Historians have rejected the earlier notion that we borrowed the idea of kingship from King Asoka of India, together with Buddhism. It is now argued that the evolution of the state and the development of a monarchy were indigenous developments. (R. A. L. H. Gunewardene. Sri Lanka Journal of Humanities. Vol 8(1) 1982 p 39. Tilak Hettiarachchy. "History of Kingship in Ceylon" P 1). Gunewardene has taken the position that prior to King Dutugemunu, Sri Lanka was a mass of scattered polities, of different levels of sophistication, each with a different ruler. He suggests that it was only in 2 century AD that a 'mature state' capable of enacting its writ all over the kingdom could have arisen. However he points out that the early Brahmi inscriptions show some uniformity in language and script. And that the chiefdoms described above showed common cultural traits which were conducive to the development of a political unity on a higher scale. (P 7, 32).

The history of the ancient period of Sri Lanka is the history of monarchieal rule. This is the position taken in the University of Ceylon History of Ceylon (1960). K. M. de Silva's "History of Sri Lanka' (1981) does not dispute this view. Here is historian S. Pathmanathan on the subject of the "Sinhalese monarchy."

"An outstanding feature of the Sinhalese monarchy is its almost unbroken continuity lasting for nearly two thousand years and its close connections with Buddhist institutions. No dynastic state has ever had such a continuity and stability in the neighbouring Indian subcontinent from where the culture and political ideas of the ancient Sinhalese were mostly derived. Nor could any of the kingdoms in some of the countries of South-East Asia-Burma, Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam — where Buddhism exerted a profound influence, lay claim to such a long continuity and historical experience. The long and unbroken continuity and stability in the political and cultural tradition of the Sinhalese kingdom (s) was partly the result of the protection, provided by the island's insularity, the island's manageable territorial dimensions and the physiographic features which permitted control over a major part of it from a single dynastic centre before the thirteenth century. Another contributory factor was probably the absence of social classes able to challenge dynastic authority."

(Sri Lanka Journal of Humanities Vol 8(1) 1982 p 122).

It is not possible to say that Sri Lanka was ruled as united country for a straight 2500 years. This is a popular misconception, fostered by politicians and demagogues. No country in the world can boast of such an achievement. However, neither was Sri Lanka ruled as multiple polities by multiple sets of kings, as implied by the Tamil separatist movement. The question of geographic unity cannot have the same significance in ancient times, as it does today because in the ancient period, there would have been difficulties of communication. Further, little is known of the migration patterns and the populations distribution at the time. The available archaeological evidence seems to indicate that people first came in and settled down in the Wet Zone, and thereafter left it for the Dry Zone. The coastal areas, particularly the seaports continued to be occupied.

The royal administration does not seem to have been particularly totalitarian or all encompassing. Contrary to popular opinion, the king, it has now ben inferred, did not own all the land. Land was privately held too. The villages were to a great extent self sufficient. There is some degree of evidence available as to decision making independence of the king. There were rulers of interior status, during the Anuradhapura period. Some villages managed their own affairs, including even sentencing people to death. Village assemblies attended to community issues such as the village forests. (University of Ceylon History of Ceylon Vol. 1 p 228,373).

The king administered the country through his representatives. These could be his relatives or the ministers of his court. Where the king was strong, these representatives bowed to him. But when there was disturbance in the country, for what — ever reason, these representatives, who were probably feudal leaders in their own right, took the chance of asserting their own power.

It must be remembered that we are talking of kingly rule which took place over a thousand years ago. Communications would have been slow, distances great and it would have been a mighty achievement to exert control over the total population of Sri Lanka. Since the capital were initially at Anuradhapura and then Polonnaruwa, the most difficult of all provinces would have been Ruhuna, in the south. King Vasabha and King Gajabahu brought Ruhuna under control. (Hettiarchchy p 154). Ruhuna was kept in control primarily by placing it under a trusted relative of the king. There is also evidence that the heir to the throne, the 'uparaja' was traditionally placed in charge of Ruhuna. But it is argued that the kings authority would have been minimal in this area.

And that brings us to the important question of how we should evaluate monarchical rule in ancient Sri Lanka. What appears to have been his role. The main role of the king, it appears was to rule justly and well over this people, not grab chunks of territory. The king was expected to rule according to high moral principles, and with the consent of the people. He was the protector of Buddhism and the fount of justice. He was to be a benevolent ruler. There are constant references to the 'righteous king'.

There was a royal court, with the king's advisers and courtiers. There was a nobility and a land owning class. There was a royal administration, with the provincial rulers and the king's revenue collectors. There was a host of royal designations. There was the 'Uparaja', the heir to the throne, and the 'senapati', the commander of the army. Records indicate that the heir was given a suitable training. Interested readers could find details of the royal administration in University of Ceylon's "History of Ceylon" (1960) and the 'Concise History of Ceylon' edited by C. W. Nicholas (1961). The information is of course, dated, but sufficient for our purpose.

The Sri Lankan monarchy was an absolute monarchy, though tempered by religion. Historical research supports the view of a single king for the whole of Sri Lanka. If the assertion of the Tamil separatist movement was correct, then our historical records and archaeological excavations should show parallel kingdoms, with multiple sets of kings, all ruling simultaneously, in different parts of the island. Instead, starting with the Mahavamsa, the evidence points overwhelmingly to an unbroken succession of single kings. This list could be founding University of Ceylon's History of Ceylon, Vol 1. This is reproduced in K. M. de Silva's "History of Sri Lanka". However, the political and geographical unification of the island was not to be for power, territory or the greater glory of the king. It was to be for the protection of society and religion. (Pathmanathan. p 144).

From the time of King Devanampiyatissa, the historical chronicles contain references to the consecration of the king. This consecration involved an elaborate ritual, which at some point, included the Tooth Relic and the Bowl Relic.

It also involved ritual regalia, such as the 'ekavali' string of pearls. (UCHC p 368). The consecration and the possession of the regalia was vital for the king's authority. Consecration involved the Queen as well. She too had to be consecrated along with the king. This was for the purpose of establishing a lineal succession. However, dynastic succession caused trouble. There were many who were eligible to rule.

The king's brothers were eligible to rule, as were the king's sons. This often resulted in disputes over the succession, and endless palace intrigues. Therefore the main problem with monarchical rule in ancient Sri Lanka was not fragmented territory but disputed succession. And with disputed succession, the factor of consecration became even more important.

The Tamil separatist movement has put forward the tendentious argument that Sri Lanka was not under unified rule during the time of the Sinhala kings. Certainly, the territory under the kings did not remain constant. Some kings gained territory, others lost parts of it. There were bouts of civil war. Subordinate rulers tried to advantage of this. The rulers of Dakkinadesa and Ruhuna tried to asert their independence, on the death of Vijayabahu I. The most spectacular 'fragmentation of the polity' took place in the 14th century. P. A. T. Gunasignhe remarks that 1350 could be considered the nadir of the medieval Sinhala kingdom. At this time Sri Lanka had the following kingdoms: the consecrated ruler at Gampola, Peradeniya and Kandy as a separate principality, Kurunegala was another, and the Kingdom of Jaffna in North. The Jalasti of Colombo and the Muslim ruler Khwaja Jahan of Beruwala ruled independently. So probably did the provincial governors of Galle and Matara. By 1350 Sri Lanka had become a mass of independent principalities. There were also the Vanni principalities in the North-central area. (P. A. T. Gunasignhe. "The political history of Yapahuwa, Kurunegala and Gampala" p 193-194).

However the movement of the ruler, with his capital, downwards from Anuradhapura and Polonnaruwa, sucessively through Yapahuwa, Kurunegala, Dambadeniya, Gampola, Kotte and finally Kandy cannot be interpreted as the creation of 'new' kingdoms. To start with, it has been argued that Yapahuwa and Kurunegala were very probably highly populated areas even during the early Anuradhapura period. Similarly, Anuradhapura was a centre of political activity even during the Dambadeniya period. (Gunasinghe p 144). Throughout his study of the 'drift to the south west' Gunasinghe stresses the significance of the consecrated ruler, and the significance of concentration, in this fragmented polity. Mini kingdoms and breakaway kingdoms arose between the 13 and 16th centuries, but the concept of the single consecrated ruler continued to be venerated.

To conclude. The ancient period of Sri Lanka's history embodies one set of values. The modern period embodies a totally different set of values. Only an idiot will try to interpret both our modern situation and our anceint history using one and the same yardstick. The two periods are so totally different in outlook and achievement that to the history student, they resemble two different subjects. Sri Lanka has been viewed as a unified whole during ancient times. That unity may have been conceptual more than territorial. It may have included only a formal recognition of the sole consecrated ruler, but this signifies an understanding of the concept of territorial unity.

Back to Latest News

Home News Business DhammaWeb Info & Services Classified Search