By Sena Thoradeniya

The first part of this article was published on May 13, 2023 in LankaWeb three months ago. As we were engrossed in a major work in the last few months, we did not have time to see its conclusion.

(1) Debunking Myths

The main objective of the second part of our article is to debunk the myth  invented and spread by some columnists who write to English dailies (1) that the British Colonialists have backed a so-called secondary layer” for higher positions in regional and local administration  and (2) that these chieftains subverted the policies of the British in their regions” and repudiated colonial authority”. A person who has even a rudimentary knowledge of Kandyan Chieftains under the British would not dare to propagate such falsehoods.  

What we discuss in the succeeding parts are:

(a) Not based on village gossip invented by the adversaries of these office holders or their families;

(b) Not family lore or anecdotes prevalent in ancient villages;  

(c) Not satire invented by victimised villagers to show their bitterness;

(d) Not modern myth making;

(e) Not figments of our imagination or absurd theorising; as in the case of arriving at absurd conclusions looking at a floor tile in a manorial house.

What we discuss are well documented. For these essays we use sources generated by British Colonial administrators themselves. We know that it is cumbersome and arduous to go to the sources rather than pressing a computer key seated inside an ivory tower. 

(1.1) During the reign of Kandyan Kings most of the high office holders were selected from either Udunuwara, Yatinuwara, Dumbara (including Patha and Uda), Harispattuwa and Matale. They were posted even to faraway places such as Uva, Sabaragamuwa, Nuwara Kalaviya, Tamankaduwa, Puttalama, Madakalapuwa, Wellassa etc. British Colonial Government at certain times selected high office holders from the respective provinces, divisions and korales. This gave the impression to some modern historians that a second tier” of Kandyan aristocracy was created by the Britishers.

 (1.2) We should not ignore the fact that most of the high” caste Kandyans were related through intermarriages and the noteworthy distinction between these so-called tiers” was in land ownership and holding high office. Some disadvantaged relatives of the office holders worked as domestic aids or supervisors at manorial houses.

(1.3) Under the British administration many new positions were created such as[U1]  Presidents of Village Tribunals, Assessors, Unofficial Police Magistrates, Kachcheri Muhandirams, Interpreter Muhandirams etc. providing with opportunities for the lesser known” who did not hold positions in palace, revenue, military and regional administration under Kandyan kings.  

(1.4) In 1818 from among the top rank Kandyans a very few were either beheaded or exiled to the Isle of France or Mauritius. Notables among them were Keppetipola, Madugalle and Ellepola and Ehelepola and Pilimatalawwe respectively. It is interesting to note that close relatives of Pilimatalawwe, Keppetipola, Madugalle and some other leaders were appointed to high office soon after the 1818 freedom struggle. Later, descendants of Keppetipola and Madugalle held high office as Rate Mahattayas and Dissavas under the British Colonial Government. Some other families whose notable members were either transported or executed became extinct.

(1.5) A few years after 1818 old offices in palace establishment, revenue administration and military establishment were abolished by the British retaining only offices in regional, divisional and village administration andtemporalities administration. This deprived many families of holding high office and gave rise to the false conception that a second tier” taking roots.

(1.6) Non-participation in 1848 uprising and aiding the British troops in its suppression by the top Kandyan office holders should be studied with the ruthless suppression of 1818 freedom struggle and the avenues created by the colonialists to the people in the higher echelon of the society. Theorists who therorise that the leadership in 1848 struggle changed to plebeians forget that the motive force of 1818 Freedom Struggle was common people and village level functionaries. They wanted an icon to lead the struggle and they found that icon in Keppetipola. Some Kandyan chieftains who supported the struggle at the initial stages later decamped and showed their allegiance to the British Crown calculating the impending danger and the opening of avenues to high office. They were highly compensated and exempted from tax, mainly Uva and Matale chiefs.

(1.7) These junior rankers such as various Mohottalas of Uva, not fit to be a Vidane Arachchi as stated by Keppitipola, later elevated to high positions. Another fallacy created by some historians and pseudo-Marxists is that after the decimation of higher echelon of Kandyan aristocracy in 1818, there were none to provide leadership in 1848. 

(1.8) Alliance between Madugalle and Pilimatalawwe opposing Keppitipola and the King (Pretender to Britishers and our historians) and subsequent imprisonment of them at Pitawela in Uda Dumbara was the beginning of the end of the freedom struggle. Espionage work conducted by the ace conspirator John D’Oyly succeeded in creating a rift between the top-level leaders quickening the final defeat. D’Oyly sent Udugama  Unnanse to meet Keppitipola and his plan was to bring Keppetipola to Matara. It was he who spread the news that the King was none other than a disrobed monk called Wilbawe.

(1.9) In my award-winning novel Madaran” (2020) which discusses how Kandyan peasantry suffered due to Grain Tax,  I reenacted these chapters in our history giving it a new interpretation that Wilbawe, a highly qualified monk well-versed in Pali, Sanskrit and Elu was crowned according to a grand strategy strategised by Ihagama Unnanse and he was made a layperson following Buddhist practice to the core.

(1.10) Another myth created by these columnists is that the Chieftains showed to the rural people that they followed an anti-British stance.  But when they acted as assessors at the times of assessing paddy fields to levy Grain Tax, prosecuting defaulters of Grain Tax and Poll Tax, prosecuting villagers for opening up chena cultivation in crown” lands and parents and guardians of children who  failed to attend schools and owners of unlicensed dogs  they did not show any mercy to peasants, following colonial Ordinances to the letter.

(2) Resistance” or Acquiescence? Repudiation” or Espousal?

From the third part of this essay we give hundreds of examples to illustrate the unholy alliance that existed between the British colonialists and Kandyan office holders perpetuating colonial administration in Ceylon. It will be a journey to a hitherto unknown territory: many will be shocked that we are concocting stories!

From then onwards our title will be changed to Kandyan Chieftains Under the British”.

Expressing resistance to British colonialism”, repudiating colonial authority” are just mere sloganeering of those pundits who do not understand Kandyan Affairs and who have a shallow and superficial knowledge about it based on what they have gathered from lop-sided theories of NGO-Marxists and America -based Anthropologists without going deeper and deeper into the primary sources. 

END OF PART II

---

 [U1]