28 May 2019 12:10 am Views - 547
Udarata was at the time of the Gampola kings known as the Malayarata
The rise of such a figure was preceded for obvious reasons by the ascent of powerful chief ministers; the first of these, records tell us, was Senadhilankara. Because of their wealth, influence, and popularity, these ministers often became more powerful than the kings.
Senadhilankara was followed by the Alagakkonaras. Alakeshwara, a scion of this family, proved his mettle by defying the Aryachakravartis, building a fort at Kotte, chasing away tax collectors from the area in around 1369 AD, and destroying a fleet of ships at Panadura when they were despatched from Jaffna to quell him.
However, Sri Lanka was a monarchy, not a country of chief ministers. A fierce battle ensued between Alakeshwara and Parakramabahu VI. The battle was won by the latter, after which the minister is said to have been executed and the new king ruled from Rayigama, then Gampola, and finally Kotte.
Opposition towards family
But despite the quelling of Alakeshwara, the aspirations of other sub-rulers could not be stemmed, and though Parakramabahu VI unified the entire country the threat of certain regions, in particular Malayarata, seceding from the capital continued to linger.
According to literary sources, the first such threat came in the king’s 52nd year from a sub-ruler or situ raja named Sojata (or Joti Sitana), who “neglected payment of his yearly tribute, and rebelled”, from Udarata; the Madavala inscription gives us the full name of the rebel as Divanawatte Lanka Adhikarin. Parakramabahu VI quelled the uprising by raising an army and committed it to his younger brother Ambulugala kumaraya.
Whatever hopes that may have been entertained of a unified polity, encompassing the north and Malayarata, soon dissipated upon the death of Parakramabahu VI. This had a great deal to do with the bitter leadership struggles that ensued after his death; his successor, Jayabahu II, was after the space of four years ousted and then murdered by Sapumal Kumaraya, who ascended the throne as Bhuvanekabahu VI and who soon faced a similar attempt on him by two disgruntled noblemen (Siriwardena Patiraja and Kuragala Himi), which he quelled. Paranavithana writes that this latter uprising represented “an upsurge of national sentiment” against a ruler of Malayali blood, though R. A. L. H. Gunawardena disagrees.
In any case the cycle of accession and deposal recurred upon Bhuvanekabahu’s death, and ironically this time it was the Prince of Ambulugala’s turn to act as ouster: literary sources tell us that Bhuvanekabahu was succeeded by Pandita Parakramabahu ascended the throne as Vira Parakramabahu.
Given the tenuous relationship between successors and aspirants in Kotte it comes to no surprise that sub-rulers in Kandy, taking advantage of the turmoil, should try to establish an independent political centre. To ensure the loyalty of the Kandyan regions and the stability of the union, both Parakramabahu VI and Bhuvanekabahu IV married princesses from the region.
Given the tenuous relationship between successors and aspirants in Kotte it comes to no surprise that sub-rulers in Kandy, taking advantage of the turmoil, should try to establish an independent political centre
Autonomous administrative region
The continuation of the Mahavamsa puts down a different date for his ascension, at 1542/43.
According to this mythology, “Senkhanda nam Siriwardenapura” is said to have been Vikramabahu’s “birthright” (jamma-praveni). He is also said to have constructed several religious shrines, among them the Poya Maluva at the Malvatte Viharaya. And to consolidate his legitimacy, he went on pilgrimages to Adam’s Peak, supported attempts of the Chief Prelate Dharmakirti to reform the sasanaya, and made offerings to the Dantha Dathuwa.
In fact the honorific “Senasammata” points at the importance he attached to gaining the trust of his cohorts: he was indebted to the army for having supported him in his endeavour to secede from Kotte, and to this end, as the Gadaladeniya inscription tells us, he made a promise that no loss of life would be inflicted by his chiefs on the army.