Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Social and Political Life in the Vijayanagara Empire (A.D. 1346 – A.D. 1646) v1.c11.s2: Part II. Features of Administration

Social and Political Life in the Vijayanagara Empire (A.D. 1346 – A.D. 1646) v1.c11.s2

Language
English

Contents

Part II. Features of Administration

Section 1. Verdict passed on Vijayanagara Administration in General

v1.c11.s2.t1.1

The above is a rough sketch of the administrative machinery of the Vijayanagara monarchs. A further examination of the same subject leads us to the interesting question of the problems which faced the rulers and the methods which they adopted to solve them. Before we dwell at some length on them, it may not be improper to note in passing the adverse criticism which has been passed on the Vijayanagara system of administration. Wilks wrote the following: "The external appearance of the general government was brilliant and imposing; its internal organisation feeble and irregular: foreign conquest was a more fashionable theme than domestic finance at the court of Vijeyanuggur".¹ The Rev. Taylor remarked: ".... his (i.e., Kṛṣṇa Dēva Rāya's) conquests were extensive, and his power, nominally at least, very great. It is not certain that internal good government kept pace with external splendour and conquest: probably not so".² The author of *The Madura Country* wrote: "... showy and powerful as it was in appearance, (it) proved to be utterly rotten at the core; and at once fell to pieces on receiving a few heavy and well directed blows...".³

v1.c11.s2.t1.2

¹ Wilks, *The Sketches*, I, p. 20 (1810); I, p. 13 (1869). ² Taylor, *O.H. MSS.*, II, p. 94. ³ Nelson, *Madura Country*, p. 176. ⁴ Rice, *My. Gaz.*, I, p. 471 (1st ed.); p. 578 (Rev. ed.). These words of Rice seems to have guided the Rev. Heras, who writes almost an identical comment on the revenue administration of the two rulers. *Aravidu* pp. 40-1. Rev. Heras also writes about Veṅkaṭa II, thus: "As to the internal welfare of the country, the twenty-nine years of Venkata's reign were years of prosperity and comparative peace". *Ibid.*, p. 511.

v1.c11.s2.t1.3

That these remarks, which judged Vijayanagara on the strength of the evidence of the chaotic days of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, were the outcome of a lack of knowledge of Vijayanagara history can be seen by citing the opinion of Rice, who writes thus: "It appears that in the time of Kṛṣṇa Rāya and Achyuta Rāya the revenues of the Vijayanagar State were first reduced to a regular form, checked by ordinances, and a system of accounts and management introduced, calculated to improve the revenue of the empire gradually in yearly amount without distressing the inhabitants".⁴ To these remarks of writers on Vijayanagara administration we may add those of Dr. S. K. Aiyangar: "The civil administration was so organised over this vast region that the people carried on the administration themselves more or less completely subject to the supervision and control of the great officers of state, who constituted a comparatively small hierarchy touring the country to set matters right, wherever their attention should be called for. This kind of an organisation left the Imperial revenues almost exclusively for the purpose of organising the military resources for the defence of the northern frontier.

v1.c11.s2.t1.4

It was necessary on this frontier to adopt the policy of avoiding war by being ever the most ready for it. Such a policy involved a military expenditure which would have exhausted the resources of an ordinary Empire'.¹

v1.c11.s2.t1.5

¹ S. K. Aiyangar, *Some Contributions*, pp. 301-2, 410-11. For the view that Vijayanagara was essentially a military state, see Iswari Prasad, *Med. Ind.*, pp. 424-6.

Section 2. Some Remarks on Administration in Pre-Vijayanagara Days

v1.c11.s2.t2.1

The assumption that the Vijayanagara government was "brilliant and imposing" only in external appearance while it was "utterly rotten at the core" makes us inquire whether a government that came into existence on the ruins of the great empires in the Karṇāṭaka and Chōḷa lands could really have had no redeeming features in its administration. The fact that the Vijayanagara rulers successfully withstood foreign aggression for at least two centuries is in itself sufficient to make us believe that it must have been conducted on lines approved by the people both in the southern and in the western parts of the Empire. To these regions good government was not entirely an unknown thing; and all trustworthy records agree in ascribing to pre-Vijayanagara rulers both in the Chōḷa and Karṇāṭaka lands much of the wealth which characterized southern India in the early ages of her history. It is profitable to note that in the dark days which preceded and followed the Muhammadan invasions of the south in the fourteenth century, the government of the Hindu monarchs was capable of dealing with minute questions relating to land and administration of justice. We shall not set ourselves to the task of examining in detail how government was conducted in pre-Vijayanagara days; but we shall give one or two facts that tell us how careful the rulers were, prior to the rise of the sons of Saṅgama, in exercising governmental authority. Under Rājarāja Dēva III, in about A.D. 1230, according to an inscription of that date found at the dēvadāna village of Kulōttuṅga-Sōḷanallūr, the lands of certain persons, who were declared enemies (drōhin) of the State, were sold by public auction (rajarājapperuvilai), and the price for them being fixed by eight officers of the king, the lands were purchased by some private individuals on payment of 33,000 kāśu to the royal treasury.¹ In pre-Vijayanagara times, at least so far as Chōḷamaṇḍala was concerned, the king went on a royal tour through his dominions, and thus acquired first-hand information about the actual state of affairs in the country. On one such circuit Rājarāja III paid a vist to the Tiruvorriyūr temple on the occasion of a great festival when, as we shall relate presently, he was present at the muscial performance given by one of the dancing-girls of the temple.² Grants were made on such or different occasions to persons of approved merit or to institutions; and these endowments were recorded on stones placed within the precincts of the temple. When such lithic records were wanted or had to be renewed, they were copied, obviously at the instance of the Government.³

v1.c11.s2.t2.2

¹ 113 of 1911; *Ep. Report* for 1911, p. 75. See also S. K. Aiyangar, S. India. p. 28. For selling land by public auction, see 260 of 1906.

v1.c11.s2.t2.3

² 211 of 1912; S. K. Aiyangar, ibid., p. 30. See infra, p. 321.

v1.c11.s2.t2.4

³ *Ep. Report* for 1911, p. 75.

v1.c11.s2.t2.5

The concern with which the Government set matters right is seen in an inscription dated in the 3rd regnal year of an unidentified king who ruled over the Koṅgu-dēśa. This epigraph of Parakēsari Tribhuvana-chakravartin Kōṇērinmaikoṇḍān, king over northern Koṅgu-dēśa, deals with the remission of a tax called voṭṭachchu in favour of the Saiva temples of Koṅgu-dēśa. The inscription relates that the tax voṭṭachchu which these institutions were paying (to Government?) in previous days, being found subsequently heavy because of the requirements of daily worship, was altogether abolished. In this connection it was ordered—(a) that in accordance with the agreement with Kuṭṭāḍum Nāyaṉār, the managers of these temples were not to pay further taxes even on the production of the king's order (ōlai); (b) that no (frivolous) demands from chiefs who took possession of the district (as governors) were to be noticed; (c) that in remunerating the servants who carried the royal order one paṇam was to be paid on orders actually bearing the king's signature, and one paṇam on orders which were issued under royal warrant; (d) that the king's messengers might not receive any travelling expenses and food, nor even handfuls of rice; (e) that the two paṇam (mentioned above) were to be paid only by such as had been paying already; (f) that when under the king's orders, the 600 achchu thus payable to Government (?)

v1.c11.s2.t2.6

together with 100 *achchu* payable to Toṇḍaimāṇār were collected, no (additional commission?) was to be paid to those who received the money (into the royal treasury); and (g) that these privileges granted were to be engraved on copper and stone.¹ This epigraph proves not only that the servants of the Government made huge demands on the people but also that the State was prepared to take prompt action into alleged complaints against heavy taxation, and to guard the interests of the people against further encroachments by the officials of the king himself.

v1.c11.s2.t2.7

¹ 185 of 1910; *Ep. Report* for 1911, pp. 77-8.

v1.c11.s2.t2.8

Lest it should be surmised that Hindu governments in pre-Vijayanagara days were partial to the Brahmans, we shall give an incident which took place somewhere in the middle of the thirteenth century, during the reign of a certain Jaṭāvarman Sundara Pāṇḍya, in connection with Brahmans who were found in unlawful possession of arms. It is stated that at Uttippākam alias Ādināyaka-chaturvēdimangalam, the Brahmans, Ātakoṇḍavillai, Pāmbaṇaiyāṉ, Malaivāyakakōṉ, Varadaṉ and Salvaṉ and some Veḷḷāḷa Sūdras gave up the duties legitimate to their caste and following the profession of lower classes, wore weapons (dangerous to human life), murdered Brahmans, cut off (their) ears, insulted the Brahman ladies, committed robbery, destroyed cattle and sold them, to the great distress and terror of the residents of the district. When, on a previous occasion, this matter had been reported to the ruling authorities, the chief Vikrama-śōḷa-dēva alias Iruṅgōḷaśaniyaṉ Vāṇarāyar, Tirumalaitandār alias Muṇaiyadaraiyaṉ and others, who were in charge of the country, had got 'the offenders together, beaten them, fined them, pulled down their houses, and kept them under surveillance(?)'". But as these offenders were not actually imprisoned, and as this leniency in punishment did not contribute to any change in their character, the people again complained of their misdeeds to Prince Pottappiyarāyar, who next took charge of the country, and requested him to apprehend the mischievous people. Under orders from this prince, the chief Vaḷḷuvaṉāḍāḷvāṉ Iruṅgōḷar and a band of Malaiyala soldiers went to capture the rebellious persons, with the result that the criminals escaped to the hills after they had killed (a few of the soldiers that had followed them), pierced some, shot others down with arrows, and robbed the rest of their weapons. However, Ātkoṇḍavillai and Pāmbaṇaiyāṇ were secured and locked up in the prison-house of Tirukkachchūr. After sometime, they were being taken along with some other prisoners, to the king (Ulaguḍaiya-Perumāḷ) at Kaṇṇattūr. On entering the forest of Sāṇūr Arasippākkam, the northern hamlet (of Uttippākkam?), the three other Brahman brothers, who were still at large, and who, in the meantime, had collected together a number of people, attacked and killed the party which was leading the captive brothers to the king, liberated them and escaped. The news of this action of the rebels having reached the king, he issued stringent orders that they be captured wherever found, and punished according to the rule applicable to the lower classes, that their houses and other hereditary property be sold to the temple and other charitable institutions, that the money thus realized be credited to the treasury in payment of the fine imposed on them, and the balance, if any, be presented to the temples (of Tiruvagattīśvaramuḍaiya-Nāyaṇār and Kailāyamuḍaiya-Nāyaṇār at Uttippākkam) as a permanent charity in the name of the criminals. The order of the king was carried out by the people and the money realized by the sale of lands was deposited in the treasury at Tirukkachchūr.¹ This tradition of impartiality² was handed down to the rulers of Vijayanagara, whose administration we shall now examine from the point of view of the divisions of the Empire, the problems which faced them, and the methods that were adopted to solve them.

v1.c11.s2.t2.9

¹ *Ep. Report* for 1910, p. 98.

v1.c11.s2.t2.10

² For Chōḷa administration, see S. K. Aiyangar, *Some Contributions*, pp. 391, seq., 406, 412-41; *A.S.R.* for 1924-5, p. 117. For early Hindu administration, see Rice, *My. Gaz.*, I, p. 572, seq. (Rev. ed.). Consult also Nilakantha Sastri, *Studies in Chōḷa History and Administration*. (Madras, 1932.)

Section 3. Administrative Divisions of the Empire

v1.c11.s2.t3.1

In the year of its foundation it appeared as if the new state of Vijayanagara was to be split on the shoals of divided sovereignty; but in reality, the position occupied by Bukka (I), Harihara (I), Kampaṇa (I), and Mārappa over the eastern-central, western-southern, Nellore-Cuddapah, and Shimoga districts, respectively,³ were rather an indication of the co-operative spirit which prompted the enterprising brothers than signs of conflicting elements in the formation of the new administration. Vijayanagara was a unit composed of different provinces from the very commencement of its career. Everyone of these divisions was under a governor, who was vested with great administrative powers, which made it appear as if the different provinces were practically autonomous. But these units were nevertheless linked up with the capital in a manner which, when one realizes the presence of a great number of disintegrating forces both in and outside the Central Government, interests one as much by the devotion with which the distant provinces submitted to the dictates of the capital as by the freedom with which the great city allowed them to run their own course of quasi-independent existence. Although even in the days of the sons of Saṅgama the general limits of the Empire were more or less fixed, yet the precarious position of their kingdom did not permit them to prefix the title of Mahārājādhirāja which both as an indication of the final stability of the Empire and as a mark of the growing importance of the new dynasty, was assumed first by Harihara II.¹ There was one arrangement, however, which the five illustrious brothers transmitted to their successors, at least for some years to come, and that was in connection with the status that was to be given to persons of royal rank. In the times of Harihara Oḍeyar and Bukka Rāya I, some of the divisions of their principality were given over to the charge of members of the royal family, while "the others were, apparently, looked after and governed by the rulers themselves".² We shall presently see that there was nothing new in such a procedure. Till the advent of Harihara II, the rulers were content to style themselves by modest titles, one of which, as remarked in an earlier connection, suggested the expansion of the Empire to the seas in the words "Master of the Eastern, Western, Northern and Southern Oceans".³

v1.c11.s2.t3.2

³ *A.S.R.* for 1907-8, p. 237.

v1.c11.s2.t3.3

¹ Sewell, *For. Emp.*, p. 48.

v1.c11.s2.t3.4

² *A.S.R.* for 1907-8, p. 237.

v1.c11.s2.t3.5

³ Harihara Rāya II also called himself by these titles. Venkayya, *Ep. Ind.*, III, pp. 125-6.

v1.c11.s2.t3.6

The new State had to struggle strenuously before it could reach the zenith which it attained under the great Kṛṣṇa Dēva Rāya. The Karṇāṭaka proper shorn of its northern portions, the Tuḷu country, Nellore and Cuddapha, as related above, may be said to have been the earliest limits of the Vijayanagara Empire. With the conquest of Toṇḍaimaṇḍalam and Madura some of the ancient provinces of Tamil-nāḍu passed into the hands of the new rulers. The extent of the kingdom under Harihara II is shown by the inscriptions found at Hampe, or Vijayanagara, in the Bellary district, at Bēlūr, Chitaldroog, Harihara and Hassan in the Mysore State, at Makaravaḷḷi in the Hānugal tālūka of the Dharwar district, at Conjeeveram and at Tiruppāsūr near Tiruvaḷḷur in the Chingleput district, and at Srīraṅgam in the Trichinopoly district.¹ About the limits of the Empire under Dēva Rāya II, we may be permitted to repeat the evidence of 'Abdur Razzāq cited in one of the earlier chapters. The Persian ambassador says that the kingdom "extended from the borders of Saradip (Ceylon) to those of Kulbarga (Gulbarga), and from Bengal to Malibār, a space of more than 1,000 *parasangs*."² The same traveller informs us that "inland his cities and provinces extend over a journey of three months".³ The campaigns of Kṛiṣhṇa Dēva Rāya the Great brought all southern India under the sway of Vijayanagara.⁴ Paes relates the following about the extent of the Empire under that monarch. "You must know that this kingdom of Narsymga has three hundred *graos* of coast, each *grao* being a league, along the hill-range (*serra*) of which I have spoken, until you arrive at Ballagate and Charamāodel, (i.e., Chōḷamaṇḍala), which belong to this kingdom; and in breadth it is one hundred and sixty-four *graos*; each large *grao* measures two of our leagues, so that it has six hundred leagues of coast, and across it three hundred and forty-eight leagues . . . across from Batacalla (Bhaṭkal) to the kingdom of Orya (Orissa).

v1.c11.s2.t3.7

¹ Venkayya, *Ep. Ind.*, III, pp. 115-16; Sewell, *For. Emp.*, p. 49. See also Rice, *My. Ins.*, p. 269.

v1.c11.s2.t3.8

² Elliot, *Hist. of India*, IV, p. 105, op. cit.

v1.c11.s2.t3.9

³ Ibid., p. 103.

v1.c11.s2.t3.10

⁴ Sewell, ibid., p. 122.

v1.c11.s2.t3.11

"And this kingdom marches with all the territory of Bengal, and on the other side with the kingdom of Orya, which is to the east, and on the other side to the north with the kingdom of Dakhan, belonging to which are the lands which the Ydallcāo (Adil Shāh) has, . . . "⁵ With the capture of Koṇḍaviḍu, the largest part of the kingdom of the Gajapati rulers was added to the Vijayanagara Empire.¹ The influence of Vijayanagara, in the days of Achyuta Rāya, seems to have reached the great principalities on the western and southern-most coast of India, Calicut, Cochin and Tranvancore.² Nuniz states that even the rulers of Ceylon, Pegu, and Tenasserim paid tribute to the Hindu Emperor.³ Dark clouds were hovering over the Empire because of its wealth and extent.⁴ It suffered diminution, as we have already remarked, after the battle of Rākshasa-Taṅgaḍi, in the north, where "several petty chiefs and governors of the North of the Empire, either through fear of the Muhammadans, or on account of their own ambition, proclaimed themselves independent in their cities or fortresses".⁵ The only other example of a chieftain withdrawing his allegiance in the south was, according to Heras, the Kalaśa-Kārkaḷa ruler.⁶

v1.c11.s2.t3.12

⁵ Ibid., p. 239.

v1.c11.s2.t3.13

¹ Sewell, For. Emp., pp. 317-8.

v1.c11.s2.t3.14

² Ibid., pp. 384-8.

v1.c11.s2.t3.15

³ Ibid., p. 302.

v1.c11.s2.t3.16

⁴ Manucci gives the following account of the extent of the Empire under Rāma Rāja: "His empire was so extensive that it reached to the river Narmadā, which divides the lands of Hindūstān from those of the Dakhin, as I have already said. This was the northern frontier; that on the north-east was Jagarnate (Jagannāth) on the coast of Gergelim (Ginjili) ('Ginjili coast = it lies between Orissa and Masulipatam'.) "In addition, he was the lord of all the coast of Choromandal and the Pescaria coast (Fisher coast) as far as Cape Comeris (Comorin), including the said cape, of all the coast of Travamcor (Travancore) and Canara as far as Surat". From the following account of the Deccan principalities among "his (Rāma Rāja's) servant and slaves", it is evident that Manucci's remarks are to be taken into account with great caution. Storio do Mogor, III, pp. 97-8, 98 n. (2). (Irvine, 1907.)

v1.c11.s2.t3.17

⁵ Heras, Aravidu, op. cit.

v1.c11.s2.t3.18

⁶ Ibid.

v1.c11.s2.t3.19

We shall presently see what effect this great battle had on the administration of the Empire. In A.D 1574 the Empire judged by the Maredapalli grant of Srīraṅga II, seems to have included Koṇḍavīḍu and Vinu koṇḍapura. If it can be proved that the statement referring to the reduction of Chaurāsidurga, supposed by Mr. Natesa Aiyar to be the eighty-four hill-forts of Mahārāshṭra, is true, then Srīraṅga may have retrieved, to some extent, the lost prestige of Vijayanagara.⁷ The earliest signs of the dismemberment of the great Empire were seen when Rāja Oḍeyar was permitted to possess the territory of Mysore, the chief city of which, Srīraṅgapaṭṭaṇa, he had occupied about A.D. 1610;⁸ when the Nāyakas of Madura and Tanjore assumed the status of independent rulers in A.D. 1602;¹ and when the Bednore chiefs, about the same time, especially under Chikka Saṅkaṇṇa Nāyaka, laid the foundations of the powerful principality of Ikkēri.²

v1.c11.s2.t3.20

⁷ Natesa Aiyar, Ep. Ind., XI, p. 328.

v1.c11.s2.t3.21

⁸ Heras, ibid., p. 421.

v1.c11.s2.t3.22

¹ Sewell, For. Emp., p. 220.

v1.c11.s2.t3.23

² Heras, Aravidu, p. 423.

v1.c11.s2.t3.24

Whether over their large Empire the Vijayanagara monarchs introduced any gubernatorial changes can be made out by acquainting ourselves with the administrative divisions in the pre-Vijayanagara days. In about A.D. 1150 the territorial divisions, following the conventional standard, were these in the ascending order—grāma, nagara, khēḍa, kharvaḍa, maḍamba, paṭṭaṇa, drōṇāmukka, and siṁhāsana.³ That the conception of these divisions was common in the western parts of India is proved by an inscription dated A.D. 1181 which speaks of the gramas, nagaras, khēḍas, kharvaḍas, maḍambas, drōṇāmukkas, puras, and paṭṭaṇas of Lāṭa, Gaula, and Karṇāṭaka.⁴ Some idea of the general classification of the territories in the Tamil land is gathered from an inscription dated in the thirty-ninth regnal year of a king (Kulōttuṅga Chōḷa I ?), when a village called Uppanelli is spoken of as having been in Muḍukuṛukki in Vaḍa Puli-nāḍu, a subdivision of Perumbāṇappāḍi in Nigarili-Chōḷamaṇḍalam.⁵ Another inscription dated in the fifteenth regnal year of Chōḷa Rājarāja Dēva mentions a village known as Tirukkachchūr in Seṅguṉṛa-nāḍu a subdivision of Kaḷattūr-kōṭṭam, in Jayaṅgoṇḍa-Chōḷamaṇḍalam.⁶ Further, a similar record dated only in the tenth regnal year of Rājēndra Chōḷa Dēva gives the name of Puṇṇai alias Parukalāntaka Chaturvēdimaṅgalam in Valla-nāḍu, a district of Dāmar-kōṭṭam, in Jayaṅgoṇḍa-Chōḷamaṇḍalam.⁷ The village called Mūk-kaivāḍi, according to an epigraph dated only in the third year of Parākramavarman alias Uḍaiyar Śrī-Adhirājēndra-dēva, was situated in Puli-nāḍu, a subdivision of Perumbāṇappāḍi in Paḍavūru-kōṭṭam, a district of Jayaṅgoṇḍa- Cōḷamaṇḍalam.¹ From the above examples one may venture to suggest the corresponding divisions in the Karṇāṭaka and Tamil lands:

v1.c11.s2.t3.25

³ E.C., VII, Sk. 118, p. 118, ibid., n. (1); Rice My. Ins. p. 123. For a general account of the terms used in Vijayanagara times, see Rice, My. Gaz., I, p. 472 (1st ed.), I, p. 574, (Rev. ed.). It is highly doubtful, however, whether some of the pre-Vijayanagara territorial divisions given below were in actual practice.

v1.c11.s2.t3.26

⁴ E.C., VII, Sk. 119, p. 90; Rice My. Ins., p. 120.

v1.c11.s2.t3.27

⁵ 568 of 1906.

v1.c11.s2.t3.28

⁶ 262 of 1909.

v1.c11.s2.t3.29

⁷ 292 of 1906.

v1.c11.s2.t3.30

¹ 573 of 1906.

v1.c11.s2.t3.31

| In the Karṇāṭaka | In the Tamil Land |
| Grāma. | Village | Village |
| | | |
| Nagara | Nāḍu | Nāḍu |
| | or | |
| Khēḍa | Kōṭṭam | Pāḍi |
| | | |
| Kharv(v)aḍa | Maṇḍalam | Kōṭṭam |
| | | |
| Maḍamba | | Maṇḍalam |
| | | |
| Paṭṭaṇa or Drōṇāmukka | | |
| | | |
| Drōṇāmukha Pura | | |
| | | |
| Simhāsana Paṭṭaṇa | | |

v1.c11.s2.t3.32

Evidently the territorial divisions in the Tamil land were not so numerous as those in the Karṇāṭaka where, at least according to tradition, the *pura* seems to be an interchangeable term for the *simhāsana*.

v1.c11.s2.t3.33

Under the above general divisions, there were smaller units called the *kampaṇa*, *vāḍa* or *bāḍa*, *vēṇṭhe* and *chāvaḍi*.² These were confined mostly to the Karṇāṭaka. In the south the Brahman villages were sometimes called the agarabrahma-dēśa, the agricultural villages, vēlāṇvūr, and the towns, nagara.¹

v1.c11.s2.t3.34

² Fleet has explained some of these terms thus: "I have shown that 'kampaṇa' is a convertible term with 'bāḍa' in its second meaning of a circle if towns constituting an administrative post . . . 'Bāḍa' is a Tadbhava corruption of the Sanskrit 'vāṭa', enclosure of a town or village, fence, wall, hedge, etc., occurs here in its first meaning of a town; it occurs frequently as 'wāḍ' as the termination of modern names of villages. 'Kampaṇa' is probably another form of the Canarese 'kampaḷa, kampiḷu', a cluster, heap, assemblage, multitude........." I.A. IV., p. 211, n.; see also p. 329, n. Dr. L. D. Barnett suggests the following as regards Fleet's interpretation of 'bāḍa'. "This may be doubted. वढ is certainly used in Sanskrit and may be from the root वृ; but the ending वाट is more likely to be from Dravidian pāḍu, and is commonly turned into Sanskrit पाटक."

v1.c11.s2.t3.35

¹ Ep. Report for 1910, p. 97. The agrabrahma-dēśa may be compared to the agrahāras of the Karṇāṭaka. A still minuter subdivision of the villages was into vṛittis. See My. Arch. Report for 1926, p. 38. The term vṛitti appears in numerous grants. B.A.S.

v1.c11.s2.t3.36

The Vijayanagara monarchs maintained, on the whole, these ancient divisions.² This we infer from inscriptions discovered both in the southern and western parts of the Empire. We shall first enumerate these subdivisions and then classify them. In A.D. 1346 we have the village, the nāḍu, and prānta.³ The village called Miṭṭaligaṇa-kaṭṭe granted to the astrologer Rāmaṇṇa-Jōyiśayya by Bukka Rāya in A.D. 1354-55 was included in the township of the city of the god Harihara, which was in the vēṇṭhe of Uchchaṅgī which belonged to the chāvaḍi of Koṭṭūru.⁴ Karaikōṭṭu Brahmadēśam, a village in Śaka 1285 (A.D. 1363-4), is said to have been in Dāmal-nāḍu, a subdivision of Dāmal-kōṭṭam, in Jayaṅgoṇḍa-Chōḷamaṇḍalam.⁵ The temple Aḷuḍaiyār-Tiruppanaṅgāvuḍaiya-Nāyinar at Tiruppanaṅgāḍu, was, according to an inscription dated Śaka 1303, (A.D. 1381-82), situated in Brahmadēśaparru, a subdivision of Kaḷmmala-nāḍu in Kāliyūr-Kōṭṭam, a district of Jayaṅgoṇḍa-Chōḷamaṇḍalam.⁶ The village of Nallūr, in Śaka 1321 (A.D. 1399-1400), was a part of Mēguṇā-valaṇāḍu (or also called Naḷaṭuripāḷem-sīmā) which belonged to Paiyūri-kōṭṭa, which was a subdivision of Chandragiri-mahārājya.⁷

v1.c11.s2.t3.37

² They seem to have preserved even the old terms like Banavāse 12,000 etc. which referred to the number of villages that comprised a kingdom. See Fleet, J. Bom. R.A.S., XII., p. 377.

v1.c11.s2.t3.38

³ Hultzsch, Ep. Ind., III, p. 40.

v1.c11.s2.t3.39

⁴ Fleet, J. Bom., B.R.A.S. XII., p. 350.

v1.c11.s2.t3.40

⁵ 272 of 1915.

v1.c11.s2.t3.41

⁶ 241 of 1906.

v1.c11.s2.t3.42

⁷ Venkayya, Ep. Ind. III, p. 119.

v1.c11.s2.t3.43

In A.D. 1406 certain specified villages formed a part of a Bhānuvatipaṭṭaṇa which was in Koṭṭūru-simhāsana, which belonged to Uchchaṅgī-vēṇṭhe.⁸ In A.D. 1420 a village or haḷḷi is said to have been in a chāvaḍi which was in a nāḍu belonging to a vēṇṭhe that formed a division of the province.⁹ This order however is reversed in an inscription dated Śaka 1349 (1350) [A.D. 1428-9] which mentions Sunepuha-nalūr in the Mēlmuri of the Maḷa-nāḍu as a subdivision of the Rājarāja-valaṇāḍu which belonged to the Tiruchchirāpaḷḷi-rājya or *chāvaḍi*.¹ In a record dated only in the cyclic year Parābhava, (Saka 1348) [A.D. 1426-7], we have a Chaturvēdimaṅgalam (a village granted to Brahmans) in a *nāḍu* which was in a *paṟṟu* or district that formed a division of *kōṭṭam* in Jayaṅgoṇḍa-Chōlamaṇḍalam.² In Saka 1431 (A.D. 1509-10) a village granted by Narasayya Dēva Mahārāya of the Vasisṭha-gōtra and the Sūrya-vaṃśa is said to have belonged to the Pulivindala-sthala in Mulikīnāṭi-sīmā, which was a subdivision of the Ghaṇḍi-kōṭa, a district of the Udayagiri-rājya.³ According to an inscription dated Saka 1432 (A.D. 1510-11) Arasūrkilpaṟṟu was in the Veṇṇaiyūr-nāḍu which was in the Rājādhirāja-valanāḍu that belonged to the Bhuvanēkavīranpaṭṭaṇa-sīmai.⁴ Fourteen years later (Saka 146=A.D. 1524-5) Muliki-nāḍu is spoken of as a subdivision of the Ghaṇḍi-kōṭa-sīmā which formed a part of the Udayagiri-rājya.⁵ An inscription dated Saka 1451 (A.D. 1529-30) locates the village called Kaḍalāḍ in the Paḍaiviḍu-mahārājya that was in the Jayaṅgoṇḍa-Chōlamaṇḍalam in Phalgunnakōṭaka in Paṅgala-nāḍu.⁶

v1.c11.s2.t3.44

⁸ E.C., XI. Dg. 108, p. 71.

v1.c11.s2.t3.45

⁹ E.C., VII, Sk. 288, p. 148.

v1.c11.s2.t3.46

¹ *Ep. Ind.*, XVII, p. 111. Cf. Below. *I.A.*, IV., p. 329.

v1.c11.s2.t3.47

² 319 of 1911.

v1.c11.s2.t3.48

³ 491 of 1906.

v1.c11.s2.t3.49

⁴ 323 of 1913.

v1.c11.s2.t3.50

⁵ 326 of 1905.

v1.c11.s2.t3.51

⁶ Venkatesvara-Visvanatha, *Ep. Ind.*, XIV, p. 313.

v1.c11.s2.t3.52

The ancient divisions seem to have been still preserved in the Karṇāṭaka even in Saka 1452 (A.D. 1530-1) as can be made out from the grant by Nārāyaṇa Dēva, son of Timmarasa of the *chinna-bhaṇḍāra* (i.e., gold treasury), of two shares to the god Harihara, in the village of Ballōpura which was a *vāḍa*, and was also surnamed Achvutarāvapuram, within the boundaries of the town of Harihara that belonged to the district of Pāṇḍya-nāḍ within the *vēṇṭhe* of Unchchaṅgi which was included in the *chāvaḍi* of Koṭṭūru.⁷ The territorial divisions in the reign of Achyuta Rāya in the Tamil land remained unchanged. We infer this from an inscription dated Saka 1457 Dūrmukhi (A.D. 1533-6) which speaks of Valaikuḷam in Vēlūr-nāḍu which was in Nārāyaṇapura-paṟṟu in Kuṉṟvaratana-kōṭṭam of the Chandragiri-rājya in Jayaṅgoṇḍa-Chōlamaṇḍalam.⁸ This uniformity is however at variance with that given in another inscription dated Saka 1461 (A.D. 1539-40?) according to which Perumbarrappuliyūr was in Vaḷudalam-baṭṭu-usāvaḍi that formed a subdivision of Veṇṇaiyur-nāḍu in Rājādhirajavalaṇāḍu.¹

v1.c11.s2.t3.53

⁷ Fleet, *I.A.*, IV. p. 329.

v1.c11.s2.t3.54

⁸ 27 of 1911.

v1.c11.s2.t3.55

¹ 272 of 1913. The cylic year Vishnu does not correspond.

v1.c11.s2.t3.56

Sometimes the inscriptions mention merely one or two subdivisions. Thus the village of Suttamalligai that was granted by Rāmappa Nāyaka in Śaka 1471 expired, Saumya (A.D. 1549), is said to have belonged to Meyguṇrada-valaṇāḍu alias Naripaḷḷināḍu in Magadai-maṇḍalam on the southern bank of the river Pennār.² Raudakuṇḍi-sīmā was in Keḷavaḍi-nāḍu which was a part of Hastināvati-valita, in Śaka 1473 (A.D. 1551-2).³ This term valita seems to have been given to the district in which the capital city was situated. Kurugōḍa-sime in Śaka 1478 (A.D. 1556-7) was the subdivision of Mūganāḍa-vēṇṭhe which was a part of the Hastināvati-valita.⁴ But it is possible that other districts may also have been called by that name. An inscription dated Śaka 1501 (A.D. 1579-80) informs us that the village of Kuṇrattur was situated in Perrumbākkasīrmai which belonged to Tirukkaḷukkuṇraparru in Mugandūr-nāḍu, a subdivision of Āmūr-kōṭṭam, a district of Paḍaiviḍu-rājya in Jayaṅgoṇḍa-Chōḷamaṇḍalam.⁵ This order however is not seen in an inscription dated Śaka 1514 (A.D. 1592-3) which mentions Tiruppuṭkuḷi in Dāmar-kōṭṭam which formed a part of Dāmar-nāḍu in Solingapura-parru, a subdivision of the Chandragiri-rājya in Jayaṅgoṇḍa-Chōḷamaṇḍalam.⁶ From the above we gather the following about the territorial divisions in the Karṇāṭaka and Tamil provinces of the Vijayanagara Empire:

v1.c11.s2.t3.57

² 104 of 1906.

v1.c11.s2.t3.58

³ C.P. No. 1 of 1914-15.

v1.c11.s2.t3.59

⁴ 212 of 1913.

v1.c11.s2.t3.60

⁵ 255 of 1909.

v1.c11.s2.t3.61

⁶ 208 of 1916.

v1.c11.s2.t3.62

| Divisions in the Karṇāṭaka | Divisions in the Tamil lands |
| Sthala | Village |
| | |
| Village(?) | Nāḍu or Sīmai |
| | |
| Sīma or Nāḍu | Parru or Valaṇāḍu⁷ |
| | |
| Valita or Vēṇṭhe | Kōṭṭam |
| | |
| Rājya(?) or Chāvaḍi | Maṇḍalam or Rājyam |

v1.c11.s2.t3.63

⁷ Whether the term valanāḍu was used outside Toṇḍaimaṇḍalam has yet to be ascertained. B.A.S.

v1.c11.s2.t3.64

Foreign travellers, who could not have been familiar with the detailed divisions of the Empire recorded in the inscriptions, have left to us some account of the larger provincial areas of the Hindu State. Paes relates the following: ". . . Since he (the Emperor) has so many and such great lords in his kingdom, who, the greater part of them, have themselves revenues, I answer thus: These captains whom he has over these troops of his are the nobles of his kingdom; they are lords, and they hold the city, and the towns and villages of the kingdom; there are captains amongst them who have a revenue of a million and a million a half *pardaos*, others a hundred thousand *pardaos*, others two hundred, three hundred or five hundred thousand *pardaos*, and as each has revenue so the king fixes for him the number of troops he must maintain, in foot, horse and elephants".¹ It is evident from this that there was some system of gradation among the highest officials, and that the king was the master of all land. This is further corroborated by the evidence which Nuniz gives: "These nobles are like renters who hold all the land from the King . . .".² Then again: "During his feasts and the almsgiving to his temples all these captains, who are thus like renters, must always attend the court, and of those whom this King always has about him and by whom he is accompanied in his court there are more than two hundred . . . These nobles are never suffered to settle themselves in cities or towns because they would there be beyond reach of his hand; they only go thither sometimes".³

v1.c11.s2.t3.65

¹ Sewell, *For. Emp.* p. 280, op. cit.

v1.c11.s2.t3.66

² *Ibid.*, p. 373.

v1.c11.s2.t3.67

³ *Ibid.*, p. 374.

v1.c11.s2.t3.68

Nuniz here seems to contradict Paes about the position which the nobles occupied in the political organization of Vijayanagara. Paes, as we have just remarked, informs us that the lords held "the city, and the towns and villages of the kingdom" and that, therefore, they could command immense revenues. Nuniz, however, is of opinion that the nobles were "never suffered to settle in cities or towns". If we are inclined to believe Nuniz, we cannot account for the fact that, as he himself says, the nobles paid to the Emperor "every year sixty lakhs of rents as royal dues".⁴ Then, again, Nuniz mentions the King of Bengapor (Baṅkāpur), the King of Gasopa (Gērasoppe), the King of Bacanor (Bārakūr) the King of Calecu (Calicut ?), "and he of Batecal" (Bhaṭkal); and then he speaks of the "captains and lords of this kingdom of Bisnaga".¹ In the detailed list of "the officers of the King who go about the kingdom", Nuniz gives eleven names of the lords of Vijayanagara.² But in another connection he affirms that there are "nine principal captains in the kingdom".³ Further he writes: "In this way the kingdom of Bisnaga is divided between more than two hundred captains who are all heathen, and according to the lands and revenues that they have so the King settles for them the forces that they are compelled to keep up, and how much revenue they have to pay him every month during the first nine days of the month of September".⁴ Evidently Nuniz confounds the tributary kings with the provincial viceroys, and these again with the minor nobles who were merely officials in the Government. This is clear from the manner in which he concludes about the "captains, who are thus like renters". "But a concession is granted to the kings that are subject to him, namely they do not go to court unless they are summoned, and from their own cities they send to him their rents or tributes; yet the King of Bengapor (Baṅkāpur) is obliged to be always in camp, and he goes to court twice in the year".⁵

v1.c11.s2.t3.69

⁴ *Ibid.*, p. 373.

v1.c11.s2.t3.70

¹ Sewell, For. Emp., p. 374. ² Ibid., p. 384, seq. ³ Ibid., p. 376. ⁴ Ibid., p. 389. ⁵ Ibid., p. 374, op. cit.

v1.c11.s2.t3.71

Since the narrative of Nuniz does not enlighten us on the question of the exact provinces into which the Vijayanagara Empire was divided, and on the topic of the tenure of office of the various provincial governors, we shall have recourse to the inscriptions which contain some useful details about the viceroys of Vijayanagara. But before we note them we may observe the remarks of two other travellers, which are also meagre, on the provincial divisions of Vijayanagara. Barbosa writes thus: "Beyond this river (called 'Aliga') commences the kingdom of Narsinga, which contains five very large provinces, with a language of their own. One province is along the coast, and is called Tulinat (Tuḷu-nāu); another has the name of Legni (Teliṅga ?) which confines with the kingdom of Tissa (Orissa?); another is Canari (Karṇāṭaka?), in which is the great city of Visenagar (Vijayanagara), and the other is Cholmendel (Cōḷamaṇḍalam), a kingdom which they call Tamul".¹ In A.D. 1639 Mandelslo observed that the kingdom was divided into three provinces. "This Country was heretofore divided into three Kingdoms, that is, Coromandel, Narsinga, and Bisnagar; but at present 'tis all subject to one Prince, who resides sometimes at Bisnagar, sometimes at Narsinga".²

v1.c11.s2.t3.72

¹ Barbosa, Stanley, pp. 78-9; Dames I, pp. 182-3. Here the river is called Ligua. Ibid. p. 181.

v1.c11.s2.t3.73

² Mandelslo, Travels Lib. II, p. 94. (1669, 2nd ed.) There was no Vijayanagara city in the days of Mandelslo. He probably refers to Vellore and Penugoṇḍa: See supra, Ch. III, B.A.S.

v1.c11.s2.t3.74

According to the computations of the late Mr. H. Kṛṣṇa Sāstri, who has given us a most complete account of the Vijayanagara governors,³ there were six principal provinces in the Vijayanagara Empire. These were the following—the Udayagiri-rājya; the Penugoṇḍa-rājya which included within it the Gutti-rājya; the Āraga-rājya or Male-rājya, or Candra-guṭṭi-rājya; the Muḷuvāyi-rājya; the Bārākūru-rājya, or Tuḷuva-rājya; and, the Rājagambhīra-rājya.⁴ With the aid of this classification, on which we have based our remarks on the provincial organization of Vijayanagara, we may ascertain a few details about the viceroys, especially in connection with their tenure of office. The northern provinces, because of their proximity to the Muhammadan kingdoms, were naturally of greater importance, although in point of revenue it may be doubted whether they could vie with the more fertile regions of the southern or those of the western parts of the Empire. Udayagiri always claimed the greatest attention on the part of the rulers. When Tirumala in A.D. 1542 was given the charge of that province, it was called, according to Rev. Heras, the chief fortress under the royal throne of Vijayanagara.⁵ Paes has some interesting details as to how these frontier fortresses were guarded. "In these passes on the frontier the king of Narsymga has a captain with a quantity of troops, but on the side of (Portuguese) India he has none, except as I have said'.¹ The greater part of these northern provinces, as narrated above, was lost to the Hindus after the battle of Rākshasa-Taṅgaḍi. It was once assumed that the Vijayanagara Empire about that period was divided into six provinces, as a result of the fatal defeat. These were, according to Mr. Richards, Āndhra, Karṇāṭa, Madura, Chandragiri, Gingee, and Tanjore.² But Tirumalarāya in his Chkikadēvarāya Vamśāvali gives us the territorial divisions of the Empire after the death of Rāma Rāja. The author tells us that Yeṛa Timma Rāja, the younger brother of Rāma Rāja, made himself the ruler, setting aside the nominal sovereign Sadāśiva Rāya. After some time he changed his capital from Vidyānagara to Penu-goṇḍa. Of his three sons Srīraṅga Rāya was the viceroy of the whole Telugu country with his headquarters at Srīraṅgapaṭṭaṇa; and Veṅkaṭādri, the third son, over the Tuṇḍira, Chōḷa and Pāṇḍya countries, with Chandragiri as his centre.³

v1.c11.s2.t3.75

³ A.S.R. for 1907-8, p. 235, seq.

v1.c11.s2.t3.76

⁴ Ibid., p. 235, seq.

v1.c11.s2.t3.77

⁵ Heras, Aravidu, p. 29. The reference given here (to My. Arch. Rep. for 1920, p. 39) is wrong. The information relating to Tirumala cannot be traced in the My. Arch. Report. B.A.S.

v1.c11.s2.t3.78

¹ Sewell, For. Emp. p. 244.

v1.c11.s2.t3.79

² Richards, Salem Gaz. I, p. 67.

v1.c11.s2.t3.80

³ Chikkadēvarāya Vamśāvali, The Source, pp. 302-3. See Heras, Aravidu, pp. 255-7 for some observations on this point.

v1.c11.s2.t3.81

Without dwelling at length on the history of any of these provinces, we may ascertain one or two details about the tenure of office of a viceroy. The province of Āraga affords us some insight into this question. Āraga as a provincial seat comes into prominence from the earliest days of Vijayanagara history. It was called, as we have said, the Āraga or the Chandraguṭṭi or the Male-rājya. It comprised the modern Shimoga district of the Mysore State and portions of North Kanara. Mārappa, brother of Harihara Oḍeyar, was in charge of this province in A.D. 1347.⁴ There is reason to believe, therefore, that Āraga-rājya was at first under a prince of the royal family. Virūpaṇṇa Oḍeyar, also called Yadugiri, Udayagiri, and in one inscription Vandagiri, was the viceroy over Āraga in A.D. 1362.⁵

v1.c11.s2.t3.82

⁴ E.C., VIII, Sb. 375. p. 65.

v1.c11.s2.t3.83

⁵ Ibid., Tl. 37, p. 170.

v1.c11.s2.t3.84

The history of the viceroyalty of Virūpaṇṇa Oḍeyar brings us to the second feature of the office of a provincial governor. This was the long tenure of office, presumably because of some unspecified political reasons or because of the inherent efficiency of the governor. There are at least two instances of the prolonged career of a viceroy placed over Āraga—that of a royal prince and that of a minister-general who belonged to a famous line of administrators. Yadugiri Virūpaṇṇa, son of Bukka Rāya, continued to be the viceroy over Āraga from A.D. 1362 till about A.D. 1380.¹ Another well known example of a ruler who continued to govern over Āraga for about the same period is that of Viṭṭhaṇṇa Oḍeyar, (A.D. 1402-17), a Brahma-Kshariya, son of Bamma Rāja and Virūpāmbikā, of the lineage of Saṅkappa and Rāyappa.² But in these two instances it may be noted that, although both of them exercised jurisdiction for nearly eighteen years, yet the names of other viceroys continually appear within the period of their viceroyalty. Thus Mādarasa in A.D. 1369, and again in A.D. 1377.³ Sōvaṇṇa Oḍeyar in A.D. 1369,⁴ Chikka Rāya, the son of Harihara, in A.D. 1379 and A.D. 1381,⁵ and Vira Vasanta Mādhava in A.D. 1379 and A.D. 1380,⁶ ruled over Āraga. We can only suppose that some of these were merely deputies of the viceroy, although it appears strange, that the provincial ruler should have found it expedient to change his deputies in A.D. 1369 and in A.D. 1379.

v1.c11.s2.t3.85

¹ E.C., VIII, Intr., p. 12; Tl. 107, p. 206; Tl. 28, p. 169; Tl. 125, p. 187; E.C., VI, Kp. 30, p. 81; E.C., VIII, Tl. 114, p. 185; Tl. 167, p. 197.

v1.c11.s2.t3.86

² E.C., VI, Kp. 52-4, pp. 87-8; E.C., VIII, Tl. 133, p. 190; Tl. 130, p. 189; Tl. 148, p. 192.

v1.c11.s2.t3.87

³ E.C., VI, Kp. 6, p. 77; E.C., VII, Sk. 35, p. 46.

v1.c11.s2.t3.88

⁴ E.C., VIII, Tl. 132, p. 189. Sōvaṇṇa Oḍeyar is called the son of Vira Mārappa.

v1.c11.s2.t3.89

⁵ E.C., VII, Hl. 84, p. 175; E.C., VI, Kd. 31, p. 81.

v1.c11.s2.t3.90

⁶ E.C., VII, Hl. 84, p. 175; E.C., VIII, Sb. 152, p. 22.

v1.c11.s2.t3.91

However that may be, Āraga was placed under governors whose families could boast of having held some of the highest posts in the kingdom. To such a family belonged Rāvaṇṇa Rāja, whose descent is thus given in an inscription dated A.D. 1431: "Formerly, under Bukka Rāya (omitting laudations) was the great minister Baichapa-daṇḍanāyaka; whose son was Maṅgappa-daṇḍādhipa: his son, famous as the king of Māhishmatī, was Baichapa-daṇḍanāyaka; whose son was Rāvaṇṇa-Rāya" who ruled over the Āraga kingdom, the Hanagavāḍiya-Bhāgada-nāḍ of Ānavēri-nāḍ, and the Hoysala Honnūru-nāḍ.⁷ Another instance of a family which supplied hereditary governors was that of Rāyappa from whom, as related above, was descended Viṭṭhaṇṇa. To this family of Rāyappa belonged Srigirinātha, who was also viceroy over Āraga for about eighteen years (A.D. 1420-37).¹ Since in A.D 1432 Srigirinātha calls himself a Brahma-Kshatriya and the son of Rāyappa Oḍeyar,² we may presume that he apparently a brother of Viṭṭhaṇṇa Oḍeyar.³ There is an epigraph which has been assigned to about the year A.D. 1450 by Rice.⁴ If this could be accepted, Srigirinātha must have had an unusually long tenure of office as viceroy over Āraga-Guṭṭi Eighteen Kampaṇa. However that may be, Srigirinātha's eldest son Dēvappa Daṇḍādhipa was the "protector of the great Āraga kingdom" from A.D. 1463 till A.D. 1468.⁵ In A.D. 1550, in the reign of Sadāśiva Rāya, "by his order, Keḷadi Sadāśiva Rāya Nāyaka was ruling the Āraga kingdom".⁶ This governor had already come into some prominence in about A.D. 1524 in the Banavāse Twelve Thousand,⁷ and in about A.D. 1545 seems to have been appointed as viceroy over Āraga in conjunction with Rāma Rāya Nāyaka.⁸ But from A.D. 1550 till A.D. 1566 he was the sole governor over Āraga.⁹ If his joint-rule over Āraga from A.D. 1545 is also taken into account, Sadāśiva Rāya Nāyaka's viceroyalty over that important province extended over a period of about eighteen to twenty years. The family of Sadāśiva Rāya Nāyaka is another example of a line that gave governors to the Vijayanagara Empire.

v1.c11.s2.t3.92

⁷ E.C., VII, Sh. 71, p. 27.

v1.c11.s2.t3.93

¹ E.C., VIII, Tl. 216, p. 210; Tl. 2, p. 161; Tl. 14, p. 165; Tl. 33, p. 169; Tl. 23, pp. 167-8; Tl. 175, p. 199; E.C., VI, Kp. 27, p. 80.

v1.c11.s2.t3.94

² E.C., VIII, Tl. 23, p. 168.

v1.c11.s2.t3.95

³ Ibid., Intr., p. 12.

v1.c11.s2.t3.96

⁴ Ibid., Tl. 155, p. 193.

v1.c11.s2.t3.97

⁵ Ibid., Tl. 206, p. 209; Tl. 143, p. 191.

v1.c11.s2.t3.98

⁶ Ibid., Nr. 77, p. 160.

v1.c11.s2.t3.99

⁷ Ibid., Sb. 35, p. 7.

v1.c11.s2.t3.100

⁸ Ibid., Tl. 15, p. 166.

v1.c11.s2.t3.101

⁹ Ibid., Tl. 103, p. 184; Nr. 1, p. 120.

v1.c11.s2.t3.102

But this system of enlisting members from select families was fraught with great danger to the Empire. The Keḷadi family itself proves our assertion. Till the year A.D. 1566 the epigraphs describing the charitable activities of the viceroys are remarkable for their tone of submissiveness to the Central Government. Thus in an inscription dated A.D. 1566, we are told that "when (with titles) Sadāśiva Rāyamahārāya was in Vidyānagari called Hastināvati, ruling the kingdom. . . . And by his order Immaḍi Sadāśiva Rāya Nāyaka was ruling the Āraga kingdom as his māgaṇi. . . .¹ The same is mentioned in an earlier inscription dated A.D. 1560². But in A.D. 1577 his grandson Rāma Rāya Nāyaka, ruling "the Āraga-Guṭṭi Sime, Bārakūru, Maṅgaḷūru, and other kingdoms developed in succession", gave expression to the new spirit which was kindling in the hearts of the Keḷadi governors, in his account of the same māgaṇi which in A.D. 1566 Sadāśiva Rāya Nāyaka is said to have ruled by the order of the Emperor Sadāśiva Rāya. "When (with titles) king Sadāśiva being in Vidyānagari . . . the follower of his orders, by his command—the Yādava-Murāri, Kōṭe-Kōlāhala establisher of the Visuddha-Vaidikādvaita-siddhānta, destroyer of his opponents, devoted a Śiva, Sadāśiva Rāya Nāyaka, born in Keḷadi, celebrated in the world by the place name Keḷadi, having taken possession of the Guṭṭi-sime, the Āraga Eighteen Kampaṇa, Bārakūru, Maṅgaḷūr, with their districts was ruling them . . ."³ The change in the nature of fief expressed in the phrase "having taken possession" of the various principalities and in the string of titles appended to the name Sadāśiva Nāyaka, must have come as an inevitable result of the battle of Rākshasa-Taṅgaḍi. Rāma Rāya Nayaka was discreet enough to proclaim that he ruled over the Āraga-Guṭṭi and other kingdoms "devolved in succession", under the hand of the Rājādhirāja Rāja-paramēśvara, Vira Pratāpa, Vira Srīraṅga Rāya Dēva, Mahārāya;⁴ but it must have been apparent even to the latter that the province of Keḷadi had outgrown the loyalty of the days of Kṛshṇa Dēva Rāya the Great, and that viceroys like Rāma Rāya Nāyaka, who showed signs of outward submission, had in fact encroached to a very large extent on the authority and name of the Vijayanagara Emperor. Indeed, or the principality of Keḷadi, which thus originated in a fief, lived beyond the days of the great Hindu Empire, the traditions of which it carried on long after the descendants of Srīraṅga Rāya had relapsed into insignificance in their parent city of Anegundi. But the origin and growth of Keḷadi afford to later history one more example of the fundamental defect in the provincial organization of Vijayanagara.

v1.c11.s2.t3.103

¹ E.C., VIII, Nr. 1, p. 126.

v1.c11.s2.t3.104

² Ibid., Tl. 103, p. 184.

v1.c11.s2.t3.105

³ Ibid., Tl. 5, p. 162.

v1.c11.s2.t3.106

⁴ Ibid.

Section 4. Some Problems of the Vijayanagara Monarchs and how they were solved

v1.c11.s2.t4.1

There have been two schools of thought, as already remarked,¹ about the administration of Vijayanagara. To steer clear of these divergent sets of opinions it is necessary that one should review very briefly a large range of Vijayanagara activity in purely political matters, and examine the problems which confronted the Hindu rulers and the methods to which the monarchs had recourse to solve them.

v1.c11.s2.t4.2

¹ Supra, Sect. 1. Verdict passed on Vijayanagara Administration in General.

v1.c11.s2.t4.3

Of all the questions which the sons of Saṅgama and their successors had to solve,² that which was fraught with the greatest danger, at least so far as internal administration was concerned, was the continual recurrence of civil wars, usurpations, and rebellions on the part of the princes and potentates placed over the different provinces of the Empire. A satisfactory settlement of the paramount problem of guarding the northern parts of the Empire³ was frustrated, to a great extent, by the fear of interminable civil wars. Internal strife was not uncommon during certain periods of Vijayanagara history. The earliest signs of such civil commotion are seen in the years immediately following the reign of Harihara Rāya II, under whom the kingdom seems to have reached the utmost limits and to have been firmly secured.⁴ The late Mr. T. Gopinatha Rao was the first to draw attention to the confusion which prevailed in the year A.D. 1404-5 when Bukka II and his brother Virūpāksha were both represented as ruling from the capital city. According to Mr. Gopinatha Rao, since the reign of Virūpāksha (in A.D. 1404) "overlaps that of Bukka II", "it is not easy to explain how Virūpāksha could have reigned in the same period, except on the supposition that either Virūpāksha was acting as a regent, or that he seized the throne from his brother Bukka II, ruled for a short time, and was dethroned by the partisans of Bukka II. This latter may have been in his turn ousted from the government by Dēvarāya I. Hence we might conclude that after the death of Harihara II there was a rapid succession of kings one after another, thus: Bukka II, Virūpāksha, Bukka II, once again, and Dēvarāya I".¹ Sewell, relying on the testimony of Nuniz, speaks of a period of confusion in Vijayanagara after the death of Dēva Rāya II.²

v1.c11.s2.t4.4

² Supra, Ch. I, Sec. 2. The Needs of the Times. We shall not deal with the question of imperial defence which falls within the purview of political history, nor with that relating to the preservation of Hindu Dharma, since some phases of it will be discussed in the subsequent pages of this treatise. B.A.S.

v1.c11.s2.t4.5

³ See for example, how the Gajapati king Kapilēśvara with the aid of the Muhammadans and Pāṇḍyas invaded Vijayanagara in S. 1391, (A.D. 1469-74). Ep. Report for 1906, p. 64; A.S.R. for 1907-8, p. 252.

v1.c11.s2.t4.6

⁴ A.S.R. for 1907-8, p. 242.

v1.c11.s2.t4.7

¹ Gopinatha Rao, *Ep. Ind.*, VIII, p. 300; *Ep. Ind.*, XV, p. 13.

v1.c11.s2.t4.8

² Sewell, *For. Emp.*, p. 96; S. K. Aiyangar in Satyanatha, *Nayaks*, Intr., p. 6.

v1.c11.s2.t4.9

This uphappy state of things was renewed on the death of Achyuta Rāya when the powerful Rāma Rāja, the leader of the opposition, elevated Sadāsiva Rāya to the throne.³ The reign of Achyuta Rāya himself has been characterized by Nuniz as an age of decadence.⁴ Things in Vijayanagara must indeed have been deplorable after the death of a king whom Firishtah calls "Shew Ray" since the Hindus were compelled to seek the aid of Ibrāhim 'Adil Shāh I.⁵ Firishtah evidently refers here to the confusion that prevailed in the capital on the unjustifiable death of the Emperor, Sadāsiva Rāya, at the hands of the intriguing brothers. Caesar Frederick confirms the evidence of Firishtah in these words: ". . . it is many years agone, since they got any there (i.e., diamonds found in a place 'sixe dayes journey from Bezeneger') for the troubles that have been in that Kingdome. The first cause of this trouble was, because the sonne of this Temeragio had put to death the lawful King whom hee had in Prison, for which cause the Barons and Noblemen in that Kingdome would not acknowledge him to be their King, and by this means there are many Kings and great division in that Kingdome . . ."⁶

First 130 of 277 passages. Read on

Linked texts (19)