Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Administration and Social Life under Vijayanagar c10.s2: Section III. Provincial Organisation

Administration and Social Life under Vijayanagar c10.s2

Language
English

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.

c10.s2.79

The *nāyakas* maintained two sets of officers at the imperial headquarters. One of them appears to have been an officer in charge of the military of his lord stationed at the capital. Nuniz speaks about a particular group of *nāyakas* who were never suffered to settle themselves in cities or towns lest they should be beyond the reach of the king’s hand.121 But as said in an earlier connection Nuniz seems to be wrong in his statement, especially in view of the remarks of Paes who, describing a group of nobles in the days of Kṛṣṇadēva Rāya says: "These captains are the nobles of the kingdom; they are lords and they hold the city, and the towns and villages of the kingdom." 122 Evidently Nuniz confuses between the nāyakas who were ruling their territories, and their military agents at the capital who were not allowed to go home since they served as the agents and hostages of their respective lords. We have no evidence to show that these nobles at the imperial court guarded the bastions of the palace as the Pāḷaiyagārs under the Madura Nāyaks did at Madura. But we may not be wrong if we assume that they did so as the provincial organisation in the Vijayanagar empire was only a smaller replica of the imperial organisation.

c10.s2.80

¹²⁰ Ibid., p. 200.

c10.s2.81

The other officer the nāyaka kept at the imperial court was the sthānāpati or civil agent who represented the interests of his master at the capital. Nuniz gives an account of that officer in the following terms: "The captains and lords of this kingdom of Bisnaga as well those who are at Court as those who are away from it, have each one his secretary who goes to the palace in order to write to him and let him know what the king is doing; and they manage so that nothing takes place of which they do not soon know, and day and night they are always in the palace." 123 Thus according to the Rāyavācakamu, Viśvanātha Nāyaka of Madura had an agent, sthānāpati, at Vijayanagar, and it was he that wrote the Rāyavācakamu giving an account of the reign of Kṛṣṇadēva Rāya. 124 From the account of Nuniz it appears that the provincial governors who held some office at the imperial court and hence had to remain at the capital had also their "secretaries" at the palace of the king to represent the interests of their masters.

c10.s2.82

In some important respects the nāyaṅkara system in the Vijayanagar days reminds us of the feudal organisation in mediaeval Europe. But the analogy is limited to a few respects only, for in the nāyaṅkara system the feudal principle had not developed to the extent to which it had done in Europe.

c10.s2.83

Feudalism can be described "as a complete organization of society through the medium of land tenure, in which from the king down to the lowest landowner all are bound together by the obligation of service and defence; the lord to protect his vassal, the vassal to do service to his lord; the defence and service being based on and regulated by the nature and extent of the land held by the one or the other. In those states which have reached the territorial stage of development, the rights of defence and service are supplemented by the right of jurisdiction. The lord judges or defends his vassal; the vassal does suit as well as service to his lord. In states in which feudal government has reached its utmost growth, the political, financial, judicial, every branch of public administration is regulated as a mere shadow of a name.”¹²⁵ Thus feudalism had two aspects; one was the political and the other the economic. According to the former the tenant ruled his territories, enjoyed certain powers, and in return was bound to serve the lord; in his turn the lord was expected to protect his vassal. The economic aspect of feudalism consisted in the fact that the vassal’s position and power were closely related to the extent of land he held.

c10.s2.84

¹²² Sewell, op. cit., p. 280.

c10.s2.85

¹²³ Ibid., p. 374.

c10.s2.86

¹²⁴ S. K. Aiyangar, Sources, pp. 110-11.

c10.s2.87

¹²⁵ Stubbs, Const. Hist. of England, I, p. 288.

c10.s2.88

According to the nāyaṅkara system also we find that the king was the ultimate owner of the soil. Nuniz says: “All the land belongs to the King and from his hand the captains hold it . . . they have no land of their own for the kingdom belongs entirely to the King.”¹²⁶ The nāyakas, like the feudal tenants of mediaeval Europe, held the lands immediately or mediately of the king in return for a fixed annual financial contribution and the maintenance of a fixed military contingent. They too gave their lands to minor tenants on terms similar to those on which they held their lands from the king. This was analogous to the process of sub-infeudation in Europe.

c10.s2.89

¹²⁶ Sewell, op. cit., p. 379.

c10.s2.90

But in certain other respects the Vijayanagar nāyaṅkara system differed from its European parallel. Firstly in the manner in which it was brought into existence: European feudalism was the result of two sets of forces—the process of commendation where the individual small landowner to ensure his own safety commended himself to a lord, gave his lands to him, and received them back as a fief in return for service on his part on the promise of protection by the lord, and the process of beneficium according to which the lord granted lands to the tenant in return for certain specific services to be rendered; but the nāyaṅkara system was the result of the deliberate policy of the kings in assigning territories to the nāyakas in return for military service and a fixed financial contribution.

c10.s2.91

Secondly the political element which was predominant in the European feudalism was lacking in the *nāyaṅkara* system. The tenure of the Vijayanagar *nāyaka* who held his land of the king was more in the nature of a military fief and was known as the *amaram* tenure. Further the Vijayanagar kings were more ready to charge their *nāyakas* with onerous responsibilities and duties than prepared to safeguard their interests. As Nuniz says they were liable to be ruined and their property taken away if they did not meet their obligations at the proper time.¹²⁷ But in feudal Europe "tenancy at will grew into tenancy for life which in its turn extended into a heritage holding."¹²⁸

c10.s2.92

¹²⁷ Sewell, op. cit., p. 389.

c10.s2.93

¹²⁸ Medley, English Constitutional History, p. 28.

c10.s2.94

Another point that deserves to be noted is the fact that while in mediaeval Europe the whole society was chained together by the link of land tenure, in the Vijayanagar days the *nāyaṅkara* system linked together only a certain section of the population. The gradual expansion of the principle of sub-infeudation did not reach such a high degree of perfection in India as it did in Europe. Further the feudal principle was not applied in India to all offices as it was done in Europe, for in that continent even justice became feudalised. These considerations show that the Vijayanagar *nāyaṅkara* system fell far short of a completely feudal organisation.

c10.s2.95

It may not be out of place here to examine the merits and defects of the *nāyaṅkara* system. Large tracts of land till then covered with thick forests and rocky hills were occupied by the enterprising *nāyakas*, cities were founded, villages were formed and the torch of civilization was carried into those regions. Great irrigation facilities were afforded and everything good in Hindu culture and civilization was fostered and encouraged by them. But such services as these rendered by the *nāyakas* cannot blind us to certain defects in the system. Speaking about the *Pāḷaiyagārs* of Madura, Caldwell observes: "It can hardly be said that the idea of governing the country by means of an order of rude, rapacious, feudal nobles, such as poligars generally were, turned out to be a happy one, for down to the period of their final subjection and submission to British authority in 1801, whenever they were not at war with the central authority, they were at war with one another, and it was rarely possible to collect tribute from them or revenue due to the central authority without a display of military force which added greatly both to the unpopularity and expense of the collection”.¹²⁹ But Stuart defends the Pāḷaiyagār system and says: “This remark would however apply with equal force to feudal institutions in Europe in the middle ages, and as these served their purpose in the age of the world in which they flourished, it is perhaps reasonable to suppose that protection from foreign foes and internal order and progress though frequently accompanied by oppression and misrule was secured by this means to an extent to which it would otherwise have been impossible.”¹³⁰ But his European feudal analogy cannot be pressed far, for this system was not complete feudalism, and his arguments look like special pleading. There were certain defects in the system which cannot be made light of. The independence they enjoyed within their territories gave them opportunities for engaging themselves in local wars and mutual feuds. At times they even defied the central authority when it became weak under inefficient kings. Further the chief nāyakas who distributed their lands among their tenants in the same way as they themselves received them from the king exacted tributes and military service from them to their own advantage. Hence the nāyakas who held their land from a bigger nāyaka were not answerable to the king. Thus if the nāyaka directly answerable to the king chose to defy the central authority he had the following of a large number of dependents while the king himself was left helpless. This was a weak point in the European feudal organisation also. Heras while describing the Pāḷaiyagār organisation at Madura remarks: “Moreover, the fact that the Tamil and Telugu chiefs were indiscriminately appointed pāḷaiyakārans, was supposed to foster the necessary union of establishing a lasting peace between both the subjects and their foreign rulers. This was by far the most important political event of the time, in spite of the fact that it fomented ambitions in these petty chiefs and weakened the royal authority of Madura, of which they were too independent from the very beginning. Had they been more systematically attached to, and dependent on, the central power, Madura might have been saved from many of the troubles caused by the Pāḷaiyakārans.”¹³¹ The same remarks can be made on the Vijayanagar nāyaṅkara organisation as well. The way in which the nāyakas conducted themselves towards the central government on certain momentous occasions in the history of Vijayanagar, like disputed successions or foreign invasions, brings into light the weakness of the organisation.

c10.s2.96

¹²⁹ History of Tinnevelly, p. 58.

c10.s2.97

¹³⁰ Tinnevelly Manual, p. 42.

c10.s2.98

¹³¹ Aravidu Dynasty, I, p. 134.

c10.s2.99

The stability of the central government might have been ensured if greater hold had been exercised over the semi-independent nāyakas. But the organisation of the administration partly on the nāyaṅkara basis was a necessity of the times, and it was only for want of a better scheme of governmental organisation that this system was adopted. In spite of the weakness of the system it served its purpose tolerably well.

c10.s2.100

3. *Subordinate Allies*: The subordinate allies were the conquered rulers of older states. In certain portions of the outlying parts of the empire the members of a few dynasties were allowed to rule their small principalities on condition of their paying annual tribute to the Vijayanagar sovereign. They enjoyed perfect internal autonomy without fear of intervention by the imperial authority so long as they paid their annual contributions in men and money to their suzerain. Curiously there were many such small semi-independent principalities in the Karṇāṭaka country. As said earlier the range of hills that separated their territories from the eastern parts must have given rise to difficulties for the Vijayanagar kings in subjugating their rulers. Further the imperial sovereigns had to recognise their existence because they could have served them better as buffers than as feudatories, and perhaps the people in the locality would have liked to obey their hereditary rulers rather than the new conqueror. It appears that these subordinate allies maintained their agents at the imperial court. Nuniz mentions a few of such rulers. As noted earlier they were the kings of Bengapor, Gasopa, Becanor, Calecu and Bhatkal.¹³² Among the others were the kings of Honawar, who at times owed allegiance to Vijayanagar and at times to Bijapur and not infrequently to the Portuguese also, of Uḷḷal who very often waged war with the Portuguese but at times paid tribute to them, and of Gangolly who was also subject to Vijayanagar.¹³³

c10.s2.101

¹³² Sewell, op. cit., p. 374.

c10.s2.102

¹³³ See Heras, op. cit., pp. 186-90 for a list of such subordinate principalities.

Cites (13)