The Early History of the Deccan (Parts I–XI) v2.c15.s3.t2: Military Organization

The Early History of the Deccan (Parts I–XI) v2.c15.s3.t2

Language: English

v2.c15.s3.t2.1 — 3 parts

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.

Linked texts (1)

South Indian Inscriptions