Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Administration and Social Life under Vijayanagar c10: Chapter VI

Administration and Social Life under Vijayanagar c10

Language
English

Contents

Chapter VI

c10.1

The Extent of the Empire

c10.2

Vijayanagar, the last of the great Hindu empires in South India, was larger than any other that had flourished before except the empire of the Cōḷas from the time of Rāja Rāja I to that of Kulōttuṅga. In the days of Dēva Rāya II the empire had reached almost its zenith. It held sway over the whole of South India except certain portions on the west coast and the extreme north-eastern parts of the present Madras presidency. Discussing the extent of the empire under Dēva Rāya II, Abdur Razāk observes that "extended from the borders of Sarandip to those of Kulburga and from Bengal to Malibār, a space of more than 1,000 parasangs."¹

c10.3

¹ Elliot, Hist. of Ind., IV, p. 105.

c10.4

In the north-west the empire had reached the limits of Goa even by A.D. 1391. A copy of a copper plate grant found in the archives of the Torre do Tombo in Lisbon records the execution of a grant by the chief of Goa in A.D. 1391 in the name of "Virahariar" king of Vijayanagar, the suzerain.² A record in the Honavali taluk in the Shimoga district mentions one Vīra Vasanta Mādhavarāya as the Govāpura varādhīśvara (lord of the good city of Goa).³ Thus even by 1391 Goa had been brought under the Vijayanagar sway. Kumāra Kampaṇa, the son of Bukka I, extended the frontiers of the Vijanagar empire in the south. He defeated the Śambuvarāya, the ruler of the Paḍaivīḍu kingdom, exterminated the Sultanate of Madura further south, and added these territories to the Vijayanagar empire. In 1385 Virūpākṣa, the son of Harihara II, conquered the island of Ceylon and extended the empire over the whole of South India.⁴ After the conquest of these portions of South India, Madura was made the headquarters of a separate governorship; and the governor of this part of the empire came to be called ‘Lord of the Southern Ocean’. The first governor who appeared with that designation was Lakkaṇṇa Daṇḍanāyaka who was the Prime Minister of Dēva Rāya II.⁵ An inscription at Nagar in the Chingleput district credits Dēva Rāya with having levied tribute from Ceylon (Īḷam tirai koṇḍa).⁶ Nuniz definitely states that Dēva Rāya II levied tribute not only from Ceylon but also from Coullāo (Quilon), Puleacate (Pulicat), Peguu (Pegu), and Tennaçary (Tennasserim).⁷ But the fortunes of the empire ebbed and flowed. When there were weak kings at the centre foreign rulers like the Gajapatis and the Bahmani Sultans made incursions into the Vijayanagar empire and took possession of big slices of it. During the period of the Sāḷuvas, the Gajapatis conquered a portion of the modern Nellore district, and Gaṅgarāja of Ummattūr revolted. Hence Kṛṣṇadēva Rāya applied himself to the task of reconquering many of the lost territories. Ummattūr was brought under his sway. The Gajapati was defeated, and by the treaty concluded subsequently with him the river Kṛṣṇā was made the boundary between the Vijayanagar dominions and the Gajapati kingdom. Raicūr, the bone of contention between the Hindu kings of the south and the Bahmani Sultans of the north, was taken. Kṛṣṇadēva Rāya led an expedition even to the distant Ceylon.⁸ The empire thus reached its farthest limit under him.

c10.5

² Sewell, op. cit., p. 45, fn. 2. It was copied in A.D. 1532 and translated into Portuguese.

c10.6

³ E.C., VII, Hn. 71.

c10.7

⁴ See E.I., III, pp. 224-230; H. W. Codrington, A Short History of Ceylon, pp. 84-85.

c10.8

⁵ 141 of 1903; 566 and 567 of 1904; Rep., 1905, para 31.

c10.9

⁶ 144 of 1916; Rep., para 60.

c10.10

⁷ Sewell, op. cit., para 302

c10.11

⁸ 146 of 1903; Rep., 1904, para 23.

c10.12

About the extent of the empire under Kṛṣṇadēva Rāya, Paes says: “This kingdom of Narsymga has three hundred graos of coast each grao being a league, along the hill range (serra) . . . . . . . until you arrive at Ballagate and Charamāodel (i.e., Cōḷamaṇḍala) which belong to this kingdom; and in breadth it is one hundred and sixty-four graos; each large grao measures two of our leagues, so that it has six hundred leagues of coast, and across it three hundred and forty eight leagues . . . across from Batacalla (Bhatkal) to the kingdom of Orya (Orissa).

c10.13

“And this kingdom marches with all the territory of Bengal, and on the other side with the kingdom of Orya, which is to the east, and on the other side to the north, with the kingdom of Dakhan, belonging to which are the lands which the Ydallcao (Ādil Shāh) has.....”⁹

c10.14

⁹ Sewell, op. cit., p. 239.
10. 40 of 1897 : see M. E. R., 1900, Rep. para 70
11. Sewell, op. cit., p. 302.

c10.15

Under Acyuta too the empire was held intact. The rebellion of Tumbicci Nāyakan of the Tiruvaḍi kingdom was put down. An inscription states that Acyuta took Ceylon.10 Nuniz states that the rulers of Ceylon, Pegu and Tenasserim paid tribute to the emperor.11 But in the north he seems to have lost a small portion of his empire. During the reign of Sadāśiva, the extent of the Vijayanagar empire was greater than before. Rāma Rāja exacted tribute at least from the Sultans of Bijapur and Golkoṇḍa. Even after the battle of Rakṣas Taṅgḍi the Vijayanagar empire did not dwindle in extent, though it suffered a set back.

c10.16

Thus in the heyday of its glory the Vijayanagar empire comprised all India south of the river Kṛṣṇā. But in the west coast there were some small kingdoms which were independent of Vijayanagar. Barbosa says that on account of the high mountains which separated Malabar from the main territory, the Vijayanagar sovereigns could not conquer them.¹² Thus Calicut was independent of Vijayanagar, and in 1510 after the repulse of Albuquerque by the Zamorin of the place, Kṛṣṇadēva Rāya was induced to attack Calicut, for the Portuguese and the Zamorin were not very friendly.¹³ Abdur Razāk too states that the Sumeri of Calicut was not a subordinate of Vijayanagar, but paid it respect and dreaded it because of its power.¹⁴ The inclusion of Calicut by Nuniz as a tributary of Vijayanagar “cannot be considered as proving anything except ordinary diplomatic relations.” 15

c10.17

¹² Barbosa, I, pp. 198-99.

c10.18

¹³ Commentaries, VI, p. 73.

c10.19

¹⁴ Elliot, op. cit., IV, p. 103
15. Sewell, op. cit., pp. 122 and 374; See Barbosa, I, p. 199, fn.

Section II. The Divisions of the Empire

c10.s1.2

The Vijayanagar kings paid great attention to the administrative arrangement of their vast empire. For purposes of efficient administration they divided it into many provinces generally known as rājyas and sometimes vaguely as maṇḍalas. Even so early as in the days of Harihara I and Bukka, the divisions of the empire are mentioned in the inscriptions. On the eastern side of the empire was the Udayagiri rājya which included the present Nellore and Cuddapah districts.¹⁶ A little to its west was the Penugoṇḍa rājya.¹⁷ To the south of it was the Candragiri rājya.¹⁸ Adjoining it was the Paḍaivīḍu kingdom which comprised portions of the modern North Arcot and Chingleput districts.19 The Tiruvadi rājya which included portions of the South Arcot, North Arcot and Salem districts lay to the south of the Paḍaivīḍu kingdom.20 Another division in the Viijayanagar empire was the Muḷuvāyi rājya which took its name from Mulbagal, its headquarters and was during the Vijayanagar period generally the Viceregal seat of the government of the eldest son of the reigning king. It included portions of the modern districts of Kōlār, Salem, North Arcot and Chittore.²¹ Parts of the modern Shimoga and South Canara districts constituted what was called Śāntalige 1,000.22 A little above this was the province of Āraga with its capital at Candraguṭṭi or Guṭṭi and comprised a good portion of the modern districts of Shimoga and North Canara. The Tuḷuva country formed another province of the Vijayanagar empire, and had for its capital Mangalore.²³ Though these were the main divisions of the empire in the latter half of the fourteenth century, it is likely a few more were added to them with the rapid expansion and consolidation of the empire.

c10.s1.3

¹⁶ E.I., III, p. 24.

c10.s1.4

¹⁷ E.C., X, Bg. 10.

c10.s1.5

¹⁸ Ibid., Bg. 70.
19. 255 of 1909; M.A.R., 1919, para 93; Cp. 7 of 1914-15.
20. 118 of 1897; 426 of 1909.

c10.s1.6

²¹ E.C., X, Intro., p. xxxiv; 196 of 1910; 324 of 1912
22. E.C., VII, Tl. 154.

c10.s1.7

²³ A.S.R., 1907-08, p. 237, fn. 7.

c10.s1.8

In their turn these provinces were divided into what we may call districts, taluks and villages. It is from the inscriptions that we learn of such divisions; but they refer to different divisions for different purposes, and since many of them are referred to in one and the same epigraph without any order or sequence, it is difficult to see what division is meant by a particular name. The divisions that are referred to in the inscriptions are valanāḍu, kōṭṭam, paṭṭaka, visaya nirvṛtti venthe, nāḍu, śīme, kharvaṭam.

c10.s1.9

sthalam, parru, aimbadin mēlagaram, cāvaḍi, and so on. An epigraph mentions that a village, of Kuṇrattūr, was in Perumbākkaśīrmai in Tirukkaḷukkuṉrapparru in Mugandūrnāḍu, a subdivision of Āmūr kōṭṭam, a district of Paḍaivīḍu rājya in Jayaṅgoṇḍacōḷamaṇḍalam,²⁴ while another mentions a few villages in the Muḍiyaṉūr parru in the Vaḷudilambaṭṭuccāvaḍi, a subdivision of Korukkai kūrram, a district of Meykuṉravaḷanāḍu in Magadaimaṇḍalam. The beginning of the inscription states that it was on the southern bank of the river Peṇṇār in the Tiruvadi rājyam in Magadai maṇḍalam.²⁵ According to an inscription at Upparapalli in the Cuddapah district, the Cennūri śīme and the Poṭḷadurti śīme are said to have been included in Mulikanāḍu, a subdivision of Gandikōṭa śīme, which formed part of the Udayagiri rājya.²⁶ Here we see a śīme within a śīme. An inscription in the Sidlaghaṭṭa taluk of the Kōlār district states that the village of Kamanahaḷḷi in the Aramana sthala was situated in the Kōlāla śīme which was attached to the Bēlūr cāvaḍi.²⁷ On the other hand the Kōḍambaḷḷi śīme is said to have belonged to Cannapaṭṇa in the Poyśana nāḍ.²⁸

c10.s1.10

²⁴ 255 of 1909.

c10.s1.11

²⁵ 66 of 1906.

c10.s1.12

²⁶ 326 of 1905.

c10.s1.13

²⁷ E.C., X, Sd. 15.

c10.s1.14

²⁸ E.C., IX, Cn. 52.

c10.s1.15

Thus the fact that these divisions are not mentioned in any order necessitates an examination of the question what each of them indicated. The first among such divisions which deserves some examination is the maṇḍalam. A few of the maṇḍalams are the Jayaṅgoṇḍacōḷamaṇḍalam, Nigariliśōḷamaṇḍalam, Toṇḍaimaṇḍalam, Magadaimaṇḍalam and Cōḷamaṇḍalam. Originally political divisions under the Cōḷas, they continued to be so called in later times though they no longer constituted any regular political division. From the point of view of size, the maṇḍalam was bigger than a rājya, the regular division of the Vijayanagar empire. Though there are inscriptions which mention governors over these rājyas, there is not one epigraph in the Vijayanagar period which mentions a ruler or governor who was in charge of a maṇḍalam. The mention of a particular district or place as having been situated in a particular maṇḍalam was too conventional and old to have had any political significance in the Vijayanagar days; and in this connection it may be remarked that even in the modern day in South India, these maṇḍalams are mentioned though they have absolutely no connection with the political divisions of the day.

c10.s1.16

Next to the maṇḍalam came the rājya, which was the biggest political division in the Vijayanagar empire. The division of the empire into rājyas depended more upon historical accidents and local peculiarities than any deliberate and scientific principle followed by the government. The Paḍaivīḍu kingdom which was taken from the Śambuvarāya chief was retained as a province by the Vijayanagar emperors. After the conquest of the Madura Sultanate, Madura was made the headquarters of a new governorship. The Tiruvadi rājya which had grown out of the ashes of the Cōḷa empire was made a province. Such divisions which were formed on the basis of historical accidents could not have been of equal dimensions. When the rājya was large in size or was of special importance owing to some reason or other, it was perhaps called a mahārājya. Candragiri, Paḍaivīḍu and Āraga were mahārājyas.²⁹ The mahārājya and rājya can be compared to the major and minor provinces into which British India at the present day is divided. In the Kanarese districts a division called the pīṭhika (throne) appears to have existed. If a surmise is possible we can say the rājya was also known by that name.³⁰ It appears the number of rājyas within the empire varied from time to time. Some of them seem to have been created as the exigencies of the administration required. Similarly some of them were reduced in importance. Thus for instance Guṭṭi, which was a rājya in the early years of Kṛṣṇarāya’s reign,³¹ is mentioned as a subdivision of Penugoṇḍa rājya in A.D. 1529.³²

c10.s1.17

²⁹ E.I., III, p. 119; ibid., XIV, p. 313; E.C., VIII, Tl. 206.

c10.s1.18

³⁰ E.C., X, Sd. 94.

c10.s1.19

³¹ S.I.I., IV, No. 802; E.C., XII, Mi. 64.

c10.s1.20

³² 332 of 1926.

c10.s1.21

In the Tamil districts the rājya was in its turn divided into districts called kōṭṭams, at times also known as kūrrams. But in certain parts of the empire above the kūrram was a division called a vaḷanāḍu.³³ The kōṭṭam was divided into nāḍus which can be compared to the modern taluks. Rural parts in such nāḍus seem to have been called parru. But the exact connotation of the term is not clear, for it seems to have been used in different senses. According to an inscription at Tirumalai, the village of Śambukulapperumāḷ Agrahāram or Rājagambhīrā caturvēdimaṅgalam was situated in Murumaṅgalaparru in Maṇḍaikuḷanāḍu in Palakuṇrakōṭṭam in Jayaṅgoṇḍaśōḷamaṇḍalam,³⁴ while according to another epigraph a particular caturvēdimaṅgalam is said to have been situated in a nāḍu which was in a parru or district that formed a division of a kōṭṭam in the same Jayaṅgoṇḍaśōḷamaṇḍalam.35 Thus, according to one inscription, below a nāḍu, the division of a kōṭṭam, there was one division called the parru, while according to another the parru was a division bigger than a nāḍu and smaller than a kōṭṭam. This inconsistency in the order of these divisions makes us suspect if by the term parru any political division was meant. Parru may simply mean a rural area or a portion of a particular area which might have been made up of many villages.

c10.s1.22

³³ Saletore doubts if the term vaḷanāḍu was used outside the Toṇḍaimaṇḍalam (Soc. and Pol. Life, I, p. 295, fn. 7). But that it was in vogue in other parts of the empire is indicated by a few inscriptions. One of them states that it was a division in the Magadaimaṇḍalam also (66 of 1906; 740 of 1909), and another mentions the Rājēndraśōḷavaḷanāḍu in the Nigariliśōḷamaṇḍalam (E.C., IX, Bg. 59). Saletore also thinks that the vaḷanāḍu was

c10.s1.23

³⁴ 87 of 1887; see also 740 of 1909.
35. 319 of 1911.
36. 73 of 1888.
37. 386 of 1905.

c10.s1.24

The nāḍus were divided into aimbadin mēlagarams or units of fifty villages. Every such unit had a chief village; for example Vaḷudilambaṭṭu-uśāvaḍi was the chief place in a division of fifty villages.36 Below this came the agarams or maṅgalams which constituted smaller administrative units. To each of these units were attached a few villages which were called piḍāgai in the Tamil districts.

c10.s1.25

A large number of villages in the Tamil districts are known by the name taṉiyūr. Kāvēripākkam, otherwise known as Vikramaśōḷacaturvēdimaṅgalam, in the present North Arcot district, was a taṉiyūr in the Paḍuvūr kōṭṭam.37 Tiruvāmāttūr in the South Arcot district was a taṉiyūr in the Vavalūr nāḍu,38 while Uttaramērūr alias Rājēndraśōḷacaturvēdimaṅgalam was a taṉiyūr

c10.s1.26

a smaller division than a kōṭṭam. But though there are a few inscriptions which mention that a valanāḍu was a part of a kōṭṭam (E.I., III, p. 119), yet there are still others which mention the kōṭṭam as a division of a valanāḍu (see 740 of 1909; 66 of 1906). To add to the difficulty an epigraph says that a kōṭṭam and a valanāḍu indicated the same division (319 of 1911). Hence it is difficult to decide its relation with the kōṭṭam from the point of view of size.

c10.s1.27

in the Kaliyūr kōṭṭam of the Toṇḍaimaṇḍalam. The exact meaning of the term is hard to find. It seems to have been an independent administrative unit for political purposes, and its status must have been at least equal to that of any large subdivision in the empire. That such could have been the position of the taṉiyūr in those days is not difficult to comprehend when we see for instance in the modern day that a city like Madras has got an independent status at least equal to that of a district on account of its population and importance. The taṉiyūr might have had a local treasury and can be compared to a modern kaspā.

c10.s1.28

Turning to the Karṇāṭaka districts we get reference to a larger number of subdivisions of the empire. We find new names denoting new divisions. As in the Tamil districts, there were rājyas in the Karṇāṭaka districts. Sometimes they were called pīṭhikas or thrones. According to an inscription in the Sidlaghaṭṭa taluk of the Kōlār district there was one Śaḍali pīṭhika which included the Mukkuṇḍa veṇṭhe.³⁹

c10.s1.29

³⁹ E.C., X. Sd. 94.

c10.s1.30

The next important division was the veṇṭhe variously known as viṣaya and nirvr̥tti.⁴⁰ It seems to have taken the place of the kōṭṭam of the Tamil inscriptions. These districts were divided into sīmes. For instance Tekkallapāḍu is said to have been in the Addaṅka-sīme of the Kamma viṣaya.⁴¹

c10.s1.31

⁴⁰ E.C., VIII, Tl. 9 ; 186 of 1897 ; E.I.. XIII, p. 11 ; E.I., III, p. 229 ; E.C., X, Bg. 70. Though we may doubt the accuracy of the historical details contained in the inscriptions, it is possible that such terms as these were in use in those days. But according to the Madras Museum Plates of Śrīgiri Bhūpāla, a nirvr̥tti was a larger division than a kōṭṭam (see E.I., VIII, p. 315).

c10.s1.32

⁴¹ E.I., XIII, p. 11.

c10.s1.33

Next to the sīme came the sthala which was made up of a few villages. A record of A.D. 1589 in the Hiriyūr taluk of the Chitaldrug district mentions a few sthalas and the number of villages each of them contained. The following is the list given in it :⁴²

c10.s1.34

⁴² E.C., XI, Hr. 88.

c10.s1.35

| Hiriyūr | sthala | 53 | villages | Lakkihaḷḷi | sthala | 7 | villages |
| Beggaṇāḍu | ,, | 11 | ,, | Basapaṭṭaṇa | ,, | 14 | ,, |
| Hośūr | ,, | 21 | ,, | Aralihaḷḷi | ,, | 3 | ,, |
| Gavuḍanahaḷḷi | ,, | 10 | ,, | Tavanidhihaḷḷi | ,, | 12 | ,, |
| Kurubarahaḷḷi | ,, | 13 | ,, | Bukkapaṭṭaṇa | ,, | 26 | ,, |
| | | | | Ikkanūr | ,, | 11 | ,, |

c10.s1.36

Thus there does not seem to have been any definite rule regarding the number of villages that should be in a sthala. Some inscriptions mention a sthala and a sīme of the same name. An epigraph in the Dōd Ballapūr taluk of the Bangalore district mentions for instance the Tippūr sīme and the Tippūr sthala.⁴³ Here it would appear that Tippūr not only lent its name to a bigger administrative division but also to a smaller one, as in the modern day Chingleput not only constitutes a district but also a taluk, a smaller unit. It appears that the sthala came to be called later by the name sammat or samuta.⁴⁴ Under the Aravīḍu rulers there appears another division called the hobaḷi which was made up of a few villages; and perhaps this was a division that took the place of the sthala and the sammat.⁴⁵

c10.s1.37

⁴³ E.C., IX, Db. 42.

c10.s1.38

⁴⁴ E.C., III, Nj. 10 ; XI, Hr. 36.

c10.s1.39

⁴⁵ E.C., X, Mr. 57.

c10.s1.40

In certain parts of the Kanarese districts a division called the kampaṇa took the place of the sthala. Where such a division was made the province was divided into eighteen districts or kampaṇas as in the case of the Goa-Guṭṭi (Candragiri) kingdom.⁴⁶

c10.s1.41

⁴⁶ E.C., VII, Sk. 282 ; E.C., VIII, Sb.

c10.s1.42

The sthalas seem to have been subdivided into nāḍukas and vaḷitas, or vaṇitas or vantyas. The Daḷavāy Agrahāram plates mention that Gaṅgavarapaṭṭi was included in the Hastināvati vaḷita and was situated in the Neduṅgula nāḍuka in the Ālaṅguḷa sthala which belonged to the Dhārāpura vantya.⁴⁷ But this order is reversed in a few cases. According to an inscription Kurugōḍaśīme was a subdivision of the Muganāḍu veṇṭhe which was a part of Hastināvati vaḷita.48 The reason for this change of order is hard to find; and hence the difficulty in finding out the exact nature of the division.

c10.s1.43

⁵¹ Regarding the kampaṇa Fleet says: "Kampaṇa is a convertible term with ‘bāḍa’ in its second meaning of a circle of towns constituting an administrative post . . . ‘bāḍa’ is a tadbhava corruption of the Sanskrit ‘vāṭa’, an enclosure of a town or village, fence, wall, hedge, etc. . . . Kampaṇa is probably another form of the Canarese Kampala, Kampilu, a cluster, heap, assemblage, multitude, etc." (Ind. Ant., IV. p. 211 fn. and p. 329 fn.)

c10.s1.44

⁴⁷ E.I., XII, p. 187.
48. 212 of 1913; see Cp. 1 of 1914-15 for another reference to the vaḷita.

c10.s1.45

We meet with a few other names of divisions in the empire. The māgaṇi or the puramāgaṇi was one. We hear for instance of the Śāntalige māgaṇi in the Āraga kingdom.⁴⁹ But it appears to be a general term and carries no special significance with it; the estate given to an amara nāyaka could have been called an amara māgaṇi. Another division seems to have been known by the name of mārjavāḍa. An inscription at Rayacōṭa in the Cuddapah district mentions the mārjavāḍas of Penugoṇḍa and Udayagiri.⁵⁰ Mārjavāḍa is an abridged form of mahārājavāḍi, a district comprising the whole of the present Rāyalaśīma. The name of the district survived. In Vijayanagar times, the territory included in the old mahārājavāḍi fell under two rājyas, Penugoṇḍa and Udayagiri; hence they are occasionally referred to as Penugoṇḍa mārjavāḍi and Udayagiri mārjavāḍi. The term kharvaṭa indicated another division. Lüders thinks that it was the name of a market town.⁵¹

c10.s1.46

⁴⁹ E.C., VIII, Tl. 206.

c10.s1.47

⁵⁰ 444 of 1911.

c10.s1.48

⁵¹ E.I., VI, p. 232, fn. 9.

c10.s1.49

In certain places military and police considerations were taken into account in making the divisions of the empire. A strong fort for instance was made the nucleus of a division. It had some territory attached to it, was presided over by a durgadaṇḍanāyaka and the territory under him constituted a division for political purposes. In the Bangalore taluk, for instance, we have reference to the kingdom of the Kaṇḍanūr durga.⁵² Then again we hear of the Udayagiri durgam to which a few villages were attached.⁵³ These were perhaps analogous to the paḍaipparrus or cantonments.

c10.s1.50

⁵² E.C., IX, Cn. 150.

c10.s1.51

⁵³ 205 of 1892.

c10.s1.52

In the inscriptions there occurs the term cāvaḍi. The term literally means a “hall” or an office. To the cāvaḍi a number of villages were attached, and at times even sthalas and sīmes were attached to it. For example, the Timmasamudra village was attached to Teppada Nāgaṇṇa’s Gaḍi cāvaḍi.⁵⁴ Tirusīvamattūr sthala belonged to the Kōlāla cāvaḍi.⁵⁵ An inscription dated A.D. 1428-9 mentions Sunepuhanalūr in the Mēlmuri of Malanāḍu as a subdivision of the Rājarājaśōlanāḍu which belonged to the Tiruccirāppaḷḷi rājya or cāvaḍi.⁵⁶

c10.s1.53

⁵⁴ E.C., X, Kl. 252.

c10.s1.54

⁵⁵ E.C., IX, Ht. 121.

c10.s1.55

⁵⁶ E.I., XVII, p. 111. For a few other references for the cāvaḍi, see J.B.B.R.A.S., XII, p. 350.

c10.s1.56

In the inscriptions from the Mysore State, we find mention of a few territorial divisions as the

c10.s1.57

| Gaṅgavāḍi | .. | 96,000 |
| Banavāsi | .. | 12,000 |
| Kalaśa | .. | 3,000 or 1,000 |
| Śāntalige | .. | 1,000 |

c10.s1.58

and some others. It is difficult to find out the meaning of these numerical appellations. There were no administrative subdivisions of this type during Vijayanagar times. They were survivals of the past. Their mention in the Vijayanagar inscriptions must be attributed to the conservatism of the people.

Section III. Provincial Organisation

c10.s2.2

1. *Provincial Governors*: The part of the empire directly under the imperial sway was divided into provinces over each of which there was appointed a viceroy. Members of the royal family were generally appointed as the governors of these provinces. During the time of Harihara I, Mārappa was the ruler of the province of Āraga with its capital at Candraguṭṭi.⁵⁷ Kampaṇa I was the ruler of the Udayagiri rājya.⁵⁸ Kampaṇa, the son of Bukka, was ruling over the Muḷuvāgil kingdom (Mulbagal).⁵⁹ Virūpākṣa, the son of Harihara II, is said to have been in charge of the Tuṇḍīra, Cōḷa and Pāṇḍya countries and even conquered Ceylon,⁶⁰ while his brother Dēva Rāya was the governor of Udayagiri before he ascended the throne.⁶¹ He was succeeded by his son Rāmacandra Oḍeya who is said to have subjugated hostile kings and by his skill vanquished the Mussalmans.⁶² Vira Vijaya Rāya, another son of Dēva Rāya, was ruling the Muḷuvāgil kingdom,⁶³ and when he became the emperor he was succeeded by his son Śrigiri in the viceroyalty.⁶⁴ This practice of appointing princes of the royal house as viceroys of the provinces was followed even by the Araviḍu kings. Tirumala appointed his son Śrī Raṅga II as the viceroy of the home province, Penukoṇḍa. Formerly he had served as the viceroy of the Udayagiri rājya wherefrom he conquered Koṇḍavīḍu, Vinikoṇḍapura and other forts.⁶⁵ Rāma, another son of the emperor Tirumala, was the viceroy over the Seringapatam country.⁶⁶ Veṅkaṭa II, the fourth son of Tirumala, was governing the Tamil country with his headquarters at Candragiri with many feudatories under him.⁶⁷ The practice of the Sāḷuvas and the Tuḷuvas appears, however, to have been different. They did not appoint royal princes as governors of provinces for which two explanations are possible. The members of the royal family at a particular time were only a few, for Sāḷuva Narasiṃha had only two sons while Narasā Nāyaka had four. Even among these there was great rivalry and palace intrigue, and hence the ruling emperor did not trust the other members of the royal family with the governorships. The princes of the first Vijayanagar dynasty who were sent out as rulers of provinces assumed the title of Oḍeya or Uḍaiyār (in Tamil).

c10.s2.3

⁵⁷ E.C., VIII, Sb. 375.

c10.s2.4

⁵⁸ Nel. Ins., II, Nl. 28.

c10.s2.5

⁵⁹ E.C., X, Kl. 162 and 222.

c10.s2.6

⁶⁰ E.I., III, pp. 227 and 228.

c10.s2.7

⁶¹ Nel. Ins., II, Kn. 23.

c10.s2.8

⁶² Ibid., Cp. 1.

c10.s2.9

⁶³ E.C., X, Mb. 175.

c10.s2.10

⁶⁴ E.C., X, Bp. 15.

c10.s2.11

⁶⁵ E.I., XII, pp. 173 and 186, Daḷavāy Agrahāram Plates, vv. 23 to 26.

c10.s2.12

⁶⁶ 43 of 1915; E.C., Yl. 16; S. K. Aiyangar, Sources, p. 221.

c10.s2.13

⁶⁷ S. K. Aiyangar, ibid., p. 302.

c10.s2.14

But where it was thought desirable that some eminent officer with wide experience could fill the post with credit and to the advantage of the central government, such an officer was appointed as governor of the province. The governors thus appointed were generally known as the Daṇḍanāyakas. In their constitutional status and in their relations with the imperial house, their position appears to have been similar to that of the princes who served as provincial viceroys.

c10.s2.15

The governors of the provinces of the empire enjoyed some sort of local autonomy within their jurisdiction. They held their own courts, had their own officers, maintained their own armies and ruled their territories without being interfered with by the central authority so long as they regularly discharged their obligations to the imperial sovereign. These provincial governors, if they were members of the royal family, assumed the imperial titles belonging to their respective dynasties. In a few cases succession was hereditary in their families. Kampaṇa I, the brother of Harihara I, who was the lord of the Udayagiri rājya, was on his death succeeded to the governor’s throne by his son Saṅgama II, and in his capacity as the viceroy of the Udayagiri province, he made the Bitraguṇṭa grant.⁶⁸ These governors, whether they were princes of the royal blood or imperial officers who were assigned provinces for governing, were transferred from one province to another as exigencies demanded. Virūpaṇṇa or Virūpākṣa I, a son of Bukka, was the governor of the Āraga province. We have a few inscriptions of his belonging to the years 1362, 1367 and 1379.⁶⁹ In one inscription he is called Uddagiri Virūpaṇṇa or Udayagiri Virūpaṇṇa which indicates that he was formerly the viceroy over the Udayagiri rājya.⁷⁰ Lakkaṇṇa Daṇḍanāyaka for instance was the governor of the Mulbāgal and Tēkal provinces in 1430.⁷¹ He continued there for two years⁷² after which he was transferred to the Tuṇḍīra province over which he ruled till about 1440 with the title ‘Lord of the Southern Ocean’. In A.D. 1438 we see him making a grant from the Tiruppattūr taluk of the Ramnad district.73 In 1440 we see him in the Bārakūru rājya which shows that he was transferred to that province about that time.74 Later he seems to have been transferred again to the Madura province over which he ruled with the title “Lord of the Southern Ocean.” 75 However there does not seem to have been any time limit for a governorship, for it depended not only upon the ability of the governor but also on the local necessities. Uddagiri Virūpaṇṇa for instance was governor of the Āraga province for nearly eighteen years,⁷⁶ while Lakkaṇṇa Daṇḍanāyaka served as viceroy in different provinces for shorter terms.

c10.s2.16

⁶⁸ E.I., III, p. 21.

c10.s2.17

⁶⁹ E.C., VIII, Tl. 20, Ng. 34 and Tl. 114.

c10.s2.18

⁷⁰ Ibid., Tl. 37.

c10.s2.19

⁷¹ E.C., X, Bp. 72.

c10.s2.20

⁷² Ibid., Mr. 3 and 1.
73. 141 of 1903.
74. 128 of 1901.
75. 100 of 1911.

c10.s2.21

⁷⁶ E.C., VIII, Intro., p. xii.

c10.s2.22

Generally the governors appear to have been appointed by the king in consultation with his ministers. Thus when Mādhava-mantrin, the governor of the Banavāse province, died in 1391, Harihara II deliberated with his ministers as to who could be sent to the Banavāse province to succeed the deceased governor, and finally decided that one Naraharimantrin, a disciple of Vidyā-śaṅkara, must be sent as the governor of the province.⁷⁷

c10.s2.23

⁷⁷ J.B.B.R.A.S., IV, p. 115.

c10.s2.24

The order conveying these appointments bore the royal seal. A Kanarese inscription of Mallikārjuna Mahārāya of A.D. 1465-66 refers to one Rāmacandra Daṇṇāyaka, the *Mahāpradhāna* of the king, as administering the kingdom under royal seal.⁷⁸ The governors had their own Councils which were probably modelled on that of the emperor. From the inscriptions of the period we may surmise that these Councils consisted of the *Pradhāni*,⁷⁹ the Ōlai (secretary),⁸⁰ the *Daḷavāy* or the *Daṇḍanāyaka* as he was called in a few inscriptions,⁸¹ the treasurer,⁸² the *Sāmantādhikāri*,⁸³ and a few others. In all probability these ministers were chosen and appointed by the respective governors themselves, with the approval of the imperial authority. A few of these ministers rose to be very able administrators. Mādhavamantrin, the minister of Mārappa, was very efficient, and was to Mārappa what Bhārgava was to Śaṅkara, and he was "a pilot" to his lord "floating in the ocean of the kingdom".⁸⁴ Similarly Sōmappa Daṇḍanāyaka and Gōpaṇṇa Uḍaiyar were two outstanding personalities that helped Kumāra Kampaṇa in his arduous task of bringing South India up to Madura under the Vijayanagar rule.

c10.s2.25

⁷⁸ 376 of 1927-28.

c10.s2.26

⁷⁹ 309 of 1912.

c10.s2.27

⁸⁰ I.P.S., 707.

c10.s2.28

⁸¹ Ibid.

c10.s2.29

⁸² 309 of 1912.

c10.s2.30

⁸³ E.C., X, Mb. 58.

c10.s2.31

⁸⁴ E.C., VIII, Sb. 375.

c10.s2.32

The provincial viceroys were given the right to issue their own coins independently of the central government. Cæsar Frederick was very much struck by this system and he remarks: "When we came into a new governor's territory as every day we did, although they were all tributarie to the king of Bizeneger, yet everyone of them stamped a small coyne of copper, so that the money we took this day would not serve the next day."⁸⁵ Inscriptional evidence corroborates this statement of the foreign observer. A few *gadyāṇas* were issued from the provincial seats of Bārakūr and Maṅgaḷūr; and Krishna Sāstri concluded from this fact that the provincial viceroys were empowered to issue coins in their own names.⁸⁶ Similarly we have evidence of Lakkaṇṇa Daṇḍanāyaka, the viceroy under Dēva Rāya II, issuing coins in his own name. A copper coin of his has an elephant on the reverse and a letter ‘L’ above it, and the obverse bears the legend ‘maṇa’, ‘daṇāya’, ‘karu’ which probably stands for the name of Lakṣmaṇa Daṇḍanāyaka.⁸⁷ The provincial governors themselves had the power to grant to private individuals the right of issuing coins and owning private mints (taṅka).⁸⁸ The governors enjoyed the right to impose new taxes or remit old ones. Since they were generally held responsible only for a fixed contribution of money to the imperial house they were not interfered with in the minuter details of the incidence of taxation and the manner of collection of the taxes. Thus Cikka Kampaṇa Uḍaiyār gave a charter to the officials and Kaikkōḷas of Haṭṭalakōṭe making certain regulations with regard to the payment of taxes and remitting the fines imposed on the Kaikkōḷas.⁸⁹ But it appears that the provincial ministers could not make grants or remit or impose taxes except with the permission of the governor of the province. Thus Viṭṭappar, an officer under Vīra Kampaṇa Uḍaiyār, made a gift of the village of Māḍambākkam to the local temple after getting the sanction of the governor.90 But there are a few inscriptions which indicate that certain officers of government remitted the taxes without getting the necessary permission from the governor. Gōppaṇaṅgaḷ, an officer under Kampaṇa Uḍaiyār, remitted the taxes on the lands of Kulōttuṅgaśōḷanallūr alias Brahmīśvara which was a unit village.91 The Mahāpradhāni Sōmappa Uḍaiyār and the treasurer Viṭṭappayan, the two officers under the same Kampaṇa, issued an order to Mēydēvar who was in charge of the taxes of Pulināḍ to assign certain duties imposed in kind on all the articles that passed through his district for the benefit of the Viṣṇu temple at Kumari.92 But from the above two cases it would appear that these officers made the grants not by any inherent right they enjoyed by virtue of the office they held under the government, but they were themselves in charge of certain districts under the provincial government, the income from which were assigned to them by the provincial governor as remuneration for the office they held under him. It was in the capacity of district chiefs that the ministers of the provincial governors remitted taxes or made gifts independently. Their grants, unless they were made with the permission of the governor, could not have applied to the whole province. The benefit of such grants was restricted to the district which they held under the provincial governor.

c10.s2.33

⁸⁵ Purchas, His Pilgrims, X, p. 99.

c10.s2.34

⁸⁶ A.S.R., 1907-08, pp. 237-38.

c10.s2.35

⁸⁷ M.E.R., 1905, para 31; see also Sir Walter Elliot, Coins of Southern India, plate III, No. 92 and Ind. Ant., Vol. XX, p. 304.

c10.s2.36

⁸⁸ M.A.R., 1929, para 90.

c10.s2.37

⁸⁹ E.C., IV, Ch. 97.
90. 324 of 1911.
91. 184 of 1918.

c10.s2.38

However, whenever the people were oppressed by the provincial viceroys, the imperial government interfered on behalf of the people. Before the time of Dēva Rāya II, for instance, the ministers had been taking presents by force from all ryots belonging to both the Right hand and Left hand classes at the commencement of each reign. In consequence of this all the ryots were harassed and hence they migrated to other places. Worship and festivals ceased in temples; the country was stricken with disease; the few people that remained either died or suffered. The king therefore interfered and prohibited such extortion.⁹³ Thus the imperial government interfered with the local governments when there was mal-administration or oppression on the part of the local governors. Here it is said that the ministers oppressed the people. We have to take that the term ministers means officers for the ministers of the Imperial Council were generally provincial governors as well.

c10.s2.39

⁹³ M.E.R., 1905, Pt. II, para 30.

c10.s2.40

Nuniz says that the provincial governors had to pay the king their revenues as fixed by him annually during the first nine days of the month of September.⁹⁴ What this means we have seen in an earlier section, where it has been suggested that though remittances were made every month, the assessment was made in September.⁹⁵

c10.s2.41

⁹⁴ Sewell, op. cit., p. 389.

c10.s2.42

⁹⁵ See ante, p. 91.

c10.s2.43

The provincial governors were also made responsible for the maintenance of law and order within their jurisdiction; whenever the property of their subjects was stolen, they were bound to catch the thief and restore the stolen property to the owner. Otherwise they were severely punished by the king.96

c10.s2.44

The governors were entitled to certain honours. They were allowed to use litters and palanquins, as is indicated by the evidence of Nuniz.⁹⁷ The inscriptions of the period also refer to a few of the honours which they received from the king. A record in the Goribidnūr taluk of the Kōlār district says that the Vijayanagar emperor (Mallikārjuna ?) conferred on a few of his feudatories the following honours : horse, umbrella, cāmara, bhūmipeṇḍe and three howdah elephants.⁹⁸ Similarly Nandēla Appa, the governor of Koṇḍavīḍu, was given the right to use a palanquin and two cauris.⁹⁹

c10.s2.45

⁹⁷ Ibid., p. 389.

c10.s2.46

⁹⁸ E.C., X, Gd. 22; The inscription is of doubtful authenticity. Yet the fact that certain customary honours were shown to the provincial governors cannot be false.

c10.s2.47

⁹⁹ 257 of 1892 ; E.I., VI, p. 112.

c10.s2.48

A few of the governors of provinces were appointed to some important posts in the imperial service. Some of the ministers of the king are said to have been the governors over some province or other. For instance Mādhava mantri, the minister of Bukka I (formerly the minister of Mārappa while he was the viceroy over the Kadamba country and the Banavāse 12,000), “accepted the government (of the province) as far as the Western Ocean,”¹⁰⁰ by order of Vīra Bukka Bhūpati. From an inscription in the Tirthahalli taluk of the Shimoga district which mentions that Mādhava-mantri, the house-minister of Harihara II, was the governor of the western parts including Āraga of the Vijayanagar dominions, we are led to infer that he was ruling that province up to 1384, the date of the inscription.¹⁰¹ Nāgaṇṇa Daṇḍanāyaka, the Mahāpradhāna of Dēva Rāya I, was the governor of the Muḷuvāgil kingdom.¹⁰² Lakkaṇṇa Daṇḍanāyaka, the Prime Minister of Dēva Rāya II, served as a governor in various provinces. About 1430 he was the governor of the Mulbāgal and the Tēkal provinces.¹⁰³ Later he was the governor of the southern part of the empire and was known by the designation “Lord of the Southern Ocean”.¹⁰⁴ Timmaṇṇa Daṇḍanāyaka, the Mahāpradhāni of Mallikārjuna Rāya, was the governor of the Nāgamaṅgala division of the empire.¹⁰⁵ Sāḷuva Timma, the Prime Minister of Kṛṣṇadēva Raya, was made the governor of Koṇḍavīḍu after its capture.¹⁰⁶ Koṇḍamarasayya, the Rāyasam of the king, was the governor of Udayagiri.¹⁰⁷ Salvanayque of Nuniz known to the inscriptions as Sāḷuva Vīra Narasimha Nāyaka or Sāḷuva Daṇḍanāyaka was for some time ruling over the Tiruvadi rājya and according to the account of Nuniz he was the lord of Charamaodel, Negapatam, Tanjore, Bhuvanagiri, Devipatnam, Tirukoil (Tirukkōyilūr) Kayal and other territories bordering on Ceylon.¹⁰⁸ Thus instances can be multiplied to show that some of the imperial officers were also provincial governors; and they governed their provinces through their deputies, who were called Kāryakartas.

c10.s2.49

¹⁰⁰ E.C., VII, Sk. 281.

c10.s2.50

¹⁰¹ E.C., VIII, Tl. 147.

c10.s2.51

¹⁰² E.C., X, Mb. 7.

c10.s2.52

¹⁰³ E.C., X, Bp. 72.

c10.s2.53

¹⁰⁴ 100 of 1911.

c10.s2.54

¹⁰⁵ E.C., III, Sm. 89.

c10.s2.55

¹⁰⁶ E.I., VI, p. 110.

c10.s2.56

¹⁰⁷ Nel. Ins., III, App. I, p. 1476.

c10.s2.57

¹⁰⁸ Sewell, op. cit., p. 384.

c10.s2.58

Nuniz gives the following account of a few provincial governors, their income and their military and financial obligations to the imperial government:

c10.s2.59

| Name of the Governor. | Income in Pardaos of gold. | Military Contribution. | Financial Contribution. |
| Salvanayque, the Prime Minister of Acyuta Rāya | 11,00000 | 30,000 foot 3,000 horse 30 elephants | 1/3 |
| Ajaparcatimapa, lord of Udayagiri, etc. | 800,000 | 25,000 foot 1,500 horse 40 elephants | 3/8 |
| Gapanayque, lord of Rosyl | 600,000 | 20,000 foot 2,500 horse 20 elephants | 1/4 |
| Lepanayque, lord of Vingapor. | 300,000 | 20,000 foot 1,200 horse 28 elephants | 4/15 |
| Narvara, lord of Ondegema | 400,000 | 12,000 foot 600 horse 20 elephants | 1/2 |
| Cinapanayque, lord of the land of Calay | 300,000 | 10,000 foot 800 horse | 1/3 |

c10.s2.60

| Name of the Governor. | Income in Pardaos of gold. | Military Contribution. | Financial Contribution. |
| Crisnapanayque, lord of Aosel | 20,000 | 700 foot 500 horse | 7/20 |
| Bajapanayque, lord of Bodial | 300,000 | 10,000 foot 800 horse 15 elephants | 1/30 |
| Mallapanayque, lord of the country of Avaly, etc. | 15,000 | 6,000 foot 400 horse | 1/3 |
| Adapanayque, lord of the country of gate | 300,000 | 8,000 foot 800 horse 30 elephants | 2/15 |
| Bajapanayque, lord of Mumdoguel | 400,000 | 10,000 foot 1,000 horse 50 elephants | 3/8109 |

c10.s2.61

Though we get these valuable details with regard to the contributions demanded of some of the provincial governors by Acyuta Rāya, we are not able to see the exact principle on which these demands were made from them. An examination of the contributions demanded of the few governors above referred to shows that they differed widely. Adapanayque, who got an income of 300,000 pardaos, was expected to maintain for the imperial house a certain proportion of foot, horse and elephants and contribute 2/15 of his income, while Lepanayque who got the same income was not only required to maintain a larger proportion of foot, horse and an almost equal number of elephants but also to contribute 4/15 of his income to the imperial treasury. However one explanation is possible for such enormous disproportions. Since many of the governors of provinces held some office with the government, the demand made from them must be such as would leave for them a certain amount of money after meeting their obligations to the government which would be the pay for their services to the government. Adapanayque for instance was the chief counsellor of the king, while Lepanayque held no such office under the government. In such a case the larger demand made by the state from the latter was quite legitimate, for even after paying the fixed contribution there was still left something for him towards his remuneration as governor. But Adapanayque was an officer at the imperial headquarters, and besides he was the governor of a province. If he had attended to his office work at the capital, he could not have ruled his province himself but only by his deputy in which case he must have paid him. Thus he had two functions to discharge. Though he was assigned a province the income from which he was to enjoy after making his contributions to the central government, yet since he had to govern it only through his deputy whom he had to pay, some concession had to be shown to him in the matter of his contribution to the imperial house. Thus there was bound to be some difference between the demands made by the government from a provincial governor who had no office at the capital and from one who held such office.

c10.s2.62

¹⁰⁹ Ibid., pp. 384-89.

c10.s2.63

These governors including those that held some office at the imperial headquarters, each maintained an agent at the capital. This officer is called by Nuniz ‘Secretary’. He says that the ‘Secretary’ was always at the court and that he kept his master informed of what was taking place in the palace, for nothing took place there of which they did not soon know.¹¹⁰

c10.s2.64

¹¹⁰ Sewell, op. cit., p. 374.

c10.s2.65

A few words may be said here about the influence of certain families over the royal house. A few of the provincial governors who held some office or other with the imperial government often wielded great influence over the royal house which at times had certain serious consequences. The Sangama brothers who were themselves influential feudatories under the Hoyśālas, gradually rose to power and position and finally overthrew the royal house to their own advantage. Under the weak rulers, Mallikārjuna and Virūpākṣa, Sāḷuva Narasiṃha developed his ambition of usurping all royal authority, and finally achieved his object by making himself the founder of the second line of the Vijayanagar emperors. During the rule of his weak son Immaḍi Narasiṃha, Narasā Nāyaka rose to a position of eminence and power, and finally his son was able to see through a “bloodless revolution” at Vijayanagar. The influence and power of the Salaka brothers during the reign of Acyuta Rāya, were responsible for the many palace intrigues at the Vijayanagar capital. The influence wielded by Rāma Rāja and his brothers at the court of Sadāśiva is too well known to need recapitulation here. The inefficient Sadāśiva was a poor prisoner in the hands of Rāma Rāja and was shown to the public only once in a year. During the period of his power, Rāma Rāja dominated the politics of Vijayanagar and made his Muhammadan neighbours on the north prostrate before him. However it must be said that the governors could not trifle with strong kings. Sāḷuva Timma in spite of his ability and power was kept under great check by Kṛṣṇadēva Rāya. On the mere suspicion of his complicity in the murder of his son Tirumala, he was blinded, and imprisoned and his family also was ruined. Thus under strong kings they were submissive; but under weak ones they rose to great power, influence and eminence.

c10.s2.66

2. The Nāyaṅkara System: Another important feature of the Vijayanagar provincial organisation was the nāyaṅkara system. According to this system the king was considered to be the owner of the soil and he distributed the lands to his dependents. In mediaeval India services to the ruling sovereign were rewarded by the grant of territories. Thus when a northerner imposed his rule over the southerner, he had to arm himself with a body of people who were ever ready to serve him in his wars, and for this they were granted lands. Those who held land from the king were called nāyakas though the term was later used to denote a variety of offices and castes. They ruled over their territories with great freedom. In return for the grant of territory that was made to them they had two functions to discharge. Firstly they had to pay a fixed annual financial contribution to the imperial exchequer which, according to the account of Nuniz, was generally half of their revenue. Secondly they were required to maintain for the king a sufficient number of troops, and serve him in his wars. About Acyuta Rāya and his nāyakas Nuniz says: “This King Citarao has foot-soldiers paid by his nobles and they are obliged to maintain six lakhs of soldiers, that is six hundred thousand men, and twenty-four thousand horse, which the same nobles are obliged to have. These nobles are like renters who hold all the land from the King, and besides keeping all these people they have to pay their cost; they also pay him every year sixty lakhs of rents as royal dues. The lands they say yield a hundred and twenty lakhs of which they say they must pay sixty to the king, and the rest they retain for the pay of the soldiers and the expenses of the elephants which they are obliged to maintain.” ¹¹¹ Paes also gives the same details. It was the king that fixed the number of troops and the amount of money each of these nāyakas was to keep, and they were generally in proportion to the revenue each derived.¹¹² They were the guardians of the peace within their jurisdiction, and were held responsible for the detection of crimes as well; they were bound to make good any loss in their respective territories.¹¹³ On certain ceremonial occasions like the birth of a son or daughter to the king, or his annual birthday, these nobles offered him ‘great presents of money and jewels of price’.¹¹⁴ In addition to these they were expected to make great gifts of money to the king on the new year day. Paes says: “It is even said that they give on that day to the king in money a million and five hundred thousand gold pardaos.”¹¹⁵ According to Nuniz the nobles sent food to him every day to his house, namely, rice, wheat, meat and fowls with all other necessary things.¹¹⁶

c10.s2.67

¹¹¹ Ibid., p. 373.

c10.s2.68

¹¹² Sewell, op. cit., pp. 280-81.

c10.s2.69

¹¹³ Ibid., p. 380.

c10.s2.70

¹¹⁴ Ibid., p. 281.

c10.s2.71

¹¹⁵ Ibid., p. 282.

c10.s2.72

¹¹⁶ Ibid., p. 371.

c10.s2.73

Failure to conform to these obligations was liable to be punished. Nuniz says that the estates of these nāyakas would be confiscated and themselves severely punished if they did not maintain the full number of soldiers or pay tribute according to their obligations.¹¹⁷ Barbosa also observes that when the king found any great lord or relation guilty of any crime, he sent for him immediately and if he failed to give “a just excuse for his fault”, he chastised him in words as thoroughly as he deserved and took from him half of his revenues. Then he was immediately ordered to be stripped and stretched on the ground and given a severe beating; and if he happened to be a near relative of the king, the king beat him with his own hand and after he had been punished he was ordered to be taken in his palanquin “very honourably with the music and rejoicing to his own house”.¹¹⁸ But the administration of corporal punishment is not mentioned by any other writer. Hence it appears to be as Dames remarks an improbable story.¹¹⁹

c10.s2.74

¹¹⁷ Ibid., pp. 374 and 389.

c10.s2.75

¹¹⁸ Barbosa, I, p. 209.

c10.s2.76

¹¹⁹ Ibid., fn.

c10.s2.77

Duarte Barbosa while describing the Vijayanagar empire says: “All these villages and hamlets are inhabited by Heathen, among whom dwell a few Moors. Many places here belong to the Lords who hold them from the King of Narsyngua, who in his own town keeps his governors and collectors of his rents and duties.” 120 This statement of the traveller shows that there were two types of provinces one of which was held by the ‘lords’ from the king (on the feudal basis) and the other was directly governed by the king through his governors or agents. These two types of provincial officers were the *nāyakas* and governors of our classification.

c10.s2.78

The constitutional position of the *nāyaka* appears to have been different from that of a governor of a province, though both of them had a few similar obligations to be fulfilled. (1) While the governor was the king’s representative in a province and ruled it on behalf of the king, the *nāyaka* was only a military vassal. It was more to enable him to meet his financial and military obligations that he was assigned a district. (2) The *nāyaka* enjoyed a comparatively greater freedom in his territory. The internal administration of his district does not appear to have been interfered with by the king. It seems that the *nāyaka* was not subject to transfer from one district to another. It was not unusual, however, for a *nāyaka* to be removed from a particular district assigned to him. But in such cases the reason for his removal was evidently his failure to fulfil his obligations or the desire of the king to provide for another of his favourites. But the transfer or removal of a governor appears to have been due to administrative necessities. (3) The *nāyaka* had onerous responsibilities. The responsible work of the clearance of forests, introduction of agriculture, and the spread of civilization were a few of the more important works entrusted to and done by the *nāyakas*. (4) The governors were generally called Daṇḍanāyakas and were invariably Brahmans. (5) The *nāyakaship* which was in the initial stages personal became hereditary in course of time when the kings at the centre became weak and effeminate.

First 153 of 197 passages. Read on

Linked texts (17)