Social and Political Life in the Vijayanagara Empire (A.D. 1346 – A.D. 1646) v1.c10.s5.t1: A. Theory and Practice in Pre-Vijayanagara Days

Social and Political Life in the Vijayanagara Empire (A.D. 1346 – A.D. 1646) v1.c10.s5.t1

Language: English

A. Theory and Practice in Pre-Vijayanagara Days

v1.c10.s5.t1.1

The outstanding item in the fiscal administration of Vijayanagara which brought in the greatest amount of revenue was, it may be presumed, that concerning land. We may note a few general observations on this important question of land revenue, especially as it was understood by the earlier monarchs, before we dwell at some length on the fiscal arrangement of the Vijayanagara times. Land revenue questions have been minutely dealt with by the Hindu writers on polity.⁷ The careful attention which, for instance, the authors of the Sukranīti have bestowed on it shows that it was a matter of deep concern to the rulers and statesmen of mediaeval times. In the system of Sukra it seems to have been thoroughly centralized. He suggests two modes of realizing revenue—it may be farmed out to one rich man in the village, who is to advance the entire sum in periodical instalments to the government, or revenue collectors may be appointed by the State, who are to be officers of the central government for the purpose of realizing the dues from the cultivators. They are to receive salary at certain specified rates which we shall enumerate in detail in a later connection. Each cultivator is to have for himself a deed of rent or tax bearing the government seal.¹ Some of these general principles mentioned in Sukra's Nitisāra governed the action of the Vijayanagara monarchs who, as will be seen presently, over and above appointing officers to collect revenue, leased out estates according to what was called the guttige (or gutta) system. We are not certain whether the salary of the revenue officials under Vijayanagara was according to the injunctions of Sukra. Neither are we in a position to determine with certainty whether the bifurcation of the revenue administration advocated by Sukra into the departments under two ministers called amātya and sumantra², was followed by the Hindu monarchs of Vijayanagara, although there are reasons to assume that the officials who were entrusted with the responsibilities of revenue administration under them have exercised the powers which in the Sukranīti are attributed to the Finance Minister (or sumantra) and the Minister of Realization (or amātya).³

v1.c10.s5.t1.2

⁷ Sarkar, Pos. Back. II. P. I., pp. 112-3.

v1.c10.s5.t1.3

¹ Sukranīti, IV, ii, l. 247, p. 149.

v1.c10.s5.t1.4

² Ibid., II, ll. 204-6, p. 73.

v1.c10.s5.t1.5

³ Sarkar, Pos. Rack., II, P. 1, p. 112.

v1.c10.s5.t1.6

A glimpse into the revenue settlement in southern India prior to the rise of the sons of Saṅgama may be of some importance in tracing the method which these latter and their successors followed in the solution of this vital question of administration. The perfection to which the system of revenue administration attained in the Tamil land, which formed the bulk of the dominions of the Vijayanagara emperors in the south and east, is fully borne out by numerous epigraphical records from the earliest times till the thirteenth century of the Christian era. We may not be far wrong in affirming that the Vijayanagara rulers must have secured the tradition of revenue administration from the Tamil kings, although in the Karṇāṭaka proper they undoubtedly profited by the system which had prevailed in the governments of the Hoysala and Cālukya monarchs. In the Tamil land the revenue administration was thoroughly centralized. An inscription dated in the 124th day of the 24th year of the reign of Rājarāja (A.D. 1008) gives us the following interesting details:

v1.c10.s5.t1.7

"The land of those land-holders in villages of Brāhmaṇas, in villages of Vaikhānasas, and in villages of Śramaṇas (i.e., the Jainas) in Śōḻa-nāḍu, in the adjacent districts included in the Śōḻanāḍu, in Toṇḍai-nāḍu, and in Paṇḍi-nāḍu alias Rājarāja-vaḷa-nāḍu who have not paid, on the lands owned by them, the taxes due from villages, along with the other inhabitants of these villages, for three years, of which two are completed, between the 16th and 23rd years of our reign, shall become the property of the village, and shall be liable to be sold by the inhabitants of those villages to the exclusion of the defaulting land-holders. Also, the land of those who have not paid the taxes due from villages for three years, of which two are completed, from the 24th year of our regin, shall be liable to be sold by inhabitants of those villages to the exclusion of the defaulting land-holders". This order "accordingly, having been written by the royal secretary, Rājakēsarinallūru Kiḷavan, and having been approved by the chief Secretary, Mummuḍi Śōḻa-Brahma-Mārāyaṇ and by Mummuḍi Śōḻa Pōśan, (this order) was engrossed from dictation on the 143rd day of the 24th year of the reign".¹

v1.c10.s5.t1.8

¹ *Ep. Report* for 1897 (10th August), p. 1. ² 98 of 1910; *Ep. Report* for 1910, pp. 91-2.

v1.c10.s5.t1.9

The detailed land-survey, the existence of royal registers, of royal officers, and the strictness with which the monarchs dealt with the defaulters even after the lapse of some years,—all these are implied in the above order given in the reign of Rājarāja. That this was not only a feature of that monarch's reign but was also common throughout Tamil history is evident from the inscriptions of other Tamil kings. Thus the land survey conducted in the sixteenth year of the reign of Kulōttuṅga Chōḻa I and the remission of the customs duties brought to him the well known title of *Suṅgandavirta Chōḻa*.² In the reign of that monarch, however, it appears that assesments were not regularly paid to the royal treasury, and that dues from tenants consequently got accumulated. The king's order (*srimukha*) which declared that the holdings of such of the tenants as had not cleared their dues by the forty-seventh year of the reign must be sold to any purchaser that would buy them and the money remitted to the treasury, was received by the assembly of Vāṇavaṇmādēvi-chaturvēdimaṅgalam in that year. Accordingly the lands owned by some Brahman tenants who, being unable to pay the taxes, had resigned their land and left the villages, were sold to the temple of Tiruchchenneri-Uḍaiyār at Tiruchchirai.¹ In the forty-ninth year of the king's reign a similar measure was passed as regards lands forfeited to the village assembly of Kōnērirājapuram by tenants who had deserted the village being unable to pay the taxes.² The revenue survey conducted in the sixteenth year of Kulōttuṅga is confirmed by another inscription found at Tirumayāṉam in the Tanjore district.³

v1.c10.s5.t1.10

¹ 98 of 1910; *Ep. Report* for 1910, pp. 91-2. ² 647 of 1909; *Ep. Report* for 1910, p. 92. ³ 55 of 1906. ⁴ S.I.I., II, p. 62; *Ep. Report* for 1907, p. 76. ⁵ 440 of 1912. ⁶ 455 of 1905. ⁷ S.I.I., III, P. II, p. 213. ⁸ 181 of 1915; *Ep. Report* for 1916, pp. 118-9. See also S.I.I., III, P.I, pp. 38-9. ⁹ 544 of 1911.

v1.c10.s5.t1.11

To the Tamils even the minutest details of land measurement were known. Thus in the times of Rājarāja I land as small in extent as 1/52,428,800,000 of a vēli was measured and assessed to revenue.⁴ The revenue survey made in the sixteenth and fortieth years of Kulōttuṅga I was called *aḷavu*;⁵ while that conducted in the seventh year of Rājakēsarivarman alias Chakravarti Vikrama Chōḷa Dēva was named *uḷagaḷavu*.⁶ The details of land survey, as remarked above, were entered in royal registers. About revenue account-books and officials we have also ample evidence.⁷ In A.D. 1067 the revenue order of king Vira Rājēndra Dēva was communicated by six officers of the *uḍankūṭṭam* and two-and-thirty officers of the *viḍaiyil* in the presence of ten officers of the *puravuvari-tiṇaikkalam*.⁸ In the sixteenth year of Jaṭāvaraman alias Tribhuvanachakravartin Vira Pāṇḍya a gift of land was made under the orders of the assembly of Śervaṇmahādēvi-chaturvēdimaṅgalam, Tinnevelly district, and the taxes on this land were deducted in the account registers.⁹

v1.c10.s5.t1.12

As regards the title-deeds of land we have some details in the history of the reign of Kulōttuṅga III. The order of the king written by his royal secretary (*tirumandirōlai*) was generally addressed to the executive members of the temple assembly, temple priests, managing committee, and the supervisors of the temple. The names of the royal officers, and especially of four royal secretaries entrusted with the work of drafting the royal order, are mentioned. The original title-deeds of the lands granted and other connected documents such as the resolution of the village assembly to make the land rent-free from the donor or to distribute the due tax on the other assessed lands of the village, had to be deposited in the safe custody in a room or office of the temple called *tirukkaioṭṭi-paṇḍāram* together with the sale-deeds, if any. It is gathered also that there was a committee in each village called நில அளவுப் பட பெருமக்கள் which was solely entrusted with the duty of classifying lands according to their yielding capacity and measuring them.¹

v1.c10.s5.t1.13

¹ *Ep. Report* for 1914, p. 89. We may observe here that the extent, ownership, assessment, classification, etc., of land had to be noted in village and temple registers by clerks especially appointed for the purpose.

v1.c10.s5.t1.14

When we come to the times of the Pāṇḍya rulers, Jaṭāvarman Kulaśēkara I and Māravarman Sundara Pāṇḍya I, in the latter half of the 12th century A.D., we meet with an elaborate system of revenue administration. The inscriptions of these rulers include a number of documents repeating one and the same transaction three, and sometimes four, times, but with a different purpose each time. The king in his royal camp at some place is approached by a minister or by a private person or body of persons and requested to make a gift of a particular land to a temple, or oftener to make a land which had been already granted, tax-free. "The submission of the request (*vijñapti*) was perhaps a customary procedure . . . There appears to have been in the South Indian courts a regular officer called Vijñapti whose business it was to communicate such requests. The king promises to do so . . . solemnly and orders that the necessary *ōlai* and the *ulavari* from the Revenue Department may be duly issued. This forms the first document of the triple series and was called evidently *śrimukha* or *tirumugam*, being signed by one or two of the king's officers. The executive order (*ōlai* or *kēḷvi*) which is issued sometime after,—often some years²—is addressed to the authorities at (sic) the spot where the land-gift is made, with instructions to make the land tax-free in favour of the specified temple, and generally begins with the title ‘Kōnērinmaikoṇḍān’ of the king and not with his proper name. A demi-official note called kaittaḍi, ōlai or kaḍaiyiḍu is sometimes also sent direct to the temple committee or the village assembly, one or more ministers intimating to them the issue of the order. The officers of the Revenue Department (variyilār or puravariyār) now issue the document called ulavari, enter the same in the Revenue register thereby effecting a decrease in the total revenue to Government but an increase to the temple emoluments. The items of taxation under different heads¹ are mentioned evidently for being collected and transferred to the temple. The document is signed by a very large number of revenue officers and ministers.² The village assembly meets together,³ receives the tirumugam and other documents and proclaims the particular land to be tax-free by an executive order (ōlai) and sometimes fixes the boundaries”.⁴

v1.c10.s5.t1.15

² 682 of 1916.

v1.c10.s5.t1.16

¹ 507 of 1916, op. cit.

v1.c10.s5.t1.17

² 502 to 505 of 1916.

v1.c10.s5.t1.18

³ 511 of 1911.

v1.c10.s5.t1.19

⁴ For these triple documents, see, 664-666 of 1916; Ep. Report for 1917, pp. 109-10.

v1.c10.s5.t1.20

Mention was made above of the minute fraction of a vēli of land measured in the reign of Rājarāja I. This system of measuring land was common both to the Tamil and Karṇāṭaka countries with this difference, however, that whereas the measuring rod in the south was fixed according to and named after the royal foot, that in the Karṇāṭaka was called after one of the titles of the king. The rod of the south was “equal to the royal foot which measures the (whole) world”.⁵ The land survey in the sixteenth year of Kulōttuṅga I, already referred to above, was according to the śrīpāda or royal foot of that monarch which was evidently taken as the unit.⁶ Such detailed surveys, however, are not met with in the history of the Karṇāṭaka, although we are aware of measurements of pieces of land. Thus in A.D. 1138 four khaṇḍuga of wet land and one khaṇḍuga of dry land,⁷ and in A.D. 1195 six solage of wet land and ten kolaga of dry land were measured.⁸ About A.D. 1100 land was measured by poles of eighteen spans.⁹ The measuring rod in the fifth year of the Gaṅga-Pallava king Aparājitavarman was called *viḍelviḍugu*,¹ and that under the Western Chālukya king Sōmēśvara in A.D. 1048-9, *bhēruṇḍa-gale*.² The rod which was used in the reign of the Hoysala king, Ballāḷa II, in Śaka 1100 (A.D. 1178-9), was known as *drōhara-malla*.³ We are uncertain, however, about the uniformity of these measuring rods.

Cites (4)

Epigraphia Carnatica
South Indian Inscriptions
Śukranīti (Śukrācārya) — Śukrācārya, Sanskrit
Śilāśāsanam at Baḷagāṁve of the time of Sōmēśvaradēva I and Chāvuṇḍarāya, Śaka 970 — Sanskrit