Mandala system
|
|
The mandala system was the main pattern of power relationships between the states of south-east Asia until the advent of European cultural and political colonisation in the mid-19th century. In some ways similar to the feudal system of Europe, states were linked in overlord-tributary relationships. Compared to feudalism however, the system gave greater independence to the subordinate states; it emphasised personal rather than official or territorial relationships; and it was often non-exclusive. Any particular area, therefore, could be subject to several powers or none.
| Contents |
Terminology
The term mandala in this context is of modern origin; as it was the standard system of the time, its practitioners did not require terminology to discuss the system or to contrast it with others. The term draws a comparison with the mandala of the Hindu and Buddhist worldview; the comparison emphasises the radiation of power from each power centre, as well as the non-physical basis of the system. It was first introduced by Wolters in 1982.
History
Historically, the main overlord states were Burma, Siam, Vietnam and China. China occupies a special place in that the other three often in turn paid tribute to China, although in practice the obligations imposed on them were minimal. The most notable tributary states were Cambodia, Lan Xang (succeeded by Vientiane and Luang Prabang) and Lanna. Cambodia in particular was described by the Vietnamese emperor Gia Long as "an independent country that is slave of two" (Chandler p. 119). The system was eventually ended by the arrival of the Europeans in the mid-19th century. Culturally, they introduced Western geographical practices, which assumed that every area was subject to one sovereign. Practically, the colonisation of French Indochina, and British Malaya and Burma brought pressure from the colonisers for fixed boundaries to their possessions. The tributary states were then divided between the colonies and Siam, which exercised much more centralised power, but over a smaller area, than hitherto.
Obligations
The obligations on each side of the relationship varied according to the strength of the relationship and the circumstances. In general, the tributary was obliged to pay regular tribute of various valuable goods and the bunga mas (from the Malay language for 'gold flower') : miniature trees of gold and silver, which symbolised the dependence. The overlord ruler reciprocated with presents often of greater value than those supplied by the tributary. However, the tributary also had to provide men and supplies when called on, most often in time of war. The main benefit to the tributary was protection from invasion by other powers, although as Thongchai notes (p. 88) this was often "mafia-like protection" from the threats of the overlord himself. In some cases, the overlord also controlled the succession in the tributary, but in general interference with the tributary's domestic affairs was minimal: he would retain his own army and powers of taxation, for example. In the case of the more tenuous relationships, the "overlord" might regard it as one of tribute, while the "tributary" might consider the exchange of gifts to be purely commercial or as an expression of goodwill (Thongchai p. 87).
Personal relationships
The emphasis on personal relationships was one of the defining characteristics of the mandala system. The tributary ruler was subordinate to the overlord ruler, rather than to the overlord state in the abstract. This had several important implications. Firstly, a strong ruler could attract new tributaries, and would have strong relationships over his existing tributaries. Conversely, a weaker ruler would find it harder to attract and maintain these relationships. This has been put forward as one explanation of the sudden rise of Sukhothai under Ramkhamhaeng, for example, and for its almost equally steep decline after his death (Wyatt, 45 and 48). Secondly and consequently, the tributary ruler could repudiate the relationship and seek either a different overlord or complete independence. Thirdly, the system was non-territorial. The overlord was owed allegiance by the tributary ruler, or at most by the tributary's main town, but not by all the people of a particular area. The tributary owner in turn had power either over tributary states further down the scale, or directly over "his" people, wherever they lived. Conversely, no ruler had authority over unpopulated areas.
Non-exclusivity
The overlord-tributary relationship was not necessarily exclusive. A state in border areas might pay tribute to two or three stronger powers. The tributary ruler could then play the stronger powers off against each other in order to minimise interference by either one, while for the major powers the tributaries served as a buffer zone to prevent direct conflict between them.
References
- Chandler, David. A History of Cambodia. Westview Press, 1983. ISBN 0813335116
- Thongchai Winichakul. Siam Mapped. University of Hawaii Press, 1984. ISBN 0824819748
- Wolter, O.W. History, Culture and Region in Southeast Asian Perspectives. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1982. ISBN 0877277257
- Wyatt, David. Thailand: A Short History (2nd edition). Yale University Press, 2003. ISBN 0300084757