Vira Alakeshvara and Zheng He:

More basic factsax

By Sena Thoradeniya

Prof. Sasanka Perera’s (SS) essay titled “Vira Alakeshvara’s Plight: Signals from the Past” in the Midweek Review in The Island of 28 April 2021, invites interest owing to its political overtones. The readers, historians, researchers and others concerned are inundated with details of Zheng He’s Seven Voyages or Ming Treasure Voyages, Zheng He’s biography, Ming ship building project hitherto unknown in world history and creation of a massive fleet, goals and objectives of the said voyages and their consequences. In all these writings Zhen He’s visit to Sri Lanka, capture of Alakeshvara and the erection of the trilingual inscription by Zhen He in Galle in 1409 A.D. are adequately treated. Why a sudden cry about Vira Alakeshvara? Why wave warning ‘signals” picked “from the past” when anti-China lobby in Sri Lanka and its foreign allies are waging an unrelenting campaign against the Belt and Road Initiative, Colombo Port City and lately against China’s Sinopharm vaccine? Against this backdrop it is important to examine whether the Ming Voyages had expansionist and colonial designs to conquer, subjugate, colonise and plunder the countries in the Indian Ocean as Western colonialists who later dominated the oceans.

It is true that Vira Alakeshvara’s “plight at the hands of the Chinese” (his capture, taking him to China as a prisoner, pardoning him and sending him back to Sri Lanka) was not adequately documented in Sinhala historical/literary works such as “Rajavvaliya“, “Alakeshvara Yuddhaya” or “Saddharma Ratnakaraya“. Why did this happen? Is it because “national defeats are hardly a part of public national memory” as SS alludes? Do we forget or “consciously erase” “moments of shame”? Don’t we commemorate the annexation of the Kandyan Kingdom by the British in 1815, the most “shameful moment” in the annals of our history? Don’t we commemorate the freedom struggles in 1818 and 1848 respectively although they were ruthlessly suppressed by the British colonialists? The list is too long. Don’t the Communists all over the world commemorate the Paris Commune of 1870 although it did not last for more than four months? Don’t the Western powers still celebrate Gallipoli Campaign of 1915-1916 though it brought disaster to the allies. The day ANZAC (Australia and New Zealand Army Corps) landed in Gallipoli Peninsula in Turkey is a public holiday in both countries (ANZAC Day).

Geiger in his translation of Mahavamsa says, “our chronicle makes short work of the undoubtedly eminent personality of this man” (Alakeshvara). Although “Nikaya Sangrahaya” gives a detailed account of Alakeshvara’s military exploits and his service to Buddha Sasana it is silent about his encounter with the Chinese. The account given in the “Rajavaliya” was most confusing and sequentially incorrect. Accordingly, it was a certain Wijayabhahu along with his four younger brothers taken to China as a captive. “Alakeshvara Yuddhaya” does not mention the name of the ruler who was taken to China as a prisoner. Strangely, these two sources refer to the advent of Vira Alakeshvara and his military exploits at a time when there was anarchy in the country soon after the King was taken to China as a prisoner. This was followed by Alakeshvara’s hunt for a young prince, according to the chronicler the son of the captured king, who later crowned as Parakramabahu VI. “Rajavaliya” says the Chinese troops had “deceived the King promising him tributes”. The King, for his part had “done some foolish things”. “Saddharma Ratnakaraya” clearly states that it was Alakeshvara of Raigama who was taken to China (“Cheena mayamata asuwa”). But the same source says this happened when he had returned to Lanka from his voluntary domicile and ruled for twelve more years.

The late Prof. A.V. Suraweera in the Introduction in his Critical Edition of “Rajavaliya (1976/1997) solves this “historical jigsaw puzzle” with the help of sources such as Diago do Couto. We should forgive the author of “Rajavaliya” as he had not accounted for several centuries of history from the downfall of the Dambadeniya kingdom up to the ascendency of Parakramabahu VI in Kotte. It is also evident that later writers copying sometimes in verbatim what was written by their predecessors. Scholars such as E.W. Perera, Simon de Silva, H.W. Codrington, John M. Senaviratne, Senerath Paranavitana and Lorna Devaraja shed more light on this most confusing episode of Sri Lanka’s history. To this list, we have to add the works of Edward L. Dreyer (“Zheng He: China and the Oceans in the Early Ming Dynasty 1405-1433”), Louise Levathes (“When China Ruled the Seas- The Travel Fleet of the Dragon Throne, 1405-1433), J. V. G. Mills (“The Overall Survey of the Ocean’s Shores” translated from the Chinese texts, which remain the best scholarly work) and of many others. Records of the Chinese Royal Court of the day and eye witness accounts of those who participated in these voyages now in translation in English provide a detailed description about the “plight “of Alakeshvara.

Dr. Ajith Amarasinghe, Consultant Paediatrician and Clinical Allergist, an investigative historian in his huge volume titled “Lak Ithihasayen Wasan Woo Cheena Meheyuma” (The Chinese Mission Hidden in the Sands of Time), published in 2014, containing 31 chapters with end notes and appendices, traces the trade between Sri Lanka and China in the 15 th century, Zheng-He’s seven voyages and their objectives, rise of Vira Alakeshvara, how Vira Alakeshvara challenged such a powerful personality like Zheng He, capture of Vira Alakeshvara by the Chinese, advent of Parakrama Bahu VI and the prosperity during his reign, and eye witness accounts of Ma-Huan and Fai-Shin who accompanied Zheng He in his voyages. So the” plight” of Alakeshvara is not “forgotten or consciously erased” and it still echoes in our “heroic discourse”. As Louise Levathes who interviewed the contemporary descendants of Zhen family, Dr. Amarasinghe interviews descendants of Parakramabahu VI, who now live in Taiwan whose forefathers have come to China in 1459 A.D. Dr. Amarasinghe says that according to The Ming Shi-lu Records (The Veritable Records in the Ming Dynasty) an envoy of Parakramabahu VI had visited the Ming Royal Court in 1459 A.D. The author assumes that this royal envoy who made China his home was Parakramabahu’s third adopted son. It is amazing that medical doctors such as Ajith Amarasinghe and a few others have ventured into history when there is a dearth of professional historians in Sri Lanka now. Incidentally Dr. Amarasinghe is the author of the book “Finding Sinhabahu” (2019), an analysis of the early history of Sri Lanka documented in ancient chronicles.

Most writers consider Zheng He as a mariner, explorer and a diplomat in addition to a fleet admiral. He was skilled in the art of war, strategy and diplomacy. His main activity was exploration. In his friendly visits he visited Royal Courts building new relations and expanding existing relations with other nations on behalf of the Ming Emperor. In every country, Zheng He landed, he presented messages of goodwill and gifts to local rulers such as gold, silver, fine Ming porcelain and silk; invited the local rulers to visit the Royal Court of Emperor Yongle. He brought back letters, riches and gifts from local rulers and foreign ambassadors. This has been described as a tributary system but tributes usually were far less valuable than the gifts given by the Emperor. The Galle trilingual inscription shows the magnitude of offerings made to local religious institutions. In his subsequent voyages he accompanied the envoys who came to China to their respective countries.

Some opine that they were involved in a succession struggle in Sri Lanka and Parakramabahu VI was installed by Zheng He with the concurrence of the Sri Lankan envoys present at the Ming Court; but according to Sri Lankan sources Vidagama Maithreeya Thero was in the forefront in bringing Parakramabahu VI to the throne.

The most important purpose of these voyages was to open a Maritime Silk Road as Mongols were controlling the overland Silk Road across Central Asia. Ming Voyages were not designed to conquer or colonise foreign countries seeking territorial control. As a consequence, ports in the region were developed. It prevented invasion and provided protection to the Region. The troops used “limited” military force when they were threatened as in the case of Vira Alakeshvara and in defeating a pirate fleet in Sumatra: settled enmity between Ming China and Java. They established Chinese presence in the Indian Ocean and invariably it increased China’s role in Indian Ocean trade.

It was recorded that Vira Alakeshvara was hostile (engaged in piracy) to the Chinese in their first voyage at Beruwala harbour in 1405 A.D. But Zheng He had decided to leave Sri Lanka for other destinations without confronting Alakeshvara. Alakeshvara had commanded an army consisting of 50,000 troops as against 30,000 troops of Zhen He. Confrontation against Alakeshvara and his capture with his family and principal officials took place during the third Ming voyage in 1411 A.D. Strategically, this happened in Zheng He’s outward journey. The battle between two topmost military strategists of the day had been recorded in minute detail. Dr. Ajith Amarasinghe says that this was the first occasion in Sri Lanka that gunpowder was used in military armaments.

Did this confrontation happen due to business rivalry? The late Professor Ananda Kulasuriya has pointed out how wealth acquired in trade helped certain lineages like that of Alagakkonara (Alakeshvara) to gain access to political power. It should be recalled that Jayapala of Salawatha (Salawatha Jayapala Methi), the Prime Minister of King Parakramabahu VI who patronised the author of “Guththila Kavyaya” was a merchant. Dr. Amarasinghe points out quoting Chinese sources that Jayapala Methi, who visited China as an envoy died in China.

World historians today show that Chinese ships could have ruled the Indian Ocean and far beyond for many more years, had not the Ming Voyages been abruptly halted. (We do not intend to discuss the reasons for the suspension of these voyages.) They could have definitely checked the Portuguese incursions in the Indian Ocean. The history of Sri Lanka would have taken a different course. If so, how different Sri Lanka would have been?

China was conquered by the mighty Mongol Emperor Kublai Khan––something Genghis Khan had failed to achieve. It is well known that the Great Wall of China was built to keep northern invaders out. From the Opium War to total liberation in 1949 China fought against imperialism. It waged a protracted war of resistance against Japanese imperialism during the period 1937-1945. China did not invade Hong Kong, Taiwan or Macao although they were its legitimate territories.

Deng Xiaoping the architect of modern China, in his Address at the Special Session of the UN General Assembly on April 10, 1974 said, “China is a socialist country and a developing country as well, China belongs to the Third World …. China is not a superpower, nor will she ever seek to be one …. If one-day China should change her colour and turn into a superpower, if she too plays the tyrant in the world, and everywhere subject others to her bulling, aggression and exploitation, the people of the world should identify her as a social-imperialist, expose it, oppose it, and work together with the Chinese people to overthrow it.” These words expressed at the behest of Chairman Mao are still valid in shaping China’s foreign relations. This is the signal of the present.