Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Early History of the Deccan (Parts I–XI) v2.c15.s3.t4: The Government

The Early History of the Deccan (Parts I–XI) v2.c15.s3.t4

Language
English

Contents

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.

Cites (3)