Social and Political Life in the Vijayanagara Empire (A.D. 1346 – A.D. 1646) v1.c12.s2.t2: B. Village Life

Social and Political Life in the Vijayanagara Empire (A.D. 1346 – A.D. 1646) v1.c12.s2.t2

Language: English

B. Village Life

All "ancient constitutional usage" (*pūrvada maryāde*) was confirmed by the Hindu monarchs and their subordinates in what was called a *dharma-śāsana*. About A.D. 1545 Sadāśiva Nāyaka and Rāma Rāya Nāyaka, as already narrated, gave to Benakappa Seṭṭi, Dēvappa Seṭṭi, Bommaṇa Seṭṭi and others (*muntāda prajegalige*) of Āraga a *dharma-śāsana* confirming the *dharma* made by Harihara II for the Āraga city as regards the fixed rent and combined dues of that place. We saw that certain specified remissions were also made in the same charter by the ruler.² It has to be admitted that the above *dharma-śāsana* was given to the city of Āraga. But it seems that such a dharma-śāsana was also given to a village, as the following instance proves. An inscription dated A.D. 1565 relates that during the reign of Rāma Dēva Mahāraya, "the Agent for his affairs (kāryakke-kartarāda), promoter of the Pūvala-vaṁśa, Hanumi Nāyaka's sons Billappa Nāyaka and Keṇgappa Nāyaka, caused to be written and given to Lingaṇa (descent stated) a dharma-śāsana as follows: You having stated that—'We are old residents, and preserving the places obtained by our ancestors, have been your dependents, the offices of sēnabōva and jyōtisha of the country since brought under śist should be granted to us',—and the former residents affirming that the offices of sēnabōva, jyotisha, purōhita and others in all the villages belonging to the Saṇte-Bennūr-sīme in the Uchchangi-ēṇṭhe, were held by you,—we therefore grant them to you, as a gift to Rāma, to be enjoyed by you, your sons, grandsons, and posterity in regular succession; and you may take possession of the dues and rights (specified) belonging thereto in the Saṇte-Bennūr-sīme", according to ancient constitutional usage. (ā-Saṇthe-Bennūra-sīme sthalada sēnabōvavikēnu barakoṇḍu ā-sīme-jyōtishya-dharmavannu-naḍasikoṇḍu pūrvamariyādeyalli svāsthi umbaḷi vartane hola gadde beddalu kāḍārambha āya-svāmya suvarṇādāya sarva-tēja-svāmyavanu anubhavisi-koṇḍu bāhiri).¹ The grant, it may be noted, is repeated three times. Three conclusions may be deduced from the above inscription: Firstly, that the village offices of sēnabōva, jyōtisha, etc. were hereditary; secondly, that the claims to such offices were made after the locality had been brought under śist (yitalāgi śistu māḍida sīme sthalada sēnabōvike etc); and finally, that the officers of the Central Government confirmed the hereditary offices only after they had received the opinion of former residents of the locality about the validity of the claims put forward by the applicants (pūrva-sthaladavaru ahudu yambidarinda).

v1.c12.s2.t2.3

² *E.C.* VIII, Tl. 15, p. 166, op. cit. Rice interprets *pūrvada-maryāde* (or *pūrva-maryāde*) as "former custom." But in this treatise Dr. Barnett's interpretation (*Ep. Ind.* XIV, pp. 189-90) has been followed. B.A.S.

v1.c12.s2.t2.4

¹ E.C. VII, Ci. 62, pp. 189-90, text, pp. 458-9. This inscription is dated Sālivāhana-śaka varuṣa 1487 neya Raktākshi- saṁvatsarada Māgha Su. 15 Saumyavāra Chandrōparāga This corresponds but for the weekday to A.D. 1565, January 16th, Tuesday. (Swamikannu, Ind. Eph., V, p. 332). The general opinion is that Rāma Rāja lost his life in the battle of Rākshasa-Taṅgaḍi on the 25th of January of the same year. If that is so, there is no reason to doubt the veracity of the inscription which will be one of the last records we have of that great ruler. B.A.S.

v1.c12.s2.t2.5

Before we mention the names of other village officials, we may note some details about the composition of a village assembly in Vijayanagara times. A village assembly was sometimes called a *mahā-sabhā*. The great assembly (*mahā-sabhai*) of Kāvirippākkam, North Arcot district, is mentioned in Śaka 1381 (A.D. 1459-60).¹ The assembly of Tiruvāṇḍārkōyil, Pondicherry, French Settlements, in Śaka 1327 (A.D. 1405-6) consisted of 4000 members.² A record of Virūpāksha Rāya I, found at Kuṇṇāṇḍarkōyil, Pudukkoṭṭai State, dated only in the cyclic year Bhāva, refers to an assembly composed of certain specified groups of people (*kūṭṭam*) such as those attached to Tiruvaraṅgam (Śrigaṅgam) and Tiruvāṇaikkāval (Jambukēśvaram), of the three recognized classes of *pallis*, of the four or six subdivisions of professionals, of artisans (*rathākara*), and of other castes and caste-leaders living in the three districts.³ The heads of the commercial groups and corporations, as can be made out from an inscription of a later date (A.D. 1664), seemed to have formed an integral part of the village assemblies also in the Karṇāṭaka. Here, in the same year, a village assembly is said to have been composed of *gauḍas*, *sēnabōvas*, *seṭṭis*, and *paṭṭaṇsvāmis* of Agali, Maduvidi, Raṇṭavallu and other villages.⁴

v1.c12.s2.t2.6

¹ 392 of 1905. ² 217 of 1917; *Ep. Report* for 1918, p. 163. ³ 368 of 1914; *Ep. Report* for 1915, p. 106. ⁴ *My. Arch. Report* for 1918, p. 54. ⁵ 385 of 1916. The inscription was found in the Gōpālasvāmi temple at Mannārkōyil, Tinnevelly district. ⁶ 10 of 1911.

v1.c12.s2.t2.7

The assemblies sometimes met in a temple. The great assembly of Rājarāja-chaturvēdimaṅgalam assembled, in Śaka 1408 (A.D. 1558-9), in the *Kulaśēkhara-maṇḍapa* underneath the pandal called *Udayamārtaṇḍan* in front of the god of the temple who was seated on the *pīṭha* called after Viśvanātha Nāyaka, the Agent of Rāma Rāja.⁵ The activities of village assemblies are seen especially in connection with questions relating to land. A village assembly could sell land, obviously on behalf of the village, to the local temple or to the people. According to a record dated only in the cyclic year Śukla (i.e., Śaka 1312 = A.D. 1390-1), the assembly of Tirumaliśai, Chingleput district, sold land to the temple of Jagannātha Perumāḷ of the same locality.⁶ The village of Iṭṭigaipaṭṭu was sold for 400 *paṇam* to certain individuals by the assembly of Ukkal in Pāgūru-nāḍu, in Śaka 1304 (A.D. 1382-3).¹ The same village assembly had sold the village of Arasāṇipālai to an individual of Sērrūr in Tenkarai in Śaka 1294 (A.D. 1372-3) for 600 kaśu.² Similar records dealing with the sale of land by the village assembly of Ukkal inform us that that village was also called Vikramābharaṇa-caturvēdimaṅgalam.³ The village assemblies also confirmed the rights of temples over lands. The assembly of Āṇaimēlagaram alias Nagarīśvara-caturvēdimaṅgalam, in the Tanjore district, in Śaka 1321 (A.D. 1409-10) in the times of Virūpaṇṇa Oḍeyar, confirmed the rights of the Mārgasahāyēśvara temple over lands which had already belonged to it, those which had been gradually added on, and those which once belonged to the god Kalakūttar, whose temple had been destroyed by fire.⁴ In some instances the assemblies gave a village as a gift to temples. The hamlet of Karuvēppampūṇḍi, in Śaka 1356 (A.D. 1434-5), was given as a tirunāmaṭṭu-kāṇi to the temple of Tiruppulivaṇamuḍaiya-Nāyiṉār by the assembly of Uttaramēru alias Rājēndra-Śōḻa-caturvēdimaṅgalam.⁵

v1.c12.s2.t2.8

¹ 358 of 1923. Pāgūru-nāḍu was situated in Kāliyūr-kōṭṭam in Jayaṅgoṇḍa Śōḻa-maṇḍalam.

v1.c12.s2.t2.9

² 389 of 1923.

v1.c12.s2.t2.10

³ 350 and 359 of 1923.

v1.c12.s2.t2.11

⁴ 21 of 1925.

v1.c12.s2.t2.12

⁵ 202 of 1923.

v1.c12.s2.t2.13

The villagers sometimes enacted that lands could be sold only to one who was a resident of the village. An undated inscription of the times of Dēva Rāya II informs us that the villagers of Māṅgāḍu, in the Chingleput district, agreed among themselves "that any owner of land (in the village of Māṅgāḍu) (desirous of) selling (his land), must sell it to a land-owner within that village and not to any outsider, nor could he give (even) as dowry (strīdhana) (lands in the village) to an outsider".⁶ Finally, we may observe that village assemblies were empowered to confiscate lands belonging to guilty (village) officials. Such lands were, however,—as is evident from the custom prevailing in the Pāṇḍya country,—granted as gifts to local temples. The village assembly of Tirupperunduṛai, in the Tanjore district, in Śaka 1308 (A.D. 1386-7), gave as tirunāmaṭṭu-kāṇi to the local temple of Śōḻa-Pāṇḍya-Viṇṇagar Emberumāṇār land which it had confiscated from a certain Aṇḍān-Pillai of Tirupputtūr on account of some fault (kurai) committed by him.¹

v1.c12.s2.t2.14

⁶ 354 of 1908; *Ep. Report* for 1909, p. 116.

v1.c12.s2.t2.15

¹ 509 of 1925.

v1.c12.s2.t2.16

Mr. Venkoba Rao, in his *Annual Report on Epigraphy for the year 1926*, comments thus on the above epigraph: "I have stated in my Report for 1924 (paragraph 111) that these village assemblies which had very considerable powers of self-government during the previous periods gradually ceased to exist after the conquest of the country by the Vijayanagara kings and their functions were taken over by the emperor or his representatives. The transaction recorded in the present inscription is another late instance of the vestiges of power wielded by the village assembly".² On what grounds the assertion that the village assemblies "ceased to exist after the conquest of the country by the Vijayanagara kings and their functions were taken over by the emperor or his representatives" rests, is not at all clear. We believe that the Vijayanagara monarchs did not introduce measures by which the powers of the local bodies lapsed to the central authority. On the other hand, we may be permitted to repeat, that as "promoters of the pūrvada-maryāde" (ancient constitutional usage), it was their endeavour to preserve the old order of things, and to allow the ancient officers to continue under the new government, although, as related elsewhere, they showed their discretion by placing over the local bodies officers of the Central Government.

v1.c12.s2.t2.17

² Venkoba Rao, *Ep. Report* for 1926, p. 110.

v1.c12.s2.t2.18

Pūrvada-maryāde as regards the villages and the nāḍus continued even in the latter half of the sixteenth century. This is proved by the inscription dated A.D. 1565 which has been already cited, and which deals with the confirmation of the dues and rights of the Saṇte-Bennūr-sīme, according to former custom, on Liṅgaṇa, younger brother of Appā Bhaṭṭa by Billappa Nāyaka and Keṅgappa Nāyaka.³ That the Vijayanagara monarchs maintained even the primitive village corporations is evident from an epigraph dated A.D. 1544 which, while recording the śāsana given to the barbers by Rāma Rājayya Dēva Mahā-arasu, informs us that in addition to the tax, tribute, alms and the five dues which he had formely remitted to them, he granted "along with the twelve Āyagāra in the country", a svāmya under a tank.¹

v1.c12.s2.t2.19

³ E.C. VII, Ci, 62, op. cit.

v1.c12.s2.t2.20

¹ E.C. XII, Si, 41, p. 56, n. (1). 'Ayakara or Ayagara—a village servant or officer, one entitled to the Aya, or proportion of the crop for his services to the community'. Wilson, Glossary of Indian Terms, p. 40. The twelve hereditary offices called āyagāra in Kanarese and bāra balūti in Hindustani, are given in detail by Rice, My. Gaz. 1, p. 472. (1st ed.) I., p. 579 (Rev. ed.) They were authorized to sell or mortgage their offices when in distress. Rice, ibid., p. 474. (1st ed.).

v1.c12.s2.t2.21

(ii) Officials under the Local Administration

v1.c12.s2.t2.22

Although it is true that the ancient machinery in the villages and nāḍus remained undisturbed to a great extent in the Vijayanagara age, nevertheless we have to admit that the materials discovered so far do not enlighten us on such questions as the differentiation in the functions of the officials appointed by the king or by his viceroys and those employed by the people themselves in the villages. Thus, for example, we are unable to ascertain the duties of a kāryakarta (Agent for the affairs of the Emperor) and those of a pārupatyagāra (Chief Manager of the sīme?). We have already seen that officials called kāryakartas figure to some extent in inscriptions. As regards the other official, we are told that Lakkarāja Timmapayya was the pārupatyagāra in A.D. 1532 over the Būdihāl-sīme.² It is difficult also to decide the relationship between the kāryakarta and the pārupatyagāra on the one hand, and the superintendent over the nāḍu (taṅgal-nāṭṭu-nāyagan-jeyvar) on the other. If one may hazard an explanation of the status of these three kinds of officials, one may suggest that the kāryakarta was the executive officer of the provincial governor who ruled over the rājya; the pārupatyagāra, the official over the sīme; and the superintendent was a dignitary who was in charge of a nāḍu. These three officials may have been appointed by the viceroys on behalf of the king.

v1.c12.s2.t2.23

² E.C., VI, Kd. 126, p. 23.

v1.c12.s2.t2.24

This supposition is based on an inscription dated A.D. 1346 which informs us that Harihara Oḍeyar and Bukkaṇṇa Oḍeyar granted to Vaiyaṇṇan Kōmuppaṇ, the Superintendent over the Tēkkal-nāḍu, Mādaraisanpalli belonging to the same nāḍu, as a kuḍaṅgai exempt from taxes. The grant further relates that he was to grow any crop he pleased on all the dry and wet lands of the village, excluding former gifts, and that he was entitled to receive all the villages (specified) in perpetuity.¹ From this it appears that the rulers permitted an official to grow any crop on all the dry and wet lands of a village. But we have already seen that village assemblies, even in later times, were zealous about their ancient rights, especially those relating to land. The instance in queston seems to be a violation of those privileges which the villages had enjoyed since the earliest times, and especially of the claims put forward by the rulers of Vijayanagara as champions of ancient custom. It may be that the clause relating to former gifts made sufficient provision for the rights of the village of Mādarai-sanpalli; or it may as well be that this grant is an instance of a flagrant breach of the respect which the members of the new family usually showed for the constitutional usage of the land. A third assumption is that there was perhaps a rule that the superintendent had the right to grow a crop on a certain area of village land chosen by him, besides taking the *mēlvāram*.² These are, however, only suppositions for the present. The existence of the superintendent over the *nāḍu* is further proved by an inscription dated A.D. 1379 which mentions the *Mahāsāvantādhipati* Soṇṇaiya Nāyakar's son Aṅkaya Nāyaka, the Superintendent over the Noṇḍaṅguli-nāḍu (*nāṭṭu-nāyakkarum*).³ Then, again, we have the Sēnabōva Mādisīyar Kambayar, the Superintendent over the Erumai-nāḍu (*sānapōvan-Erumai-nāṭṭu-nāyagañ-jeyvār*) in about A.D. 1380.⁴

v1.c12.s2.t2.25

¹ E.C. X, Mr. 39, p. 165.

v1.c12.s2.t2.26

² I am indebted to Dr. Barnett for this suggestion.

v1.c12.s2.t2.27

³ E.C., IX, Ht. 50, p. 43, translit. p. 115.

v1.c12.s2.t2.28

⁴ Ibid., An. 28, p. 113.

v1.c12.s2.t2.29

Turning to the villages, we find that inscriptions give some details about village officials. One of the most coveted offices seems to have been that called the *gauḍike*. The office of a *gauḍa* is, for example, met with in A.D. 1512-13.⁵ In what manner the duties of a *gauḍa* were similar to those of a *sthala-gauḍa* cannot be made out. We are aware of a *sthala-gauḍike* in about A.D. 1533, and again in A.D. 1547.⁶ These three epigraphs also give us the names of other important village officials—the *sēnabōva* or *sānbhōga*.

v1.c12.s2.t2.30

⁵ Fleet, J. Bom. R.A.S. XII, p. 398; n. 27; I.A. V. p. 344 (n). Fleet derives *gauḍa* from the Skt. *grāmadhya*. But Dr. Barnet suggests a more accurate derivation—*gauḍa* < *gāvuṇḍam* < *gām*’ uṇḍam, "he who feeds on a village".

v1.c12.s2.t2.31

⁶ E.C., XI, Hr. 36, Hr. 39, p. 109, text. pp. 300-2.

v1.c12.s2.t2.32

who was the village accountant; the waterman or turncock (grāmada paṇikaḷḷu-ūyagāra), the watchman or talāra, and the bēgāra.¹

v1.c12.s2.t2.33

¹ Begara, according to Wilson (Glossary, p. 70) is a forced labourer. Here, as Dr. Branett tells me, the word may stand for the superintendent of forced labour. B.A.S.

v1.c12.s2.t2.34

The inscription of about A.D. 1533 is interesting in the sense that it tells us something about the manner in which a sthala-gauḍige was conferred. The Mahānāyakācārya Harati Aimangala Tippaḷa Nāyakācārya granted to Vaḍḍa Iraṇa-bōva through Bālana Gauḍa of Kaṇḍehaḷḷi, a hamlet of the Dharmapura-sammat, an inām (gift) of one bracelet, one necklace, one small sized turban, and one check suit, for having expended 250 gadyāṇa and erected four high towers for the Kaṇḍehaḷḷi fort; and in addition to this, enjoined the following: "And you (i.e., Bālana Gauḍa) having come before us with the waterman (or turncock), the village servants the sānabhōga Puṭaraṅgappa, the watchman Vōba, the bēgāras Timma and Dāsa, and made petition at our palace,—in order that the usual customs may be carried on in accordance with our orders, we have conferred on you the sthala-gauḍige of the said village, and orders are issued to grant a śāsana to that effect. . . the sthala-gauḍike of this Kaṇḍehaḷḷi village will be enjoyed by the posterity in succession of the family of the Noṇaba Bālana Gauḍa, and so also the talavāra, the bēgāra and others".² Another inscription of about A.D. 1547 is identical in its contents: the same Mahānāyakācārya granting similar ināms to the same contractor but through Doḍḍa Dāmana Gauḍa of Sūgūr in Guḍḍa-nāḍ for having built four towers for the Sūgūr fort at a cost of 200 varāha; and to Doḍḍa-Dāmana Gauḍa, the Mahānāyakācārya also gave the sthala-gauḍike of the village.³

v1.c12.s2.t2.35

² E.C. XI, Hr. 36, p. 109. The name Noṇaba (Bālana Gauḍa) evidently suggests the ancient Noḷambavāḍi 32 Thousand. B.A.S.

v1.c12.s2.t2.36

³ E.C., ibid., Hr. 39, p. 109.

v1.c12.s2.t2.37

These inscriptions from Hiriyūr not only confirm our assumption as regards the hereditary offices of the village (vamśa-pārampariyavāgi talavāru-bēgāru-vagaire ninna makkalāgi etc), but also enable us to suppose that the sthala-gauḍige of a village was confirmed by a Mahānāyakācārya, who, we may reasonably presume, was a servant of the king. This strengthens our assertion that the Vijayanagara monarchs, on the application of the claims for the hereditary offices, allowed the ancient machinery of the villages to run on its own course under the general supervision of their officials, as is evident from the words of the Mahānāyakāchārya : namma mokkla ninu bandu namma samusthānadalli arike-māḍikoṇḍu namma appaṇeprakārakke mariyādi saha naḍasi yiruvudakke sadari-grāmada sthalada gavuḍikeyannu ninage nēmisi śāsana nirūpa ap (p) aṇekoḍisi yiḍitu.¹

v1.c12.s2.t2.38

¹ E.C. XI, Hr. 36 and 39, text, pp. 301-3. Cf. The village officials under the Guptas—the mahattaras, or men of position, the leading men; the aṣṭa-kula-adhikaraṇas or officers with supervising authority over the eight kulas; and the grāmikas or village-heads. Basak, Ep. Ind., XV, p. 137, op. cit.

v1.c12.s2.t2.39

Of the village officials given above, the sēnabōva was a person of much consequence. He was the village accountant. The office of a sēnabōva can claim some antiquity. It is mentioned in a Western Chālukya grant dated Śaka 1015 (A.D. 1093-4) of the times of the king Vikramāditya.² A sēnabōva in A.D. 1238 is said to have been the adhikāri of Sētu.³ It is not improbable that just as they had a sēnabōva over a village, they had also one over the nāḍu. The nāḍ-sēnabōva had to maintain what may be called the revenue register of the district. We infer this from an inscription dated A.D. 1392 of the times of Harihara Rāya II, which gives us the details of rents in Mādharahalli and the neighbouring places, and of the award of 215 varāha, two haṇa to Rāmachandra Oḍeyar "according to the accounts of the nāḍ-śyānabhāva Sāyappa".⁴

v1.c12.s2.t2.40

² Fleet, I.A., V, p. 344 (n). The functions of a sēnabōva were similar to those of a kulkarni, Fleet, J. Bom. R.A.S., XII, p. 398, n. (28).

v1.c12.s2.t2.41

³ E.C., VIII, Nr. 10, p. 128.

v1.c12.s2.t2.42

⁴ E.C., VI, Kp. 49, p. 85.

v1.c12.s2.t2.43

From a record dated A.D. 1589 we are able to maintain that these nāḍ-sēnabōvas were officials of considerable influence. For the inscription, which belongs to the time of Veṅkaṭapati Dēva I, mentions a grant by the king of rent-free lands (specified) in various places, and of certain dues to Tipparasaya's (son) Viraya of Hiriyūr, the sēnabhōva or accountant of 185 villages situated in 155 sthalas (named), which belonged to Kenchaṇṇa Nāyaka of Hiriyur.⁵ Granting rent-free lands to recompense labour was a method which was common in those days in southern India. In some instances the writers of the village accounts were paid from the shares of the village. Thus in A.D. 1379-80 in the villages (specified) bestowed as a gift by Harihara, the Brahmans of each agrahāra gave (a certain portion) to the learned Sammaṇa, for doing the writing work of the district.¹

v1.c12.s2.t2.44

⁵ My. Arch. Report for 1918, p. 53.

v1.c12.s2.t2.45

¹ Fleet, J. Bom. R.A.S., XII, p. 380, op. cit. ² E.C. XI, Dg. 108, p. 71, text, p.

v1.c12.s2.t2.46

The control which the Central Government exercised over the villages is also seen in the history of the other village offices. The offices of jyōtisha and sthala-purōhita of several villages were conferred by the king in what was called śāsana-paṭṭige. Thus in A.D. 1406 Dēva Rāya granted by means of a śāsana-paṭṭige land (specified) to Narasāvadhāni, for the office of jyōtisha and sthala-purōhita in the villages of Jigaḷe, Kundūru, Harosandra, and other villages belonging to Koṭṭūru-simhāsana in the Uchchangi-vēṇṭhe.² As servants of the king, these officials are to be distinguished from the hereditary dignitaries of the village, who, in accordance with the professed aim of the monarchs to preserve the ancient custom of the land, were allowed to continue in their offices with the sanction and approval of the Government.

v1.c12.s2.t2.47

In addition to these village servants,—the gauḍa, the sēnabōva, the jyōtisha, the purōhita, the bēgāṛa, and the turncock, we have to mention the guardian of the village peace,—the taḷavāra or the kāpu or the kāval.³ The village police existed in early times. In Śaka 1161 (A.D. 1239-40), during the reign of Rājarāja Dēva, Virāsani-Ammaiyappan Aragiya Śōṛan alias Edirili-Śōṛa Sambuvarāyan gave to the Viṣṇu temple at Poygai the village of Puttūr together with its revenue and taxes, in which was included the small tax for the village police.⁴ Then, again, the same person made a gift of taxes in which there was one for the overseer of the village police, in Śaka 1165 (A.D. 1243-4).⁵ Some of the duties of the kāpus or village police in the Telugu country are thus enumerated in an inscription dated about A.D. 1284-5. "The kāpus should cultivate the paddy fields given to the temple (of Chirumana Mallikārjuna) for its share, and give each year 155 puṭṭis of paddy, and a half share in the second crop paddy; they should raise gingelly, flax, kāru jonna, and green gram on dry lands, and pay at the rate of three-quarters mōḍa on female cloths. The kāpus should conduct the charity perpetually. They should not allow the lands of the deity to lie waste. They should not sell the calves of the deity". The same stone inscription contains the following: "If the dancing-girls themselves (of the same temple) lease out the ands given to them, the kāpus who rule the village will treat them as 'sarvamānya'."¹

v1.c12.s2.t2.48

¹⁷⁶ This is a copy of the inscription supplied by the people. P. 71, n. (1). ³ Wilson, Glossary, pp. 260, 271. But kāpu also means the principal cultivator, Wilson, ibid. p. 260. ⁴ S.I.I., I, p. 89. ⁵ Ibid., p. 91.

v1.c12.s2.t2.49

¹ Butterworth-Chetty, Nellore Ins., 1, pp. 232-3.

v1.c12.s2.t2.50

In Vijayanagara times a tax was paid for the maintenance of the village police. In the record of the reign of Virūpāksha I, dated only in the cyclic year Bhāva, which we have already cited, the composition of the village assembly of Kunnāṇḍārkōyil is given together with the fact that the Kaḷḷa-Vēḷaikkāṛars, who sought refuge with the village authorities, were assigned the duty of guarding the village lands and the lives of the people. In return for this they were permitted to collect from each family of the eighteen castes (padinēṇ-būmi-samayattār) one paṇam annually and one ring on each marriage occasion.² This suggests that in some localities the village authorities and the Vijayanagara Government did not institute a regular body of village police; and that they entrusted the duty of maintaining order in the local units to a class of people who may have been the traditional custodians of the village peace. It was not that the rulers were ignorant of maintaining a regular police force. 'Abdur Razzāq, as we have remarked elsewhere, definitely tells us that the capital contained a large police establishment. "Opposite the mint is the office of the Prefect of the City, to which it is said 12,000 policemen are attached; and their pay, which equals each day 12,000 fanams, is derived from the proceeds of the brothels".³ There is evidence of what appears to be money-payment given to the village police, and the fact that an official policeman is mentioned in inscriptions proves that there was a definite police organization in the villages.

v1.c12.s2.t2.51

² Ep. Report for 1915, p. 106, op. cit.

v1.c12.s2.t2.52

³ Elliot, Hist. of India, IV, p. 111, op. cit.

v1.c12.s2.t2.53

That the village police were paid a fee is clear from another inscription which, although unreliable from the point of view of its chronology, nevertheless contains the names of some other village servants. This inscription, which is dated Saka 1498 of the times of Kṛṣṇa Dēva Rāya, belongs to that class of suspicious grants which we have examined in an earlier connection.¹ It registers the grant of reḍḍi-mirās, karaṇika-mirās, and the right of collecting the police fee (kāvali-rusum)² in the village of Lōmaḍa to certain persons by the king. The other village officials entitled to receive the mēra (āya-mēragāṇḍra), besides the reḍḍi and karaṇams, were the village priest (purōhita), the artisan, the mansion, the shroff, the talāri (village watchman), the potter, the washerman, the barber, and the village servants (mādiga and veṭṭi-māla, also called bārika).³

v1.c12.s2.t2.54

¹ Supra, Chapter III.

v1.c12.s2.t2.55

² For the Persian origin of this word, see Wilson, Glossary, p. 271.

v1.c12.s2.t2.56

³ Ep. Report for 1913, p. 9.

v1.c12.s2.t2.57

The existence of the village watchmen in later ages is proved by a record dated A.D. 1584 which speaks of the watchmen of the village of Pushpitodupura, also called Baichapura, in the Sivanasamudra country.⁴ In some parts of the Tamil land the fees for the kāpus were paid out of the village shares. Thus in Saka 1447 (A.D. 1525-6) Chennama Nāyanigāru settled that under a tank at Kaṇḍlakuṇṭa, three parts of the land were set apart for the Velamas, gods and Brahmans, and two for the kāpus who guarded the country.⁵ It may also be noted that in the Tamil country, as elsewhere, perhaps, there were two kinds of village police who received such fees—the ūr-kāval and the pāḍi-kāval,⁶ whose functions, however, cannot be differentiated at the present stage of our investigations.

v1.c12.s2.t2.58

⁴ Rice, My. Ins., p. 255.

v1.c12.s2.t2.59

⁵ 388 of 1915; Ep. Report for 1916, p. 143.

v1.c12.s2.t2.60

⁶ Ep. Report for 1916, p. 143.

v1.c12.s2.t2.61

To the list of village servants given above other inscriptions add nambi, who performed worship in village temples.⁷

v1.c12.s2.t2.62

⁷ Ep. Report for 1913, p. 9.

v1.c12.s2.t2.63

Those who conducted the administration of the village were sometimes faced with civil questions. These were in connection with the settlement of boundaries between villages and fields, and the regulation of water for irrigation purposes. We shall see how in A.D. 1363 in the times of Virūpaṇṇa Oḍeyar, the great minister Nāgaṇṇa and other arasus (named) settled a complicated question between the people of Hedḍūr-sime and the temple ācāryas on the one hand and the Jaina sūris on the other. The presence of the nāḍ people was necessary during such occasions.¹ An effaced epigraph dated about A.D. 1400 relates that a śāsana was given for the Mahant of. . . . by all the people of the (Ma)ndu-nāḍ Thirty in connection with a dispute as regards boundary stones. It says: "Kolahalli Tammaḍi Nāgaya not joining with him, set up (other) boundary stones. The Mahant and the nāḍ making inquiry, decided that the stones had been unjustly put up and could not be allowed, and restored the dharma".² The question of boundary disputes seems to have been solved thus in A.D. 1518-19: ". . . the temple trustees (samsthānakulu) of Kailāsanātha and Bhīma (Chilamakuru, Nellore district) granted one kucchala of dry land on the boundary and ten kuṇṭas of wet lands as a sarvamānya to Mēdarameṭṭa Siṅgirināyaḍu, who walked over the boundary line of Chilamakuru (settled the boundary dispute)".³ The epigraph does not contain any more details about this procedure of walking over the boundary line.

v1.c12.s2.t2.64

¹ E.C., VIII, Tl. 197, pp. 206-7. Infra, Chapter VII, Section 3.

v1.c12.s2.t2.65

² Ibid., Tl. 115, p. 186.

v1.c12.s2.t2.66

³ Butterworth-Chetty, Nellore Ins., III, p. 1157.

v1.c12.s2.t2.67

A corrupt copper-plate grant dated about A.D. 1576 informs us that an unburnt clay pot was carried round boundaries. "If any mistake is made in tracing the boundary the pot breaks".⁴ The following is related in the epigraph: ". . . When Hire-Hanumappa Nāyaka's son Raṅgappa Nāyaka was protecting the gaḍi—and Maya-goṇḍa Gauḍa managing the Koḍamagi-gaḍi—he came to their house and demanded their security. On which Mayagoṇḍa Gauḍa gave Timmappa as security, and Kariyanna Gauḍa of Hole-Honnūr gave Mallappa as security. And asking permission, Mayagoṇḍa Gauḍa requested a haṇḍege and giving a feast (as specified) to Brahmans and gauḍas, performing worship and carrying the god Hanumanta of Anuveri in procession behind an elephant, they set out with the haṇḍege, when the Nāḍiga Yaṅkappa, prostrating himself, made petition and fixed the banyan tree as the boundary, setting up a sone".⁵

v1.c12.s2.t2.68

⁴ Rice, E.C., VII, p. 37, n. (2).

v1.c12.s2.t2.69

⁵ Ibid., Sh. 107, p. 37.

v1.c12.s2.t2.70

In the generality of cases, as we remarked while dealing with the revenue system of Vijayanagara, the boundaries were marked by means of stones with the figure of Vāmana or the dwarf. This method of denoting the boundaries of villages seems to have been common from the earliest times of Vijayanagara history, as is evident from an epigraph dated A.D. 1336 which describes the demarcation of boundaries with stone stamped "with the illustrious Vāmana (dwarf) seal".¹ Sometimes the boundary stone, as in A.D. 1390-1, were marked with figures of the sun and moon.² In the times of Kṛṣṇa Dēva Rāya the Great, according to a record dated A.D. 1512-13, pillars of Garuḍa with the impression of Vāmana were also used.³ The boundary stones, evidently of a koḍage grant held by a gauḍa, were sometimes also inscribed with the letters gavuḍa-goḍagi and placed at a distance of 803 bows.⁴ As regards the other queston of determining the direction of the flow of water in a village, we may note that it sometimes necessitated the intervention of the Central Government. This is inferred from an epigraph dated A.D. 1553 which narrates that Rāma Rāju Kōnappa Dēva Mahārāja settled a water dispute between two villages in the Anantapur district.⁵

Social and Political Life in the Vijayanagara Empire (A.D. 1346 – A.D. 1646) v1.c12.s2.t2: B. Village Life

B. Village Life

Linked texts (2)