Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Social and Political Life in the Vijayanagara Empire (A.D. 1346 – A.D. 1646) v1.c11.s2.t4: Section 4. Some Problems of the Vijayanagara Monarchs and how they were solved

Social and Political Life in the Vijayanagara Empire (A.D. 1346 – A.D. 1646) v1.c11.s2.t4

Language
English

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

v1.c11.s2.t4.10

³ A.S.R. for 1911-2, pp. 177-8.

v1.c11.s2.t4.11

⁴ Sewell, ibid., pp. 367-8.

v1.c11.s2.t4.12

⁵ Firishtah, Briggs, *The Rise*, III, pp. 80-4.

v1.c11.s2.t4.13

⁶ Caesar Frederick, *Purchas*, X, p. 97.

v1.c11.s2.t4.14

Without commenting on the incompatibility of the evidence given by Caesar Frederick according to whom "the sonne of this Temeragio had put to death the lawful King", and that supplied by Firishtah, who says that "Timraj poisoned him" (i.e. the lawful king), it is apparent that the capital was split into rival camps and that consequently there was some confusion in the kingdom.

v1.c11.s2.t4.15

The annoymous author of the life of St. Xavier relates the following: "There were several wars over the question of the succession to the throne; for there was no more issue of the royal family, and various nobles and leading chiefs of the kingdom did not acknowledge the one who is ruling at present".¹ The shadows of civil war cast a gloom over the Empire. On Veṅkaṭa Dēva Rāya's death in about A.D. 1614 there was again disturbance in the kingdom. This we gather from Barradas, who writes that "Jaga Rāya", "Maca Rāya" and "Tima Naique" refused to swear allegiance to the new Emperor, and that they were mainly instrumental in plotting against the latter in favour of the son of Jaga Rāya.² Jaggaya, the Gōbūri chief, the Nāyakas of Madura, and Gingee, the Pāṇḍyas of Tinnevelly and the Portuguese on one hand, and Prince Rāma with the faithful Yāchama Nāyaka on the other, drowned the land in civil strife.³

v1.c11.s2.t4.16

¹ Heras, Aravidu, p. 252.

v1.c11.s2.t4.17

² Sewell, For. Emp., pp. 218, 224 seq.

v1.c11.s2.t4.18

³ S. K. Aiyangar in Satyanatha, Nayakas, Intr., p. 19.

v1.c11.s2.t4.19

The second aspect of this question is in connection with usurpations. The most conspicuous instances of usurpation are those of the Sāluva chief Nṛisiṁha and of his general Narasa Nāyaka. According to Nuniz, Sāluva Nṛisiṁha, whom he calls "Narsymgua", was responsible for the overthrow of the first dynasty. "One of his (of the king, whom Nuniz calls 'Padearáo') captains who was called Narsymgua, who was in some manner akin to him, seeing his mode of life, and knowing how ill it was for the kingdom that he should live and reign, though all was not yet lost, determined to attack him and seize on his lands; which scheme he at once put into force".⁴ Relying on the strength of the statement in an inscription of Immaḍi-Nṛisiṁha, the son of Sāluva, Nṛisiṁha, that the latter "with the aid of his sword defeated all" and became a *sārvabhauma* or emperor, Mr. J. Ramayya Pantulu concludes that it points "unmistakably to his usurpation of the Karṇāṭa throne".⁵ The same writer characterizes the usurpation by Sāluva Nṛisiṁha and Narasa Nāyaka, the Tuḷuva general, as double usurpation.⁶ It is generally accepted that Narasa Nāyaka supplanted the dynasty of the Sāḷuvas by a line of kings of a purely Tuḷuva stock.¹ The remarks of Wilson in this connection still hold good, although it cannot be maintained with him that the illustrious Kṛṣṇa Dēva Rāya also usurped the throne.² Another instance of usurpation is that already referred to by Caesar Frederick in his description of the tyrant brothers who kept the rightful king (Sadāśiva Rāya) in prison and who ultimately ushered in the Āraviḍu dynasty in Vijayanagara history.³

v1.c11.s2.t4.20

⁴ Sewell, ibid., p. 306.

v1.c11.s2.t4.21

⁵ Ep. Ind., VII, p. 79. See also Venkoba Rao, Vyāsayōgicharitam, Intr., pp. lxxxv-lxxxvi, 44.

v1.c11.s2.t4.22

⁶ Ep. Ind., ibid., pp. 78-9.

v1.c11.s2.t4.23

¹ But read Saletore, I.A., XLII, pp. 1-11.

v1.c11.s2.t4.24

² As. Res. XX, pp. 10-11.

v1.c11.s2.t4.25

³ Caesar Frederick, Purchas, X, p. 93.

v1.c11.s2.t4.26

A third turn which this thorny question took was in the shape of rebellion. A united front against foreign enemies was an imperative necessity, but such a common line of defence meant the unification of the various conflicting elements in the land. This was however incompatible with the power and prestige of the ancient families, some of which could trace their annals to the early ages of south Indian history. There were also the demands of unruly tribes that had occupied various parts of the country, especially those areas covered with jungle and mountains in the western parts of the Vijayanagara Empire. A locality which was geographically an ideal centre for the forest tribes was the Āraga or Male-rājya mentioned above. Here during the reign of Dēva Rāya I there was a serious Bēḍar incursion. We shall presently describe how it was quelled. On Narasa Nāyaka's death there seems to have been a widespread disaffection in some quarters. The Tuḷuva province was almost in revolt; the Gajapatis of Orissa had besieged Koṇḍavīḍu and Udayagiri; the Sultan of Bijapur had launched an attack on the northern frontier; and a powerful Hindu ruler within the Vijayanagara Empire had raised the standard of revolt.⁴ This last chief was the Gaṅga Rāja of Ummattūr, one of whose titles was "chief lord of the Hoysala kingdom".⁵ Evidently the Ummattūr chieftains considered themselves as the only protectors of the Hoysala-vaṁśa, and, therefore, could not tolerate the imperialistic designs of the Vijayanagara monarchs. The Gaṅga Rāja rebelled in about A.D. 1510. In the reign of Achyuta Rāya the growing strength of the Vijayanagara Empire must have been as much a matter of annoyance to some of the southern governors who were thinking of aggrandizement as it was a source of fear to some of the ancient royal families on the Malabar coast. This is evident from the expedition which was led in the times of Achyuta Rāya against the recalcitrant viceroy Vira Narasimha, and the subsequent campaigns so successfully conducted in the Tiruvadi-rājya or Travancore country.¹ While the monarch's attention was thus diverted in the south, a powerful party led by three brothers, who claimed to be sons-in-law of Kṛiṣhṇa Dēva Rāya himself or of his third brother, Raṅga, was sowing seeds of dissension in the capital.²

v1.c11.s2.t4.27

⁴ A.S.R. for 1908-9, p. 173.

v1.c11.s2.t4.28

⁵ E.C., IV, Ch. 192, p. 23.

v1.c11.s2.t4.29

¹ S. K. Aiyangar in Satyanatha, *Nayaks*, Intr., pp. 11-12.

v1.c11.s2.t4.30

² Ibid., p. 12.

v1.c11.s2.t4.31

The reign of Sadāśiva Rāya was an era of the most fatal complications. Firstly, there were the incursions by the ruler of Travancore into the ancient Pāṇḍyan territory. Then there was the menace of a great danger on the Fishery Coast of the south where the Portuguese, committed to a policy of conquest for the sake of the Cross, were coming into conflict with the political and religious stability of the Hindu Empire. Thirdly, as narrated above, there was the fact of the rise of the same powerful leaders of the rival parties in the capital, whose proud demeanour with foreign ambassadors was in no small measure responsible for the spark that kindled the smouldering fires of Hindu-Mohamadan antipathy into the greatest and saddest catastrophe ever witnessed in the history of southern India. This was the last and the most extraordinary disaster in the reign of Sadāśiva Rāya—the battle of Rākshasa-Taṅgaḍi. Whether the poor monarch was in any way responsible for the subversion of the Hindu Empire cannot be determined with certainty. Although it is not possible to agree with Sewell when he says that the nobles proclaimed their independence in the anarchy which followed that great conflict,³ yet it cannot be gainsaid that the battle of Rākshasa-Taṅgaḍi shook the Hindu Empire as no other terror had done in its history. This great battle forms a subject by itself, and we intend to discuss and describe it in a separate dissertation. Meanwhile we may be permitted to recount the effect it had on the fate of the Vijayanagara Empire.⁴

v1.c11.s2.t4.32

³ Sewell, *For. Emp.*, p. 209.

v1.c11.s2.t4.33

⁴ *Supra*, Chapter III.

v1.c11.s2.t4.34

What the relatives of the gallant old Hindu Regent did on hearing the reports of the great disaster is told to us, as already remarked, by Caesar Frederick in A.D. 1567. They fled, taking with them as their prisoner the Emperor Sadāśiva.¹ We have likewise dwelt on the revolt of the northern provinces of Adōni, Baṅkāpur, Dhārwar, Jerreh, Chandragutti, Karūr and Tirukal, and on the rebellion of the chieftain of Kārkala in Tuḷuva.² The insecurity which prevailed over some parts of the Vijayanagara Empire is shown in the deplorable fate that befell poor Caesar Frederick on the outskirts of Aṅkōla in A.D. 1567.³ That same eye-witness, as we have seen, relates the dishonest though dire methods to which the Hindu monarch had recourse in raising a force of cavalry. Finally, we saw the administrative changes which Tirumala undertook to revive the stability of the Hindu Empire.

v1.c11.s2.t4.35

¹ Caesar Frederick, Purchas, X, p. 93, op. cit.

v1.c11.s2.t4.36

² Heras, Aravidu, p. 243, op. cit.

v1.c11.s2.t4.37

³ Caesar Frederick, ibid., pp. 99-100, op. cit.

v1.c11.s2.t4.38

The new Government, however, unwittingly added to the number of its problems by the murder of the innocent Emperor Sadāśiva Rāya. This political blunder is as difficult to account for as the other grave error they made in transferring the headquarters "from the front line at Vijayanagara to the second at Penukoṇḍa".⁴ We confess that the political reshuffling of the Vijayanagara provinces was a measure which was not entirely without its own advantages. To their exultant enemies it was a sign of the vigour that was still left in the Hindus; to the latter it was another opportunity of consolidating the shorn glories of their Empire. Tirumala's division of the provinces gave up all hopes of the northern districts, which had proved to be the bane of the Hindu rulers, and made it appear as if the ruler had consciously redistributed the areas with an eye towards the linguistic affinities of the people. The Rev. Heras says in this connection: "The division being naturally made according to the three great different races of the Empire, a great administrative success in each part could reasonably be expected; and the Viceroys being of the royal blood, and in this case sons of the Sovereign himself, the fear of rebellion was reduced, since they were bound to be very loyal to the Emperor their father".⁵ But it may be doubted whether it was ever so, since we have no evidence to prove that the Hindus in or about A.D. 1567 were swayed to such an extent by motives of racial fusion in the wake of a political disaster. Tirumala's arrangement was "justified at the time but was pregnant with consequences fatal to the unity of the Empire".¹

v1.c11.s2.t4.39

⁴ S. K. Aiyangar in Satyanatha, Nayaks, Intr., p. 15.

v1.c11.s2.t4.40

⁵ Heras, ibid., p. 257.

v1.c11.s2.t4.41

¹ S. K. Aiyangar in Satyanatha, *Nayaks*, Intr., p. 16.

v1.c11.s2.t4.42

The fact that the viceroys at the inception of the classification were of royal blood is in itself no justification for defending Tirumala's threefold division. His times were certainly not those in which Harihara Oḍeyar and Bukka Rāya I lived: *then* the motive force which drove out all ideas of insubordination from the minds of the powerful viceroys, who were, in most instances, princes of the royal family, was the fact that it was impossible to rise against the sons of Saṅgama and their successors who had creditably withstood the attack of their enemies; now in A.D. 1569 their subordinates were conscious of the plain fact that the Vijayanagara monarch had ignominiously failed to defend the honour of their country against the descendants of the very same enemies. Heras in defending Tirumala's action further says: "But this apprehension (i.e., of rebellion on the part of the viceroys) was never realised, since the viceroyalties ceased to exist after half a century".² It is difficult to follow the meaning which the learned writer wants to convey: the disappearance of the viceroyalties after half a century, and, we may incidentally add, the growing strength of the rulers like the Nāyakas of Madura and Tanjore, are in themselves a proof of the inadequacy of the new arrangement to meet the demands of the times. This threefold division of Tirumala, as will be made clear in the short review of rebellions which will follow, plainly indicated that his Government had failed to grasp the keynote of the whole situation—the need for levelling down the authority of the various viceroys placed over the different provinces, and centering it in the hands of the monarch at the capital. In fact, Tirumala's political experiment struck at the root of that centralization which had been the characteristic feature of the government of Kṛṣṇa Dēva Rāya the Great. The reverses which the Hindus suffered on the battlefield of Rākshasa-Taṅgaḍi had indeed changed the nature of the times, and unfortunately clouded the political sagacity of the Hindu rulers.

v1.c11.s2.t4.43

² Heras, *Aravidu*, p. 257.

v1.c11.s2.t4.44

The spirit of unrest soon manifested itself in Mysore, where the Vijayanagara viceroy was confronted with a rebellion. "In A.D. 1571 Heri (Hiriya ?) Chamaraj succeeded to the government of the State. He was probably one of these princes of Kanara who did not pay homage to the new dynasty on account of the murder of Sadasiva. It is stated that he evaded payment of his tribute to the Viceroy of Seringapatam". He drove out, Heras continues, the collectors of the royal tribute from Mysore, but was fortunate enough to evade arrest at the hands of the royal emissaries, and "continued with impunity to withhold all payment of tribute".¹

v1.c11.s2.t4.45

¹ Heras, *Aravidu*, p. 302.

v1.c11.s2.t4.46

"In the reign of Periya-Virapa Naicker (A.D. 1516) the king of Mavalivanam came with hostile intent, placed a fortified camp before Manamathurai and Kalaiyar-covil",² but, as we shall presently relate, the Vijayanagara viceroys were still loyal and powerful enough to defend the interests of the Empire against unruly chieftains. The troubles in the reign of Raṅga Rāya I, were many: there was the revolt on the west coast, the rebellion of the Maravar and Kallar tribes in the south, and the Muhammadan danger in the north.³ Veṅkaṭapati Dēva I's reign was also pregnant with grave problems in the shape of the rebellion of Virappa Nāyaka, the ruler of Madura, and the defection of Tirumala, the eldest son of Rāma, and his march to Śrīraṅgapaṭṭaṇa.⁴ The Nāyaka of Gingee, Kṛishṇappa Nāyaka, also added to the trouble by revolting against Veṅkaṭapati Rāya II.⁵ The Tanjore Nāyaka showed unmistakable signs of insubordination in about A.D. 1595.⁶ Finally the Nandyāla chief called Kṛishṇa Rāja raised the banner of revolt.⁷

v1.c11.s2.t4.47

² Taylor, O.H.MSS., II, p. 25. Heras speaks of the king of Mavalipuram, and places the event in about A.D. 1583. ibid., pp. 284-5.

v1.c11.s2.t4.48

³ A.S.R. for 1911-2, pp. 183-5; Heras, ibid., pp. 267-9.

v1.c11.s2.t4.49

⁴ S. K. Aiyangar, in Satyanatha, *Nayaks*, Intr., pp. 17-18; Heras, ibid., p. 308.

v1.c11.s2.t4.50

⁵ Heras, ibid., p. 403.

v1.c11.s2.t4.51

⁶ Ibid., p. 308.

v1.c11.s2.t4.52

⁷ *Rāmarājīyamu*, The Sources, pp. 243, 248; Heras, ibid., p. 309.

v1.c11.s2.t4.53

The reigns of Raṅga Rāya I and Veṅkaṭapati Rāya II, therefore, witnessed the fundamental defect of Tirumala's political reorganization. It may not be far wrong to say that as yet there was no sign of an actual dismemberment of the Vijayanagara Empire. About the beginning of the seventeenth century, the greatness of the Empire was noticed even by foreigners. In A.D. 1608-11 William Finch remarked thus: "Alongst the seaside towards the Cape is the mightie king of Bezeneger (Vijayanagar), under whom the Portugals hold Saint Thome and Negapatan, but are not suffered to build a castle".¹ But the political shiftings of the great feudatories in the southern and central parts of the Empire² told sadly on its future life. In A.D. 1614 the Government was again faced with the problem of revolt. This time it was, as we have remarked above, the Gobbūri chief who rose against the Emperor.³ To Tirumala's administrative changes alone can we attribute the insubordination of Tirumala Nāyaka and the ruler of Mysore in the reign of Śrīraṅga Rāya,⁴ which eventually led to the disappearance of the Vijayanagara monarchs from the political stage of south Indian history, relegating the old line of kings to the position of petty chieftains in the city of Anegundi.

v1.c11.s2.t4.54

¹ William Finch in Foster, Early Travels in India, p. 182.

v1.c11.s2.t4.55

² S. K. Aiyangar in Satyanatha, Nayaks, Intr., p. 20.

v1.c11.s2.t4.56

³ Ibid., pp. 18-9, op. cit.

v1.c11.s2.t4.57

⁴ Ibid., p. 22.

v1.c11.s2.t4.58

These were the problems which the Vijayanagara rulers had to solve since the time when they had assumed the reins of government as the Hindu Suratrāṇas (Sultans) of the south. That they continued to wield undisputed authority for more than two and a half centuries is a fact which is to be attributed, among other things, to the methods which they adopted to combat the above mentioned grave dangers to the Hindu State. These methods may now be enumerated. The first problem with which we have to deal, excluding that which refers to the foreign policy of Vijayanagara, concerns the civil wars and wars of succession. This recurring evil was to a large measure obviated by the two-fold means of appointing princes of the royal blood as viceroys and by a system of joint-rule. In appointing princes as governors over distant provinces, the Vijayanagara rulers unintentionally gave expression to the precept of Śukrāchārya which runs thus: "He (the king) should station them (the heirs and princes) in various quarters by paying them one-fourth of the royal revenues or make them governors of provinces".¹ We cannot, however, determine the revenue that was assigned to the viceroys of Vijayanagara, although we have, as related elsewhere, cited the evidence of Nuniz as to the income of some of the powerful lords of the kingdom.

v1.c11.s2.t4.59

¹ Sukranīti, I, ll. 607-8, p. 47. ² E.C., IX, Bn. 59, p.

v1.c11.s2.t4.60

The other turn which this method took was singular in the sense that it won the confidence not only of princes but of the people as well. There are some famous examples of joint-rule in Vijayanagara history. The first relates to the early years when the sons of Saṅgama gave public demonstration to the spirit of solidarity which characterized the Hindus in the face of common danger. An inscription in Tamil dated A.D. 1346 gives us the following information: "Then Mahāmaṇḍalēśvaras, subduers of hostile kings, champions over kings who break their word, śri-Vira Ariyappa Uḍaiyar and Bukkaṇṇa Uḍaiyar were ruling the Earth".² Another inscription of the same date, also in Tamil, begins thus: "The following is the order with the royal seal issued by (with titles) śri-Hariyappa Uḍaiyar and Muttaṇṇa (i.e., Bukkaṇṇa) Uḍaiyar to the inhabitants of Tēkkal-nāḍu".³ An inscription dated A.D. 1386 records the same titles and continues to state that "Vira Hariappa Oḍeyar Bukkaṇṇa Oḍeyar was ruling a secure kingdom".⁴ Mr. Kṛiṣhṇa Sāstri has discussed the question of Vijaya's having been co-regent with his father Dēva Rāya I for two or three years prior to Saka 1343 (A.D. 1421-2); and of Vijaya's joint-rule with his son Dēva Rāya II from Saka 1342 (A.D. 1421-2) till Saka 1346 (A.D. 1424-5)⁵. According to him Virūpāksha Rāya also "appears to have continued to rule jointly with his son 'Padea Rao' almost until the actual usurpation of the throne by the minister Sāḷuva Nṛisimha Rāja".⁶

v1.c11.s2.t4.61

From the following inscription, dated A.D. 1524, in which two officials assign the customs of a village for the merit of Kṛiṣhṇa Dēva Rāya and of the heir-apparent Prince Tirumala, it may reasonably be concluded that the Emperor must have associated his son with himself as joint-ruler in about A.D. 1524. The epigraph records: ". . . for the service of jewels of (the god) Tiruveṅgaḷēśvara of Māgaḍi, —in order that merit might be Kṛṣṇa-rāya-mahāraya,— Tirumarasa of that maṭha granted (the customs and tools in god's villages) for the god's treasury (specified details) . . . And seeing this, Timmaṇṇa-daṇṇāyaka . . . granted (specified) customs and tolls that had previously been paid, for the same god's treasury, in order that merit might be to Tirumala Rāya".¹

v1.c11.s2.t4.62

¹² See Kṛiṣhṇa Sāstri, A.S.R. for 1907-8, pp. 237, n. (2), 249. ³ E.C., X, Mr. 39, p. 165. ⁴ E.C., IX, Bn. 139, p. 26. ⁵ A.S.R. for 1907-8, pp. 247-8. ⁶ Ibid., p. 253.

v1.c11.s2.t4.63

¹ E.X., IX, Ma. 6, pp. 51-2.

v1.c11.s2.t4.64

This seems to prove, on the whole, Nuniz's observations to the effect that Kṛṣṇa Dēva Rāya ruled together with his son (Prince Tirumala) for some time. Nuniz however does not give us the name of the prince but relates the following: that the great Emperor after his brilliant victory over the Muhammadans, "desiring to rest in his old age and wishing his son to become King when he died, he determined to make him king during his lifetime, the boy being six years old and the King not knowing what would happen after his death. Whereupon he abdicated his throne and all his power and name, and gave it all to his son, and himself became his minister, and Salvatinica who had held that office became his counsellor. . . . And so far did King Crisnarao go that after he had given the kingdom to his son, he himself did obeisance to him. With these changes the King made great festivals which lasted eight months, during which time the son of the King fell sick of a disease of which he died".² But Nuniz contradicts himself when in a later passage he tells us that the prince was "only one of the age of eighteen months".³

v1.c11.s2.t4.65

² Sewell, For. Emp., p. 359

v1.c11.s2.t4.66

³ Ibid., p. 367.

v1.c11.s2.t4.67

Closely allied to these methods of combating the fears of civil wars and wars of succession were two other measures directed specially against the dangers of usurpation. These grouped round the important questions of appointing the yuva-rāja. In the Śukranīti we have the following about the crown prince: "The ruler should select as Crown Prince the offspring of the legally married wife who can perform the tasks of the State without idleness. He may select as Crown Prince his uncle younger than himself or younger brother, or son of his elder brother, his own son, or one treated as son, or an adopted child, or daughter's son or sister's son successively according to failure".¹ The importance of the crown prince has been thus summed up by the same authority: "The Crown Prince and the Body of Councillors are the hands of a monarch. They are also known to be his eyes and ears, in each case right and left respectively".²

v1.c11.s2.t4.68

¹ Sukraniti, II, ll. 29-31, pp. 57-8.

v1.c11.s2.t4.69

² Ibid., l. 23, p. 57.

v1.c11.s2.t4.70

We have no data which could enable us to compare Vijayanagara theory with that of the mediaeval canonist on this particular point, but we know that the monarchs of the south appointed members of the royal family as crown princes. An inscription dated A.D. 1378, after tracing the traditional descent of the sons of Sangama, says that the eldest Hariappa, "appointed his younger brother Bukka Rāja as yuva-rāja".³ It is not impossible that Bukka I appointed his son Chikka Kampaṇa Oḍeyar as yuva-rāja. This is inferred from the following considerations: an inscription from Chāmarājanagara describes Bukka I thus: *Bukkaṇṇa-voḍeyaru pṛthvirājyava māḍuvakāladalu*. It is dated *Śaka-varusha* 1290 neya Kilaka-saṃvatsarada Vayaśaka (Vaiśākha)—Ba. 5 Sō. *Śravaṇa-nakshatrada-śubha-yōgadalu*.⁴ This corresponds but for the week-day to Sunday, the 7th May, A.D. 1368.⁵ At the same time we have Vira Bukkaṇṇa Oḍeyar's son Chikka Kampaṇa Oḍeyar *pṛthvī-rājyaṃ-geyvutt-iddalli*. This epigraph is also dated *Śaka-varusha* 1290 neya Kilaka-saṃvatsarda Jēshṭha-śu. 10 lu.⁶ (A.D. 1368, May, Saturday 27th).⁷ Since Bukka Rāya I was still ruling in A.D. 1369,⁸ and since there is no evidence of dissensions among the founders or their near relatives, it may be concluded that Chikka Kampaṇa is mentioned in A.D. 1368 in the capacity of yuva-rāja. As regards the reign of Dēva Rāya I, Wilson remarked long ago thus:—".... his grants begin three years before those of his predecessors terminate. This circumstance recurs in the succeeding reign, making it probable that the practice prevailed, which was common in the remote periods of Hindu history, of a monarch's associating with him towards the close of his reign, his son and successor as Yuvaraja or Caesar".¹ About later Vijayanagara history we are told in the *Vasucharitamu* that Srīraṅga Rāya was nominated *yuva-rāja* by Tirumala Rāya.²

v1.c11.s2.t4.71

³ E.C., V, P. 1, Cn. 256, p. 232.

v1.c11.s2.t4.72

⁴ E.C., IV, Ch. 113, text, p. 43.

v1.c11.s2.t4.73

⁵ Swamikannu, Ind. Eph., IV, p. 338.

v1.c11.s2.t4.74

⁶ E.C., III, Nj. 117, p. 201. (Translit.). This inscription is not given in Kannada. B.A.S.

v1.c11.s2.t4.75

⁷ Swamikannu, ibid., IV, p. 338.

v1.c11.s2.t4.76

⁸ As indicated by an inscription dated *Śaka-varusha* 1290 neya Kilaka-saṃvatsarada Māgha ś. 10, Bu. which evidently stands for expired 1290. 1290 neya Kilaka=Thursday, 18th January A.D. 1369. E.C., VI, Kp. 6, text, p. 297; Swamikannu, ibid., p. 340. Bukka I's last date is of course A.D. 1377. Rice, My. & Coorg. p. 112.

v1.c11.s2.t4.77

¹ Wilson, *As. Res.* XX, pp. 8-9.

v1.c11.s2.t4.78

² *Vasucharitamu*, *The Sources*, pp. 217, 221; Heras, *Aravidu*, pp. 260, 263.

v1.c11.s2.t4.79

The *Vasucharitamu* also incidentally informs us of the other method adopted by the Vijayanagara monarchs to avert the dangers of civil war. And that was in connection with abdication. After making his second son (Raṅga II) his heir-apparent, Tirumala eventually retired altogether from politics. "This abdication by Tirumala is also hinted in the *Śrutirañjani*, a commentary on *Gītāgōvinda*, of which Tirumala was himself the supposed author. We are here told that Tirumala placed the heavy burden of administration on his four sons of high character and (retired from the kingdom) in order to keep company with the best of the learned and their learning".³ In the provincial governments, too, this method was imitated by the viceroys. On the abdication of Achyuta Nāyaka of Tanjore, his son Raghunātha Nāyaka was crowned by Gōvinda Dikshita.⁴

v1.c11.s2.t4.80

³ Krishna Sastri, *A.S.R.*, for 1911-12, pp. 181-2. The evidence from *Śrutirañjani* invalidates the remarks of Heras that "none of the contemporary sources say that Tirumala appointed his four sons to the several governorships of the kingdom, as it has often been asserted". ibid., p. 254, n. (9).

v1.c11.s2.t4.81

⁴ *Sāhityaratnākara*, *The Sources*, p. 273; Heras, ibid., p. 399.

v1.c11.s2.t4.82

How Veṅkata II, in about A.D. 1614 appointed Prince Raṅga as his successor is described by Barradas: "Three days before his death, the King, leaving aside, as I say, this putative son, called for his nephew Chica Rāya, in presence of several of the nobles of the kingdom and extended towards him his right hand on which was the ring of state, and put it close to him, so that he should take it and should become his successor in the kingdom. With this the nephew, bursting into tears, begged the King to give it to whom he would, and that for himself he did not desire to be king, and he bent low, weeping at the feet of the old man. The King made a sign to those around him that they should raise the prince up, and they did so; and they then placed him on the King's right hand, and the King extended his own hand so that he might take the ring. But the prince lifted his hands above his head, as if he already had divined how much ill fortune the ring would bring him, and begged the King to pardon him if he wished not to take it. The old man then took the ring and held it on the point of his finger, offering it the second time to Chica Rāya, who by the advice of the captains present took it, and placed it on his head and then on his finger, shedding many tears. Then the King sent for his robe, valued at 200,000 cruzados, the great diamond which was in his ear, which was worth more than 600,000 cruzados, his earrings, valued at more than 200,000 and his great pearls, which are of the highest price. All these royal insignia he gave to his nephew Chica Rāya as being his successor, and as such he was at once proclaimed. While some rejoiced, others were displeased".¹

v1.c11.s2.t4.83

¹ Sewell, For. Emp., pp. 223-4.

v1.c11.s2.t4.84

A fifth method meant to minimize the miseries of civil war refers to the appointing of a regent. Firishtah speaks of Timraj as managing the affairs of the State, evidently in his capacity as regent, during the regency of a certain "Shewa-Ray" in about A.D. 1491-92.² The rule of a regent was sometimes marked by severe repression. Salaka Timma, for instance, seems to have inaugurated such a policy.³ But a Vijayanagara regent could also be liberal. Rāma Rāja was, for example, a regent of this type. Nicolao Manucci in his Storia do Mogor (A.D. 1653-1708) has the following interesting remarks to make in connection with Rāma Rāja's generosity: "It seems to me that the reader will be pleased if I insert some account of the empire of Narsinga (Nar Singh), of the Hindū race, whose court was in the Karnātik. More than two hundred years ago there reigned an emperor called Ramrajo (Rām Rājah), who was so generous that it is remarked in the chronicles that he never refused any favour asked. He confirmed any grant he made by a record on golden plates. Up to this day the Portuguese preserve one of these plates for a gift to them by the said Rām Rājah of the city of Saā Thome.

v1.c11.s2.t4.85

² Firishtah, Briggs, The Rise, II, p. 538; III, p. 80. On this name see Sewell, ibid., p. 111, and n. (2).

v1.c11.s2.t4.86

³ Heras, Aravidu, pp. 6, 8.

v1.c11.s2.t4.87

Owing to the liberality of this emperor his fame spread, and many men of different nations resorted to him and entered his service, principally foreigners. He gave them pay, and confined to them offices of profit".¹

v1.c11.s2.t4.88

¹ Manucci, *Storia do Mogor*, III, p. 97; Heras, *Aravidu*, p. 36.

v1.c11.s2.t4.89

But it is not to be imagined that the liberality of the regents sometimes did not take the shape of material aid which they gave to their relatives. The reign of Rāma Rāja was eventful in many ways. The fact that even Manucci, whose narrative is mainly concerned with the Mughals, was struck by the rather extravagant stories of Rāma Rāja's granting gifts on plates of gold suggests that the fame of the Hindu ruler might have travelled beyond the limits of his worst enemies, the Sultans of the Dekhan, into northern India. This popular conception of the generosity of the great Regent is, we admit, not altogether incredible. But at the same time we have to remember that Rāma Rāja, according to Firishtah, aimed at giving the highest honours to members of his own family. Firishtah says the following: "By degrees raising his own family to the highest rank, and destroying many of the ancient nobility, Ramraj aspired to reign in his own name, and intended totally to extirpate the race of Shew Ray".² This explains the rise to power of Rāma Rāja's nephew, Mahāmaṇḍaleśvara Kōmara Koṇḍarājayyadēva Mahā-arasu; of the Regent's cousin Viṭhṭhala, who became the viceroy of the south; of Jilleḷḷa Raṅgapati Rājayyadēva Mahārāja, who was related to the Regent on his mother's side, and who became the governor of Rāmadurga-sīmā; of Siddhirāja Timma Rāja, also a nephew of Rāma Rāja; and of Rāma Raja's own son Kṛṣṇarājayyan, who ruled over Tanjore.³ In view of the fact that, as we have seen, the sons of Saṅgama themselves had set an example of elevating their relatives to high rank in the government, and that it was an age in which the personal element counted for much as regards the success or failure of a ruler, Rāma Rāja's desire to strengthen the position of the house of Āraviḍu by bringing in the forefront members of his own family may, perhaps, to a certain extent be justified.

v1.c11.s2.t4.90

² Firishtah, Briggs, *The Rise*, III, p. 81.

v1.c11.s2.t4.91

³ 129 of 1905, 104 of 1911; *Ep. Report* for 1911, p. 86; *Ep. Report* for 1912, p. 82, seq.; *Ep. Ind.*, IV, p. 4; *The Sources*, p. 211. See also Heras, *Aravidu*, pp. 35, 36, 40.

v1.c11.s2.t4.92

We now turn to the other great problem with which the Vijayanagara monarchs had to deal. This was rebellion. From the examples we have already cited¹ of the stringent measures passed by Rājarāja III, in A.D. 1230, and by an unidentified Jaṭāvarman Sundara Pāṇḍya as regards traitors to the State and Brahman rebels respectively, it is obvious that the State took the counsel and aid of the people, and that it assigned to the village temples fines realized from culprits and from the sale of their property. We cannot determine to what extent the monarchs of Vijayanagara maintained the tradition of the Tamil rulers of assigning to the treasury of local temples money which the State got from offenders. There is nothing strange in Vijayanagara kings ignoring this custom when we remember that their age was practically one of centralization—at least till the days of the great conflict—, and that they themselves, as well as their subordinates, gave munificent grants to the temples which may have made extraneous gifts in the shape of fines from guilty persons unnecessary.

v1.c11.s2.t4.93

¹ Supra, Part II, Section 2, of this Chapter.

v1.c11.s2.t4.94

However that may be, we have the fact of the people helping the Government in suppressing great disturbances. Thus, for example, according to a viragal which may be assigned to the reign of Dēva Rāya I,² there was much excitement in the Araga-rājya which was then under the jurisdiction of Viraṇṇa Oḍeyar. "A leading man there, Boḷeya Mummey-Nāyaka, having slaughtered all over the country, carried off prisoners, and was causing many and great disturbances and famine in the kingdom, the king being anxious about the disturbances thus created, gave an order saying: 'the Bēḍa must be brought to proper order (ā-Bēḍarige takka ājneyanu māḍuvudu endu nirūpavanu chiṭṭayisidar). Viraṇṇa Oḍeyar raising the army and coming against that Bēḍa, gave order in Anevari-nāḍ to assemble any number of horse and foot . . . Aṅgada-Rājamalla-mahā-prabhu, the Haḷḷināḍ Keyūru-nāḍiga (with various epithets) and the people of Haratāḷu, Modūr, Kallūr, Keḷale, Dānamūla, with Haritāla-Mēdi-gauḍa's son Muda-gauḍa, and Bomma-dēva-gauḍa's younger brother Tiraka-gauḍa, assembling horse and foot, went and presented themselves before Viraṇṇa Oḍeyar, and said: 'We are not breakers of the word we have given; Vira Pratāpa Harihara-mahārāya's great minister Guṇḍapa-daṇṇāyaka gave us the title of Champion over the three kings (*mūvaru-rāyara-gaṇḍa*). 'So that this title shall be sung (in songs) in such manner will I break and put down the Bēḍas' force,'—thus saying (on the date specified) Tiraka-gauḍa, taking sword and shield, broke and put down the hostile force, slew and knocked down the leaders, and himself gained *svarga*".¹

v1.c11.s2.t4.95

² The date of this viragal is Saka-varusha 1129 neya Sarvajitu-samvatsarada Māgha Su. 10. Adivāradallu. E.C., VIII, P. II, Nr. 29, p. 355. This is obviously a mistake for Saka 1329, expired. Saka 1329, expired, Māgha Su. 10, Adivāra corresponds to A.D. 1408, January, Sunday 8th. Swamikannu, Ind. Eph., V, p. 18. B.A.S.

v1.c11.s2.t4.96

¹ E.C., VIII, Nr. 29, p. 132, text, p.

v1.c11.s2.t4.97

Boḷeya Mummeya Nāyaka was a Bēḍar chieftain, and as such might have been naturally expected to create commotion in the Āraga-rājya. But the Vijayanagara monarchs had to deal with persons who committed graver offences of the type of those made by Kāchapa Nāyaka of Ādavāni, a subordinate of Sāḷuva Narasiṅga, who is supposed to have made common cause in Śaka 1420 (A.D. 1498-9),² with the Muhammadans; or of those perpetrated by the powerful vassals of Mysore and of the south, whom Kṛṣṇa Dēva Rāya the Great brought to reason soon after. The two chiefs Nāgama Nāyaka and Vira Narasimha Sellappa were apprehended and reduced to subjection,³ although it must be admitted that with the latter the forces of Vijayanagara were not completely successful. The rebel leader managed to escape into the state of Travancore. Kṛṣṇa Dēva Rāya, however, as related elsewhere, crushed Nañja Rāja Oḍeyar, the chief of Ummattūr, by storming the fortress of Sīvanasamudra. According to Dr. Lüders "the taking of Sīvanasamudra, at any rate, appears to have been the first military success in Kṛṣṇarāya's career".⁴

v1.c11.s2.t4.98

The complications brought about by the flight of Vira Narasimha Sellappa into Travancore and the encroachment of the ruler of that state on the Pāṇḍya country already referred to, could only be solved by sending an expedition against both of them. Hence we have Rāma Rājayya Viṭhṭhala's campaigns in Travancore for about ten years.⁵

v1.c11.s2.t4.99

³⁵⁵ See also *Ep. Ind.*, XV, p. 14. ² *Ep. Ind.*, XIX, p. 90; 719 of 1917. See also Firishtah, Briggs, *The Rise.*, III, p. 348. ³ S. K. Aiyangar in *Satyanatha, Nayaks*, Intr., p. 11. ⁴ Lüders *Ep. Ind.*, VII, p. 18; See also *My. Arch. Report* for 1914-15, p. 60; Sewell, *For. Emp.*, p. 130. ⁵ S. K. Aiyangar, ibid, Intr., p. 14; Heras, *Aravidu*, p. 118.

v1.c11.s2.t4.100

We have no definite evidence about the method by which the Hindus combated the other great problem—the Portuguese peril, particularly in the south, where the Christian missionaries were actively engaged in the conversion of a large number of the Paravars of the coast.¹ It may be doubted whether the Hindu rulers in their anxiety to maintain friendly relations with the Portuguese had not gone beyond the bounds of political prudence in allowing them too great a latitude in the south, especially when we realize the fact that the monarchs of Vijayanagara, since the days of the sons of Saṅgama, had unequivocally stood for the maintenance and preservation of the Hindu Dharma. This, we confess, is a debatable point, and it falls within the scope of the foreign policy of Vijayanagara.

v1.c11.s2.t4.101

¹ S. K. Aiyangar, in Satyanatha, Nayaks, p. 14; Heras, Aravidu, p. 119, and passim.

v1.c11.s2.t4.102

We can only remark here that the Hindu rulers have left no proof of how they understood and solved the question of the powerful Portuguese in the south. Their attitude towards rebellious chieftains, even after the reign of Kṛṣṇa Dēva Rāya the Great, was, however, not so indecisive. A prominent example of a chieftain being punished is that of Kempe Gauḍa of Beṅgalūru. This chief in about A.D. 1558 was imprisoned by Rāma Rāja for exceeding the powers of a feudal lord and coining Bhire-Dēva-pagodas.² Rebellion was sometimes followed by forfeiture of the fief. Thus in A.D. 1516 the territory of the Pāleyagāra of Māvalivanam was annexed to the province of Madura by Virappa Nāyaka.³ The troubles in the reign of Raṅga Rāya I entangled that monarch in a series of complications with foreign rulers. For the time being, the dangers during the days of Veṅkaṭapati Dēva II were bridged by the reassertion of governmental authority over Madura, the formation of the viceroyalty of Srīraṅgapaṭṭaṇa under Rāja Oḍeyar, and the timely assistance which Raghunātha Nāyaka gave to the State in averting an invasion by the Sultan of Golkonda.⁴

v1.c11.s2.t4.103

² Puttaiya, Q.J.M.S., XIII, p. 724 seq.; Heras, ibid., pp. 183-4.

v1.c11.s2.t4.104

³ Taylor, O.H. MSS., II, p. 25, op. cit., Heras, ibid., pp. 284-5, op. cit.

v1.c11.s2.t4.105

⁴ S. K. Aiyangar, ibid., Intr., pp. 17-18; Heras, ibid., pp. 308-9, 403.

v1.c11.s2.t4.106

Rebellions were to a certain degree prevented by the periodical tours of the rulers. The Chōḷa king had already set this example, and the Vijayanagara monarchs continued it.¹ During these tours the rulers rarely failed to visit the famous temples. As related elsewhere, Rājarāja III in A.D. 1235 visited the Tiruvorriyūr temple on the occasion of the Tiruvāvanittirunāl festival (held in August-September), when he was present at the music by one of the dancing-girls in the style called agamārgam.² In Vijayanagara history we have some well known examples of rulers who went on tours. Sāluva Vīra Nṛisimhēndra, who "was equal to his father (Sāluva Nṛisimhēndra) in liberality," we are told in an inscription dated A.D. 1506, visited a great many temples in his Empire. Many gifts did he make in Kanakasadas (Chidambaram, South Arcot district), in the temple of Virūpāksha (at Vijayanagara), in the city of Kālahasti (North Arcot), in Veṅkaṭādri (near Tirupati, North Arcot), in Kañchi (Conjeeveram), in Srīsailam (Kurnool), Soṇāsailam (i.e., Tironamalee, in South Arcot), Harihara (in Mysore), Ahōbala (Kurnool), Saṅgama (near Raichur), Srīraṅga (near Trichinopoly), Kumbhagōṇa (in Tanjore), in the great Nandi-tīrtha, the remover of darkness (in Kurnool), in Nivṛitti (also in Kurnool), in Gōkarṇa (North Kanara), and Rāmasētu (in Madura).³ These temples are also mentioned in connection with Kṛishṇa Dēva Rāya the Great.⁴ Such royal visits must have brought the sovereigns into closer touch with their subjects, since, over and above the religious purposes which they served, they were also directed towards political ends. This is proved by an inscription dated A.D. 1347 which describes Vīra Mārappa, one of the five famous brothers, "protecting his subjects in good ways, with a contented mind" and which says that "in order to enquire into the welfare of the people, he set out on an expedition".⁵ Soon after the battle of Rākshasa-Taṅgaḍi, the Emperor Sadāsiva Rāya seems to have made a tour throughout his southern dominions.⁶ It is said in the *Annals of Haṇḍe Anantapuram that Raṅga Rāya II also set out on a royal tour.¹

v1.c11.s2.t4.107

¹ These tours were by no means confined only to the Chōḷa and Vijayanagara rulers. They may have formed a part of the policy of Hindu kings. B.A.S.

v1.c11.s2.t4.108

² 211 of 1912, op. cit.; S. K. Aiyangar, S. India, p. 30, op. cit.

v1.c11.s2.t4.109

³ E.C., VIII, Nr. 64, p. 155, n (11).

v1.c11.s2.t4.110

⁴ E.C., VII, Sh. 1, p. 2.

v1.c11.s2.t4.111

⁵ E.C. VIII. Sb. 375, p. 66.

v1.c11.s2.t4.112

⁶ Gopinatha Rao Raghaviah, Ep. Ind. IX, vv. 44-5, p. 340; Heras, Aravidu, pp. 243-4. Rev. Heras writes:—"Precisely in the year 1568, the Emperor Sadasiva made a tour through the South of his Empire...." I cannot understand how one could assert this statement with certainty on the strength of the Kṛishṇāpuram Plates of Sadāsiva Rāya. B.A.S.

v1.c11.s2.t4.113

¹ The Annals of Hindu Anantāpuram, The Sources, p. 232; Heras, Aravidu, p. 239.

v1.c11.s2.t4.114

There were other dangers besides those of rebellion, and the Vijayanagara monarchs met them with some measure of success by allowing members of the old royal families to continue in their ancestral possessions, and by appointing conquered princes of alien houses as viceroys or governors over provinces. The Pāṇḍyas, whose history can be traced back to the early centuries of the Christian era, were permitted to hold sway over some of the southern regions, presumably in some manner subservient to the Vijayanagara viceroys of the south. It is true that we are uncertain as to the nature of relationship that existed between the great viceroys of Vijayanagara and the descendants of the Pāṇḍya rulers. The latter, as their inscriptions show, continued to rule from A.D. 1365 till about A.D. 1615.² Another ancient family which was likewise left to manage its own affairs was that of the Chōḷas. One of the feudatories of Sāḷuva Narasiṅga Rāya was Rāmaya-Sōḷa Mahārāja, son of Uṛaiyūr Chōḷa Pottaya Sōḷan Mahārāja of the Solar race.³ Two feudatories of Achyuta Rāya claimed descent from the Chōḷas. One of them was the Mahāmaṇḍalēśvara Chōḷakulatilaka Uṛaiyūr-Puravrādhīśvara Bōgaiya Dēva Mahārāja, son of Tippayadēva Mahārāja, mentioned in a record found at Elvānāsur in the South Arcot district.⁴ And the other was Kaṁchchirāju Raṅgaya Dēva Chōḍa Mahārājulu, spoken of in a record at Gōpavaram, Cuddapah district.⁵ That these descendants of the Chōḷas were under Vijayanagara is clear not only from what has been said above but also from the fact that, as for example, in the instance of one of the Chōḷa chieftains mentioned in the preceding lines, they made grants for the merit of the Vijayanagara monarch (Achyuta Rāya) under orders from one of his subordinates.⁶

v1.c11.s2.t4.115

² Ep. Report for 1910, p. 100; Ep. Report for 1906, pp. 54-5. See also Caldwell, History of Tinnevelly, p. 53.

v1.c11.s2.t4.116

³ Ep. Report for 1907, p. 89; 94 of 1906.

v1.c11.s2.t4.117

⁴ 174 of 1906.

v1.c11.s2.t4.118

⁵ 479 of 1906.

v1.c11.s2.t4.119

⁶ Ep. Report for 1907, p. 89.

v1.c11.s2.t4.120

To Kṛṣṇa Dēva Rāya the Great are to be attributed the two most famous instances of a monarch's generosity to conquered princes. After his brilliant victories in Orissa, he appointed the captive prince Virabhadra, son of the Gajapati king Pratāpa Rūdra, as ruler over the Maleya-Bennūr country. Virabhadra as Nāyaka over this province is given, in A.D. 1516, the titles of *Draviḷa-maṇḍalēśvara* and *Mahārāya*.¹ The Vijayanagara monarch was also benevolent toward other conquered chieftains. After having quelled the Ummattūr rebellion, he seems to have allowed that principality to be governed by a member of the royal family.² Admitting that we are lacking in evidence as to the treatment that was meted out to the ruler of Ummattūr, yet Kṛiṣhṇa Dēva Rāya's treatment of Prince Virabhadra seems to have been more generous than that which Sukrāchārya would accord to conquered princes. The mediaeval canonist has the following to say on the subject: "When a territory has been acquired the king should grant maintenance beginning with the day of capture (to the conquered king) half of it to his son and a quarter to his wife. Or he should pay a quarter to the princes if well qualified, or a thirty-second part. . . The king should maintain the dispossessed princes for the display of his own majesty by the bestowal of honours if well behaved but punish them if wicked".³

v1.c11.s2.t4.121

¹ E.C. XI, Dg. 107, p. 71; A.S.R. for 1908-9, p. 178, op. cit.

v1.c11.s2.t4.122

² *Ep. Report* for 1911, pp. 84-5.

v1.c11.s2.t4.123

³ *Sukraniti*, IV, vii, ll. 801-4, 808-9, p. 257. For Manu's injunctions as regards the treatment of conquered princes in their own territory, *Manu*, VII, 220, p. 249. See also *Kauṭilya*, *Arthaśāstra*, Bk. VII, Ch. XVI., 313, p. 368; and *Viṣhṇu*, III, 47-8, p. 18.

v1.c11.s2.t4.124

There were some special features of Vijayanagara rule which may be here mentioned. The most prominent of these was the despotic will of the monarch. This showed itself in those acts of absolutism which were perhaps inevitable in an age when the monarchs stood forth as the embodiment of might and power. Those were times when the ruler could dispose at will of the estates of a high official, as it happened in the case of Ambūr Khān, who fought a duel with Ibrāhim Qutb Khān. It is Nuniz who relates this in his *Chronicle*.⁴ Whether the fact of the Paravars of the Fishery Coast having sought the protection of the Jesuits and the Portuguese was in any way due to the tyranny of Muttu Kṛiṣhṇappa Nāyaka⁵ or to the theocratic designs of the former is a point which, for want of independent evidence, cannot be definitely determined.

v1.c11.s2.t4.125

⁴ Sewell, *For. Emp.* p. 189.

v1.c11.s2.t4.126

⁵ Heras; *Aravidu*, p. 354. Here a strong case is made for the Jesuit intervention in the affairs of the Paravars.

v1.c11.s2.t4.127

Despotic as the Hindu rulers to some extent were, they managed to secure the good will of the people. This is proved by the unstinted praise which poets and people bestowed on the rulers. Chandra Kavi, who lived about A.D. 1430, thus wrote about Dēva Rāya II:

First 127 of 152 passages. Read on

Cites (17)