One of the consequences of the disintegration and disorder in the principal Sinhalese kingdom following the destructive invasion of M•gha of Kalinga was the emergence of two kingdoms in the periphery, each making a bid for an independent existence, each challenging the authority of the principal kingdom and its successors. These were the Tamil kingdom in the north of the island and the Kandyan kingdom in the central hills. The latter had a much longer and very distinguished history in the seventeenth century and after, while the former established itself in the thirteenth century, prospered in the early part of the fourteenth century and maintained its independent existence till it was conquered by the principal Sinhalese kingdom, Kotte, under its most dynamic ruler, Par•kramab•hu VI. After a decade or so from his death, it recovered its independence and survived till 1620 when the Portuguese conquered it and its independence was extinguished for good.
These two kingdoms of the periphery were not without some influence on each other, especially that of the kingdom in Jaffna on what later became the Kandyan kingdom. By the late fourteenth century, however, the kingdom in Jaffna was too weak for anything more than a single-minded concentration on its survival. Few Sri Lankan kingdoms have seen such remarkable changes in status and size during their existence as the short-lived kingdom of Jaffna.
To the historian, the two kingdoms had little in common, apart from being part of the periphery seeking and, in the case of the kingdom in Jaffna, actually securing an independent existence of its own. What they had in common was a paucity of reliable historical evidence, literary or archaeological, on the early phases of their histories. There is, in fact, much more evidence on the early years of the Kandyan kingdom, extracted by scholars from the meagre literary, inscriptional and archaeological source material available than on the kingdom in Jaffna. The principal scholar on the early history of the Kandyan kingdom has been Professor T.B.H. Abeyasinghe.1 On the kingdom in Jaffna we have more scholars but relatively less evidence. The scholars are Professors Karthigesu Indrapala2 and Sirima Kiribamune,3 both of whom, and more particularly the former, have thrown considerable light on the position of Tamils in ancient Sri Lanka. On the later years of the kingdom in Jaffna we have a magisterial survey4 by the archaeologist and historian Senarat Paranavitana published in 1961 which is still to be superseded by subsequent research.
This section of the present chapter begins with an extract from the introduction to the unpublished doctoral dissertation ‘Dravidian Settlement in Ceylon and the Beginning of the Kingdom of Jaffna’ by Dr Karthigesu Indrapala:
Until about the thirteenth century A.D., the history of [Sri Lanka] was the history of the Sinhalese people. From about the middle of the thirteenth century, it has been the history of the Sinhalese and Tamil people in the island. From that time for over three centuries, the majority of Tamils were concentrated in a kingdom of their own in the northern part of the island. In 1620, the last of the Tamil rulers was executed by the Portuguese conquerors who brought the Tamil areas under their rule.5
This extract conveys very effectively some of the essential features of the history of the island.
In another work first presented in 1965 but published in 2000, Dr Indrapala pointed out that from the meagre evidence available ‘commercial interests, political adventure and the prospect of military employment had led Tamils to come to Sri Lanka in the early centuries of the island’s history. The question is whether this led to the rise of permanent and widespread Tamil settlements in the island’.6 His own answer to this question begins with the comment that
Considering the numbers of Tamil invasions and the number of occasions when Tamil mercenaries were enlisted, it appears that more Tamils came to Sri Lanka as invaders and hired soldiers than as traders. Since most of the invasions succeeded in ousting the Sinhalese rulers and in paving the way for rule by Tamils for short periods, the invading troops must have remained in the island on such occasions till the Sinhalese princes regained the throne. Whether these armies stayed behind after they were defeated is something regarding which there is no evidence.7
A decisive change came in the seventh century. Prior to that there were only three instances, each separated from the others by about two centuries, recorded in the Pali chronicles, of mercenaries from the Indian mainland being brought to Sri Lanka. In the seventh century, mercenaries from the Indian mainland were brought to the island on several occasions and in large numbers. The Cūlavaṁsa records eight instances of mercenaries being brought to the island at that time. The frequency with which mercenaries entered the island would appear to suggest that not all of them went back and that they may have had small settlements in and around Anuradhapura and possibly other strategic places. Nevertheless, it is not till the tenth century that there is any significant literary or epigraphic evidence regarding any Tamil settlements.8
As against this, there is a body of archaeological evidence of probable Tamil settlement much earlier than the tenth century AD—a group of megalithic burials at Pomparippu in the north-western littoral of Sri Lanka, dated between the second century BC and second century AD. The Pomparippu region could be taken as one of the earliest settlement areas of the Tamils in Sri Lanka. There is, in addition, a similar but smaller settlement in Kathirvelu (on the east coast).
The location at the Pomparippu site, near the mouth of the Kala Oya and close to the pearl banks of the north-western coast, suggests that it is probable that it originated as a settlement of pearl-divers, fisherman and other peaceful settlers. Whether the pioneer Tamil settlers of this region actually survived as a distinct group till later times cannot be determined with any certainty. In later times—we do not know when this actually happened—Pomparippu became known as a Tamil area. The proximity to, as well as the continuous relations with, the Tamil country across the seas may have helped the settlers to maintain their ethnic identity or, on the other hand, they may have assimilated with or been assimilated by the larger Sinhalese population, but these are all matters of speculation.9
After a careful survey of the sparse evidence available, Indrapala reaches the conclusion that:
Looking back on the whole body of evidence that is available...we have to conclude that there was no widespread Tamil settlement before the tenth century. The settlements at Pomparippu and the possible settlement at Kathirvelu (on the east coast) have to be treated as isolated earlier settlements.10
In his article Indrapala returns to a theme referred to earlier in this present chapter, the paucity of historical sources for a study of the early history of the Tamils, and more importantly, the dubiousness of those that exist. Describing these sources as ‘wholly unreliable’ he explains that:
On the Tamil side the chronicles that are extant are those written nearly three centuries after the foundation of the Tamil kingdom in the island in the thirteenth century.
The sections of these works dealing with the period prior to the thirteenth century, i.e., the period during which the earliest Tamil settlements were established—are full of legendary material and are wholly unreliable. The Tamil works of South India have no notable allusions to the activities of the Tamils in Ceylon.
The second significant point he makes, relating to the earliest Tamil settlements in Sri Lanka, has been discussed earlier in this chapter. His conclusion in regard to these is unambiguous.
. . . on the slender evidence at our disposal it would be rather far fetched to claim that there were permanent or widespread settlements of Tamil trading communities in the first millennium AD.11
He reiterated this in his paper presented in 1965 when he stated: ‘But evidence for extensive settlement bearing the signs of a date earlier than the tenth century is lacking’.
The Jaffna Kingdom—Its Rise And Fall
On the basis of the evidence Dr Indrapala has set out in his work, one could say that it was
. . . only by about the tenth century that permanent settlement of the Tamils began and the Cōḷa conquest of the Anuradhapura kingdom in the late tenth century seems to have given an impetus to the migration of Tamils into the island.12
These settlements ‘became fairly extensive early in the eleventh century.’ The location of these Tamil settlements in this first phase were
. . . still outside the Jaffna district. Of the present day Tamil areas only the upper half of the Eastern Province and parts of the western coast had Tamil settlers in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. The main stage in the process of Tamil settlement which led to the transformation of the present Northern Province into an exclusively Tamil speaking area had not yet been reached in the twelfth century. That stage was reached with the conquest of M•gha and it is doubtful that the Tamil settlements of the period before the thirteenth century would have resulted in the division of the country into two linguistic regions.13
Dr Indrapala explains that the ‘second and most important stage of the Tamil settlements are covered by the whole of the thirteenth century’14 with the establishment of a Tamil kingdom in the northern part of the island. Even as regards this phase, Dr Indrapala believes that ‘no genuine traditions of the Tamil settlement or invasions were preserved by the Tamils until they established a stable kingdom in the thirteenth century.’15
Far more important for our purposes is his assessment of the destructive political impact of the invasion of M•gha of Kalinga:
The invasion of M•gha [of Kaliṅga] with the help of Tamil and Kerala mercenaries was far more violent than the earlier invasions. Its chief importance lies in the fact that it resulted in the permanent dislodgement of Sinhalese power from north Ceylon, the confiscation of lands and properties belonging to the Sinhalese by the Tamil and Kerala mercenaries and the consequent migration of the official class and several of the common people to the south western regions. These factors more than any other helped the transformation of northern [Sri Lanka] into a Tamil region and directly led to the foundation of a Tamil kingdom there. In the second phase, with the foundation of an independent Tamil kingdom, a deliberate policy of settling Tamils in the Jaffna district and the Vanni regions was followed by the first rulers of the Tamil kingdom. This led to a migration of peaceful settlers from the Tamil country [in Southern India]. It was this peaceful migration that was largely responsible for the Tamil settlement of the Jaffna district. It was a deliberate and organised process.... 16
The first phase of the evolution of the Jaffna kingdom is associated with M•gha of Kalinga who moved to that region after his expulsion from Polonnaruva. His successors ruled the Jaffna region as a subordinate principality of the P•ṇ•yan kingdom. The Āryacakravarti dynasty which ruled till it was overthrown by the Portuguese, was of P•ṇ•yan descent.
Chapters 6 and 7 of this volume have shown that in the second half of the fourteenth century, the fortunes of the principal Sinhalese kingdom reached their nadir. As Sinhalese power in the island declined, the Tamils moved southward to exact tribute from the south-west and central regions and the Tamil kingdom kept up a steady and purposeful pressure on the Sinhalese especially on the border regions. For a brief period of about twenty-five years in the middle of the fourteenth century, the Jaffna kingdom’s territorial claims stretched to the north-west coast of the island up to Puttalam. In the last quarter of the fourteenth century, its ambitions for greater influence on the island were thwarted primarily because of the successful resistance from the Sinhalese kingdom in the central hills, the Kandyan kingdom. Indeed the severe defeat inflicted on the Jaffna kingdom in 1380 proved to be decisive in this regard. The Jaffna kingdom—or the kingdom of the Āryacakravarti rulers as it was called—was also embroiled with the powerful Vijayanagar empire in a struggle for survival against the latter’s expansionist ambitions across the Palk Straits. The Tamil kingdom of Jaffna, whatever its strength within the island, was drawn irresistibly into the orbit of the dominant south Indian state of the day, and to the status of a satellite, whether of P•ṇ•ya in the early years or of Vijayanagar in its later stages.
The previous chapter of this book would have shown how the Kotte kingdom, under Par•kramab•hu VI, successfully resisted the establishment of Vijayanagar control in the north of the island and then proceeded to bring the Jaffna kingdom under its sway. His control lasted for over two decades, but on his death his political legacy was rapidly exhausted by his successors. Although the Jaffna kingdom recovered its independence in the last quarter of the fifteenth century, its survival owed much more to divisions within the main Sinhalese kingdom—the kingdom of Kotte—and the rise of the Kandyan kingdom than to any inherent strength of its own. Over the next two centuries the Kandyan kingdom inherited the mantle of Kotte and became in time the last surviving Sinhalese kingdom in the island’s history.17 It was an age of political instability with the boundaries of these several states constantly shifting, sometimes expanding and sometimes contracting, in response to the pressures of rivals. Nevertheless, it would be true to say that by the beginning of the sixteenth century the Jaffna kingdom was the smallest and weakest of them all.
The Jaffna kingdom survived, beleaguered and more vulnerable to force majeure than the others, till the early years of the seventeenth century when it succumbed to the Portuguese and was never to recover its independence again. At the time of its conquest by the Portuguese it controlled the Jaffna Peninsula and its periphery. It was thus reduced in size to what it had been prior to its rapid and brief expansion in the early and middle parts of the fourteenth century.18
Between the Jaffna kingdom and the Sinhalese kingdoms lay the Vanni chieftaincies which were collectively a buffer between the first and the second. Their emergence was the direct result of the breakdown of central authority with the collapse of the Polonnaruva kingdom in the thirteenth century. Dispossessed Sinhalese nobles, as well as south Indian military chiefs in M•gha’s army, were able to establish control over parts of the Vanni in the dry zone. The Sinhalese chieftaincies of the Vanni lay on the northern borders of the Sinhalese kingdom, while their Tamil counterparts controlled the areas immediately bordering the northern kingdom and the remoter areas of the eastern littoral region outside the control of the two major kingdoms. In their own territories the Vanni chieftains19 functioned very much like feudal lords, offering military protection, at a time of great political instability, to those who came under their authority, and they owed allegiance to one or other of two kingdoms, depending on the political situation which, during much of the late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries, could often mean an accommodation with the Tamil kingdom or with the principal Sinhalese kingdom. Most of what is today the Eastern Province lay beyond the effective control of the Jaffna kingdom and was not part of it.
The central mountainous region of Sri Lanka had never been a well-developed, highly populated area or a centre of civilization in the past. This region, known as the Malayarata, was important only as an occasional centre of resistance against foreign invasions and as a haven for insurrectionists and outlaws. The earliest phase in the emergence of a kingdom in this region was in the fourteenth century, with Gangasiripura or Gampola, on the river Mahaveli as the capital; in the fifteenth century the capital was shifted to Senkadagala Nuvara, modern Kandy. The Kandyan kingdom referred to by historians is this kingdom with Senkadagala as its capital. But as the Gampola kingdom too was situated in the hills of the Kandyan region, or the Udarata as it was called and as it was one of the Gampola kings who shifted his capital to Senkadagala, the Gampola phase of this process of development needs to be reviewed here.20
Previous chapters have shown how the capital of the Sinhalese kingdom was at Kurunǟgala at the beginning of the fourteenth century. The reasons for the shift to Gampola are not really known, but there is some literary evidence to suggest that the king left Kurunǟgala because of internal strife in the kingdom. This was also the period when the Āryacakravartis of the northern Tamil kingdom were attempting to expand their frontiers. Gampola, because of its natural barriers of forests and rivers, would have been selected to meet this challenge from the north.
Inscriptional and literary evidence show that the first king of Gampola was Bhuvanekab•hu IV who began his reign in 1341. His brother Par•kramab•hu V ruled at Dedigama in the Four Kōralēs, three years after this date in a system of co-rulers, a feature of this period. There is evidence that Buvanekab•hu IV ruled up to at least 1353–54 and that Par•kramab•hu V ruled till 1359. The next king of Gampola was Vikramab•hu III, referred to as Sirisangabo-Sri Vikramab•hu in inscriptions, who became king in 1356 and for at least three years he and Par•kramab•hu V were co-rulers. Vikramab•hu reigned for at least eighteen years, that is, up to 1374–75.
In reviewing the main features of the political history of the Gampola phase of Sri Lanka’s history, the reigns of these three kings, that is, the period from 1341–42 to 1374–75, need to be considered together. During this period the power of the Gampola kings spread to the southern parts of the island. The connection between the R•jarata and Rohana had been broken as a result of the numerous foreign invasions which took place towards the end of the Polonnaruva period. The attention of the Dambadeniya kings was directed only towards the M•y•rata and the R•jarata. All their schemes were based on the ancient centres of civilization in the northern plain and Rohana was not an important part in these schemes. But this state of things changed as the centre of the Sinhalese kingdom shifted to the Kandyan Hills.21 The chief minister of Buvanekab•hu IV and Par•kramab•hu V, Sen•dhilankara constructed religious edifices at Devinuvara and Väligama in the south of the country, evidence that the power of the Gampola ruler was recognized in that region. One could even assume that Rohana became part of the main Sinhalese kingdom, again, during this period.
As we have seen, one reason for the choice of Gampola as capital was the threat of the Āryacakravartis from the northern Tamil kingdom. Before long, there were incursions into the Udarata kingdom. Inscriptional evidence provides some interesting details on these incursions and their consequences. The Kotagama and Lahugala inscriptions refer to one Ariyan of Singai Nagar who invaded the Four Kōralēs and that rather than confront the invader, Par•kramab•hu of Dedigama fled. An inscription of 1359, found near a bo-tree at Medawala in Harispattuva, reveals that a person named Marthandan Perumal appointed Brahmins to collect taxes from the villages of Sinduruvana, Balawita, M•tale, Dumbara and Sagama Thunrata which belonged to the Gampola kingdom, in the time of Vikramab•hu III. T. B. H. Abeyasinghe argues that Marthandan Perumal was none other than Ariyan of Singai Nagar of the Kotagama inscription and that as a result of his incursion the Four Kōralēs as well as some other sections of the Udarata kingdom came under the control of the northern kingdom. The Raj•valiya too refers to the fact that the Āryacakravartis collected taxes from the Udarata kingdom and the southern lowlands.
We need to turn briefly to the system of co-rulers that developed as a notable feature of the politics of the of the Gampola kingdom. As we have seen when Bhuvanekab•hu was king of Gampola his brother Par•kramab•hu V ruled from Dedigama. From 1356–57 to 1359, Par•kramab•hu V and Vikramab•hu III were co-rulers. We do not know how this custom, which existed up to the middle of the sixteenth century, originated. Since this practice was prevalent in the Cōḷa empire, it could have come to Sri Lanka from there and may have been adopted here as conditions were favourable for it, one of the consequences of the inability of the Gampola rulers to withstand threats from the northern kingdom. In such a situation it was natural that regional rulers would seize the opportunity to stabilize and expand their powers. The prevailing decentralization was a reflection of the weakness of the Gampola kingdom.
It was not only a period of co-rulers, but also a period when ‘chief’ ministers became more powerful than kings. The first of such ‘chief’ ministers was Sen•dhilankara in the time of Bhuvanekab•hu IV. There is evidence that Sen•dhilankara was born in Singuruvana, close to Peradeniya. At his request Bhuvanekab•hu IV donated substantial extents of land to the new Lankatilaka Vihara, one of the principal architectural legacies of the Gampola kings to their eventual successors as rulers of the Kandyan kingdom. The Nikaya Sangrahaya mentions that Sen •dhilankara constructed a three storeyed image house at Devinuvara and another image house at Akbo Vehera and that he carried out a purification of the sangha. An image house that he constructed at Kanchipuram in south India is also mentioned in the same book. But the fact is that by 1360 his power had declined and that he was second among officers of state is evident from the Vigulavatta inscription. Perhaps it was Sen•dhilankara who paved the way for the rise of the Alagakkon•ra family to power later on. After Vikramab•hu, the kingdom of Gampola passed on to Bhuvanekab •hu V who became king in 1371. Vikramab•hu was still alive and according to data available in inscriptions he ruled for at least thirty-five years, up to 1407. The most important political development during his period of rule was that the Sinhalese kingdom freed itself from the grasp of the king of Jaffna. During the invasion of 1359, M•y•rata and a number of Kandyan districts had passed into the hands of the Jaffna ruler. It was Alake•vara who assumed the leadership of the struggle against the Tamils by organizing action to free these areas from their domination. The first step in this campaign was the clearing of some marshlands near Colombo and the construction of the fortress of Sri Jayavardanapura. Next, when his forces were ready, he drove out the tax collectors of the king of Jaffna, attacked the Tamil encampments in the Sinhalese kingdom and drove out the soldiers from them. Faced with this threat to their campaign of expansion, the Āryacakravartis, who obtained foreign aid, sent an army overland up to M•tale and a naval force up to Panadura. As we have seen, rather than confronting this menacing challenge the Sinhalese king had fled leaving Alake•vara to carry on the struggle against the Tamil forces. Despite the apparent cowardice of the king, the Sinhalese army fought and defeated the Tamil forces which had camped at M•tale. The Tamil army which had penetrated into the coastal regions around Kotte was defeated by Alake•vara and as a result the regions controlled by the Sinhalese kings were freed from pressure from the rulers of the kingdom of Jaffna.
Alake•vara 22 was a descendant of Ni••aṅka Alagakkōn•ra who came to Sri Lanka from Kanchipuram in south India. Some south Indian families moved to the island first as refugees and then as settlers as a result of the Muslim invasions of south India in the fourteenth century. They also embraced Buddhism. The Alake•vara family was probably one of these. Although they originally were a trading family, they had accumulated considerable political power. Naturally, Alake•vara’s power reached a climax when the forces he led against Jaffna were triumphant; he was the saviour of the Sinhalese. No wonder then that he overshadowed the ruler and the latter felt it necessary to accept this uncomfortable relationship as a pragmatic accommodation to a harsh reality.
After the death of Bhuvanekab•hu V, power passed into the hands of a number of kings who were not consecrated and in their hands sovereign power was more informal than real. In a parallel development, after Alake•vara’s death, there was a struggle among the members of his family, to occupy the position he had held. Kumara Alake•vara seemed to be in control from 1386–87, and during the next four or five years, Vīra Alake•vara. In 1391, Virab•hu Epa, a relative of Bhuvanekab•hu defeated Vīra Alake•vara and captured power. He remained in power for five years during which time he is believed to have driven out the Tamils once again. In the meantime, Vīra Alake•vara obtained foreign help and recaptured power in 1399. His rule ended in 1411 when he was captured by the Chinese Admiral Zheng He and taken prisoner to China. Throughout this entire period, Bhuvanekab•hu V seemed to have been the king in name only.
The eventual beneficiary of the successful campaign of resistance against incursions from the kingdom of Jaffna was not the kingdom of Kandy so much as the kingdom of Kotte on the south-west coast. Towards the end of the reign of Bhuvanekab•hu V, the Kotte kingdom with its capital Jayavardanapura Kotte was clearly the principal Sinhalese kingdom. The rise of the Kotte kingdom to this position of primacy has been referred to in previous chapters of this book. Under Par•kramab•hu VI, Kotte had absorbed the kingdom of Jaffna. During the period when the Alake•varas were the unCrowned kings, the centre of Sri Lankan power shifted to the western coastal region and the Kandyan kingdom, which had up to then been a separate unit, lost this position.
During the reign of Par•kramab•hu VI, the Kandyan kingdom became a subordinate unit of the Kotte kingdom, administered by an official appointed by him. The Medawala inscription shows that in 1458 this official was Jothiya Sitana or Divanawatte Lanka Adhikarin. According to the R•javaliya, Jothiya Sitana neglected or refused to pay tribute to Kotte and did not send people to perform r•jakariya, thus challenging the authority of the Kotte ruler. We know that Sēn•saṃṃata Vikramab•hu started ruling an independent Kandyan kingdom in or around 1469. It is possible that during the period of confusion following the death of Par•kramab•hu VI, the Kandyans took advantage of the struggle for succession in Kotte and freed themselves from Kotte domination.
Nevertheless, from the time of Par•kramab•hu VI, the rulers of Kotte regarded the Kandyan kingdom as a subordinate unit of the Kotte territories, administered by a ruler or prince appointed by the king of Kotte, on his behalf. The Kandyans were called upon to pay dues as tribute to Kotte and also to send people to perform r•jakariya. Deviations from this form of political subservience were treated as unacceptable behaviour meriting either forceful admonition or political or military intervention. But there were also more artful, more subtle, means of ensuring control. Par•kramab•hu VI, realizing that maintaining the loyalty of the Udarata was a delicate question, married a princess from the Udarata. Having suppressed the revolt initiated by Jothiya Sitana, he appointed a descendant of the Gampola kings as ruler of the Udarata. Bhuvanekab•hu VI sought to follow the policy of Par•kramab•hu VI by marrying a princess of the Udarata. Through deft diplomacy and an occasional resort to force, the Kandyan kingdom was reduced in status to a semi independent principality. The Kandyans, for their part, never abandoned their aspirations to independence.
It was Sēn•saṃṃata Vikramab•hu who established the Udarata as an independent kingdom, after fifty years of domination by the Kotte kingdom. The capital of this kingdom was Senkadagala (modern Kandy). Why Senkadagala was preferred to Gampola as the capital is not known but a century before it became politically significant, it was important for religious reasons. According to tradition, Sēn•saṃṃata Vikramab•hu constructed the city of Senkadagala. Not content with freeing the Udarata from Kotte, he seems also to have been successful at annexing a border district belonging to the Kotte kingdom. According to the Alutnuwara inscription the chiefs as well as the people of the Four Kōralēs, agreed to support the Udarata kingdom against its enemies, as long as the Udarata kings did not harm their interests. That he was able to win the support of the Four Kōralēs, even though certain conditions had been insisted upon and accepted, could be seen as a victory for the king of the Udarata. The loyalty of the people of the Four Kōralēs was very important as any army from the lowlands had to pass through the Four Kōralēs before it came to the Udarata. Vikramab•hu’s inscriptions show that it did not recognize the authority of Kotte and that the Udarata aspired to complete independence.
Historians feel that there is some special significance in the title ‘sēn•saṃṃata’ used by Vikramab•hu. The Udarata army, which was able to repel the Āryacakravarti forces, even without the leadership of the king and which played an important part in the declaration of independence in the time of Par•kramab•hu VI, was probably instrumental in the rise of Vikramab•hu. He may have used the title ‘sēn•saṃṃata’, a hitherto unused title, because he was indebted to the army. It may also have been due to this feeling of indebtedness that, in the Gadal•deniya inscriptions, he made a promise that no harm would ever come to the army from the chiefs of the Udarata.
It is possible that the Udarata reverted to the status of a subordinate state paying tribute to the Kotte kingdom after his death. According to the R•javaliya, when the Udarata ceased to pay tribute and assumed the status of an independent kingdom, during the reign of Dharma Par•kramab•hu of Kotte (1489–1513), the army which was sent by the Kotte ruler succeeded in bringing back tribute of substantial value, as well as the king’s daughter. The history of the period shows that the independence that the Udarata gained with the accession of Bhuvanekab•hu VI lasted less than fifty years and that whenever possible the Kotte kingdom attempted to regain its control over the Udarata.
As we shall see in later chapters of this book, the kings of the Udarata attempted to counteract threats to their kingdom in a number of ways. Whenever there was internal strife and a possibility of civil war in the Kotte kingdom, they took advantage of the situation and backed one side or another in an attempt to weaken that kingdom. It was this policy which Jayaweera Bandara of the Udarata followed when he helped Bhuvanekab•hu, M•y•dunnē and Rayigam Bandara—the three sons of Vijayab•hu of Kotte—in the Vijayab•-Kollaya, the assassination of Vijayab•hu, and the partition of Kotte in 1521. Thereafter, with the sons of Vijayab•hu fighting each other for supremacy in the Kotte kingdom, the Kandyan king shrewdly shifted his support to the person or group least likely to harm the interests of his kingdom.
None of these attempts of subtle and not so very subtle interference in the troubled politics of Kotte saved the Udarata from the threat of reconquest by the rulers of Kotte later on. Plans for the recapture of the Udarata were prepared; attempts were made sometimes with success, but the success, as we shall see, was often limited, till the 1580s when the Kandyan kingdom lost its independence for a brief period. By the 1540s, the Kandyan kings had to face another threat—the Portuguese—and the successful resistance to the Portuguese and the Dutch in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries forms a vitally important part of Sri Lanka’s history in that period, a theme that is discussed in detail in later chapters of this book.