Reflections of Local History
The Mandala System of Governance
The whole southern island (Jambudipa) is his and is where he resides... My King ... The King of all Kings
Over the thousands of lands... With many umbrellas (symbols of royalty)... He rules and reigns (like a sky).
The flower of glory is fragrant... Like the Royal Jasmine... Truly, it is fragrant.
Taking control of the four islands... The peaceful wheel (Cakka) He rules... The power of His glory.
(Myawaddy Mingyee Oo Sa’s Glorious Song for His Majesty, 1805 AD)
There are many accounts for praising the kings in Myanmar history. It is better to call this history a "Chronicle of Kings." In the Burmese language, people call the ruler "King of Kings (Raja Raja)" or "Great King (Maha Raja)." They say he rules the southern island of Jambudipa. Rulers in Myanmar believed the Kings owned everything. In the feudal age, the administration was like India’s. The king was the center of the universe. Power spread out from this center. Later, people named this the Mandala system. Empire expansion was not like modern countries. It was about finding subjects to rule. The kings thought this was just.
It is hard to find detailed records about local tribes. We can read about Burmese kings in the Hmannan Chronicle or U Kala Chronicle. However, these books are not neutral. Few writers dared to criticize bad kings. If historians wanted to teach the king, they used stories. They criticized him indirectly through these stories.
Ancient kings fought constantly throughout history. Mon, Rakhine, Bamar, and Shan groups fought for territory. The 40-year Mon-Bamar war is important for military historians. Thohanbwa, the son of a Shan chief, ruled in Ava. He killed many Bamar people. When the Hanthawaddy Mons won Ava, they also killed people. They destroyed books and literature. King Alaungpaya killed many Mons. King Bodawpaya killed many Rakhine people. It was an era of warlords. Winners took wealth and slaves. They destroyed culture. There are many examples of this. Yet, books describe these warlords as "Dhamma Kings" or good rulers. Writers might have been afraid of death [1]. Or perhaps people worshipped the king’s power. We rarely find bitter truths in old records.
Myanmar was not always one big country. After the Bagan era, Shan tribes were strong. They divided the land and ruled it [2]. Later, Bamars became powerful. There were times when Mons or Rakhines were powerful. The idea of "race or nations or ethnicity" was not like today. Forests covered the land. People lived differently. Cultures mixed, but people also lived their own ways. "Ethnicity" was mostly about cultural groups and ruling families. The modern idea of race is new. It might have come from Europeans in the Taungoo era. However, the link between race and politics only started in the mid-Konbaung era [3].
The politics of this geography were always unstable. Rulers did not govern based on modern ideas of race or ethnicity. Borders changed all the time. These were not Modern States with fixed lines. A strong capital ruled over nearby areas. These areas were tributary states. The main kingdom controlled war and foreign relations. Small kings and chiefs often saw the big king as an older brother. They could rule their own lands freely. They often married royal family members to make friends. Sometimes, they sent children to the palace as hostages.
People viewed "invasion" differently back then. It was not an attack on a "national land." It was an attack on the "feudal king's territory." If a local chief rebelled, people saw him as a traitor. Local chiefs often relied on other strong emperors too. The king also needed these chiefs for safety. It was not just a simple case of "invader" versus "victim." Relationships were more important than rules.
Modern government ideas came with Westerners. Western maps and bureaucracy were new to Southeast Asia. The local systems were influenced by India. A capital city was the center. Power spread out from there in all directions. The center looked for other rulers to pay tribute. Loyalties often changed. People focused on gifts and loyalty, not borders. Later, we called this system the "Mandala system." O.W. Wolters used this word. He explained how power worked from 500 to 1500 AD.
"Mandala" means "circle" in the Sanskrit language. Imagine a king in the center. He is like a Universal Monarch or a god. Smaller rulers live around him. They give gifts and promise loyalty. They make an alliance. In return, the big king protects them. He gives them titles and importance. But if the king takes too much advantage, they might fight back.
Unlike today, these Mandalas did not have strict borders. The king's power was strong near the capital. It became weaker further away. V. Lieberman called this a "Solar Polity" [4]. The Khmer Empire near Angkor and the Majapahit Kingdom in Java are good examples. In Myanmar, the Bagan and Taungoo empires were similar. We use the word "Empire." But it does not mean a Western system. It means a large circle of states that pay tribute.
The king lived in a grand capital city. It had amazing pagodas and temples. This city showed his importance. He received his authority from war and religion. For example, Borobudur in Java showed the power of the Sailendra [5] kings. Bagan showed the power of the Burmese king. Angkor Wat showed the strength of the Khmers.
Weaker rulers around the king sent gifts. They sent rice, gold, elephants, and horses. In Myanmar, they paid respects during Buddhist Lent. They had to visit the king after a set number of years. They showed respect. They attended royal ceremonies. They had to join the king in wars. If they did not, they were seen as rebels. In return, they got protection. Many old records list these gifts.
There were no exact borders like in the West. A king's territory depended on his strength. It could grow or shrink. Ayutthaya and Sukhothai fought other Mandalas. Their power changed based on who won or lost. The Taungoo power was huge under King Bayinnaung. But after he died, there were many rebellions. Small states could give gifts to more than one place. Shan and Lao areas paid tribute to China, Myanmar, and Thailand. Loyalties were flexible.
People in these circles often shared beliefs. Following Hinduism or Buddhism helped to unify the Mandalas. Kings claimed that gods chose them. Or they said they were related to the Buddha. They wrote histories and built pagodas to prove this. King Anawrahta created votive tablets. We find them in many places. This shows where his message of power reached.
We can read about these Mandalas in old inscriptions. A text from Srivijaya [6] talks about controlling sea trade. It describes gifts received from coastal leaders. We must study these old texts carefully. Some facts might be exaggerated.
The Mandala system shows a specific style of rule. Relationships were more important than fixed borders. Other countries had similar systems. The Qing Dynasty did not rule Korea or Myanmar directly. But it saw them as subjects under Heaven [7]. We must ask what a "country" was back then. It did not have a fixed map or a president. It was the land a feudal king could "conquer" [8]. It relied on the king's bravery. Personal relationships were very important.
Culture and religion played a big role in power history. This changed in the 19th century. European colonialism brought the idea of the "modern nation-state." The local systems faded away. However, some old habits remain today. Southeast Asian countries still view cooperation in a similar way. They have roots in the ancient Mandala system.
Note:
[1] I have not seen a record of a king killing a historian just for writing history. But kings punished people for speaking “wrong words”. Sometimes they are killed if it went worse.
[2] Some insists that they were related to Bagan kings’ descent. But usually, we know them as Shan Chiefs.
[3] The old idea of "ethnicity" was more about community / family groups. Later, it became about the state and bureaucracy over time.
[4] Wolters' "Mandala" focuses on loyalty and gifts. Lieberman's "Solar Polity" focuses on administration. It looks at how power fades away from the center over distance.
[5] Sailendra comes from Sanskrit. It means "King of the Mountain." They ruled Java in the 8th century. They supported Mahayana Buddhism. They built the great Borobudur Stupa, which is now a World Heritage site.
[6] Srivijaya was a strong sea empire from the 7th to 13th century. It controlled trade routes between India and China. It was based in Sumatra (now Indonesia). It was an important center for Buddhist learning.
[7] Chinese kings thought they had the "Mandate of Heaven / 天下". They thought other states should respect them. Later, 國, the word for "country" changed. It originally meant a walled city. Later it meant a State. It was related to Zhou Dynasty where the expansionism was prominent. They (and their texts which are usually source of Burmese citations) defined the neighboring country in the same understanding. In the Qin 秦朝 Dynasty, they used the name "Middle Kingdom / 中国".
[8] Dr. Than Tun wrote that the word comes from "Naing" (Conquer) and "Ngan" (Place). However, some say it comes from the Pali word "Nagara." This matches the sound "Nain-ngan."