their movements. For example, the Jātika Hela
Urumaya (a Sinhala nationalist political party founded in 2004).
130
Incidentally, the year 1944 marked the first political attempt to declare Sinhala
and Tamil as official languages.

a revolt against the dominant language practices and ideologies of
the colonial government, political leadership, the pirivena and the
contemporary literary elite of the time.
This paper has attempted to suggest that the role played by
Cumaratunga had important implications for the politicization of
the Sinhala language and making it an issue in national affairs is
concerned. He highlighted the role of Sinhala as a unique ‘national
language’ and launched a campaign to make Sinhala a politically
significant issue. As we have already seen, Cumaratunga’s views
about language usage were not only based on genuine linguistic
worries, but also reflected deeper and more general social judgements.
His discourse about ‘correct’ and ‘civilized’ language emerged
in an era of socio-political reform, and these ideas became an
integral part of the social and cultural transformations that have
taken place during the 1930s and 1940s. Cumaratunga’s linguistic
thought—mainly his Hela ideology—promoted the ethnolinguistic
uniqueness of the Sinhalese community and made a decisive impact
on the development of a linguistic consciousness. For Cumaratunga,
language was nationalism’s main ideological site and was used as
the main tool to create Sinhala national identity. The purging
of foreign elements in language was carried out in order to
distinguish Sinhala from its neighbours and reinforce its status
as an authentic language. This new attention to language created
unprecedented awareness of the Sinhala language that fostered its
politicization. The battle between Sinhala and other languages began,
and Sinhala continues to be dominant in the national language
movement. I have argued that the concept of Hela, which asserted the
superiority of Sinhala over other languages, served as the ideological
basis for the language politics of the 1940s. The politicization
of Sinhala language-loyalty laid the foundations for the idea of
Sinhala as the ‘national language’ of the Sinhalese nation. This
process can be summarized as follows: language loyalty > promotion
of the own language > identifying the language as ‘corrupt’ >
movement for the purification of language > official recognition of the
own language > empowerment of the formerly powerless language.131
These developments in linguistic culture provided a context for the
demand for the people’s own language (swabhāshā) which marked the
genesis of the national/official language movement in the 1940s.
131
See Brass, ‘Elite interests, popular passions, and social power in the language
politics of India’ for a similar schemata on language politics.

Purifying The Sinhala Language The Hela Movement of Munidasa Cumaratunga 1930s 1940s

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Purifying The Sinhala Language The Hela Movement of Munidasa Cumaratunga 1930s 1940s

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Modern Asian Studies 46, 4 (2012) pp. 857–891.

Purifying the Sinhala Language: The Hela

Department of Sinhala, Faculty of Arts, University of Colombo, Sri Lanka

re-evaluates the impact of the Hela (pure Sinhala) movement of Munidasa

The Buddhist revivalists of late nineteenth century Sri Lanka were

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0026749X11000291 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0026749X11000291 Published online by Cambridge University Press

its increased use as a ‘print language’.9 The growth in the number of

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0026749X11000291 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0026749X11000291 Published online by Cambridge University Press

grammatical works and editorials. This paper explores Cumaratunga’s

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0026749X11000291 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0026749X11000291 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Department of Education. Subsequently, he became principal of the

The need for language reform, 1930–1940

Cumaratunga started his literary career in an era of socio-cultural and

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0026749X11000291 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0026749X11000291 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Like many other purists, Cumaratunga believed that there was

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0026749X11000291 Published online by Cambridge University Press

language of that period’. M. W. S. De Silva, ‘Some Consequences of Diglossia’, York

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0026749X11000291 Published online by Cambridge University Press

about the purity of language must persevere and become involved in

Linguistic correctness, ‘good language’ and civilized society

As a language reformer Cumaratunga paid special attention to the

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0026749X11000291 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Cumaratunga used the metaphors of law and society to define the

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0026749X11000291 Published online by Cambridge University Press

One of the principal points on which Cumaratunga laid repeated

Grammatical laws → civilized language

He firmly believed that by maintaining a proper order in language,

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0026749X11000291 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Challenge to pirivenas and historical linguistic scholarship

At the beginning of the twentieth century, Sanskrit and Pali played

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0026749X11000291 Published online by Cambridge University Press

formed the central part of the curriculum in pirivena education.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0026749X11000291 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0026749X11000291 Published online by Cambridge University Press

noted that Geiger’s ‘great grammar. . .clearly shows how lamentably

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0026749X11000291 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0026749X11000291 Published online by Cambridge University Press

This view lay behind Cumaratunga’s conscious rejection of the

As this quote suggests Cumaratunga’s criticism focused on the

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0026749X11000291 Published online by Cambridge University Press

mixed Sinhala. Although Hela was not acceptable to many writers,

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0026749X11000291 Published online by Cambridge University Press

and the university have created a language of their own which is at

Thus we can argue that Cumaratunga’a linguistic policy involved

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0026749X11000291 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0026749X11000291 Published online by Cambridge University Press

of the Sinhala language and distanced it from other languages, mainly

Like the leaders of the Turkish language movement in the 1930s,

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0026749X11000291 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0026749X11000291 Published online by Cambridge University Press

of them were Sinhala newspaper editors and pirivena scholars who

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0026749X11000291 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0026749X11000291 Published online by Cambridge University Press

a prerequisite for political independence. Cumaratunga was the first

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0026749X11000291 Published online by Cambridge University Press

As a language loyalist he sought to rescue Sinhala from its

Establishment of the Hela Havula

Unlike many other contemporary scholars, Cumaratunga had a large