Administration and Social Life under Vijayanagar c10.s3: Section IV
Administration and Social Life under Vijayanagar c10.s3
- Language
- English
Section IV
c10.s3.1
*Control of the Provincial Organisation*
c10.s3.2
Though the provinces of the empire were given internal autonomy, in the later Vijayanagar period the independence of the nāyakas was sought to be checked by the appointment of “Special Commissioners” who were entrusted with the task of keeping them under control. These “Special Commissioners” were generally men of exceptional ability and brilliant parts, and were as far as possible chosen from among the members of the royal family. After the administration of the southern districts of the Vijayanagar empire had been satisfactorily provided for during the reign of Acyuta Rāya by the foundation of the Madura Nāyakship under the able Viśvanātha Nāyaka, we see in the same locality an officer who styled himself a Rājādhirāja and a Mahāmaṇḍaleśvara.¹³⁴ Originally sent to lead an expedition into the Travancore frontier and to put an end to certain troubles on the fishery coast which Viśvanātha was not able to control, perhaps on account of his preoccupation with the organisation of the administration of the territories assigned to him for his nāyakship, Rāma Rāja Viṭṭhala was, after the successful termination of his expedition, probably made a “Special Commissioner” and was assigned all South India for his sphere. His overlordship appears to have been accepted even by Bhūtalavīra who in Kollam 722 (A.D. 1546—47) provided for special offerings to be made to the Viṣṇu shrine at Sucīndram on the birthday of Viṭṭhaleśvara Mahārāja.¹³⁵ He was a great check on the rapacity of the feudatories like the ruler of Travancore, and he enforced the imperial sway over all South India. But the exact relation between Viśvanātha Nāyaka and Rāma Rāja Viṭṭhala is hard to explain. In a few inscriptions Viśvanātha accepts that he is an agent of Viṭṭhala. According to an epigraph Viśvanātha makes a grant for the merit of Viṭṭhaladeva.¹³⁶ It is perhaps on the strength of these inscriptions that Dr. S. K. Aiyangar concludes: “During this period the viceroy of Madura Viśvanātha and his son Kṛṣṇappa had to be subordinate to this special officer”.¹³⁷ But Heras questions this conclusion and thinks that the aim of Viṭṭhala’s appointment having been different “there was no need of subordination to each other” (sic) and adds that “each could fulfil his aims independently. Nevertheless Viśvanātha helped Viṭṭhala in his expedition against Travancore.”¹³⁸ He seeks to clarify their constitutional relations by a modern parallel and remarks: “The relations between Viṭṭhala and Viśvanātha may be compared to those between the Agent of the Governor-General and the Rāja of one of the native tributary States in India now-a-days.”¹³⁹ But the contention of Heras does not appear to be sound, nor is his modern analogy appropriate. Viśvanātha definitely states that he was the agent of Viṭṭhala and acknowledges his superior commission. A modern Rāja of an Indian tributary State does not accept his subordination to the Governor-General’s agent (Resident) but only to the Paramount authority. The function of the modern Agent is very much limited, and he is only a channel of communication. He has no right to govern the State in which he is the Agent of the Government. But Viṭṭhala’s powers seem to have been very wide. He imposed his authority on the feudatories, made his own grants,¹⁴⁰ decided disputes,¹⁴¹ and acted as an independent ruler for all practical purposes, which the Agent of a modern Governor-General in the Indian State cannot do. Thus our evidence goes to show that he was a ‘Superior Commissioner’ and charged with the duty of exercising a supervisory control over the nāyakas in the south.
c10.s3.3
¹³⁴ 6 of 1906.
c10.s3.4
¹³⁵ 64 of 1896; M.E.R., 1899-1900, Rep., para 79.
c10.s3.5
¹³⁶ 599 of 1916 : 721 of 1915, etc.
c10.s3.6
¹³⁷ R. Satyanatha Ayyar, The Nāyaks of Madura, p. 14.
c10.s3.7
¹³⁸ Aravidu Dynasty, I. p. 155
c10.s3.8
¹³⁹ Ibid., p. 155.
c10.s3.9
¹⁴⁰ 273 of 1901.
c10.s3.10
¹⁴¹ 140 of 1895 ; S.I.I., V, No. 704.
c10.s3.11
On the accession of Tirumala to the Vijayanagar throne on the death of Sadāśiva, the empire was torn asunder by internal dissensions and the rebellions of the feudal vassals, and hence the emperor divided his vast empire into three divisions on a more or less linguistic basis and over each of them he appointed one of his sons as viceroy. Thus Śrī Raṅga Rāya was the viceroy of the whole Telugu country with his capital at Penugoṇḍa.¹⁴² Rāma was ruling over the western parts of the empire with Seringapatam as his capital,¹⁴³ while the last prince Veṅkaṭa was the viceroy of the Tuṇḍira (Jiñji), Cōḷa (Tanjore) and Pāṇḍya (Madura) countries with his capital at Candragiri.¹⁴⁴ The Vasucaritramu definitely states that he “was governing as viceroy the kingdom of Candragiri having under his authority many feudatory princes”.¹⁴⁵ The constitutional position of the viceroy in relation to the already existing nāyakas is shown clearly by this statement in the work.¹⁴⁶ It would appear that the viceroy over the Tamil districts was a ‘Special Commissioner’ to exercise some sort of a supervisory control over the Nāyakas of Jiñji, Tanjore and Madura. It is reasonable to assume here that the position of Viṭṭhaladēva Mahārāja must have been analogous to that of the Candragiri viceroy during the time of Tirumala. The Seringapatam and Penugoṇḍa viceroys must have likewise held the ‘Special Commissionerships’ and kept under check the feudatories under their respective control.
c10.s3.12
¹⁴² S. K. Aiyangar, Sources, p. 302.
c10.s3.13
¹⁴³ Ibid., pp. 302 and 217.
c10.s3.14
¹⁴⁴ Ibid., p. 302.
c10.s3.15
¹⁴⁵ Ibid., p. 217.
c10.s3.16
¹⁴⁶ Richards in the Salem Gazetteer states that “the empire, about this time was divided into six viceroyalties: (1) Āndhra, (2) Karṇāṭa, (3) Madura, (4) Candragiri, (5) Jiñji and (6) Tanjore. Here the three viceroyalties of Madura, Tanjore and Jiñji have been treated as distinct from the Tamil viceroyalty with Candragiri as its capital. This is evidently a mistake.