The Anuradhapura Kingdom - IV

The Anuradhapura Kingdom - IV

Contiued with part three   here to go previous one

In seeking to establish their control over the whole island the Anuradhapura kings confronted formidable difficulties, not the least of which was the particularism (one might even say a well-developed sense of local patriotism) which made rulers of outlying regions, in particular, Rohana, jealously protective of their local interests and identity. Needless to say, the dynastic and succession disputes and repeated invasions from South India were hardly conducive to the evolution of any administrative machinery for the control of these provinces from Anuradhapura. Dakkhinadesa itself could on occasion pose difficulties, but never on the same scale or regularity as Rohana, and was easier to bring to heel when resourceful and ambitious kings ruled at Anuradhapura.

Particularism then was a perennial issue, and Rohana the home of lost and potentially viable causes, the refuge of Sinhalese kings overthrown by foreign invaders and a bridgehead for a reconquest or the liberation of Anuradhapura from foreign rule was the crux of the problem. During most of the period covered in this section, its rulers behaved as though they were independent potentates, and Rohana's status varied from time to time from that of a mere administrative division of the Anuradhapura kingdom to a principality and a semi-independent or independent kingdom. To take one example at random: throughout most of the reign of Silakala (518-31) and his successors, Mahanaga had effective control over Rohana first as a rebel, then as an accredited governor of the province and finally as an independent ruler. When he, in turn, became king at Anuradhapura (569-70), he united the whole island under his rule. It is likely that under the two Aggabodhis who succeeded him on the throne, Rohana was under the authority of the rulers of Anuradhapura.

But during the troubled century that followed, Rohana appears to have reasserted its independence under local rulers. In the early centuries of the Anuradhapura kingdom, there is little or no evidence of a regular army, except for a small body of soldiers who guarded the palace and the capital city. Though a regular force was established with the passage of time with foreign largely South Indian mercenaries as a component element in it, this was still far from being a standing army which could have been used on a regular basis to impose the will of the 'Central' authority over recalcitrant provinces far from the capital. Nor was the administrative structure adequate for the purpose of serving as an efficient mechanism of control over such provinces from Anuradhapura. The inscriptions of this period reveal the existence of seabed or council of ministers. It is impossible to determine whether this developed from the earlier institution known as the Amati pahaja or whether it was something completely new. Nor have we any clear picture of the functions of this council. In the early centuries of the Anuradhapura kingdom, the main officials were few: the Senapati (the chief of the ‘army’), the bhanddgdrika (treasurer), a few adhyasa, mahdmdtras and a purohita. By the tenth century, there was a regular hierarchy of officials with a wide and bewildering range of titles. Evidently, a complex administrative structure had developed; its writ ran in many parts of the country and affected many aspects of the lives of the people (especially the vital field of irrigation). But it is impossible to reach any firm conclusions about the precise functions of the bulk of these officials or to assess the nature of their impact on the outlying provinces. Evidently, the relationship between Anuradhapura and Rohana was not governed by any formal administrative structures or institutional links but by the more volatile and unpredictable give and take of personal ties.

One important theme emerges from this: the comparative weakness of the central authority vis a vis the outlying provinces under the Anuradhapura kings generally. Thus the Sinhalese kingdom was not a highly centralized autocratic structure but one in which the balance of political forces incorporated a tolerance of particularism characteristic of most feudal polities. This held true for the whole history of the Anuradhapura kingdom and not merely for its first phase.

If you interest to know more about the Sri Lanka followed Navigation to it

<<

>>