NATURE OF VIJAYNAGAR STATE

  1. Introduction
  • The Vijayanagar state was established in 1336, by two brothers, Harihar and Bukka.
  • The nature of the VN polity is a subject of debate.
  • Various scholars have expressed views.
  1. Ideology
  • Writers like Swell, Shastri and Mahalingam present these two states as an ideological reaction to oppressive Muslim rule, where the VN rayas upheld the Hindu dharma. The existence of powerful Muslim states north of the Krishna River – the Bahamani sultanate and its successors are alleged to have constituted a threat to Hindu society.
  • It was therefore assumed that this may have carried on to the social and political order of the state.
  • Iyengar describes it as the Great National War of the Hindus, and Shastri spoke of the mission of upholding the Hindu faith against Islam.

Critique of ideology

There is a general agreement that the ideological factor was not very important in the creation and functioning of the state. The putative ideological factor of the containment of Islam must be questioned. If there was indeed such a sentiment, then north India should also have felt it.

Burton Stein wrote that those who bore the 1) major brunt of the VN state’s military activities were the local chieftains or the nayakas, not the Bahamani or Bijapur kingdoms, symbols of the so-called Muslim threat. 2) In fact most of the strategically placed contingents of the Vijayanagar state comprised of Muslims. Hence we see that the role of the ideological factor needs to be reexamined.

Maybe there is some reference to the ideological factor, as kings did try to present themselves as upholders of dharma. Krishna Deva Raya wrote that the king should have an eye towards dharma. He also referred to the saptanga theory of the state in his coronation ceremony. There is a reference to the support given by the rayas to temples, maths, brahmanas, purohits etc. However, the point that these references arose as a reaction to a Muslim threat is contested.

Both these states were a reaction of regional forces to centripetal forces. Both these states were involved in a constant military conflict, which affected the military organization of the states. Scholars like Shastri have called the Vijayanagar state a ‘war state’.

III. CENTRALIZATION

  • King’s power

Kingship was a hereditary monarchy and there was a considerable increase in the powers and role of the king from the Chola period. Hence, unlike the Chola kings, the VN kings did not adopt high sounding titles.

Some scholars like Shastri, Ishwari Prasad and Smith believe that the VN raya was an autocrat. Scholars like Mahaligam argue that it was a paternalistic kingship characterized by a concern for the welfare of the people. Mahalingam in fact went on to compare Krishna Deva Raya with Ashoka, but the difference is that Ashokan kingship is related to the concept of dhamma.

Other scholars say that he did not exercise absolute power, and argue that there were certain important institutional checks on the power of the raya. One was the 1)Council of Ministers, which had been in its nascent stage in the Chola period but had now developed as an important institution. 2) Customs and traditions also acted as a check on the VN raya. They were influenced by the 3)smriti literature and the raya was an upholder of dharma. 4) Local institutions also acted as a check on the power of the king.

2) Bureaucratization

Scholars like Shastri and Mahalingam say that the VN polity was a centralized polity, and the king had control over the nayakas and the provincial governors. Shastri emphasized the centralized nature of the VN state more emphatically than Mahalingam. He said that VN state was a centralized bureaucratic setup. This view is based on the accounts of Paes and Nuniz, Portuguese travelers, who described the nayakas as agents of the VN state, indicating a centralized state structure.

  1. Critique of centralization by Burton stein and SEGMENTARY STATE theory

Burton Stein completely rejected this theory. VN was no more a centralized bureaucratic state than the Chola or the Pandya states had been. He applied the Segmentary state model and argued that the VN king exercised a ritual authority just like the Chola king. He derived this theory from AW Southall’s anthropological studies, which had been applied to Africa. Thus the VN state was an important variant form of segmentary organization in which the chiefly office, nayaka, was more formal and independent of the dominant landed groups of a locality. 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.

There were various units of authority in the VN state –

  • the King in the Core region
  • the Mandalam or the province
  • the nadu or the districts
  • the grama or the village

He identified certain Core regions, which were located in the fertile riverine regions, having high population density. Here the king exercised maximum authority. The Chola state was located in the Kaveri river basin. For the VN state, the Core region was situated in the Tungabhadra region. He saw the Macro areas where the king’s authority reduces as one moved further away from the Core regions. Here the king’s authority takes the form of ritual authority, in the form of gifts, tributes and military assistance.

Stein saw this as constituting a pyramidal structure, with the core region at the apex of the pyramid, where the relations between two units were replicated at various levels. The relationship between the king and the nayakas and the provincial governors were described in a ritual manner.

Critique of Stein

The view of Burton Stein has come under a lot of criticism. 1) The first is that it is a conception model. It has been borrowed and cannot be applied to the Vijayanagar state. 2) There is not just ritual authority exercised by the king. There was a considerable increase in the power of the king from the Chola period. There was also an expansion in the scope and role of the state and king. Certain institutions like the Council of Ministers developed further.

3) Stein said that there is not much of a distinction between the Provincial Governors and the nayakas. Scholars like Shastri and Mahalingam emphasize the differences between the two. These differences are – (1) Generally the Provincial Governors were from the royal family, and were representatives of the royal family. The nayakas were military chieftains who enjoyed rights over land given to them. (2)The Provincial Governors were subject to transfer and dismissal, and were under greater control of the king as compared to the nayakas who enjoyed relatively more autonomy. Yet the Provincial Governors had some freedom to make appointments and some power over the army. The Provincial Governors seem to replace the role which was played by the Chola Assemblies in the earlier period.

  1. Nayankara system
  • It is here pertinent to discuss the nayankara
  • The Sanskrit term nayaka is a very ancient one denoting a person of prominence and leadership, especially military leadership.
  • 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
  • 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. 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. 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.
  • The sources mention three types of land tenures.
  • Bhandarvada – The income of this land tenure went in support of forts and fortresses all over the empire.
  • Manyu – Their income supported brahmanas and temples. The more specific types were the devadanas.
  • Amaram – These lands were held by the nayakas, and hence they were called the amaranayakas. The nayakas were military chieftains who paid a fixed tribute and supplied a military contingent to the king from the income they derived from the land.
  • 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.
  • Just like the Iqtadari system, the nayankara system also had centralizing and decentralizing tendencies. The important factor was the military aspect and the role played by the nayakas in the rise and fall of various rulers.
  • 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. 1)Satish Chandra refers to the nayakas as ‘subordinate rules’. 2) Some scholars see them as feudal lords and the amara tenure as their fiefdom. 3) Some see them as agents of the powerful, centralized state. Stein calls it a prebendial society.
  1. Shastri’s changing views on nayakas and relation with raya

Shastri emphatically emphasized the centralized nature of the VN state. However, over time this emphasis was reduced. 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. Despite this gradual shift in his emphasis, he continued to present the VN state as a centralized model on the whole.

VII. Feudalism Hypothesis

  • Foreign travelers like Paes and Nuniz wrote that all land was held by the king, and refer to the nayakas as ‘captains’.
  • According to Fernao Nuniz, a Portuguese horse trader who came to VN in the 1530s, there were some 200 nayakas in the empire and each held land rights from the VN king who owned all the land subletted it and paid 9/10th to the king. Hence he hints at subinfeudation. This was apart from the lands granted to brahmanas and temples and lands reserved for royal purposes.
  • Scholars have estimated that perhaps 75% of the villages of the empire were under amaram tenure.
  • Based on this some scholars have spoken of the VN state as a feudal state. Even C. Sircar, who vigorously rejected the general proposal that medieval India was feudal, is inclined to term the VN Empire as feudal, largely on the strength of the evidence of the amaram tenure. He also believed that the amaram was a feudal tenure and also referred to the aspect of subinfeudation.
  • Some scholars see the role and functions of the nayaka in terms of feudal relations
  • Iyengar said that the amaram was a feudal tenure and devoted two chapters of his book ‘Tamil Country under Vijayanagar’ to this aspect of the state. He saw the King as the Lord of the state and the nayakas as feudal lords. He referred to the tribute paid by the nayankaras as feudal taxation and says that 3/4th of the total land was given to the nayakas.
  • Iyengar also writes that the nayakas were military agents of the VN raya and the nayakas had a major role to play in the expansion of the VN Empire. And as the VN state expanded, so also the nayankara system grew and developed.
  • Iyengar saw the Poligars and Poliyams as evidence of subinfeudation. In the 1800s a British surveyor, Mackenzie translated and put together thousands of inscriptions in what is known as the Mackenzie Collection. The Mackenzie collection referred to two terms – Poligars and Poliyams. The Poligars were the Telugu migrants to the Tamil country. According to Iyengar they were dependent warriors who were appointed by the central government to assist the nayakas. They had to supply poliyams or military contingents to the centre through the nayakas. They would also receive land grants from the nayakas. Stein said that they were Telugu migrants who were simply associated with nayakas in the military aspect. How then should we interpret them? The critics of the feudalism hypothesis point out that the evidence is not clear at all for us to say that they were dependent warriors or that there was subinfeudation. All that can be said is that the Poligars were migrants who played an important military role.

Critique of feudalism hypothesis

1) Stein agrees with Iyengar to the extent that the nayakas began as agents of the king and played an important role in the military expansion of the state. However, he believes they did not continue as such. They soon established control over the local people and became increasingly independent and autonomous, becoming powerful personages in their own right over time.

2) It is true that in some senses the amaram tenure may appear to be similar to the feudal tenure of the European model. However it would not be correct to label the entire structure as feudal. An important feature of the European model is that the entire society from the lowest to the topmost level was bound by ties of protection and obligation. The lords were bound to protect all those under him and everyone, but the king, owed obligation to the authority above them. Marc Bloch has described feudalism as such. In the nayankara system however, the entire society was not bound in such ties of protection and obligation. They were military chieftains who had to send military contingents but they were no obliged to protect those who were under them.

3) Mahalingam and Venkataramaiya have criticized the feudal model for the VN state and they emphasize the important difference in the process or way in which feudalism emerged in Europe and the situation in India. European feudalism they say emerged out of the process of commendation, where the peasant himself gave up his land to the smaller lord in return for protection. This land was then returned to the peasant and he worked on it as a fief. A similar process of commendation bound the smaller lord to a bigger lord. In the VN state the nayankara system does not emerge in such a way.

4) Political, economic and judicial control by the lord over the vassal was very important in European feudalism but not in the nayankara system. The nayakas were quite autonomous and often took advantage of weakened control of the VN raya to exercise greater control. It is possible that many of these nayakas may have been prominent political groups in their region, already in existence for a long time, and their lands would have been returned to them by the raya after he had established his own control.

5) Also, amaram tenure could be enjoyed only as long as the crown desired. Even if the VN raya did not have the power to transfer them, he could dismiss them.

6) The nayaka system is presented as a system only in the reports of Portuguese visitors in the 16th century. Their description may refer less about actual conditions in south India than the conceptions of political organizations which they brought from Portugal or learned of in brazil where ‘captains-general’ appear very like their description of nayakas (whom they call ‘captains’).

VIII. Stein’s Prebendal Theory

  • In contrast Stein has described the nayankara system as prebendalism and according to him the nayakas enjoyed prebendal rights over the amaram tenure, which he designates as a prebend.
  • This concept is derived from Max Weber. He used it in ‘Economy and Society’. Weber saw it as a kind of entitlement, more specifically as a fiscal right granted by a superior authority to a person not involving any specific duty or obligation on the part of the recipient.
  • Stein denied the existence of feudalism in the VN state. After making a study of VN inscriptions, he concluded that the nayakas enjoyed prebendal rights. These inscriptions do not refer to any specific obligation of the nayakas to the rayas and only mention a very general kind of obligation, where they had to supply a contingent and pay a regular tribute. They were not feudatories or officials of a centralized state structure, since if this would have been a feudal system then feudal levies would have been clearly specified. They derived their income from the amaram tenure. It is difficult to define the nayakas in terms of duties, privileges, obligations, offices, origins, administrative, political roles etc. Hence Stein applied a loose term i.e. prebendalism. They were just powerful territorial military chieftains. They did accept the ritual sovereignty of the king, which is reflected in the military contingent and tribute that they would send.
  • It is necessary to question the specifically ‘feudal’ meaning which is ascribed by some historians to a nayaka: ‘one who holds land from the VN king on the condition of offering military service’. Stein – a more prudent reading of the term nayaka is that of a generalized designation for a powerful warrior who, at times associated with the military enterprises of VN kings but who at all times was a territorial magnate in his own right.

Critique of Stein

This view was criticized by many, especially those who continued to believe that the VN state was a centralized state structure.

  1. it is pointed put that the segmentary state is a borrowed conceptual framework and so should not be applied to the VN state
  2. it is not backed by enough empirical or inscriptional evidence
  3. Stein points out that the nayakas issue coins in the name of the VN raya, indicating ritual authority. But his critics point out that this indicates that the nayakas were under the complete authority of the king.
  1. Military basis of state – War-State
  • Shastri referred to the VN state as a war state. One reason was the confrontation with the This accounted for the military basis of the VN 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.

Conflict with Bahamanis

  • There was a prolonged conflict with the Bahamani kingdom for over 200 years and even after its disintegration the conflict continued with Bijapur and other states.
  • The roots of the conflict can be traced to geographical, political and economic factors.
  • 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.
  • Due to its nature many scholars have emphasized the military aspect of the state. Not simply because of the military aspect but also because the nayakas were military chieftains. While strong rulers could keep nayakas under control, they were able to take advantage of weak rulers.

Nayankara System & Brahmanas given forts

  • 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.
  • It was through the forts and brahmanas that VN military supremacy, as well as its ability to draw fighting men for its wars, was maintained.
  • They were also given the Bhandarvada tenure. The income of this land tenure went in support of forts and fortresses all over the empire.
  • Brahman commanded fortresses were intended as an insurance against the creation of anti-VN coalitions of warriors and were the mainstays of imperial control.
  • Now the focus of studies has shifted to the nayankara system as a military institution and not just in the context of the Bahamani conflict. Nayakas continued to play an important role even after the decline of the VN state. The nayakas were also involved in conflict with the rayas, which made it imperative for the raya to develop a strong military to control the nayakas. The nayakas would also fight among themselves. In comparison with the Chola period we can see that in the VN period there was a considerable increase in the growth and functioning of the state.
  1. Sultanism – by Stein

In another article, Stein used the term Sultanism to describe the VN state. He borrowed this term from Max Weber as well, who had used it in his book ‘Economy and Society’, in the context of a large administration having enlarged and modern military force. Stein used this especially in the context of the state under Krishna Deva Raya. The features of Sultanism include a large army. There is evidence that the VN Raya adopted firearms. This was the period of Portuguese dominance in the West coast and in this context we can see the efforts of the VN state to acquire firearms, artillery, horses etc.

  1. Conclusion
  • No agreement about the nature of state
  • There was a considerable increase in the powers of the state in the VN period. In comparison with the Chola period we can see that in the VN period there was a considerable increase in the growth and functioning of the state.
  • There is a controversy over how feudal was the VN state. There seems to be a general acceptance of the nayakas as military chieftains, agents of the state and that they were extremely powerful. The issue is their relationship with the raya.
  • 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.
  • The nayankara system had both centralizing and decentralizing tendencies. The nayakas could become extremely powerful if there was a weak raya at the centre. If the raya succeeded on establishing control over them then the state could become more centralized. In fact after the Battle of Talikota we see that the nayakas became increasingly autonomous with the weakening power of the king. This contributed to the decline and disintegration of the VN state. Formally the rule of the raya continued, but the dominance of the VN kingdom ends and it enters a state of decline.