Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Early History of the Deccan (Parts I–XI) v2.c15.s3: Kākatīya Military Institutions and Administration

The Early History of the Deccan (Parts I–XI) v2.c15.s3

Language
English

Contents

Kākatīya Military Institutions and Administration

Sources

v2.c15.s3.t1.1

MUCH valuable information, though not of a precise character, is available about the Kākatīya administration and military institutions. Beside the inscriptions of the Kākatīya monarchs, and of their feudatories and subordinates, a few works on the *rājanīti* deserve consideration, since they throw some interesting light on the subject. Although the works on the *rājanīti* are generally based on the Sanskrit text-books on polity, they embody information on several topics not found elsewhere. Of these, two books, the *Nītiśāstramuktāvali* of Baddena, and the *Sakalanītisammatamu* of Maḍiki Siṅgana demand special attention. Baddena was a feudatory of Gaṇapati and Rudrāmbā; and as for Siṅgana, though he flourished in the post-Kākatīya period, and composed his *Sakalanītisammatamu* very probably in the first quarter of the fifteenth century A.D., yet his work is of inestimable value to the student of Kākatīya history. The *Sakalanītisammatamu* is not a single original composition but rather a collection of extracts culled from earlier books on polity such as Baddena’s *Nītiśāstramuktāvali*, Śivadēvayya’s *Puruṣārthasāram*, Pratāparudra’s *Nītisāram*, etc., all of which were written during the Kākatīya period. It may be noted that the authors of these works were not scholars indulging in mere speculation, but statesmen devoting most of their time to the practical administration of the kingdom. Though they seem to lay emphasis on the theoretical side, their works call for serious notice, because their views must have exercised a profound influence on the political and administrative institutions of the period and have brought theory nearer to practice.

Military Organization

v2.c15.s3.t2.1.1

The Kākatīyas devoted much of their energies to safeguarding their dominions from internal troubles and foreign invasions. In dealing with the military organization of the Kākatīya kingdom, two important facts demand special notice. In the first place, forts played a dominant part in the defence of the realm. Considerable space is devoted in the contemporary works on the *rājanīti* to the description of these forts, their classification, and their strategic importance in the work of organizing the defence of the country. The *Puruṣārthasāram* points out that just as tigers, elephants, and lions are protected respectively by the shrubbery, the hills, and the caves, so a human being, however powerful he may be, needs a fort for protection; he who has no fort, it adds, resembles an elephant that does not rut or a snake devoid of its fangs. We know that it is hard to overcome a person surrounded even by a slight fence, and therefore how much more difficult it must necessarily be to vanquish a king who establishes himself within a strong fortress.¹ According to the *Nītisāra* of Pratāparudra, it is a network of forts which enables a kingdom to endure for a long time. Following, no doubt, older Sanskrit works on polity, he divides forts into four classes. ‘They are’, says he, ‘of four kinds; *sthala, jala, vana*, and *parvata (giri)*; that which is surrounded by a wall of fortification built upon the ground is called *sthala-durga*;

v2.c15.s3.t2.1.2

and those which are surrounded by water and forests are known as *jala* and *vana durgas* respectively; whilst that built on the top or slopes of a hill is spoken of as a *parvata* or *giri-durga*. Although the last three are in themselves natural fortresses, they can be easily occupied by the enemy without walls of fortification. The forts, to whichever of the four classes mentioned above they may belong, must have special *aṭṭālakas* (rooms) over the *gōpuras* (gates) fitted with sundry wooden contrivances (machines), guarded by warriors adept in military exercises and the use of sundry missiles and weapons of warfare, and well stocked with money, grain, condiments, &c. They should have several extensive open grounds inside to facilitate the free movement of large bodies of men; and they should be provided with plentiful supplies of grass, fuel, and water, and have passages for the entry and the exit of people without obstruction. A fort which is not so provided is but a ‘pig-sty’. The *Nītisāra* also describes the precautionary measures to be taken for the protection of the fort. Strong guards must be posted at the gates to watch them by day and by night; the garrison of the fort must be stationed at a suitable place; watches should be kept over the defiles or the passes in the hills (in the neighbourhood); efficient men should be posted to guard the central hall of audience; sentries should patrol around the palace;

v2.c15.s3.t2.1.3

and *talavaris* (watchmen) should be sent into the streets and the lanes. The daily life in army camps should be subjected to careful scrutiny; men with torches should go round the fort continuously at night; the captains, commanders, and all the fighting men should be well fed and properly treated, so that there may be no room for discontent.² The fourfold classification of the forts mentioned in the *Nītisāra* was known in the Kākatīya times, as is attested by the evidence of inscriptions. The Kāyastha chief Ambadēva, for instance, is described in an inscription at Tripurāntakam dated Ś. 1212 (A.D. 1290) as a *giri-durga-vajra-nipāta* (stroke of the thunderbolt to the hill-forts), a *vanadurga-dāvānala* (wild-fire to the forest forts), a *jaladurga-baḍabānala* (submarine fire to the water-forts), and a *sthaladurga-samchūrṇana* (pulverizer or smasher of land-forts).³ Anumakoṇḍa, Rāichūr, and Gaṇḍikoṭa among the *giri-durgas*; Kandūr and Nārāyaṇavanam among the *vanadurgas*; Divi and Kolanu among the *jala-durgas*; and Warangal, and Dharaṇkōṭai among thes *thala-durgas* were reckoned as the most famous strongholds in the Kākatiya period. The regulations laid down by Pratāparudra for the protection of the forts envisage only the common precautionary measures indispensable for their proper defence; it is not unlikely that he embodied in his treatise the knowledge which he had gathered from his own practical experience.

v2.c15.s3.t2.2

¹ *Sakalanītisammatamu* I: 48, 50, 52.

v2.c15.s3.t2.3

² Ibid., 60, 61.

v2.c15.s3.t2.4

³ AR, 268 of 1905; SII, X, 463.

v2.c15.s3.t2.5

Secondly, the administration of the kingdom was organized on a military basis. The Kākatiyas appear to have apportioned their territories among a number of military chiefs known as *nāyakas*. Several of these *nāyakas*, and the *nāyaka-sthalas* or the *nāyaka-sthala-vrittis*, as the estates were called which were granted to these *nāyakas* to secure for them the requisite economic basis for the proper discharge of the duties pertaining to their office, are mentioned in the Kākatiya inscriptions. Obviously the *nāyankara* system which became a prominent feature of the administration later under the Vijayanagara emperors was already in existence at this time, though its character and its political and military obligations are nowhere precisely defined. The *Nītisāra* of Pratāparudra, however, seems to throw some light on the subject. The king, according to this work, should assign only small villages to the *sāmantas*, reserving the big ones for the upkeep of the four-fold army and the replenishment of the treasury.¹ This suggestion must not be dismissed as mere theoretical speculation. Pratāparudra seems to have kept in mind the administrative system obtaining in his dominions, while laying down these rules. The *sāmantas* are apparently the *nāyakas* who obtained grants of lands from the Kākatiya monarchs to enable them to support their position. It is interesting to note that the villages which they held as feudal vassals fell into two classes, small and large. The former were given to them in lieu of salary; they had to maintain themselves from the income derived from the rents whether in money or kind. From the proceeds of the latter, the larger estates, the *nāyakas* had to maintain for the service of the king a stipulated body of troops, elephants, horse and foot, and in addition to pay a sum of money into the royal treasury every year as tribute. Baddena urges that the king himself should maintain a stronger military force as his private guard than he should allow to any one of his *sāmantas*; since otherwise it would not be possible for him to enforce his authority in case of insubordination or revolt. The Kākatiyas were, as a matter of fact, always extremely apprehensive regarding the excessive growth of the power of their *nāyakas*; for this reason, they never allowed the *nāyakas* to remain in one place and strike root there permanently. From the tradition preserved in the *Pratāpacharitra* we learn that Pratāparudra entrusted the defence of the seventy-seven bastions of his capital city Warangal to seventy-seven *nāyakas* of the Velama community, allotting to them a fourth of his kingdom as estates to enable them to discharge efficiently the duties pertaining to their office.² This statement is in the main corroborated by the contemporary and near contemporary epigraphic evidence, despite differences regarding the number and the communal affiliations of the *nāyakas*. The number of the nāyakas is said to have been seventy-five and not seventy-seven;¹ nor did they all belong exclusively to the Velama community. The nāyaka system became a characteristic feature of South Indian Hindu polity in subsequent ages. The Rāyas of Vijayanagara who inherited it from the Kākatīyas bequeathed it to the Nāyaka kings of the South, especially to those of Madura, where it flourished continuously up to the advent of the British.

v2.c15.s3.t2.6

¹ *Sakalanītisammatamu*, I: 248.

v2.c15.s3.t2.7

² *JTA*, vii, pp. 287-8.

v2.c15.s3.t2.8

¹ AR, 268 of 1905; SII, x, 465 ‘panch-ādhika-saptati kshiti-bhṛitān’, Bhārati, Tārana, Jyēstha, p. 555 ‘Panchōttara-saptati-nāyaka’.

The Army

v2.c15.s3.t3.1

Though rājanīti works like the Nītisāra lay it down as a principle that kings should maintain an army comprising four classes of troops, viz. chariots, elephants, horses, and foot, the first of these had gone out of use long before the age of the Kākatīyas. The Kākatīya army, like that of the other Indian States of the period, was made up of three arms, namely, elephants, cavalry, and infantry. According to contemporary sources, it consisted in the days of Pratāparudra of one hundred elephants, twenty thousand horses, and nine lakhs of archers.² No definite information is available about the way in which the Kākatīya monarchs gathered their forces. The elephants were perhaps partly captured from the forests of the Eastern Ghats and partly acquired by purchase from such countries as Kalinga, Burma, and Ceylon, where they flourished in a wild state. As horses were not largely bred anywhere in India except in Sindh, they were necessarily imported from abroad, especially from Iraq, Iran, and Arabia. And since military service was not subjected to any communal restrictions, it was possible for anyone who wished to adopt the profession of arms to enlist as a soldier irrespective of the caste or creed to which he might belong. The existence of the offices of the gajasāhini and the aśvasāhini indicates that the practice was in vogue of training both elephants and horses for the purposes of war. An officer of the name of paṭṭasāhini rāya- or mahārāya-paṭṭasāhini is sometimes mentioned in the inscriptions. Obviously he was an officer attached to the royal establishment, though it is not easy to find out exactly what his functions were. We have no evidence as to whether the practice of drilling the foot-soldiers and instructing them how to combine in mass movements on the battlefield was known at the time. But doubtless all persons desirous of following the military profession were able to get instruction in the gymnasia and to acquire skill in wielding the sword, the buckler, the lance, the bow, and other weapons of warfare.

v2.c15.s3.t3.2

² The Early Muslim Expansion in South India, p. 34.

v2.c15.s3.t3.3

The Kākatīya army fell into two divisions, the royal forces and the nāyaka levies. How these were officered and commanded is not known, though daṇḍādhipatis and sēnādhipatis are both frequently mentioned in the inscriptions. The king was the ipso facto commander-in-chief of the whole army by virtue of his office. Very often he actually took the field in person. Rudra and Mahādēva both fell in battle; Gaṇapati was taken prisoner while fighting by the side of his father; and even Rudramadēvī, if we can rely on general tradition, donned male attire, put on armour, and fought with the Yādava king Mahādēva when he came to invest her capital. The king was usually accompanied by a number of officers called *aṅgarakshas* whose special duty it was to guard his person and palace. Beside the *aṅgarakshas* a body of *leṅkas* or companions-at-arms, who called themselves his sons and who shared his board, fought by his side. The *leṅkas* were slaves who had entered into a covenant with their lord to devote themselves exclusively to his service. They took an oath (*bāsa*) to look on their lord as their *guru* and deity in this world and the next, to have no regard either for their own property or for their lives in furtherance of his interests, to stand by him in the hour of danger, to fight his battles, either to perish with him in the clash of arms or to kill themselves if they should chance to survive him.¹ However, no instance of the immolation of the *leṅkas* after the death of their master is actually on record in the Telugu country, though such occurrences did take place in the neighbouring Karṇāṭaka, as illustrated by the example of the *Garuḍas* under the Hoysalas.² The ideal of conduct which the *leṅkas* were expected to follow was indeed lofty. It will be of interest here to cite the chief characteristics of a *leṅka* as described in an inscription of A.D. 1045: ‘Truth should be his utterance, praise (of his master) his work, charity his recreation, succour of the distressed seeking his protection his merit, and unflinching attitude in a great battle his prime concern.’³ The duties and obligations of the *leṅkas* were collectively known as the *leṅka-vāḷi* and in return for their performance the *leṅkas* were granted estates by the king out of the proceeds of which they were to maintain themselves. The royal feudatories and the *nāyakas* dependent on the kings also maintained *leṅkas* in their private services, so that these retainers became a common feature of Āndhra society during the middle ages.

v2.c15.s3.t3.4

¹ JOR, xiv, p. 109.

v2.c15.s3.t3.5

² EC, v, Bl. 112.

v2.c15.s3.t3.6

³ AR, 443 of 1914; SII, ix, i, No. 101.

v2.c15.s3.t3.7

A number of commanders and officers are mentioned by name in the inscriptions, but no exact information is available about the way in which the military hierarchy was organized. Distinguished service in the army was frequently rewarded by the grant of landed estates and the conferment of titles and badges of honour by the king. Titles such as *kōṭa gelpāta*, *dvīpi-luṇṭāka*, *velanāṭi-dūshaka*, *Kāñchi-kavāṭa-chūrakāra*, and *Sūryavaṁśa-sthāpana-āchārya* were bestowed on their respective bearers to commemorate important historic events with which they had been specially associated. Some of the *birudas* such as the *mūru-rāya-jagaddaḷa* and probably also the *chalamarthi-gaṇḍa* had special insignia attached to them. The *gaṇḍa-peṇḍēra* or ‘anklet of the heroes’ was a common decoration bestowed on distinguished men for meritorious service.

The Government

v2.c15.s3.t4.1

The Kākatīya government like that of the other Hindu states was a monarchy. Though the crown usually descended, as in the other states, in the male line from father to son, the Kākatīya dynasty alone presents a unique example of a female ruler who sat upon the throne and exercised royal authority in her own right. Nevertheless the prejudice against the rule of a woman was so strong that even this lady had to adopt a male name and to attire herself in male garments, whilst holding court. The practice of a ruling monarch taking the heir to the throne into partnership in the governance of the kingdom appears to have come into vogue late in the history of the dynasty. Gaṇapati had made his daughter Rudramadēvī his co-regent during the closing years of his reign and she in her turn followed the example of her father by associating her grandson and heir Pratāparudra with herself in the administration of the kingdom. The king or the queen, as the case might be, was the supreme head of the state; he or she was the pivot about which the entire structure of government moved. The monarch was the source of all power, though his power was not absolutely unfettered autocracy. It was subjected, as in all other Hindu states, to the limitations imposed by the dharma and ancient custom of the land which he was not allowed to override. The dharma which he had to observe was mainly varṇa-dharma or dharma pertaining to the castes. It was the duty of the king to see that the members of each caste followed the dharma peculiar to that caste and to punish those who trespassed against it. Ambadēva, the Kāyastha ruler of Vallūrupaṭṭaṇa, for instance, speaks of himself in an inscription at Tripurāntakam dated Ś. 1212 (A.D. 1290) as catur-varṇa-samuddharaṇa and takes credit for putting to death a certain Mallikārjuna, sinner and violator of the dharma, who was the enemy of gods and brāhmans.¹

v2.c15.s3.t4.2

¹ AR, 174 and 268 of 1905; SII, x, 464 and 465.

v2.c15.s3.t4.3

The qualifications required of a monarch by the composers of treatises on rājanīti are indeed very high. A king, according to them, should be well-versed in the Vedas and the śāstras and proficient in political science, art, and literature. He should be wise and just and regard himself as the father of his subjects, in whose interests he should rule the kingdom. He should be economical in his habits, and treat his servants and dependants with kindness and consideration. He should use his discretion and judgement with due propriety in the choice of his servants and should select the good and take care to avoid the wicked. How far the Kākatīya monarchs came up to the standard of the political thinkers of the age cannot be ascertained, though it is not improbable that some of them, such as Gaṇapati and Pratāparudra, judging from the great popularity which they seem to have enjoyed in their lifetime, attained very nearly to the ideal of the perfect ruler as laid down by the philosophers.

v2.c15.s3.t4.4

According to the Nitisāra of Pratāparudra the king should grant frequent audiences to his subjects at prescribed times. Since he does not hear complaints without a previous appointment, they will be left without redress unless they have regular opportunities of submitting their grievances to him. It is stated in the *Mudrāmātyam* that whilst a king holds a durbar the women-folk should stand behind him, the poets to his right, the *vandis* (the bards) who praise him to his left, and the singers in front of him. His ministers, his relatives, and the princes, with officers of the standing army and learned men, should surround him.¹

v2.c15.s3.t4.5

¹ *Sakalanītisammatamu*: 1:167, 168, 170.

v2.c15.s3.t4.6.1

The Kākatīya monarchs were assisted in the government of the kingdom by a large number of ministers. Although *mahāpradhānas*, *pradhānas*, *preggaḍas*, *amātyas*, and *mantrins* are mentioned in the inscriptions and the Telugu literature of the period, yet unfortunately no information is available about the way in which they were organized or how they helped the monarch in transacting the business of the state. Much importance is, no doubt, attached to the office of the minister in the works on *rājanīti*. A *mantrin* was recognized from very ancient times onwards as one of the *saptāngas* (the seven constituent members) of the body politic. A king who has no minister to advise him is compared to an elephant without its trunk. The king is required to exercise great caution in the choice of his ministers and the delegation of powers to them. He should, according to the *Nītiśāstramuktāvali* of Baddena, avoid an ignorant man even though he may happen to be a personal friend, and should appoint a wise and trustworthy person as the minister. He should place confidence in people noted for their discretion and loyalty, and should avoid fickle-minded individuals who are likely to divulge the secrets of the council. He should not make any minister head of the government of the state; for a minister entrusted with such unlimited authority would become too powerful and wealthy.

v2.c15.s3.t4.6.2

The respective positions of the king and the minister in a state should not be reversed, for the excessive growth of the power of any single member of the body politic would destroy the majesty of the regal state and ruin the kingdom. The Kākatīya monarchs appear to have paid due regard in this matter to the maxims of the political thinkers, for during the period of their rule no instance is on record of any minister who passed the limits of his authority and usurped the power of his sovereign. At the same time the injunctions of the *rājanīti* were not invariably observed in all respects. The king, for instance, is required to appoint as his ministers brāhmans well versed in the Vedas, the *śāstras*, and political science. The Kākatīyas (who perhaps came originally from the Śūdra caste) do not seem to have paid much attention to this rule, for they did not restrict their choice to any single community in selecting their ministers. The instances of Malyāla Hēmādri Reḍḍi and of Muppiḍi Nāyaka, who held the office of *Mahāpradhāna* respectively² under Gaṇapatidēva and Pratāparudra, show that they selected their ministers from all the principal classes and castes of their subjects. Merit was probably the criterion when making appointments to the public service;

v2.c15.s3.t4.6.3

the example of Vellaki Gaṅgādhara, who, starting his career as an official in the royal palace under Prōla II, was subsequently promoted to the office of an *amātya* or minister by his son and successor Rudra on account of his loyalty and his efficient discharge of his duties, indicates that weight was attached by the king to pure merit when filling vacant ministerial positions. The appointment of a person to the office of a minister was invariably accompanied by the conferment of special insignia such as the palanquin, the white umbrella and a special dress, &c., beside the grant of *jīvita* or the *vritti* (land) pertaining to that *niyōga* (office) and presents of valuable ornaments and costly perfumes.¹ The number of ministers in the service of the king at any given time is not known. True, a passage in the *Sakalanītisammatamu*, which is said to have been extracted from an old Telugu rendering of the *Kāmandakam*, mentions twenty-one (*muyyēḍu*) *tīrthas* or ministers; but, in fact, it actually names only eighteen, viz. (1) *mantrin*, (2) *purōhita*, (3) *mantri-jan-ādhyaksha*, (4) *sainyādhināyaka*, (5) *sannidhātri*, (6) *āṭavika*, (7) *praśāstra*, (8) *āyudha-(?

v2.c15.s3.t4.6.4

āyudha) nāyaka*, (9) *vyāvahārika*, (10) *samāhartṛi*, (11) *daṇḍapāla*, (12) *durgapāla*, (13) *prāntapāla*, (14) *prādeśhṭri*, (15) *karmāntika*, (16) *antar-vamśik-ādhikāra*, (17) *yuvarāja* and (18) *dauvārika*.² It is interesting to note that this list of the *tīrthas* is not found in the available editions of the Sanskrit and Telugu *Kāmandakas*. Probably the author of the Telugu *Kāmandakamu* quoted in the *Sakalanītisammatamu* copied this list into his translation from some other work on polity, since we know that the institution of the *tīrthas* was in existence in the country in his time. The term *tīrtha*, according to lexicographers, denotes a group of eighteen ministers, beginning with the *mantrin*, in the service of the king. The institution of the eighteen *tīrthas* is, as a matter of fact, not unknown to the Āndhra polity in general. The Māṅgallu plates of the Eastern Chāḷukyan king Amma II Vijayāditya VI (A.D. 945-970) mention also eighteen *tīrthas* including the *mantrin*, *sēnāpati*, and *yuvarāja*,³ whilst the inscriptions of his elder brother Dānārṇava and his descendants refer to the *dauvārika*, *pradhāna*, and *adhyaksha* in addition to the other ministers cited above.⁴ Though some of the ministers included among the eighteen *tīrthas* are mentioned in the Kākatīya inscriptions, it is not possible, for lack of definite proof, to state whether the institution as such actually flourished under the Kākatīyas.

v2.c15.s3.t4.6.5

It seems probable, however, that the Kākatīya ministers constituted a council or cabinet, for in the course of his daily routine, the king, according to the *Purushārthasāram*, should regularly join his ministers and deliberate with them on the affairs of the state.⁵ Another institution which deserves notice in this context is that of the *niyōgas*. Officials of all classes who were in the employ of the court—both civil and military officers and the royal household—were divided into *niyōgas* or categories, seventy-two in number, referred to collectively as *bāhattara*. They were under the supervision of a high-ranking officer of State called the bāhattara-niyōg-ādhipati. This is an ancient office going back to the early Chālukyan period. We find the niyōg-ādhikṛita mentioned in Eastern Chālukyan inscriptions as early as the time of Amma I.¹ This niyōg-ādhikṛita is indeed the fore-runner of the bāhattara-niyōg-ādhipati of later Western Chālukyan times. The Kākatīyas who in the early phase of their history were feudatories of the later Western Chālukyas, inherited the classification of officials into niyōgas from their overlords with other political institutions. Gaṇapati appointed the Kāyastha chief Gaṅgaya Sāhiṇi to this important office in A.D.

v2.c15.s3.t4.6.6

1251, and bestowed on him the territory extending from Pānugal in the Nalgonda district to the fort of Kaivāram in the Kolar district.² Subsequent to his death Indulūri Gannaya, son of Gaṇapaya,³ and after him the Kāyastha chief Tripurāri or Tripurāntaka and Mahāpradhāna Pōmkala Mallaya Preggaḍa held this office under Rudramadēvi.⁴ What exactly the functions of the bāhattara-niyōg-ādhipati were is not definitely known. Whether he was a mere titular dignitary, or an officer ranking only below the king and wielding enormous power, cannot be ascertained in the present state of knowledge.

v2.c15.s3.t4.7

² *AR*, 411 of 1893; *SII*, iv, 1333; *NDI*, vol. 1, Kr, 1.

v2.c15.s3.t4.8

¹ *Corpus*, 56.

v2.c15.s3.t4.9

² *Sakalanītisammatamu*, 2:373.

v2.c15.s3.t4.10

³ *AR*, Cp. 1 of 1916-17.

v2.c15.s3.t4.11

⁴ *JAHRS*, xi, p. 87, *JTA*, vol. v, p. 410, *EI*, xxix, p. 69.

v2.c15.s3.t4.12

⁵ *Sakalanītisammatamu*, 1:143.

v2.c15.s3.t4.13

¹ SII, i, 36.

v2.c15.s3.t4.14

² AR, 283 of 1905, SII, x, 332.

v2.c15.s3.t4.15

³ AR, No. 213 of 1905, SII, x, 465.

v2.c15.s3.t4.16

⁴ NDI, I. D. 1; AR, 321 of 1930-1.

v2.c15.s3.t4.17

A full and accurate description of the territorial organization of the Kākatīya kingdom is not possible, because the data available on the subject are so scanty and meagre. However a few scattered notices collected from the inscriptions show that beside the village, which was the primary basis of the whole organization, the administrative divisions fell into two main classes, the sthala and the nāḍu. The former, which was the smaller of the two, consisted of a group of villages ranging perhaps from ten to sixty in number. The Mānūru-sthala, for instance, comprised twelve villages, the Koṇḍūru-sthala eighteen, the unnamed sthala granted to Yerrama Nāyaka as his nāyaṃkara twenty-two, and the Pallināṇḍu-Gurindāla-sthala sixty.⁵

v2.c15.s3.t4.18

⁵ SII, x, 504, 509 and 521, Corpus, 53; AR, 307 of 1934-5.

v2.c15.s3.t4.19

Chadalavāḍa, Chaṇḍrūru, Gurindāla, Kavilāsam-kōṭa, Kōṭa, Kōvūru, Mahādēvicheṛla, Nandyāla, Piṅgaḷi, Rāvinūtula, Taṅgeḍa, Tēkuṃbeḍla, Induladāya, Ādara, and Velanāḍu are some of the other sthalas which are referred to incidentally in the epigraphic records.⁶ The name of an analogous sub-division called the kampaṇa is also met with here and there.⁷ Several sthalas were combined to form a nāḍu. The names of twenty nāḍus such as the Anumakoṇḍa-nāḍu, Ayija-nāḍu, Goṇḍala-nāḍu, Kamma-nāḍu, Kandūru-nāḍu, Kan-nāḍu (Kaṃ-nāḍu), Kar-nāḍu, Kusala-nāḍu, Māraṭa-nāḍu, Miṅgala-nāḍu, Muliki-nāḍu, Pāka-nāḍu, Palli-nāḍu, Poṭṭapi-nāḍu, Pūṅgi-nāḍu, Rē-nāḍu, Vela-nāḍu, Vēṅgi-nāḍu, Visari-nāḍu, and Sabbi-nāḍu are known.⁸ Beside the nāḍu, two classes of territorial divisions called ‘pāḍi’ and ‘bhūmi’ as in Mārja- (Mahārāja)-vāḍi, Moṭṭa-vāḍi, Nara-vāḍi, Nata-vāḍi, Āre-bhūmi, and Magatala-bhūmi also deserve consideration in this context.¹ The former was a survival from the past, whilst the latter occurs more frequently in the succeeding period. Some of the provinces, such as Peḍakallu, Sheḍḍem, Mudunūrikōṭa, and Gaṇḍikōṭa, seem to have taken their names from the important cities and forts situated within their respective jurisdictions.²

v2.c15.s3.t4.20

⁶ SII, x, 409, 488, 495, 500, 504, 505, Cp. 11 of 1918-19; Corpus 54, AR, 135 of 1893.

v2.c15.s3.t4.21

⁷ SII, x, 332, 343.

v2.c15.s3.t4.22

⁸ Ibid. x, 355, 370, 371, 412, 422, 442, 448, 503, 504, 506, 536.

v2.c15.s3.t4.23

¹ Ibid. x, 422, 504.

v2.c15.s3.t4.24

² SII, x, 504, 536.

v2.c15.s3.t4.25

The villages in the kingdom fell into two main classes, according as they paid taxes to the government or were exempted from such payments. To whichever of these classes they belonged, they were invariably under the rule of a body of village officials called collectively the āyagārs. The origin of this system cannot be definitely traced. When and how these bodies supplanted the old village assemblies are questions about which we have no real information; by the time when the Kākatīyas were establishing their power over the Āndhra country, the āyagārs had already taken firm root in the soil and had begun to exercise authority in all the villages throughout the land. The term āyam means ‘dimension, extent, or measure’ as of a field. The āyagārs, therefore, denote people who hold āyams or fields of a certain extent granted to them free of tax by the villagers or by the State as payment for undertaking public services. Their names varied according to the locality; but they were generally twelve in number, though this number is occasionally exceeded. They were:

v2.c15.s3.t4.26

(1) Karaṇam
(2) Peḍḍa-kāpu or Reḍḍi.
(3) Talāri
(4) Purōhit
(5) Blacksmith
(6) Goldsmith
(7) Carpenter
(8) Potter
(9) Washerman
(10) Barber
(11) Veṭṭi
(12) Shoemaker.

v2.c15.s3.t4.27

The name of Nirukaṭṭu or waterman is met with in some villages.

v2.c15.s3.t4.28

The karaṇam (like the northern paṭwāri) kept the accounts and plans of the village, called collectively guḍikaṭṭu or āyakaṭṭu, in which were set out the boundaries of each hamlet, the extent and the limits of the site, the crematorium, the lands owned by cultivators, the holders of the vṛittis and tax-free lands granted by the king to the brāhmans and to the temples, the origin and history of these, and in general everything concerning the land belonging to the village. Besides this he had to measure the extent and keep the accounts of the cultivable, the non-cultivable, and the waste lands, gardens, dry fields, and pastures. He was closely associated with the reḍḍi or peḍḍa-kāpu in the administration of the village. This reḍḍi or the peḍḍa-kāpu was the headman of the village. His main duty was to collect the taxes due to the State, as stipulated in the settlement of accounts, and he had to work in close co-operation with the karaṇam in realizing these payments. The talāri was the village policeman.

v2.c15.s3.t4.29

It was his duty to protect the life and property of the villagers; he had to watch the movements of vagabonds, wandering bands of players, dancers, &c. He was held responsible for any property that might be stolen from the villagers and he had to make good all losses sustained by them if he failed to catch the thieves and regain the stolen goods. The purōhit was the village priest; it was his duty to conduct religious rites in the houses of the villagers and to fix auspicious days for ploughing the fields and harvesting the crops. The carpenter and the blacksmith made and repaired the agricultural implements. The goldsmith assayed the coin and measured the grain during the harvest. The potter supplied pots and jars, and the washerman and the barber performed the duties pertaining to their respective professions; the veṭṭi or waterman attended to various menial tasks, kept a watch over the tank-bund, and regulated the flow of water for irrigating the fields. The shoemaker, besides making sandals for the villagers, supplied the cultivators with leather ropes and buckets for drawing water from the wells.

v2.c15.s3.t4.30

The āyagārs, in addition to the tax-free lands granted to them in lieu of money payments, received also allotments of grain called mēras from the villagers. The cultivators had to measure out to each of them a quantity of paddy or other produce for every field, kapila, or khaṇḍuga, as fixed by the custom of the village. Some of the āyagārs, especially the washerman and the barber, received doles of food on various festive occasions.

v2.c15.s3.t4.31

It is evident from the duties of the āyagārs described above that they were primarily the servants of the village rather than of the government. Indeed most of the āyagārs, all in fact excepting the karaṇam, reḍḍi, and talāri, had no direct connexion with the State. In the tax-free villages granted to brāhmans, temples, and other religious and charitable foundations, the first three, namely the karaṇam, the reḍḍi, and the talāri, were also freed from any obligations of direct service to the government; they had instead to serve the mahājana-sabhas of the agrahāras, the sthānikas, and the committees of management in the dēvadēyas. Nevertheless, the importance of the āyagārs in the village administration should not be underrated. They served as a link between the village-folk and the government.¹

v2.c15.s3.t4.32

¹ Andhrapatrika, Ugādi Samchika, 1922, p. 157.

v2.c15.s3.t4.33

Very little is known about the government of the sthala. But the term ‘sthala-karaṇam’, which is occasionally met with in the records of the period, would seem to indicate that the sthala had its own office and staff of officials, including the karaṇam who was obviously responsible for keeping the registers pertaining to the land revenue of the district. Though several nāḍus are mentioned in inscriptions, little is known directly about their local organization. But if the nāḍu is in fact identical with the janapada of the Nītisāra, as seems probable, a few facts there related concerning this body may be of interest in this connexion. According to the Nītisāra, it is the function of the king to appoint adhikāris (superintendents or governors) of ministerial rank to govern the *janapadas*, since it is not possible for the ministers of the court to visit these personally.¹ This suggestion must not be dismissed as mere theoretical speculation, since Pratāparudra seems to have kept in mind the administrative system obtaining in his own kingdom whilst laying down these regulations; in fact, the Kākatīya provincial governors like Gaṇḍapeṇḍāra Gaṅgaya Sāhiṇi, Juṭṭaya-leṅka Goṅkā Reddi, and *Mahāpradhāna* Muppiḍi Nāyaka, who were appointed by Gaṇapati and Pratāparudra as the governors respectively of Mārja(Mahārāja)-vāḍi, and the Nellore-rājya,² seem to correspond approximately to the *adhikāris* of ministerial rank mentioned in the *Nītisāra*.

v2.c15.s3.t4.34

¹ *Sakalanītisammatamu*, I: 203.

v2.c15.s3.t4.35

² AR, 5 of 1939-40, SII, 536; NI, A, 56, Kr. 23; JOR, xii, p. 245.

Irrigation

v2.c15.s3.t5.1

The Kākatīyas like the rulers of Āndhra in all ages paid much attention to the storage of water for the purposes of agriculture, which was of course the main source of the country’s prosperity. They inherited a system of irrigation which had been in use in the land from times immemorial. The main feature of the system was the existence of a network of tanks or reservoirs in which rain-water was caught and stored for utilization in the cultivation of the soil. Excepting perhaps in the valleys and the deltas of large rivers like the Tuṅgabhadrā, the Pennār, the Kṛṣṇā, and the Gōdāvarī, where the fields derived their water supply from the channels dug from these streams, the rest of the country depended on storage tanks and on wells sunk deep in the earth. Every village in the country had one or more tanks, according to the extent of its arable land and the condition of the crops raised thereon. The village tank was usually called *cheruvu*, though its Kannaḍa equivalent ‘*kere*’ was not altogether unknown. In the case, however, of tanks constructed by persons on their own behalf or in honour of an individual or a deity, it was customary to call them after the name of the builder or donor himself, or of the individual or the deity in whose honour they had been constructed, with the suffixes ‘*samudra*’, ‘*cheruvu*’ or ‘*kere*’ attached to them.

v2.c15.s3.t5.2

Before the time of the Kākatīyas the tanks were small, the irrigation facilities were quite inadequate, and the area under cultivation was usually very limited in extent. The Kākatīyas were the first to realize that the red and sandy soil of Teliṅgaṇa, lying on a bed of granite and crystalline rock, was extremely fertile and eminently suitable for wet cultivation, though its porous character demanded a plentiful supply of water to make it fruitful and to yield sufficient grain to feed the people. They also saw that if the waters flowing down the many rivers and streams in the country could be conserved and utilized for the purposes of agriculture, wet crops could be raised on a large scale, and the economic wealth of the country greatly increased. They accordingly conceived the idea of constructing large tanks or dams in which water sufficient to irrigate vast areas of land could be stored up. The kind of tank constructed by them became very popular in later ages on account of its suitability for the country; and the rulers who succeeded them followed their example by repairing old tanks and constructing many new ones in places where they did not already exist.

v2.c15.s3.t5.3.1

It must, however, be noted here that the State undertook no direct responsibility for the construction and maintenance of irrigation works. No mention of a public-works department or of officials directly appointed with the duty of carrying out irrigation projects is to be found in any of the records of the period. The construction of a tank was regarded as an act of charity which would acquire great religious merit, and as a matter of fact the building of such tanks is included as one of the sapta-saṃtānas or seven acts of righteousness which would perpetuate the name of the doer and establish his fame permanently in the world.¹ The merit accruing from the construction of such tanks is clearly set forth in an inscription of the early 16th century which is of much interest in this connexion: ‘the Gods, men, pitṛis, the gandharvas, uragas, rākṣasas, and the permanent bhūtas, all depend on a tank. The person in whose tank men, beasts, and birds quench their thirst by drinking its water acquires the same merit as attaches to the performance of an aśvamedha. The pita of the excavator of a tank rejoices, the pitāmaha dances (with delight), and even the pitṛis of his cognates join him.’² Influenced profoundly by this belief, the kings and the sāmantas, the nobles and officials, religious leaders, merchants, and wealthy men in general all busied themselves in the construction of tanks, and thus the whole country was provided with an adequate irrigational system.

v2.c15.s3.t5.3.2

Bēta II is the first Kākatīya monarch whose name is associated in our records with the construction of tanks. He appears to have undertaken the building of two tanks called Seṭṭi-kere and Kēsari-samudra and to have performed in that connexion the ceremony of Varuṇa-pratiṣṭhā or the installation of Varuṇa, the presiding deity of the waters, to ensure that his reservoirs might always be full.³ Rudra constructed an enormous and wonderful tank in the centre of the city of Chōḍōdaya which he had destroyed.⁴ Gaṇapati, if the Pratāpacharitra can be trusted, built several tanks in different parts of his kingdom, at Nellore the Telugu Chōḷa capital in the south, at Ellore in the Kṛiṣṇā-Gōdāvarī delta, at Gaṇapuram on the banks of the Gaṅgā (i.e., the Gōdāvarī), at Gaṇapuram in the south-west of Ekaśilānagaram (Warangal), and at Vidasa to the west of the same city. Similarly, Pratāparudra is credited with the construction of a big tank somewhere in the region about Pākhal.⁵ This last statement, however, is not borne out by evidence of a trustworthy character. Even more than kings and royal personages did the nobles and officials in their service take great interest in promoting irrigation schemes. Two noble families of Teliṅgāṇa, viz. the Malyālas and the Rēcherlas, deserve special mention in this connexion, since many of the surviving tanks which secured the name of the ‘tank-district’ for the region in later ages were the fruits of their enterprise and activity.

v2.c15.s3.t5.3.3

The Chāvuṇḍa-samudram, Bācha-samudram (Bas-samudram), Gaṇapa-samudram, Kuppa-samudram, Buddhuni-kuṇṭa, Kuppāmba-kālva, Pōlreḍḍi-kālva, Reḍḍi-kālva, Dādla-kālva, and the great tank at Pākhal were all excavated by the Malyālas,¹ whilst the Sabba-samudram, Nāma-samudram, Viśvanātha-samudram, Gaura-samudram, Erra-samudram, Lakumā-samudram, Kuḍikuḍiya-cheruvu, Katyāre-cheruvu, Nērēḍla-cheruvu, Erramarāju-kuṇṭa were constructed by the Rēcherlas.² In the South, the Kāyastha princes, especially Ambadēva and his subordinates, similarly increased the prosperity of the country by providing it with fresh irrigation facilities. Ghōḍeyarāya Gaṅgayadēva, the famous mahāpradhāna of Ambadēva, caused two tanks called Amba-samudram to be excavated in the name of his master at Bali(Ōbali) and Uṭukūru respectively. He also had a canal called Rāyasahasramalla-kālva dug from the bed of the river (Cheyyēru) at Lēmbāka, and another named Gaṇḍapeṇḍāra-kālva excavated at Tāḍlapāka.³ And again Śāntaśiva Dēśika, the rāyaguru, caused a tank called Gaṇapa-samudram to be constructed at Gaṇapāpuram.⁴

v2.c15.s3.t5.4

¹ Corpus, 56, Tel. Ins. Kāk, 6, 57.

v2.c15.s3.t5.5

² LR, 48, p. 72.

v2.c15.s3.t5.6

³ Corpus, 5.

v2.c15.s3.t5.7

⁴ Ibid. 5.

v2.c15.s3.t5.8

⁵ JTA, vii, pp. 140-2, 289.

v2.c15.s3.t5.9

¹ Corpus, 8, 50, 52.

v2.c15.s3.t5.10

² Ibid. 17, 28, 31, 38, 41, 42, 43.

v2.c15.s3.t5.11

³ SII, x, 448.

v2.c15.s3.t5.12

⁴ Ibid. x, 400.

v2.c15.s3.t5.13

Information regarding the way in which the tanks were built is indeed very scanty; different methods were doubtless employed varying with the terrain and locality.

v2.c15.s3.t5.14

The most important piece of work in the construction of a tank was always the erection of an embankment strong enough to withstand the pressure of the water impounded in it. This was a comparatively easy task and naturally involved less trouble and expense in the hilly tracts than in level country. Whereas in mountainous country a group of hills could be easily joined together, as for instance at Buddhapuri, by means of a bund made of stones piled on one another,⁵ it was necessary in the level plain to throw up earth banks all round the tank bed. In some places rows of trees called kaṭṭava were planted on or by the side of the tank-bund, evidently with a view to adding to its strength.⁶ Unfortunately no details of the means adopted by the tank builders in the accomplishment of their task are described in any records of which we have knowledge. There is reason to believe that, in some cases at least, they directly employed labourers and paid them wages in cash. In an inscription dated Śaka 1215 (A.D. 1293) at Tripurāntakam in the Kurnool district, it is stated that the construction of a tank called Kumāra-samudram involved an expenditure of 241 māḍas whilst two other tanks, both named Tripurā-samudram, cost 7-7 māḍas and 156 māḍas respectively.⁸ The items of expenditure mentioned in this record were obviously incurred for the payment of wages to the labourers employed in the work of constructing the said tanks. But doubtless the practice of *daśabandha*, so popular with the tank-builders of the age of the Rāyas of Vijayanagara, cannot have been altogether unknown in the earlier period. According to this method the construction of the tanks was entrusted to persons who had to execute the work and to maintain the tank in good repair after its completion at their own expense. As a set-off they were granted tax-free one tenth of the area of the land irrigated by the tanks constructed by them, as a remuneration for their work. There is, however, no direct evidence to show that this practice was prevalent in the Kākatīya times.

v2.c15.s3.t5.15

⁵ Corpus, 52.

v2.c15.s3.t5.16

⁶ Ibid. 43.

v2.c15.s3.t5.17

⁷ Second figure effaced.

v2.c15.s3.t5.18

⁸ SII, x, 475.

v2.c15.s3.t5.19

Rain was no doubt the sole source from which most of the tanks derived their water supply. Water collected during the monsoon in the catchment area flowed into the tanks through streamlets called *vāgus*. Tanks situated in the vicinity of the rivers were fed from them by means of canals excavated for the purpose. The Mūsēṭi-*kālva*, the Immarṅgaḍi-*kālva* from the Pērakamma, the Kṛṣṇavēṇi-*kālva* dug by the Reḍḍi of Penumbāka, the Antargaṅga-*kālva* from the Cheyyēṟu excavated by Ghōḍeyarāya Gaṅgayadēva at Lēmbāka, &c., referred to in the inscriptions of the period, probably conveyed the waters of the said rivers to the tanks of the neighbouring villages.¹ The mention of *āna-kālva* and *kaṭṭuṅgommu-kālva*,² signifying temporary embankments of earth and stones, called *ānas* and *kaṭṭuṅgommus*, shows that the rivers and streams were dammed and canals were dug from them to lead the water into tanks or directly to the fields under cultivation. Subsoil water, from springs and *ūṭa-kālvas* or canals dug deep into the earth, was also utilized to fill the tanks in certain areas. The mention in an inscription from Teliṅgāṇa of an *ūṭa-taṭāka* and of the plentiful rice crops in the fields fed by a canal from it proves that tanks of this description were also found in the interior.³ Tanks were provided with sluices, and canals were dug from them to carry water to the fields; the mention of canals such as Kūchinēni-*kālva*, Loṃtali-*kālva*, Ravi-*kālva*, Uttamagaṃḍa-*kālva*, Bommakaṇṭi-*kālva*, Prōlreḍḍi-*kālva*, Reḍḍi-*kālva*, Dāḍla-*kālva*, Meḍavirupuṃ-*gālva*, Maddi-maḍḍi-*kālva*, Rāyasahasramalla-*kālva*, and Gaṃḍapeṇḍāra-*kālva*,⁴ all of which are found in the records, may properly be noted here since they provide striking evidence of the efforts made by the people of that age to promote agriculture and to increase the produce of the soil.

v2.c15.s3.t5.20

¹ *Corpus*, 29; *SII*, x, 395, 448.

v2.c15.s3.t5.21

² Ibid. 18; *SII*, x, 395.

v2.c15.s3.t5.22

³ Ibid. 2.

v2.c15.s3.t5.23

⁴ Ibid. 18, 31, 35, 42, 52; *SII*, x, 395, 448.

Land Reclamation

v2.c15.s3.t6.1

Besides providing irrigation facilities for the improvement of agriculture, the Kākatīya monarchs, especially Pratāparudra, attempted to increase the extent of cultivable land by cutting down forests and bringing large tracts of fresh territory under the plough. Local tradition preserved in the *kaifiyats* of several villages in what is at present known as the Rāyalasīma refer to the deforestation of much of this country by command of Pratāparudra and to the foundation of new villages on land they reclaimed from woodland and wild jungle. When Pratāparudra reached Kochcherlakōṭa in the north of the Nellore district during the course of his campaign against the Kāyastha chief Ambadēva, he ordered Irugappa Kēti Nāyaka, one of the officers in his service, to cut down the forests which then covered the neighbouring country and to build there the village of Duppipāḍu, modern Dūpāḍu, which in the course of time became the headquarters of a district of that name; an officer of the king's suite called Śrīnātharāju of Anumakoṇḍa was placed in charge of this township. The country to the west of the Śrīśaila mountain corresponding to a large part of the existing Nandikotkur *tāluk* of the Kurnool district of to-day was also at that time covered by dense woods which were cleared at the instance of the king, and several new villages were founded in the open spaces thus created; these in like manner were placed in charge of a kshatriya chief, Siri Siṅgaḷarāja, who had migrated with his wife Siri Nāguladēvī from Kalyāṇi in the north. Viḍemu Kommaya, to whom Pratāparudra had granted the territory in the neighbourhood of Kurnool as *nāyamkara*, felled the trees and established Nāgalūṭi near Dāmēgaṭla and several other villages in that region on land thus made available. Similar accounts are related in the *kaifiyats* regarding the foundation of a large number of villages in the Cuddapah and the Kurnool districts; these all bear testimony to the real and intense interest taken by Pratāparudra in increasing the economic resources of his kingdom.

v2.c15.s3.t6.2

But the establishment of new villages in the forest clearings proved to be a hard task fraught with many difficulties. It was not always easy to find suitable settlers who would consent to be transplanted to form the new communities. The government did not itself undertake this work; it was left to the efforts of enterprising farmers chartered by the State who would visit villages in their neighbourhood and gather together bands of men eager to break loose from the entanglements of the joint family, and to set themselves up in independent homesteads. The government also encouraged such movements by granting special privileges to the emigrants. They were allowed to cultivate the land at first for a term of three years free from the payment of any rent or fiscal charges; from the fourth year onwards taxes were levied at low rates which were gradually raised year by year until they came up to the level of those obtaining in the older established villages of the vicinity.

v2.c15.s3.t6.3

After recruiting families willing to move, the selection of the village site was the next important step: a suitable place provided with a good supply of water was chosen; the presiding deity was then installed in a temple, and a festival called *urumu* was held in his or her honour. Then the houses for the new settlers were erected; the *āyakaṭ* (the extent and the details of the fields, &c.) of the village was determined, and the *āyagārs*, that is, the twelve village officers, were appointed. After this the land was parcelled out among the settlers according to the *visabadi*, and the cultivable fields were plotted. With the construction of a tank to store water for irrigating the fields, the formation of the village was finally completed.

Taxation

v2.c15.s3.t7.1

Very little is known about the incidence of taxation during the Kākatīya period, though the names of many taxes are mentioned in the inscriptions of that period. The main source of government revenue was the taxation of agriculture, the chief and most important occupation of the people. Next to it in value came charges levied on trade and industry and last but not least were the assessments of forests and pasture lands on their yield of timber and the value of grazing rights. Taxes were collected by regular officials (both from the sources of income mentioned above and from a number of others). Some of these taxes were conventional and customary and had been in existence in a long time before the appearance of the Kākatīya dynasty. *Darśanamu*, *appanamu*, and *upakriti* were such traditional and accepted charges,¹ of which the first had to be paid to the king when visiting him on important occasions such as festivals and State ceremonials. This custom of offering presents to the king in kind or in cash at the time of *darśan* (seeing him) and of paying him *kānikas* in money on State occasions remained in vogue till very recent times, in the Native States. *Upakriti* was another offering consecrated by long usage, paid not only to the king but also to the officials of the State. Gifts thus offered in acknowledgement of some benevolent action on the part of the ruler were known as *upakriti*. They may be regarded as a kind of customary tax levied by the government on villagers or townsmen in return for some kind of service, permanent or temporary, performed for their benefit.

First 87 of 233 passages. Read on

Linked texts (42)