CONFLICT WITH THE BAHAMANI KINGDOM

Introduction

The Vijayanagar state was established in 1336, by two brothers, Harihar and Bukka. Simultaneously, the Bahamani kingdom was established in 1346 by Alauddin Bahman Shah, who was an Iqtadar of Mohammad bin Tughlaq.

Ideological debate

Writers like Swell, Shastri and Mahalingam present the emergence of these two states as an ideological reaction to Muslim rule. Iyengar describes it as the Great National War of the Hindus, and Shastri spoke of the mission of upholding the Hindu faith against Islam. It would however be wrong to attribute the formation of the Vijaynagar state to religious factors. Both these states were involved in a constant military conflict, which affected the military organization of the states.

The VN conflict with the Bahamani kingdom lasted till around 200 years and even after its disintegration the conflict continued with Bijapur and other states.

 

Political background of Vijayanagar

In order to understand the conflict with the Bahamanis, it is imperative for us to have a basic political background of the Vijayanagar state.

  • There were 4 main dynasties – The first, which was established by Harihar and Bukka was the Sangam dynasty. This lasted from 1336 to 1485. The most important ruler of this dynasty was Harihar II. The other important ruler was Devaraya II. He also followed a successful expansionist policy, and resisted attacks by rivals.
  • Saluva Narsimha set up the next dynasty. This was the Saluva dynasty, which lasted from 1485 to 1505. He established control over the nayakas and prevented the disintegration of the empire. At this time the VN state was involved in a constant conflict with the Bahamani kingdom and the Gajapati rulers of Orissa. Saluva wasn’t very successful against them.
  • The last ruler of this dynasty was Imadi Narsimha. He was a young boy and power was exercised by his regent, a prominent courtier known as Narsa Nayak. Narsa Nayak was an efficient military commander, who suppressed rebellions, resisted the Gajapatis and Bahamanis and also established control over the Raichur doab region.
  • At this time the Bahamani kingdom disintegrated into five kingdoms – Bijapur, Ahmednagar, Golconda, Bidar and Berar. Of these Bidar and Berar were ultimately taken over by Bijapur and Ahmednagar. The most important of these was Bijapur.
  • The next was the Taluva dynasty, which lasted from 1505 to 1562. The most important figure was Krishna Deva Raya. Under him the VN Empire reached its peak. He was involved in a successful conflict against Bijapur.
  • His period was followed by a period of decline. The last ruler of his dynasty was the weak Sadasiva. Real power was exercised by a noble, Rama Raya. He intervened in the internal affairs of the Deccani kingdoms and played them against each other. In 1561 they all formed an alliance against VN and in 1565 they defeated VN at the Battle of Talikota.
  • The last dynasty was the Aravitu dynasty (1570-1644), which was set up by Tirumal. After that it entered a phase of decline. Most areas became independent and nayakas grew very powerful, and effective authority of the state was limited.

Causes

1) In Sources

  1. Ferishta, who wrote Tarikh-i-hind said that the conflict started during the reign of Alauddin Bahaman Shah when he tried to control the Raichur Doab. Harihar had tried to make peace at this time. Till the time of Bukka I, three wars were waged of which no clear victor emerged and positions kept changing.
  2. Azizullah Tabataba, who wrote Burhan-i-maasir was a contemporary writer. He gave a religious colour to the conflict as between the forces of Islam and kaafirs, like a kind of jehad or ideological conflict.

Critique

We should not overemphasize the religious aspect. In the medieval period most conflicts tended to be projected in this light due to peculiar conditions of writers. Both Tabataba and Ferishta were in the court of Alauddin Bahaman Shah and used religious terminology to justify his stand, especially since the subjects were quite unhappy with the conflict. The roots of the conflict can be traced to geographical, political and economic factors.

2) Geographical reason

In the Decanni terrain there are very few fertile zones, since it is primarily a plateau region. The Raichur doab region is a fertile area and was not only a bone of contention between the VN state and Bahamani state but was also the arena of the conflict. Security depended upon how many forts could be controlled in this region. Due to their location, the Bahamani kingdom could only expand southwards, and the VN state could only expand northwards. Obviously the two states were bound to get into a conflict. This has happened throughout the history of the Deccan, between the Chalukyas and Cholas, and between Pallavas and Rashtrakutas.

3) Economic

Control over the Raichur Doab also meant access to the Konkan coast. This was very important because of the number of ports located in the area. Both the states got their supply of horses from the Portuguese through these ports. Hence, control over this region implied access to sea-routes.

Therefore, strategic, geographic, and economic reasons for the conflict always existed in the region.

Military

VN rulers had a well-organized military department called kandachara, which functioned under a senapati or sarva-senyadhikari.

They maintained a large-standing army, consisting of elephants, cavalry and infantry. There is evidence of the use of artillery and camels. The two mainstays of VN’s military strength were its cavalry and use of firearms. The VN state was not only a war-state but a very successful one for two centuries. This success depended very directly upon its contact with Portuguese and Muslim traders and soldiers. Cavalry was strengthened by horses from outside.

There were two methods of recruitment to the army – one was directly by the King, which constituted a regular standing army of the state. The second was a largely irregular supply consisting of contingents supplied by the nayakas.

Forts played a vital part in defence.

War State

  • Some scholars like Shastri have called the Vijayanagar state a ‘war state’. This is indicated by the nayankara system, which probably emerged in response to the need of the struggle with the Bahamani kingdom. It has also been pointed out that the VN state tried to seek firearms from the Portuguese.
  • The organization of this ‘war-state’, Shastri wrote was dominated by its military needs. Two principal elements of the war state –
  • One was the hundreds of the local military chiefs who often bore the title of nayaka.
  • The other was the system of VN fortifications usually under brahmana commanders. These were the core elements of VN power in the peninsula and the means of imperial control.

Nayakas

Introduction

  • The Nayankara system was the central feature of the administrative system of the VN state.

Definition

  • The Sanskrit term nayaka is a very ancient one denoting a person of prominence and leadership, especially military leadership. The nayakas were military chieftains who enjoyed rights over land given to them.
  • Great and small warriors, nayakas, are presented as the key political figures in the VN state.
  • The term amaranayankara encapsulates the rights of the nayaka for it signifies an office (kara) possessed by a military chief (nayaka) in command (amara) of a body of troops

Features

  1. The nayaka was a holder of the amaram tenure, which was a land assignment. These were rights over the land and not simply revenue collection. Therefore the nayaka was also responsible for cultivation, clearing of forests etc.
  2. Amaram tenures were given for military service to the nayakas or amaranayakas. They had to provide a military contingent and send a fixed tribute to the king, which could be in the form of a gift or a share in the revenue.
  3. The state did not interfere in the internal functioning of the nayaka and they were not subject to transfers, as long as they continued to pay their tribute.
  4. There was also another kind of tenure. This was the amara umbalige. These were tenures which were rent free grants of land. These were given to those nayakas expected to render military service but were exempted from giving any tribute.

Role of the nayakas and their relationship with the VN Raya – IN ONE PARAGRAPH

  • Despite the different views on the nature of state, all agree that the Nayankara system was the central feature of the administrative system of the VN state.
  • Nayakas have been a subject of controversy. There are different views to describe the role of the nayakas and the relationship they shared with the VN King. Satish Chandra refers to the nayakas as ‘subordinate rules’. Some scholars see them as feudal lords and the amara tenure as their fiefdom. Some see them as agents of the powerful, centralized state. Stein calls it a prebendial society.

Shastri’s changing views on nayakas and relation with raya

In 1946, in ‘Further Sources of the Vijayanagar State’, he wrote that “the nayakas were completely dependent on the will of the rajas”. When he saw the situation at the time of the defeat of the VN state in 1565, he said that compared to earlier times, they had acquired semi-independent, autonomous status. In 1955, his position seems to have changed. In ‘History of South India’, he wrote that in addition to the large army at the centre, the whole of the country was studded with military chiefs, who owed certain obligations to the king. Now the nayakas weren’t seen as completely dependent on the rayas. In 1965, he wrote in ‘Sources of Indian History’ that the nayakas were like a confederacy of many chieftains, who co-opted among themselves, under the leadership of one chieftain.

Brahmanas

  • In addition to a new more explicitly martial conception of chieftainship, the war-state of VN produced another politico-military change over its territory – its forts and Brahman commanders.
  • They were also appointed as military commanders, and were given charge of forts as durga dannaiks.
  • They were given specific land grants for this purpose. These were the bhandarvada
  • The didactic Telugu poem Amuktamalyada attributed to Krishnadeva raya dwells upon the relationship of forts and brahmans. It was through the forts and brahmanas that VJ military supremacy, as well as its ability to draw fighting men for its wars, was maintained.
  • Brahman commanded fortresses were intended as an insurance against the creation of anti-VN coalitions of warriors and were the mainstays of imperial control.
  • Many brahmanas from Maharashtra were introduced into the Tamil country for this and other administrative purposes.
  • The Brahmanas also emerged as the agents of the VN raya in these areas. Stein says that the brahmanas not only commanded fortresses but also represented the military and ritual supremacy of the raya in that area. They were often appointed with the specific purpose of controlling the turbulent nayakas.

Consequences

Neglect of these local institutions, according to Krishnaswami, stemmed from the ‘feudal’ and military organization of the state and the hostility of VN soldiers to these institutions.