Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Administration and Social Life under Vijayanagar c6: Chapter II. Section I. The King

Administration and Social Life under Vijayanagar c6

Language
English

Contents

Chapter II. Section I. The King

c6.2

The working of a monarchical form of government depends largely on the personality of the sovereign. Mighty empires in India have risen under strong kings and fallen under weak ones. Candragupta and Aśōka built the Mauryan empire, but with the succession of weak kings like Bṛhadratha, its era of decadence began. The Gupta empire was reared into existence by kings like Samudragupta and Candragupta II, but crumbled under a succession of weak rulers. The Vijayanagar empire was no exception to this. It was founded and strengthened by the enthusiastic brothers Harihara and Bukka, and its administration was stabilised successively by Dēva Rāya II, Sāḷuva Narasimha and Kṛṣṇadēva Rāya. In the Vijayanagar empire, as in others governed under a monarchical constitution, the king was the head of the administration and occupied a supreme position in the State. In fact, the king was the pivot of the machinery of administration.

c6.3

According to ancient Hindu political thinkers the State consisted of seven elements of which the king was the most important.¹ The well-being of the State depended largely on the harmonious working of these elements and on their joint effort for the common weal. We have the evidence of the Āmuktamālyada of Kṛṣṇadēva Rāya to show that the king was the most important of the seven members of the body politic. The royal poet emphasises the fact that the emperor (*Sārvabhauma*) should be able to enforce his commands.²

c6.4

¹ The seven elements of the State are: (1) Svāmin (lord), (2) Amātya (minister), (3) Janapada (territory), (4) Durga (fort), (5) Kośa (treasury), (6) Daṇḍa (army) and (7) Mitra (ally). See, for instance, Matsya Purāṇa, Ch. 220, v. 19.

c6.5

² Āmuktamālyada, canto 4, v. 206, tr. in the Journal of Indian History, Vol. VI, Pt. II, by the late A. Rangasvāmi Sarasvati of the Madras Epigraphy Department.

c6.6

This receives corroboration from the *Navaratnamulu* and the *Saptāngapaddhati*, a series of verses addressed to Sāḷuva Narasiṃha. These works are now available only in fragments, and even a superficial study of them leaves on us the impression that the king was the most important figure in the Vijayanagar State.³

c6.7

³ See Prabhākara Śāstri, *Cāṭupadyamaṇimañjari*, pp. 34-41.

c6.8

Coronation. In all Hindu kingdoms the coronation was an important ceremony. It provided the legal sanction to the selection of a ruler and conferred on him the title to govern. The Vijayanagar kings in common with the ancient Hindu kings had their coronations duly performed. The accounts of contemporary foreign travellers make mention of these coronations, and they receive confirmation from several inscriptions. On the death of Harihara II, however, three of his sons, Bukka II, who was the Yuvarāja during his father’s reign, Virūpākṣa II and Dēva Rāya I, each made a bid for the empire, assumed imperial titles and made grants independently of one another.⁴

c6.9

⁴ E.I., XV, pp. 13-14; *M.E.R.*, 1921, paras 46 and 47.

c6.10

Thus during this period of confusion at Vijayanagar (1404-06) these three rulers appear to have each had some support, though it is not apparent from the evidence available that Bukka II and Virūpākṣa I were crowned kings. The coronation of Dēva Rāya I however finds explicit mention in the inscriptions. We do not know, however, why Dēva Rāya I was crowned king in preference to Bukka II who had already acted as the Yuvarāja and had been Co-ruler with his father for some time.

c6.11

A special court (Durbār) was held to celebrate the coronation which was attended by the subordinate kings and the leaders of the community. For instance, as the *Kṛṣṇarāyavijayamu* of Kumāra Dhūrjaṭi says, the coronation of Kṛṣṇadēva Rāya was attended by various feudatory chiefs of whom the following were important: Āraviṭi Bukka Rāju, the chiefs of Owk, the chiefs of Nandēla and Vēlgōḍu besides others.⁵

c6.12

⁵ S. K. Aiyangar, *Sources of Vijayanagar History*, p. 129.

c6.13

The details of the ceremony are interesting. The Brahman Purohita placed a fillet of gold on the forehead of the king, and after due prayers and the chanting of the relevant mantras poured the *abhiṣēcana* water on the king. It is said, for instance, that the coronation of Veṅkaṭa II was performed by Tātayārya the king’s guru and by other Brahmans.⁶

c6.14

⁶ E.C., VII, Sh. 83.

c6.15

The ministers appear to have had a voice in the selection of the king and as such they took an important part in his anointment. Nay, we have the testimony of inscriptions to show that it was the ministers that had the coronation performed. Sāḷuva Timma who had a partiality for Kṛṣṇa Rāya played the role of chief minister and crowned him king on the death of Vīra Narasimha. A lithic record from the Nāgamaṅgalam taluk in the Mysore district supplies us with the interesting information that Sadāśiva Mahārāya was anointed king by Rāma Rāja, the Prime Minister, and the other chief ministers, (amātya tilakaiḥ).⁷

c6.16

⁷ E.C.. IV, Ng. 58.

c6.17

The coronation had an important constitutional significance. The assumption of royalty implied a recognition of his responsibility by the king. Here there is a close similarity between the idea of ancient Hindu kingship and mediaeval monarchy. In the Vedic period the king took an oath that he would rule his people justly and according to the rules of Dharma. Similarly the kings of Vijayanagar took the oath, the spirit of which was the same. The occasion was one of mirth and joy and the kings then made large grants to temples and Brahmans.

c6.18

The Yuvarāja. In ancient India the reigning sovereigns generally nominated their heirs-apparent and bequeathed the empire to them. The eldest prince was generally chosen as the successor and failing him the choice fell upon some other member worthy of the distinction and responsibility. In the Vijayanagar empire also the kings appointed their successors and anointed them as Yuvarājas during their own life-time. A copper-plate grant of Harihara II states that Harihara I appointed his brother Bukka Rāja as Yuvarāja.⁸

c6.19

⁸ E.C.. V, Cn. 256.

c6.20

Speaking about Dēva Rāya I Wilson writes: “His grants begin three years before those of the predecessor’s terminate. This circumstance recurs in the succeeding reign, making it probable that the practice prevailed which was common in the remote periods of Hindu history of a monarch’s associating with him towards the close of his reign, his son and successor as Yuvarāja or Cæsar.”⁹ Literary evidence also corroborates the prevalence of this system. The Acyutarāyābhyudayam of Rājanātha Diṇḍima says that with the coronation of Acyuta as emperor, Pina Veṅkaṭādri, the king’s son, was anointed the Crown Prince.¹⁰

c6.21

⁹ Asiatic Researches, xx, pp. 8-9.

c6.22

¹⁰ S. K. Aiyangar, op. cit., p. 158.

c6.23

Generally the Yuvarājapaṭṭābhiṣēkam was celebrated when the Crown Prince had gained all theoretical knowledge of administration. But under certain circumstances the Crown Prince was anointed Yuvarāja though he happened to be very young. That was due perhaps to the fact that the reigning kings feared that succession to the throne would be disputed after their death. It was so when Kṛṣṇa Rāya appointed his son Tirumala as Yuvarāja in A.D. 1524 when he was but six years old.¹¹

c6.24

¹¹ According to Nuniz, Kṛṣṇadēva Rāya abdicated and enthroned his son Tirumala as the king of Vijayanagar (not as Yuvarāja) and Kṛṣṇa Rāya himself became his son’s Prime Minister. But it appears, as we shall see subsequently that Tirumala was only made the Yuvarāja. And Nuniz says that Kṛṣṇadēva Rāya appointed his brother, Acyutadēva Rāya, as his successor, which is borne out by a copper-plate of Acyuta. (E.C., ix, Db. 30.)

c6.25

During the period of his training the Yuvarāja was placed under the tutelage of able teachers who taught him the Śāstras, the knowledge of which was necessary for a king. He also acquired knowledge in the science of weapons such as śara, asi (sword), astra (missile, bow, arrow), and in horse-riding and other similar arts necessary for princes.¹² He also learnt the fine arts. Prince Raghunātha of Tanjore, for instance, was a master in the art of music and was a great composer, himself designing several rāgas.¹³

c6.26

¹² Gaṅgādēvī, Madhurāvijayam, canto 3, vv. 2 and 3.

c6.27

¹³ Yajñanārāyaṇa Diksita, Sāhityaratnākaram, canto 5.

c6.28

Mere theory cannot sufficiently equip a ruler for the arduous task of administration and a period of practical training was considered necessary. Therefore when the prince had reached the maturity of age to be placed in charge of the administration, he was appointed the viceroy or governor of one of the provinces, an office which helped him to come into contact with the problems of state and acquire training in the administration.

c6.29

In this connection we can examine the so called system of Co-rulership that is said to have prevailed in the Vijayanagar court. This is a question of some constitutional importance. If we are to say that there was a Co-ruler as distinct from the Yuvarāja, what was his constitutional position and in what relation did he stand to the Yuvarāja?

c6.30

An inscription from the Bangalore taluk states that Bukka I was Co-ruler with his brother Harihara I.¹⁴ When fixing the regnal period of Vijaya Rāya, Gopinatha Rao concludes that he might have ruled only for six months. His conclusions are based on the following evidence. Dēva Rāya I appears to have died in 1422. Harihara III, a son of Dēva Rāya I, made a grant in A.D. 1422 in order that his father “might attain with certainty to the world of merit.”¹⁵ Vijaya Bhūpati ascended the throne, but as Dēva Rāya II appears in a few epigraphs with imperial titles in Ś1345 (A.D. 1423),¹⁶ Vijaya Rāya must have died by then. He argues that since grants are made for the merit of Dēva Rāya I in A.D. 1422, and since Dēva Rāya II appears with imperial titles early in 1423, Vijaya Rāya must have occupied the throne only for six or seven months.¹⁷ But the assumption of imperial titles by Dēva Rāya II did not mean that Vijaya Rāya had died by that time for we find a few inscriptions of Vijaya dated 1424-5.¹⁸ Vijaya Rāya I was himself ruling over the Mulubāgal Rājya between 1406 and 1416. On the strength of these facts, Venkayya and Krishna Śāstri are inclined to think that Vijaya Rāya and Dēva Rāya II were Co-regents respectively under their fathers.¹⁹ Venkayya concludes his argument by remarking, “it may of course be supposed that Vīra Vijaya was consecrated king while his father was alive and reigning, and the same might have been the case with Dēva Rāya II.” Gopinatha Rao, however, asserts that “there is no precedent in the history of the first Vijayanagar dynasty for anointing a person before the death of his predecessor.”²⁰ But it appears that the essential difference between these two views is due to the fact that they seem to hold that the Yuvarāja and the Co-regent were two different persons. But such an assumption is beside the mark, for in the light of the inscriptions bearing on this question, we have to assume that it was generally the Yuvarāja that was the Co-ruler during the time of his predecessor, during which period he assumed imperial titles and ruled more or less independently in his province. Though the sons of a ruling sovereign were generally sent out as provincial viceroys, yet it was only one among them that was nominated the Yuvarāja or Co-ruler; and he ascended the throne after the death of his predecessor.²¹

c6.31

¹⁴ E.C., IX, Bg. 59. The text runs as follows: Śrīmanu Mahāmaṇḍalēśvaran . . . Śrī Vīra Ariyappa Udaiyarum Bukkana Uḍaiyarum Pṛtivī rācciyam paṇṇā nirka.

c6.32

¹⁵ E.C., IV, Gp. 24.

c6.33

¹⁶ E.C., VIII, Tl. 14; Sb. 565

c6.34

¹⁷ E.I., XV, p. 14.

c6.35

¹⁸ V.R., I.M.P., II. 1460-A.

c6.36

¹⁹ See M.E.R., 1907, para 54; A.S.R., 1907-08, p. 247.

c6.37

²⁰ E.I., XV, p. 15.

c6.38

²¹ CP. 6 of 1905-06. Saletore also takes the view that the system of joint rule prevailed under the Vijayanagar kings, but the theory requires stronger evidence to be proved.

c6.39

It seems that the leading people in the empire had a voice in the choice of the heir. On the death of Śrī Ranga I and his brother Rāma, Veṅkaṭa II ascended the Vijayanagar throne in 1586, to the exclusion of Tirumala, the son of Rāma, and with the "unanimous vote of all the classes." A Jesuit letter says: "After the demise of this Prince's father the kingdom was given by the unanimous vote of all the classes to the brother of the deceased (Rāma III), i.e., the one that is ruling at present, rejecting the rights of the deceased's children who on account of their age were not able to rule over a kingdom."²² It is, however, doubtful if there was a voting system and all the people took part in the choice of a king. It is only likely that a few of the leading nobles of the empire might have been consulted by the emperor who sought their support when he nominated some one who could not have come to the throne under the ordinary rules governing succession.

c6.40

²² Letter from Fr. N. Pimenta, quoted by Rev. H. Heras in the Aravidu Dynasty, I, p. 301.

c6.41

The selection of the ruler appears to have been made generally in the presence of the ministers and nobles. On this we have the evidence of Barradas who says that just three days before his death, Veṅkaṭa II, in the presence of his 'captains', handed over the Government of his vast empire to his nephew Śrī Ranga II generally known as Cikka Rāya. On the advice of some of the 'captains' present on the occasion Cikka Rāya accepted the kingdom, though not himself anxious to ascend the throne. Another reason why he agreed to shoulder the responsibility was that Veṅkaṭa had no legitimate son to succeed him.²³

c6.42

²³ Sewell, op. cit., pp. 223-4.

c6.43

Abdication. As in ancient India a few of the ruling sovereigns of Vijayanagar abdicated in favour of their sons in the evening of their lives and retired from active politics to spend the rest of their time in pious meditation. Thus according to the account of Rājanātha Diṇḍima, Guṇḍa, the father of Sāḷuva Narasiṃha, installed his son as his successor and retired to the forests as a Vānaprastha.²⁴ Similarly in the Nāyak court of Tanjore Acyutappa installed his son on the throne and retired to the forests.²⁵

c6.44

²⁴ S. K. Aiyangar, op. cit., p. 90.

c6.45

²⁵ Ibid., p. 273.

c6.46

In this connection it must be noted that the true significance of the coronation of the Crown Prince was not always properly understood by the chroniclers and foreign travellers. A few writers are of the opinion that it marked the abdication of the ruling sovereign. One such is Nuniz, the Portuguese chronicler who speaks about the so-called abdication of Kṛṣṇadēva Rāya. He says: "The king perceiving that he was already advanced in years desiring to rest in his old (?) age and wishing his son to become King when he died, he determined to make him King during his life time, the boy being six years old and the King not knowing what would happen after his death. Wherefore he abdicated his throne and all his power and name and gave it all to his son and himself became his minister."²⁶

c6.47

²⁶ Sewell, op. cit., p. 359.

c6.48

A few records of the year Tāraṇa (A.D. 1524) mention Tirumalaidēva Mahārāya, son of Kṛṣṇa Rāya, as the ruling sovereign.²⁷ but we have no authority, epigraphical or literary, to show that the father abdicated in favour of his son. Most probably Nuniz misunderstood the true significance of Tirumala's coronation as Yuvarāja, and mistook it to be his coronation as king. The account of Nuniz is not always trustworthy; for in one place he says that Kṛṣṇadēva Rāya was over 20 in 1509 and in another place he says, "he was an old man" in 1524. A king who was a little over 20 in 1509 could not have become "old" in 1524. Further Kṛṣṇa Rāya's position as his son's minister could not have given him the rest in his old age desired by him according to Nuniz. The story of the abdication is thus untrustworthy. A large number of inscriptions of the period ranging between 1525 and 1530 coming from the various parts of the empire, show that Kṛṣṇadēva Rāya was the emperor till 1530. And inscriptions of Kṛṣṇa Rāya bearing also the dates between Ś. 1446 Tāraṇa Vai. and Ś. 1446 Tāraṇa Mārga are to be found in large numbers throughout the empire.²⁸ These indicate that Kṛṣṇa Rāya was ruling along with his son during this period, and thus he did not abdicate his throne.²⁹

c6.49

²⁷ E.C., IX, Mg. 6 and 82; 115, 116 and 117 of 1918; 139 of 1896; 261 and 605 of 1929-30. The earliest of these inscriptions is dated Vaiśākha śu. 13 while the latest is dated Tāraṇa Mārga. śu 2. 605 of 1929-30 gives the date as Ś. 1446 Vyaya Kārttika. But the date appears to be clearly wrong for the corresponding Śaka year to the cyclic year Vyaya was 1448.

c6.50

²⁸ The following are a few of the inscriptions of Kṛṣṇa Rāya during the rule of Tirumala: (1) 118 of 1897; *S.I.I.*, VI, 72, Tāraṇa Āṇi; (2) *E.C.*, V, Bl. 78 dated Tāraṇa Śrāvaṇa śu. 5; (3) 101 of 1918; Tāraṇa Simha; (4) *E.C.*, IX, Bn. 19; Tāraṇa Mārg. śu. 1, the date of 117 of 1918.

c6.51

²⁹ See *J.I.H.*, XVII, pt. I, pp. 54-59 for a detailed discussion of the question by the author.

c6.52

Writing on Tirumala, Kṛṣṇa Śāstri thinks that he abdicated his throne in favour of his son Śrī Raṅga I.³⁰ He quotes the *Vasucaritramu* in support of his statement, but in that work it is simply stated that Tirumala anointed Śrī Raṅga as the *Yuvarāja*.³¹ This is confirmed by another work called *Śrutarañjani*, a commentary on the *Gītagovinda* by Tirumala Rāya himself. It shows that the royal author left the administration of his empire in the charge of his sons and spent his time amidst poets and literary men.³² This, too, cannot be construed to mean that Tirumala abdicated his throne.

c6.53

³⁰ A. S. R., 1911-12 p. 181.

c6.54

³¹ S. K. Aiyangar, op. cit., p. 217.

c6.55

³² Ibid., p. 213.

c6.56

Thus the available evidence definitely shows that in the Vijayanagar period, as earlier in the Cōḷa days, the kings in their own life-time anointed their sons as *Yuvarājas* to obviate the possibility of disputes regarding succession to the throne after their death. Having made them *Yuvarājas*, the kings gave them official training in administration. The *Yuvarāja* was placed in charge of the administration of a part of the kingdom, the king watching the rule of the *Yuvarāja* and guiding his administration from a distance.

c6.57

Regency. An important problem connected with the central government relates to regency. When the occupant of the throne happened to be a minor, a regent was nominated and entrusted with the administration of the empire in the name of the young ruler until the latter should come of age and take up the reins of government into his own hands. Regents there were, but history provides examples of many who used their regency as a lever for self-aggrandisement and as an opportunity for strengthening themselves against the legitimate ruler, eventually usurping all royal power and even dethroning and imprisoning the rightful sovereign. The history of Vijayanagar abounds in instances of such misuse of regency, as by Vīra Narasiṁha and Rāma Rāja. From Nuniz we learn that Sāḷuva Narasiṁha at the time of his death entrusted the administration of his vast empire to his trusted general Narasā Nāyaka until the princes (his sons) should come of sufficient age to rule.³³ This statement of the chronicler is confirmed by the independent testimony of a large number of inscriptions which specifically state that Narasā Nāyaka was the administrator when Immaḍi Narasiṁha was ruling the kingdom.³⁴ An inscription dated A.D. 1498-99³⁵ states that Narasā Nāyiningāru was a *pampu*³⁶ with Sāḷuva Immaḍi Narasiṁha Rāya in the sovereignty of Vijayanagar. After the death of Narasā his son Vīra Narasiṁha acted as the regent for some time. But later he usurped the throne and founded the Tuḷuva line of kings of which the greatest was Kṛṣṇadēva Rāya.

c6.58

³³ Sewell, op. cit., p. 308.

c6.59

³⁴ 143 of 1915 ; M.A.R., 1916, para 102 ; ibid., 1918, para 108.

c6.60

³⁵ 386 of 1904 ; M.E.R., 1905, para 44 ; E.I., VII, p. 78.

c6.61

³⁶ This term is taken to mean ‘a partner’ by the Government Epigraphist, which is not, however, correct. Strictly, taken as a verb, it means ‘to send’. *Pampu* is also used as a noun and it denotes one who is sent by another, (i.e.) a representative.

c6.62

If the Portuguese historian Couto is to be believed, Sadāśiva was but sixteen years old when he ascended the throne. Hence Rāma Rāja administered the kingdom for the king. About 1550 Sadāśiva was imprisoned and Rāma Rāja claimed from that time equal status with the king, but since 1563 the minister almost became an usurper and ruled the empire as an independent sovereign assuming all imperial titles. From Cæsar Frederick we learn that he "sate on the Royal throne and was called king."³⁷ Thus Rāma Rāja also proved an usurper. Speaking about this usurpation Heras expresses the opinion that the imprisonment of Sadāśiva and the usurpation of all royal authority by the chief minister "was due more to the incapability of the young puppet sovereign than to his own ambition," and adds that "from this point of view this usurpation provides a special sidelight of self-sacrifice for the welfare of the country and the salvation of the empire."³⁸ But one cannot agree with this view. This argument can be urged to justify the usurpation by any able minister. If really Rāma Rāja was only anxious to ensure the efficient administration of the empire he could well have accomplished this end even as a minister.

c6.63

³⁷ Purchas, His Pilgrims, X, p. 93.

c6.64

³⁸ Aravidu Dynasty, I, pp. 219-220.

c6.65

These instances illustrate fully the evils of the regency system in Vijayanagar history. These revolutions had their repercussions on the empire, and generally discontent spread in the realm. When Salakam Rāju Tirumala usurped the throne in 1542 by “sinning” against his lord Veṅkaṭa I, perhaps by murdering him, there was a protracted civil war in South India. The regency system brings out in relief the influence of ministers at the imperial court. Under strong kings they were obedient and loyal while under weak ones they tried to usurp all royal power and rule the country independently of the nominal king and at times even at his expense.

c6.66

Royal Duties. In ancient and mediaeval India the duties of the State as conceived by her political thinkers and understood by the sovereigns were not merely those of the policeman or the soldier. Though the State in India paid great attention to these duties, yet it had for its ultimate end something higher and nobler. The Hindu State afforded ample opportunities and scope for the citizens to improve themselves mentally and morally. In India the king being the chief in the empire was charged with certain duties and responsibilities conducive to the progress of the society.

c6.67

Confining our attention to the Vijayanagar State, we note that the first and primary duty of the king was to afford protection to all his subjects and redress their grievances. In fact these are the most elementary functions of any State. Only in a land where peace reigns can there be any progress. This primary duty of rakṣaṇam entailed a double responsibility on the king. One was to protect the country from the foreigner. The Vijayanagar empire itself was founded to stem the tide of Muhammadan aggression. The other was to maintain an efficient police organization in the State and to ensure the preservation of order and peace in the country. Connected with these was the duty of redressing the grievances of the people by the king. Kṛṣṇadēva Rāya desires that the kings should always be anxious to protect their subjects and redress their grievances.³⁹

c6.68

³⁹ Amuktamālyada, canto IV, v. 205.

c6.69

There are many instances in the history of Vijayanagar which speak of the interference of the ruling kings in putting an end to the oppression of the people by the provincial chiefs. Mention may here be made of two of them.

c6.70

Two valuable lithic records, one found at Kilūr and the other Elavanāśūr, both in the South Arcot district, disclose certain interesting facts. According to them, the ministers took presents by force from the Right and Left Hand classes at the beginning of each reign; and the discontented ryots in consequence went away to foreign countries; worship and festivals ceased in temples and the country became full of disease, and many died. Hence the king interfered and prohibited such extortion in future, and required that the order should be engraved in the whole country. But Aṇṇappa Uḍaiyār, to whom the royal order had been addressed, got it engraved only in some places, but not in others. Hence an order was sent to Nāgarasa, who made known the order of the king to the whole country. These records show that the kings took an active interest in orderly government.⁴⁰

c6.71

⁴⁰ 23 of 1905 and 161 of 1906; *M.E.R.* 1905-06, para 55

c6.72

Another epigraph at Āragaḷūr in the Salem district speaks of the oppression by the *rājagaram*, and the king's interference. It registers that three *sthānikas* of the temple of Perumāḷ Kariyavar went on a deputation to the king at Vijayanagar, and complained of the injustice done by the authorities (*rājagaram*) stationed at Dēviyākuricci, a village belonging to the temple. The chief Amaram Timmarassa introduced them to the king, got their grievances redressed, presented them each with a garland, a head dress, a horse and an umbrella and granted 900 *kuli* of wet land at Poṇ Parappi and at Dēviyākuricci as a *sarvamānya* gift.⁴¹

c6.73

⁴¹ 449 of 1913.

c6.74

More important than this elementary duty of the State was the preservation of the social solidarity of the people by enforcing on them the duty of the observance of their *svadharma* based on immemorial custom and the authority of the Vedas. Speaking of the mendicants, Kṛṣṇa Rāya insists on the fact that a king should not through his partiality for letters give large sums of money and villages to them (since the mendicants and ascetics were considered to be learned men) lest they should swerve from their necessary discipline, which would increase in the State evils as famine, disease, and infantile mortality, and further remarks that in such cases it would be sufficient if the king showed *bhakti* (respect and devotion) towards them. He further asserts that the only evil that might then result is their suffering, but no sin would accrue to the sovereign.⁴²

c6.75

⁴² *Āmuktamālyada*, canto IV, v. 242.

c6.76

At no time did the State in India interfere with the private life of the citizens so much as in the mediaeval period. The assumption of the title, the maintainer of the castes, by the Vijayanagar kings and the appointment of the samayācāryas indicate fully the vigour with which the kings enforced svadharma on the respective castes and communities in India. They maintained the maṭhas in the realm and helped them financially. But all these duties that they undertook to discharge do not lend support to the view that the kings were the ecclesiastical or religious heads; on the other hand they go to prove that the kings were greatly interested in the social solidarity of the empire and anxious to ensure peace and prosperity in the realm. There were of course inequalities and diversities which were allowed to subsist, and no attempt was ever made to level down distinctions and differences. But, as Dr. Bandyopadhyaya says, “ with the peculiar ideas and beliefs dominating the minds of men in those days ‘ equality never became a political necessity ’ with Indian thinkers; . . . and in the midst of these differences ample room was found for co-operation and progress ; with a composite social structure, with all its cultural or occupational differences not to be obliterated easily, this was all they could look to and strove for.” 43

c6.77

The Vijayanagar emperors were not indifferent to the economic prosperity of the people. They knew that public weal greatly depended on agricultural prosperity and a flourishing trade. Under them forests were cleared, new villages were formed, and fresh lands were brought under cultivation. Where these were not possible, irrigation facilities were afforded, the burden of taxation was lightened, and the net yield of the land was sought to be increased. Trade with foreign countries was encouraged. Immigrants from foreign countries were afforded protection in a manner suitable to their nationalities.⁴⁴ Foreign merchants were helped to settle in the capital and were provided with villages and decent dwellings in the city.⁴⁵ There were also a few industries which received encouragement at the hands of the State. Mining was an industry undertaken by it.⁴⁶

c6.78

⁴⁴ Amukta., canto IV, v. 245.

c6.79

⁴⁵ Ibid., canto IV, v. 258.

c6.80

⁴⁶ Ibid., canto IV, v. 245.

c6.81

Another function that devolved on the king was the administration of justice. The Vijayanagar kings fully realised that the coherence of the society depended on daṇḍa (punishment). They were anxious to redress the grievances of the people and do them justice. The king was the highest court of appeal, and when the lower courts failed to do justice to the litigant, the sufferer could appeal to the king who dispensed justice. Cruel punishments were generally deprecated.⁴⁷

c6.82

⁴³ Kautilya, p. 286.

c6.83

⁴⁷ Ibid., canto IV, v. 252.

c6.84

The pursuit of a strong and vigorous foreign policy was another of the sovereign’s duties. The king should wait for the most favourable opportunity to attack the enemy. If the enemy had internal foes in his kingdom, then the king was to sow the seeds of dissension in that country and thus weaken the State so that it would be easier for him to conquer the land.⁴⁸ But if the ruler in the buffer State should be friendly with the enemy and hostile to the king who created the State then it should be destroyed.⁴⁹

c6.85

⁴⁸ Ibid., canto IV, v. 248.

c6.86

⁴⁹ Ibid., canto IV, v. 266.

Checks on Royal Authority

c6.t1.1

Though the king was the most important organ in the body politic, he was never an autocrat. The powers of the king were generally limited by certain codes and institutions. Of course there was no constitutional check on the rapacity and highhandedness of a sovereign. But the administration was based more on conventions and experience than on constitutional laws. The independence of the sovereign was checked by various factors.

c6.t1.2

The Vijayanagar king, like all the ancient kings of India, was not a law-maker. The laws were already in existence which the king was to obey and execute. Kṛṣṇadēva Rāya insists on the protection of the Dharma by the ruling sovereigns. The royal poet says: “A crowned king should always rule with an eye towards Dharma; the lives of the gods like Indra, Varuṇa, Vaiśravaṇa, Vāyu and Agni are the results of their actions. The various worlds as Bhūḥ, Bhuvaḥ and Suvaḥ owe their positions to Dharma.”⁵⁰

c6.t1.3

⁵⁰ Ibid., canto IV, v. 285.

c6.t1.4

Such was the lofty conception of the king about Dharma and royal duties. The sources of such laws were the Vedas, Smṛtis and the Dharmaśāstras. Of course the Vijayanagar kings claimed, as many other kings have done, a divine origin for their power. But the divine origin claimed for monarchy in India is not in any way analogous to the divine right claimed by the early Stuarts in England. The British sovereigns of the early seventeenth century claimed divine origin for their powers to support their absolutism. But the Hindu theory was propounded not as a claim for absolutism or autocracy. The view was that the king was an incarnation of God on earth for the support of the people by ruling over them righteously. Kṛṣṇa Rāya observes: “Manu, Daṇḍadhara and others became known as followers of *Dharma* only by finding out the mistakes of the subjects and punishing them. The anointed king who is equal to God and who is created by God (*Prajāpati*) in various forms for the purpose of ruling the subjects is known by various terms which are sanctioned by the Vedas as Virāṭ, Samrāṭ, and should put up with the trouble and relieve the sufferings of the people”.⁵¹ Really it is difficult to call such a king an autocrat, a king who was actuated in his actions by his keen sense of moral responsibility to his people.

c6.t1.5

⁵¹ *Amukta*., canto IV, v. 285.

c6.t1.6

This apart, there were more visible checks on the king. One of them was the organised community itself. It is said that one of the characteristics of the present day political theory is its reaction against the State and a salient political fact is the increasing amount and power of group life, trade unions, and professional societies, citizens’ leagues, and neighbourhood associations. Such leagues and guilds were not unknown in ancient and mediaeval India. There were the associations of the *nānādēśis*, the *nāḍs*, the *ayyavōle*, craft guilds, the groups of ninety-eight sects, each of which had a definite organisation. They made rules and regulations for themselves and the State did not interfere with their functions except when there arose misunderstandings among them. The Central government was content with the exercise of a supervisory control over them. As Radhakumud Mookerji observes, “it is the quasi-instinctive postulates and conventions of group-life which come to be formulated as *law* and not the mandate, command or decree of a single central authority in the state. Law, under these conditions, is not an arte-fact. but a natural growth of consensus and communal life.”⁵²

c6.t1.7

⁵² *Nationalism in Hindu Culture*, pp. 99-100.

c6.t1.8

An interesting inscription from Viriñcipuram in the North Arcot district describes a regulation made by a few communities for themselves. The representatives of the Brahmans of the kingdom of Paḍaiviḍu among whom Karṇāṭa, Tamil, Telugu and Lāṭa Brahmans are mentioned, signed an agreement to the effect that henceforth marriages among their families had only to be concluded by Kanyādāna, i.e., that the father had to give his daughter to the bridegroom gratuitously, and that both the father who accepted money and the bridegroom who paid money for the bride should be punished by the king and excommunicated from their caste.53 Thus the communities made regulations for themselves and the king's duty was only to enforce them.

c6.t1.9

Custom and public opinion contributed their share to check the royal authority. The differences in the practices of the people are attributable to the peculiar local customs prevailing in the different parts of the empire. Taxation was based more on custom than on any definite scientific principles. There was no uniformity in the weights and measures in the empire. It was difficult for the king to make any innovation or regulation contrary to the accepted customary usages of the communities and peoples whom the new innovation would affect.

c6.t1.10

An undated record which seems to belong to the fifteenth century, coming from Penṇāḍam in the South Arcot district, states that any one introducing or using in the locality a measuring rod other than the mūvāyiravaṅkōl (whose linear measurement is indicated by two marks cut on the stone about fifteen feet apart) was to be awarded the same punishment as śivadrōhins, grāmadrōhins and nāṭṭudrōhins. There seem to have been several measuring rods in use in the different parts of the empire. Any standardisation with regard to these measures was looked upon with suspicion. Any innovation proposed in the standard measures prevalent in a locality was considered so heinous a crime as to be classed with nāṭṭudrōham.54

c6.t1.11

An examination of the formidable list of taxes under the Vijayanagar kings will reveal the fact that they were based largely on custom. Payments made to the overlord by the tenant or by the subject to the government were largely customary dues. Custom governed the sales of land. Along with the land sold were given away all the customary dues and periodical forced contributions to the purchaser. The State could not interfere in these things.

c6.t1.12

Another equally important factor that acted as a check on royal authority was public opinion. Even the most autocratic government cannot set public opinion at naught. Any new

c6.t1.13

53. See S.I.I., 1, No. 56.

c6.t1.14

venture or policy undertaken even by the most powerful of kings should have the moral support either implied or expressed of the people over whom he ruled. In India this opinion was expressed by the people not by placing any constitutional obstruction in the way of the smooth working of the government, but by their peaceful and silent evacuation of the occupied territories. The levying of fresh taxes was opposed by the people in that way. In the history of the Vijayanagar empire such evacuations were not infrequent. Especially the occupation of the southern portions of the empire by the Kannaḍiyas⁵⁵ was detested by the people.

c6.t1.15

⁵⁵ S. K. Aiyangar thinks that they were the Hoyśālas. But they were more probably the Tuḷuvas who appear to have migrated to the east with Timma, the grandfather of Narasā Nāyaka, and entered the service of the Sāḷuvas.

c6.t1.16

An incomplete record coming from Tiruvenṇainallūr in the South Arcot district states that as the shepherds in charge of the temple cattle in Tiruvadi śīrmai were unable to pay the saḍak-kaḍaimai tax and migrated to other places, their tax was reduced by Aramvaḷartta Nāyanār, the agent of Narasā Nāyaka, to 1½ paṇams per year per payir, a particular unit.⁵⁶ Finding that public opinion was not in favour of the continuation of the marriage tax payable by the bride and bridegroom at the time of marriage of a virgin, the enlightened sovereign Kṛṣṇa Rāya remitted it. There are many records which praise not only the king but also the local influential people for this remission.⁵⁷

c6.t1.17

⁵⁶ 450 of 1921.

c6.t1.18

⁵⁷ 387 of 1904; E.C., XII, Mg. 64.

c6.t1.19

A very important check on royal authority was the Royal Council. The kings were never without this Council which advised them in the affairs of state. They consulted it on state matters and policy. It was this Council that performed the coronation of the king and conducted the administration of the country. Under weak kings it rose to great influence and power. In fact, the Council was dominated by one strong minister, the Pradhāni. Rāma Rāja’s influence in Sadāśiva’s court is seen from the details disclosed by a lithic record which states that he made the ministers perform the coronation of Sadāśiva. That even powerful kings like Kṛṣṇadēva Rāya consulted the Council before undertaking any work is borne out by the evidence of the Kṛṣṇarāyavijayamu, which states that soon after his coronation Kṛṣṇa Rāya enquired of his ministers about the amount of his imperial revenue, and strength of his army, and they furnished him with the necessary information.⁵⁸ Again according to the same work, after inflicting a defeat on the Muhammadans the king consulted Sāḷuva Timma on the advisability of proceeding further into the Mussalman territories, and when the minister advised him not to undertake such a rash task the king accepted the advice.⁵⁹

c6.t1.20

⁵⁸ S. K. Aiyangar, *Sources*, p. 130.

c6.t1.21

⁵⁹ *Ibid*, p. 131.

c6.t1.22

In estimating the character of the Vijayanagar administration, Vincent Smith remarks that “the Vijayanagar king was an autocrat of the most absolute possible kind unrestrained by any form of check.”⁶⁰ Iswari Prasad says it was an autocracy, and observes that the needs of the empire determined the character of the government.⁶¹ But we cannot judge the character of an administration from the needs felt at the time. It is true that what was required in the Vijayanagar period was a strong and efficient army to arrest the Muhammadan aggressions and put down the turbulent feudal vassals, and hence the Vijayanagar kings were keen on improving the military organisation in the empire; and they succeeded in that to a large extent. They recruited directly for the army, gathered feudal levies and effected some reforms in their army organisation on the lines of the Muhammadans. But such a policy calculated to improve the organisation and efficiency of the military did not in any way affect the character of the government. The old and traditional view that the government was for the good of the governed still continued to actuate the motives and policy of the Vijayanagar kings. They had a paternal conception of their duties and obligations to their subjects. There might have been kings who did not care much for the good of the people, but they were very few and unpopular. In fact an epigraph of Harihara II says that he maintained the customs of the various castes and protected all his subjects as if they were his own children.⁶² Kṛṣṇadēva Rāya was also influenced by this paternal conception of the duties of a king and his government towards the people, and tried to remove their difficulties and redress their grievances. His views on the duties of kings towards the subjects are available to us in his *Āmuktamālyada* where he says: “Be always intent upon protecting your subjects . . .; the people of a country wish the welfare of the king who seeks the progress and prosperity of the country.”⁶³ The same view is expressed by Allasāni Peddana, the poet laureate of Kṛṣṇa Rāya’s court, in his description of the ideal kingship of Svārociṣa Manu, the hero of his *Manucaritamu*. The poet says that the king Svārociṣa Manu “ruled over his subjects with kindness as if they were his own children.”⁶⁴ It looks as though he has described here the rule of Kṛṣṇa Rāya, his patron. This passage reminds one of Aśoka’s Borderer’s Edict where the great emperor says : “All men are my children, and just as for my children I desire that they should enjoy all happiness and prosperity both in this world and in the next, so for all men I desire the like happiness and prosperity.” Like feelings were held by the Vijayanagar sovereigns towards their subjects. They had the welfare of the governed at heart, and to this end they strained every nerve. If the machinery of the government is only a means to achieve an end—the good of the people—then the Vijayanagar government, being actuated by a paternal conception of its duties, ministered to the needs of the people and attended to their welfare.

c6.t1.23

⁶⁰ *Oxford History of India*, p. 311.

c6.t1.24

⁶¹ *Med. Ind.*, p. 423.

c6.t1.25

⁶² E.C., V, Bl. 75.

c6.t1.26

⁶³ Āmukta., canto IV, vv. 205 & 206.

c6.t1.27

⁶⁴ Manucaritamu, canto VI, v. 117.

Section II. The Imperial Council

c6.s1.2

The study of the old administrative institutions of any country is beset with many difficulties. When we begin to consider, for instance, the Imperial Council of Vijayanagar, certain problems present themselves for solution. The nature and composition of the Imperial Council, whether the members in it were hereditary or chosen otherwise, the qualifications expected of its members, how far the decisions of the Council were binding on the king—these may serve as examples of such problems.

c6.s1.3

Besides the Council of Ministers which advised the kings on matters of state, there seems to have been in existence another Council. But it does not seem to have been always with the king to advise him. The Vijayanagar empire being made up of a large number of provincial units, each under a *nāyaka* who held his office on a feudal basis from the king, it was but fair and right that the feudal vassals should be present at the imperial court at least on ceremonial occasions. There were also the pontifical heads and great scholars, bards, dancers, painters and others depending on state patronage, who had to be honoured. The sentiments of the semi-independent rulers on the borders of the empire had to be respected. It seems likely that all these constituted the larger Council of the Vijayanagar kings.⁶⁵ The *Manucaritamu* mentions an assembly of Kṛṣṇa Rāya which was attended by the *amaranāyakas* and their representatives, rulers of subordinate territories, princes, *daḷavāys*, traders, and ambassadors from foreign kingdoms.⁶⁶ Kṛṣṇa Rāya also mentions an assembly which even the ambassadors from foreign countries attended.⁶⁷

c6.s1.4

⁶⁵ *Journal of the Telugu Academy*, III, p. 13.

c6.s1.5

⁶⁶ Canto I, vv. 12-13.

c6.s1.6

⁶⁷ *Amukta*., canto I, 18-4-259.

c6.s1.7

But its size should have been unwieldy for all practical purposes; nor could there have been in it men qualified to advise the king on matters of state. It was a House, membership in which gave dignity and honour to one who held it, in the same way as membership in the Privy Council in England gives great dignity to one at the present day. This Assembly of the Vijayanagar kings bears a distant resemblance to the *Commune Concilium* of the Norman kings in England. The presence of feudal vassals in this Imperial Assembly added strength to the king. It ensured the loyalty of the feudatory to the imperial house and his pledge of support to the imperial cause.

c6.s1.8

Apart from this larger assembly there was a Council smaller in size which the king was often obliged to consult in the administration of the empire. It was a permanent body which influenced the policy of the sovereign. In its constitution and powers it is analogous to the *Mantripariṣad* of Kauṭalya. It appears the Council generally met in a special chamber. According to the *Acyutarāyābhyudayam*, the Council met in a hall which was called *Veṅkaṭavilāsamaṇṭapa*.⁶⁸ It is perhaps the same building which Paes describes in the following words: "Thence he (the king) goes to a building made in the shape of a porch without walls, which has many pillars hung with cloths, up to the top, and with the halls handsomely painted. In such a building he despatches his work with those men, who bear office in his kingdom and govern his cities, and his favourites talk with him".69 Barbosa too mentions a Council room. He says: "The said king . . . . . . . . . . has a certain house as a hall of audience where he is present on certain days with his governors and officers to hear the correspondence and attend to the administration of the kingdom.”⁷⁰

c6.s1.9

⁶⁸ S. K. Aiyangar, *Sources*, p. 162.

c6.s1.10

⁷⁰ Dames, Barbosa, I, pp. 208-209.

c6.s1.11

It is difficult to determine the numerical strength of this Council. It must have varied from time to time. Nuniz tells us that the nephew of Dēva Rāya II was one of the twenty ministers of the king. From the somewhat confused account of Nuniz⁷¹ we are led to think that the near relatives of the king were also members of the Ministerial Council. They could not have been in charge of any department of administration but seem to have been in it on account of their blood relationship with the ruling sovereign. The number of the ministers is not however definitely known. But it was the practice both in ancient and in mediaeval Hindu governments to fix it somewhere about eight or ten. It was on such a principle traditionally followed that the Aṣṭapradhān Council of Śivāji was formed.

c6.s1.12

⁷¹ Sewell, op. cit., p. 303.

c6.s1.13

The ministers had their own official designations. From the inscriptions of the period we can infer that the following were some of the most important officers of the Vijayanagar State, who served as the ministers of the king. The Pradhāni who was at times called Mahāśirah Pradhāni,⁷² the Upapradhāni,73 the Daḷa-adhikāri or Daṇṇāyaka,⁷⁴ the Sāmantādhikāri⁷⁵ and a few others were such ministers. The heads of some administrative departments also seem to have had seats in the Ministerial Council. The poet Candrakavi mentions in his Virūpākṣasthāna, a Campū that describes the court of the God Virūpākṣa, that Gururāya who was known as Rāyabhandāri Nārāyaṇa (Royal treasurer, Nārāyaṇa) was a minister of the king.⁷⁶ That the Council consisted of a few influential ministers and a few less important ones gains support from the Kṛṣṇāpuram plates of Sadāśiva Rāya which state that Rāma Rāja and a few other chief ministers (amātya tilakāḥ) performed the coronation of Sadāśiva.77

c6.s1.14

⁷² E.C., III, Tn. 120.
73. 689 of 1922.

c6.s1.15

⁷⁴ E.C., XII, Tm. 71.

c6.s1.16

⁷⁵ E.C., IX, Dv. 29.

c6.s1.17

⁷⁶ Narasimhacharya, Karṇātaka Kavi Carite, II. p. 81.

c6.s1.18

Thus the Council appears to have consisted of two classes of advisers, (a) the Prime Minister and the other heads of the departments, and (b) a few blood relations of the king. If these two classes of members had seats in the State Council, then, the estimate of Nuniz that the king had twenty ministers cannot be wrong.

c6.s1.19

Ancient Indian *nīti* writers insisted upon the Cabinet being small; Kauṭalya says for instance that the Council should not consist of more than three or four councillors.⁷⁸ In times of war when action was more important than deliberation, the Council must have been as small as possible.

c6.s1.20

⁷⁸ Arthaśāstra, Bk. I, Ch. 15.

c6.s1.21

But the Purohita, who, in ancient India had an important place in the Ministerial Council of the king and commanded great respect,⁷⁹ does not seem to have exercised the same influence and power in mediaeval India. He became more and more the religious *guru* (preceptor) of the kings, not taking much interest in the administration and polity of the empire.

c6.s1.22

⁷⁹ Ibid., Bk. I, Ch. 9.

c6.s1.23

This *Mantripariṣad* had a President, *Sabhānāyaka*, to preside over its deliberations. Possibly the Prime Minister was the president of the Council. This is indicated by a lithic record which states that Tippada Nāgaṇṇa who was the Senior Minister of Bukka I, was the Lord of the Council (*Sabhānāyaka*).⁸⁰ We do not know exactly what connection the king had with the meetings and deliberations of this Council, whether it was he that convened its meetings or the Prime Minister with the knowledge and approval of the king. The evidence at our disposal shows that the king himself convened the meetings to discuss certain questions. The instances of Dēva Rāya summoning "a council of his nobility and principal Brahmans" to concert measures for improving the Vijayanagar army, and Kṛṣṇa Rāya conferring with his ministers on the eve of his wars against the Gajapati, are good illustrations of this procedure.⁸¹ The Lord of the Council (*Sabhānāyaka*) might have presided over it in the absence of the king.

c6.s1.24

⁸⁰ E.C., VI, Mg. 25.

c6.s1.25

⁸¹ Briggs, The Rise, II, p. 430; Sewell. op. cit., pp. 324-25.

c6.s1.26

Strict secrecy was kept with regard to the deliberations of the Cabinet. According to the *Kauṭalīya* even birds and animals like parrots, dogs, and deer, were not allowed near the place where the Cabinet of ministers met.⁸² The *Āmuktamālyada* too stresses the principle of the maintenance of secrecy with regard to the deliberations and proceedings of the Cabinet.⁸³

c6.s1.27

⁸² Arthaśāstra, Bk. I, Ch. 15.

c6.s1.28

⁸³ Āmukta., canto IV, v. 252.

c6.s1.29

A high qualification was expected of the minister. A minister was to be a scholar, afraid of adharma, well versed in rāja nīti, between the ages of fifty and seventy, and healthy in body and one whose connection with the king had come down from previous generations, and one who was not conceited. Kṛṣṇa Rāya assures that under such a minister, the aṅgas of a king (the constituents of royalty) would increase in a single day.⁸⁴ It is also said in the Navaratnamulu that the king should possess a versatile minister for, if he possessed one such, he would find uses for his sword and deed.⁸⁵ From the known facts about the ministers of the Vijayanagar kings, we cannot dismiss this as a mere ideal aimed at by the rulers. The history of the Vijayanagar empire furnishes us with a long line of successful and efficient ministers who flourished in the period. The hereditary principle seems to have been recognised with regard to the choice of ministers. Generally, the king chose his ministers, and in that choice their previous connection with the royal house was taken into consideration. Kṛṣṇadēva Rāya insists on the previous connection of the minister with the ancestor of the ruling king.⁸⁶ The royal poet also says that a king should not allow into his secret counsels an officer who had been made a lord recently, lest he should feel proud of the favours shown to him and reveal the state secrets.⁸⁷ Many of the Vijayanagar ministers were in office during the reigns of successive kings. Mudda Daṇḍanātha was the Prime Minister both under Bukka I and Harihara II.⁸⁸ The latter is said to have inherited from his father the wealth of the kingdom and the city together with Mudda Daṇḍanātha.⁸⁹ Similarly Sāyaṇa was the minister of both Bukka I⁹⁰ and Harihara II.⁹¹ Nāgappa Daṇṇāyaka who was minister of Dēva Rāya I⁹² continued to be the minister of Dēva Rāya II.⁹³ Thus instances can be multiplied where one individual was minister under successive kings. But it cannot be said that ministers and kings were always on friendly terms. Kṛṣṇadēva Rāya in a paroxysm of fury blinded and put into prison not only Sāḷuva Timma, his trusted minister, but also his son Timmaṇṇa Daṇṇāyaka and brother Govinda Rāja suspecting them of having murdered his young son Tirumala.

First 140 of 216 passages. Read on

Linked texts (15)