Social and Political Life in the Vijayanagara Empire (A.D. 1346 – A.D. 1646) v1.c15.s10: Section II. Treatment of Prisoners—Treaty

Social and Political Life in the Vijayanagara Empire (A.D. 1346 – A.D. 1646) v1.c15.s10

Language: English

Section II. Treatment of Prisoners—Treaty

v1.c15.s10.1

The conduct of the Hindu rulers and soldiers at the end of a campaign deserves to be noted. While describing the war of A.D. 1366, Firishtah says that the forces of Vijayanagara after capturing Mudkul, "with a rancorous cruelty put men, women, and children to the sword, with the exception of one man only, who escaping, brought intelligence of the event to the King".⁵ Then again in A.D. 1417, according to the same historian, the Hindus after defeating Mir Fuzl-ulla, the general of Firūz Shāh, "made a general massacre of the Mussulmen, erected a platform with their heads on the field of battle, and pursuing the King into his own country, laid it waste with fire and sword. They subsequently took many towns, broke down the mosques and other holy places; slaughtered the people without mercy; and by their savage conduct seemed desirous to discharge the vengeance and resentment of many ages".¹

v1.c15.s10.2

⁵ Firishtah, Briggs, The Rise II, p. 310; Sewell, ibid., p. 34.

v1.c15.s10.3

¹ Firishtah, Briggs, The Rise, II, pp. 390-91; Sewell, For. Emp. p. 65.

v1.c15.s10.4

Brutality breeds brutality, and the exigencies of war know no mercy. There is some truth in the statement of Firishtah that the Hindus treasured up the resentment of ages in their minds, especially when we remember the fact that from the early days when poor Haripāla had been flayed alive to the frightful times when Vināyaka Dēva suffered an equally inhuman treatment at the hands of Muhammad Shāh Bāhmani I, it was one long and painful era of mutual misunderstanding and revengeful retaliation which justified the actions of neither the Hindus nor the Muhammadans.

v1.c15.s10.5

The Hindus could not expect a humane treatment at the hands of their enemy after their atrocities of A.D. 1366. And so we find that Muhammad Shāh I, on hearing the sad fate of his soldiers, took a solemn oath "that he would not sheath the sword till he had put to death one hundred thousand infidels, in revenge for the massacre of the faithful".² He soon realized his ambition; that part of the Hindus which was made up of their market and baggage fell into his hands, and the Sultan "put to death, without distinction, men, women and children, free and slave, to the number of seventy thousand souls".³ This did not quench his thirst for blood: on his soldiers winning another victory, this time near the Hindu capital itself, he himself gave orders for a general massacre. Firishtah continues thus: ".... when the King appearing, the massacre of the unbelievers was renewed in so relentless a manner, that pregnant women, and children at the breast even, did not escape the sword".⁴

v1.c15.s10.6

² Firishtah, ibid., p. 311.

v1.c15.s10.7

³ Ibid., p 312.

v1.c15.s10.8

⁴ Ibid., p. 316

v1.c15.s10.9

If the Hindus could make a platform of skulls of the enemy on the battlefield, the Muhammadans could celebrate a festival on a similar occasion for three days after slaying every time twenty thousand men. Ahmad Shāh Bāhmani continued the war of A.D. 1422, and "without waiting to besiege the Hindoo capital overran the country; and wherever he went, he put to death men, women, and children, without mercy, contrary to the compact made between his uncle and predecessor, Mahomed Shah and the rays of Beejanuggur. Whenever the number of slain amounted to twenty thousand, he halted three days, and made a festival in celebration of the bloody event. He broke down, also, the idolatrous temples, and destroyed the colleges of the bramins".¹

v1.c15.s10.10

¹ Firishtah, Briggs, *The Rise* II, p. 402.

v1.c15.s10.11

Firishtah continues to narrate the cruelties perpetrated by the Hindu soldiers in A.D. 1558 in the times of Rāma Rāja. "The infidels of Beejanuggur, who for many years had been wishing for such an opportunity, left no cruelty unpractised. They insulted the honour of the Mussulman women, destroyed the mosques, and did not respect even the sacred Koran". Then again Firishtah says: "The Hindoos of Beejanuggur committed the most outrageous devastations, burning and rasing the buildings, putting up their horses in the mosques, and performing their abominable idolatorus worship in the holy places".²

v1.c15.s10.12

² Ibid., III., pp. 120-21.

v1.c15.s10.13

The same brutality characterized the dealings of the later Nāyakas of the south with each other. Dalavāyi Veṅkaṭa Kṛishṇappa Nāyaka stormed Tanjore, and "had the head of Achyuta-Vijia-Rāgava Naicker (of Tanjore), and of his son, cut off, and taking these, together with many rich jewelled garments, . . . he entered the town (Trichinopoly), and presented the two heads of the Tanjore persons, and jewelled robes, before the Maha raja Sri Raja-Chokanatha-Naicker's presence . . .".³

v1.c15.s10.14

³ Taylor, O.H. MSS., II, p. 198. Nelson describes a Hunt for the Noses, Mad. Country, P. III, p. 139.

v1.c15.s10.15

But the conduct of the monarchs and generals of Vijayanagara was not tainted with cruelty on all occasions. In the figure of Kṛishṇa Dēva Rāya we have the greatest example in south Indian history of a generous Hindu monarch. According to Nuniz, "Crisnarao, being aware of the approach of the king of Orya, left the city (Koṇḍaviḍu) without assaulting it, saying that he preferred to fight the King in person and his army rather than to attack the city, and that there would be plenty of time afterwards to take it. . . . King Crisnarao halted his army on this side of the river, and sent the King a message that if he (the Gajapati ruler) desired to fight with him he would retire from the river two leagues, so that he (the king of Orya) might pass the river unmolested, and as soon as he had passed he would join battle. . . ." The Gajapati ruler was obstinate and received a crushing defeat at the hands of the Emperor. A wife of the Gajapati ruler, one of his sons, and seven principal captains whom the Emperor found at Koṇḍapalle, were despatched to Vijayanagara.¹ The Gajapati queen, however, was honourably restored to the ruler²; and the prince Virabhadra, as we have already related, was raised to the position of a provincial governor.

v1.c15.s10.16

¹ Sewell, For. Emp., pp. 317-9.

v1.c15.s10.17

² Ibid., p. 320.

v1.c15.s10.18

But Kṛiṣhṇa Dēva Raya could be severe with his opponents. A Muhammadan whom Nuniz calls "Madarmeluquo, who was captain of the King on this side," and who opposed Sāluva Timma with sixty thousand men, was defeated, and he together with his wife, son, horses, elephants and treasures was captured. "The king commanded to put (the captives) in prison, and there they died".³

v1.c15.s10.19

³ Ibid., p. 322. I find a note in pencil on the word "Madarmeluquo" evidently by the late Mr. Longworth Dames, who has written several notes in the Royal Asiatic copy of Sewell's *Forgotten Empire* (1900 ed.). The note runs thus: "Madarmeluquo 'Imad ul Mulk, founder of the Imād Shahi family. He was one of the officers of the Bahmani King of the Deccan, whom the Portuguese called the Daquem-d'aquem, on this side, never Ré de Daquem, " p. 322. B.A.S

v1.c15.s10.20

Kṛiṣhṇa Dēva Raya's magnanimous treatment of the fallen foe is seen in the same *Chronicle* of Nuniz. 'Ali Ādil Shāh of Bijapur during the Raichur campaign, was hopelessly beaten. His army was relentlessly pursued by the Hindu forces, and the Emperor "reached the river (the Kṛiṣhṇā) where, seeing, the death of so many—for here you would see women and boys who had left the camp, there horses and men who through clinging to one another could not escape as there was so much water in the river—and the King's troops stood on the bank, so that whenever a man appeared he was killed, and the horses that tried to clamber up by the bank of the river, unable to do so, fell back on the men, so that neither one nor the other escaped, and the elephants went into the stream, and those that they could seize were cruelly killed by them. Seeing what passed, I say, the King, out of compassion commanded the troops to retire, saying that numbers had died who did not deserve death nor were at all in fault; which order was at once obeyed by all the captains, so that each one withdrew all his forces".¹

v1.c15.s10.21

¹ Sewell, For. Emp., pp. 339-40.

v1.c15.s10.22

The spoil that fell into the hands of the Hindus, according to Nuniz, was enormous. He continues to narrate: "I take no account of the sumpter-horses and oxen and other beasts, for they were numberless, nor of the numbers of men and boys, nor yet of some women, whom the King ordered to be released".²

v1.c15.s10.23

² Ibid., pp. 342-3.

v1.c15.s10.24

But the Emperor had lost sixteen thousand and odd of his soldiers in the battle. "Here the King stayed till all the dead had been burned, and the customary honours had been paid to them; and here he gave much alms for the souls of those who had been killed in battle on his side".³

v1.c15.s10.25

³ Ibid., p. 343.

v1.c15.s10.26

When Raichur capitulated, the Hindu ruler entered the city. Nuniz tells us the manner in which he was received by the populace and what he did to them. "As soon as the next day dawned, the King, after he had performed both his customary prayers and others which it is their wont to offer after victories, giving thanks to God (for indeed the principal thing they pray for is a conquest such as this), rode in company with the other great lords and his captains, and with his guard took the way to the city. There the citzens were standing awaiting his arrival, with more cheerful countenances than their real feelings warranted, yet striving to take courage, and they followed him with much loud shouting; crying—'God be praised who has sent to save us after so many years!' And with these and other such words they begged him to spare them and have pity on them. So he proceeded till he arrived close to the citadel, when he sent to call the most honoured men in the city, and to these the King said that he would spare all their property, that they might freely act as they wished regarding both that and their persons, and those who wished to stay in the city might remain in their old state as before; and as for those who wished to depart they might do so at once with all that they possessed. They all raised their hands to Heaven, and threw themselves on the ground in thankfulness for such gentle treatment. While the King was thus engaged there came men to tell him that his troops were robbing the city, and he at once took measures to prevent this, and everything was returned to its owner;¹ but as in such cases as these the conquered are content merely with their own liberty, laying little store by anything they may get back, great robberies took place; and some of these afterwards came to the ears of the King, and those who had done it were soundly chastised.²

v1.c15.s10.27

¹ Cf. The conduct of Rāma Rāja at Mylapore related elsewhere.

v1.c15.s10.28

² Sewell, For. Emp. pp. 347-8. See also pp. 346-7.

v1.c15.s10.29

Krishna Dēva Rāya on reaching Gulbarga "took three sons of the King of Daquem. He made the eldest King of the kingdom of Daquem, his father being dead. . . He whom he thus made King was received by all the realm as such, and obeyed by all the great lords, and even by the Ydallcão owing to his fear of the King. The other two brothers he took with him, and gave them each one an allowance, to each one every year fifty thousand gold pardaos; and he holds them and treats them as princes and great lords, as indeed they are."³

v1.c15.s10.30

³ Ibid, p 358, and n. (1) in which Sewell remarks that this statement of Nuniz relating to the reinstating of the eldest son of the King of Daquem, does not seem to be very exact from an historical standpoint. See ibid.. p. 157 and note.

v1.c15.s10.31

During the height of the Hindu power, there were not only generous monarchs, but brave soldiers as well. We have recorded the opinion of Paes about the character of the Hindu soldier in the Vijayanagara army. ". . . and in this review there were the finest young men possible to be seen or that ever could be seen, for in all this array I did not see a man that would act the coward".⁴

v1.c15.s10.32

⁴ Ibid., p. 281, op. cit.

v1.c15.s10.33

The tradition of courage and duty stated above could also be seen in earlier times. Bommeya Nāyaka's son Nārappa Nāyaka took part in a conflict around the Durgā fortress in A.D. 1410. He seems to have been in charge of the boundary of Durgā. The remarkable sense of duty and service to the State which prompted this official is seen in the epigraph which states that he "did his duty and fighting till his quiver was empty," fell in the skirmish.¹

v1.c15.s10.34

¹ E.C., VIII, Sb. 484, p. 81, text, p. 218.

v1.c15.s10.35

In later days also Vijayanagara could boast of gallant soldiers. Rāma Rāja proceeded towards Kalyāṇa which he besieged. The *Sivatattvaratnākara*, which informs us these details, tells us that during the siege, the Regent summoned all his generals before him, and throwing the weapon called *yamadaṁṣṭrikā* into the fort, asked which of them would enter the fort and fetch him back the instrument. All the generals except Sadāśiva Nāyaka kept silent. Sadāśiva Nāyaka stormed the fort and brought back the weapon to his master. The sovereign was greatly pleased with this and he bestowed upon him the titles *kōṭe-kōlāhala* and *rājanāyaka* together with the governorship of Guṭṭi, Bārakūru, and Maṅgaḷūru.²

Linked texts (2)

Kondapalli
Śivatattvaratnākara — Basappa Nāyaka 1684, Sanskrit