Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Administration and Social Life under Vijayanagar c9.s5: Section VII. Character of the Wars

Administration and Social Life under Vijayanagar c9.s5

Language
English

Section VII. Character of the Wars

c9.s5.2

In ancient India mere earth hunger was not the cause of wars. According to the ancient Hindu Dharma though wars might be waged with heavy losses of men and money on both sides, yet they were to be righteous ones. The peace-loving Brahmans and the contented peasants working in the fields were not to be molested. Megasthenes was very much pleased to see this state of affairs existing in North India during the time of his visit.

c9.s5.3

In the Vijayanagar court, "foreign conquest was a more fashionable theme than domestic finance."¹⁷⁰ Of course the old ideas about righteous warfare were remembered; but how far the theories were translated into actual practice is a question. Kṛṣṇadēva Rāya, however, not only laid down certain principles that must guide the kings in their war policy, but also acted up to them in certain respects.

c9.s5.4

¹⁷⁰ Wilks, Historical Sketches of Mysore, I, p. 13.

c9.s5.5

In the war of 1366 waged between the Hindus and the Muhammadans, the Vijayanagar king "with a rancorous cruelty put men, women and children to the sword," and Muhammad Shāh the Bahmani Sultan committed the same excesses and did not spare even children at the breast.¹⁷¹ In 1417 "the Hindus made a general massacre of the Mussalmans, erected a platform with their heads on the field of battle, and pursuing the king into his own country laid it waste with fire and sword." Sultan Ahmad took vengeance on the Hindu king, invaded the Vijayanagar territory, massacred the people without mercy, and "whenever the number of slain amounted to twenty thousand, he halted three days, and made a festival in celebration of the bloody event."¹⁷² Rāma Rāja left no cruelty unpractised in the Muhammadan territories. He destroyed their mosques, insulted the honour of the Mussalman women, "and committed the most outrageous devastations, burning and razing the buildings, putting up their horses in the mosques and performing their abominable worship in the holy places."¹⁷³ A recent writer in discussing the character of the wars in mediaeval India however says that "warfare in India was humane as contrasted with the horrors of war wrought by the foreigners in India.¹⁷⁴ But it must be noted that the high ideals found in the Śāstraic texts did not guide the actual policy of either the Vijayanagar kings or their Muhammadan neighbours.

c9.s5.6

¹⁷¹ See Briggs, *The Rise*, II, pp. 310 and 316-19.

c9.s5.7

¹⁷² *Ibid.*, pp. 390-91 and 402.

c9.s5.8

¹⁷³ *Ibid.*, III, pp. 120-21, 239-43 and 331.

c9.s5.9

¹⁷⁴ S. V. Venkatesvara. *Indian Culture through the Ages*, II, p. 172.

c9.s5.10

But, as has already been said, Kṛṣṇadēva Rāya was an exception to the generality of rulers. He was disposed to treat the women of the enemies' harem that fell into his hands with regard. He says in his *Amuktamālyada*: "Capture the territory as well as the fortresses of your enemies. If the harem of the enemy chances to fall in your hands see that they are looked after as if they were with their parents."¹⁷⁵ In the course of his wars against the Gajapati, Kṛṣṇadēva Rāya made many captives among whom was the 'wife' of the king of Orissa. But later, according to the terms of the treaty concluded between the two rulers, Kṛṣṇadēva Rāya restored the "wife" to the Gajapati.¹⁷⁶

c9.s5.11

¹⁷⁵ Canto IV, v. 267.

c9.s5.12

¹⁷⁶ Sewell, *op. cit.*, p. 320.

c9.s5.13

Kṛṣṇadēva Rāya had tender solicitude for the life of the non-combatants. Soon after the battle of Raicūr he was immensely grieved at the fact that many had been cruelly killed. He "out of compassion commanded the troops to retire, saying that numbers had died who did not deserve death nor were at all in fault; which order was at once obeyed by all the captains so that each one withdrew all his forces."177 On the successful termination of the battle he made a general release of a large number of men, women and boys who had been taken prisoners in the course of the war; and gave permission to the residents of Raicūr to stay or leave the city; he also promised them that he would spare all their property, and punished his men when they robbed unclaimed property.¹⁷⁸

c9.s5.14

¹⁷⁸ Ibid., pp. 342-43.

c9.s5.15

Loss of life by eminent soldiers in battle was compensated for by large grants of lands to the families of the deceased. In 1379 one Malli, son of Malli Gauḍa, was granted a koḍage in appreciation of the services rendered by him in fighting and dying in a battle.¹⁷⁹ In 1421 the family of one Rāya Nāyaka was granted some land in memory of his death in a war with the nāyakas.¹⁸⁰ An inscription of A.D. 1564 in the Yēlandūr taluk in the Mysore district records the grant of a charter to Cāmarasa Voḍeyār since his father Dēvappa Gauḍa was killed unjustly by Sanjar Khān by which he was granted a rakta koḍage the Ganiganūr thala within the Hadināḍ country.¹⁸¹ Distinguished service in the wars was rewarded by the award of military titles to the soldiers. A few of such titles are Rāghuttamiṇḍan, Araśamārttāṇḍan.182 Saṅgrāmadēva and Samaramuttiran.183

c9.s5.16

¹⁷⁹ M. A. R., 1924, No. 120.

c9.s5.17

¹⁸⁰ Ibid., 1923, No. 83.

c9.s5.18

¹⁸¹ E. C., IV, Yl. 29.
182. 252 of 1928-29.

c9.s5.19

One point that deserves to be examined here is the way in which the Vijayanagar kings made arrangements for the administration of the conquered provinces. "Conquest is not an end in itself; victory is counterbalanced by responsibilities and acquisitions by the necessity of having to provide for safeguarding them." According to the principles of righteous warfare the conquered ruler was to be reinstated in his position, but as a subordinate of the conqueror whenever possible.

c9.s5.20

¹⁷⁷ Sewell, op. cit., pp. 339-40.

c9.s5.21

The Śambuvarāya chief who was ruling over the Paḍaivīḍu kingdom, though defeated, was reinstated in his position, but as a subordinate chief of the Vijayanagar king. This is indicated by literary and epigraphical evidence. The Sāḷuvābhyudayam, and the Rāmābhyudayam say that the Śambuvarāya was reinstated in his position as king of Paḍaivīḍu after his defeat.¹⁸⁴ This is confirmed by an inscription at Māḍam in the North Arcot district which records that Gaṇḍaragūḷi Mārayya Nāyaka, son of Sōmayya Daṇḍanāyaka, the Mahāpradhāni of Kampaṇa II, defeated and took captive Veṇrumāṇ Śambuvarāya and captured Rājagambhīramalai.185 But according to the Madhurāvijayam the Śambuvarāya chief was defeated and killed in single combat by Kampaṇa.¹⁸⁶ Evidently this is an exaggerated account by the royal poetess possibly to glorify the achievements of her lord.

c9.s5.22

¹⁸⁴ S. K. Aiyangar, Sources, pp. 31-32.
185. 267 of 1919 ; Rep., para 37.

c9.s5.23

¹⁸⁶ Madhurāvijayam, Intro., p. 5.

c9.s5.24

From a few records of Kṛṣṇadēva Rāya we are able to infer that after the conquest of Gaṅga Rāja, the Ummattūr chief, he restored the province to the family of the rebel governor.¹⁸⁷ But it would appear he retained the Terakanāmbi province which probably formed a part of Gaṅga Rāja’s territories, and appointed Gōvinda Rāja, the brother of Sāḷuva Timma, as its governor.¹⁸⁸

c9.s5.25

¹⁸⁷ E.C., III, Sr. 6; see also Ibid., My. 5.

c9.s5.26

¹⁸⁸ E.C., IV, Gp. 3 and 35 ; E.C., III, Tn. 42 and 73.

Cites (3)