VIJAYNAGAR STATE – CLASS NOTES

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

Writers like Swell, Shastri and Mahalingam present 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. If there was indeed such a sentiment, then north India should also have felt it. 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 Vijaynagar state a ‘war state’.

It is accepted that the Vijaynagar state was established by Harihar and Bukka, but the question is who these people were. Scholars like Saletore (?) say that they were Hoysala feudatories, who were Karnataka brahmanas. Venkataramaiya rejects this view and says that they were Kakatiya feudatories and were of Telugu origin. This controversy is also a result of regional nationalism. Many of these works were written in the 1930s when states were being formed, and these views reflect the authors’ regional identity and consciousness.

Political history of the Vijaynagar state can be seen in 4 phases. 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. He is believed to have reached up to Ceylon, however most probably he had reached some island north of Ceylon. In his period, the VN state covered a large part of south India.

The other important ruler was Devaraya II. He also followed a successful expansionist policy, and resisted attacks by rivals. He was followed by a weak line of rulers the last of whom was Virupaksha. Taking advantage, many nayakas became very powerful. The authority of the VN state seems to have reduced to Karnataka and parts of Andhra. Virupaksha was dethroned by a minister, Saluva Narsimha, who set up the next dynasty.

This was the Saluva dynasty, which lasted from 1485 to 1505. Saluva Narsimha was able to restore law and order and suppress rebellions. 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 and it seems that the Gajapatis managed to extend their control till the Nellore district.

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.

By his time the Bahmani kingdom disintegrated into five.

  • Bijapur under Adil Shahi dynasty
  • Ahmednagar under Nizam Shahi dynasty
  • Golconda under Qutub Shahi dynasty
  • Bidar under Barid shahi dynasty
  • Berar under Imad Shahi

Bidar and Berar were ultimately taken over by Bijapur and Ahmednagar.

Narsa Nayak died in 1503. By this time the Saluva dynasty was on its decline. On NN’s death power was captured by his son Vira Narsimha in 1505 marking the beginning of the Taluva dynasty.

The Taluva dynasty lasted from 1505 to 1562. The most important figure was Krishna Deva Raya (1502-29). Under him the VN Empire reached its peak. He established control over the nayakas and dealt with the Bahamanis and Gajapatis. He was involved in a successful conflict against Bijapur. He was also a patron of culture, art and poetry, and wrote a book known as amukta malyada. 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, a brother of Rama Raya. 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. In 1636 and 1640s Bijapur and Golconda expanded southwards defeating many nayakas.

Clearly the nayakas seem to play a very important role in the political history. All rulers attempted to establish control over them. Just as the Iqtadars played an important role in the administrative structure of the Delhi Sultanate in north India, so also nayakas played a similar role in the VN Empire, where they strengthened and weakened dynasties.

However there was a major difference between Iqta and the Nayankara system. Iqta was a revenue assignment and Iqtadars were merely holders of the revenue assignment. They had the right to collect revenue and had to utilize it according to state regulations. Through this they would get administrative control. The Iqtadars were directly appointed by the state and continued as long as the state desired. They were not concerned with the cultivation and did not have rights over land. The nayaka on the other hand 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.

There were various categories of Iqta grants. There were the large grants, which were accompanied by political and administrative responsibilities and iqtadars were also required to send the fawazil or surplus. The other category was wajah grants which were given in lieu of military salaries. Other grants were those to the ulema, scholars etc. and just like the wajah grants entailed no responsibility. Iqtadars were also regularly transferred and their appointment was dependent on the state. 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. Iqtadari was a far more centralized system.

In addition to the amaran tenures, there were also provincial governors. 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.

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.

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. To understand it we need to look at the primary sources.

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.

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 jihad or ideological conflict.

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.

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 (?)

Control over the Raichur Doab also meant access to the Konkan coast. This was very important because a number of important ports were located there. From these ports the states could get access to supply of good horses from the Portuguese. In India the supply of horses was not very good and it wasn’t easy for the Deccan states to use the overland trade routes.

Polity – in terms of continuity and change from the Chola period

We have a lot of sources for this period, both literary and epigraphic. Apart from the Persian writers we also have the accounts of foreign travelers. This was the period of European and especially Portuguese sea travel and dominance. In fact Portuguese dominance was such that traders from other countries would require permits or cartazes to trade.

Important travelers accounts come from

  • Ibn Batutta (Moroccan)
  • Ibn Said (Arab)
  • Paes
  • Nuniz
  • Nicoli Conti (Italian)
  • Abdur Razzak (Persian)
  • Nikhitin (Russian)

We find official state inscriptions, copper plate land grant charters to temples and individuals as well. However the problem with them is that they do not say much. They only mention the donor, the donee and give a few details about the donation. They are short and precise and hence open to interpretation and controversies.

The problem with the foreign accounts is that they are biased especially since the writers were not familiar with the society, polity and culture they were writing about. They may have tried to apply terms, institutions and features, which may have been important in their own cultures to the VN state. An example is the feudal institution, where the nayakas were seen as feudal lords and the amaram tenure as their fiefdom.

With regard to the polity there are three basic issues. Was the VN state centralized or decentralized, was it feudal or not and what was the role of the military in the VN state?

There is a general agreement that the ideological factor was not very important in the creation and functioning of the state. Some writers like Shastri, Mahalingam, and Iyengar gave a lot of importance to the ideological factor in the rise and emergence of the VN state. They say that the state emerged in response to the Muslim threat, the oppressive rule of the Delhi Sultans, where the VN rayas upheld the Hindu dharma. It was therefore assumed that this may have carried on to the social and political order of the state. They cite the example of Krishna Deva raya, who referred to the dharmic order in his book.

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 Musim threat is contested.

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

The nature of the VN polity is a subject of controversy. It can be said that the kingship was a hereditary monarchy and there was a considerable increase in the powers and role of the king from the Chola period. 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. Other scholars say that he did not exercise absolute power, and argue that there were certain important institutional checks on the power of he raya. One was the Council of Ministers, which had been in its nascent stage in the Chola period but had now developed as an important institution. Customs and traditions also acted as a check on the VN raya. They were influenced by the smriti literature and the raya was an upholder of dharma. Local institutions also acted as a check on the power of the king.

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.

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 said that Vn state was a centralized bureaucratic setup. This view is based on the accounts of Paes and Nuniz, who described the nayakas as agents of the VN state, indicating a centralized state structure. Shastri emphasized this centralized nature more emphatically than Mahalingam. 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 acquires 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.

Burton Stein completely rejected this theory. He applied the Segmetary state model and argued that the VN king exercised a ritual authority just like the Chola king. In the form of the segmentary state model he saw a continuity from the Chola period. He derived this theory from AW Southall’s anthropological studies, which had been applied to Africa. He identified certain Core regions, which were located in the fertile riverine regions, having high population density. Here the king exercised maximum authority. He also 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. The Chola state was located in the Kaveri river basin. For the VN state, the Core region was situated in the Tungabhadra region, where the king exercised maximum authority.

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

Stein saw this as constituting a pyramidcal sort of structure, with the core region at the apex of the pyrmid, 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.

The view of Burton Stein has come under a lot of criticism. The first is that it is a conception model. It has been borrowed and cannot be applied to the Vijayanagar state. 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.

Stein said that there is not much of a distinction between the Provincial Governors and the nayakas. 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. The P 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. The P Governors seem to replace the role which was played by the Chola Assemblies in the earlier period. Scholars like Shastri and mahalingam emphasize the differences between the two.

Who are the nayakas? and what is their role, nature and rights? Some see their role in terms of feudal relations and some see them as agents of the state. The Nayankara system was the central feature of the administrative system of the VN state. 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 payed a fixed tribute and supplied a military contingent to the king from the income they derived from the land.

In Sanskrit, nayaka denotes a person of some eminence or prominence. This word occurred for the first time in Karnataka 3 centuries before the establishment of the VN state in a political usage. In the VN period it was used specifically for the military chieftains.

Satish Chandra refers to the nayakas as ‘subordinate rules’. Nayakas have been a subject of controversy. Some scholars see them as feudal lords and the amara tenure as their fiefdom. Iyengar 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.

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.

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.

Iyengar and DC Sircar reject the idea of feudalism in North India, but refer too the nayankara system as feudal. Their view is based on he accounts of foreign travelers like Paes and Nuniz. Nuniz wrote that all land belonged to the king and captains held it, subletted it and paid 9/10th to the king. Hence he hints at subinfeudation. 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 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. DC Sircar also believed that the amaram was a feudal tenure and also referred to the aspect of subinfeudation.

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 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.

Mahalingam and Venkataramaiya have criticized the feudal model for the VN state and they emphasize the important difference in the 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 lord in return for protection. This land was then returned to the peasant and he worked on it as a fief. In the VN state the nayankara system does not emerge in such a way.

Political, economic, and juridical control 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 and their lands would have been returned to them by the raya after he had established his own control.

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

In contrast Stein has described the nayankara system as prebendalism and according to him the nayakas enjoyed prebendal rights. 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 particular duty or obligation on the part of the recipient.

Stein denied the existence of feudalism in the VN state. After making a study of 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.

We also get no clear picture of the amount of tenure they were entitled to unlike the Iqtadari system where the Proportion and fawazil were clearly specified. Out of the tenure income they maintained a contingent. They enjoyed considerable autonomy in the administration and governance of their amaram tenure. According to Stein they constituted the intermediary segment or level of the segmentary state.

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

  • it is pointed put that the segmentary state is a borrowed conceptual framework and so should not be applied to the VN state
  • it is not backed by enough empirical or inscriptional evidence
  • 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.

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.

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. Iyengar saw this as evidence of subinfeudation. 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.

The Brahmanas represent an element of continuity from the Chola period. Earlier they had not been associated with the administration. Now there was a slight change and a widening of their role and functions. In the Chola period they were custodians of canonical learning and were involved as purohits and advisors and played an important role in coronation and other ceremonies legitimizing the authority of the state. In the VN period their role was no longer confined to being advisors. Now they became an integral part of the administration and military. Venkataramaiya says that the brahmanas were now trained to be accountants and administrators.

They were also appointed as military commanders, and were given charge of forts as durga dannaiks. They also maintained the forts. They were given specific land grants for this purpose. These were the bhandarvada grants. 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.

Local Institutions

Here too there is a controversy. Some scholars believe that Chola local assemblies had declined by the VN period and some believe that they continued. The Chola local bodies were the Sabha (in brahmadeya villages), Ur (in non-brahmadeya villages) and the Nattar (assembles). Their function was to collect taxes, and they also had judicial powers. Some even exercised control over temples. They often conferred honour upon some people. They were also the custodians of public endowments and controlled public places like tanks along with the temple.

In the VN period there is a considerable decline in the powers of these assemblies. Scholars like Iyengar, Stein and Mahalingam believe that the assemblies declined in this period. Others like Saletore hold the view that the assemblies continued to exist and perform an active role. He says that the raya respected purvamaryada or ancient customs and traditions. Hence these local assemblies would have continued. The opposite view argues that the raya may have respected purvamaryada but this would have been confined to customary ritual rights and did not necessarily imply continuation. Iyengar blamed the growth of the feudal military setup for the decline of assemblies. Mahalingam says that the rise of the Provincial Governors led to the decline of the assemblies. Stein says that the nayankara system replaced the chola assemblies. We can say that these assemblies may have continued but they would not have played any significant role.

Another important local institution was the ayagar which seems to have existed in every village and is referred to as an institution of eight functionaries. They were appointed by the government and would include the headman (reddy, maniyam, or gauda), an accountant (karnam), a watchman or an astrologer. They were responsible for looking after the law and order and administration of the village. They would be assigned rights over some plots of land in the village. They were a very powerful group of functionaries, and were also responsible for dispensing justice. No economic activity or transaction could take place without their support. Stein says that the emergence of institutions like the ayagar also played a role in the decline of the assemblies.

Economy

The economy continued along the Chola pattern. Most of the income of the state was derived from agriculture and most people were associated with land and agriculture. There were however some changes from the Chola period. In the Chola period the basic unit of organization was the nadu, which was cultivated by peasants of a common ethnic identity. In the VN period this was scaled down to the village, which became the basic unit of agrarian organization.

In the Chola period, the nattar or village assembly managed agrarian activities. In the VN period the nattar seems to decline. Agrarian activities were now managed by ‘big individual men’. We do not know who these people were. They could be members of the ayagar. They could be dominant peasants, migrants or native. By the beginning of the 15th century, most ‘big men’ seem to be Telugu migrants to the Tamil country. They seem to claim a share in the income of the village known as the amaramakani.

In this period there was considerable expansion in agriculture. Temples came to play an important especially with the decline of various local institutions. The ayagar derived their income from the manyu tenure, which was the tenure granted to the brahmanas in the form of brahmadeya and devadanas.

There was in increase in the temple grants or devedanas. The temples played an important role in the socio-economic life of the village. They were the largest employers. They were also banks and around them a number of economic activities took place. The temples were given grants. Generally the land given to the temple was not directly cultivated by them, and the temple would sublet this land. The peasants who cultivated this land would give a share of the produce to the temple. They also grew only those crops, which the temple wanted them to produce. The temples also played an important role in irrigation projects, tanks, wells, dams etc. some were undertaken by the state, some by brahmanas and some by nayakas.

For undertaking these development projects, people would be entitled to a share known as the dasavanda in Andhra and kattu kodage in Karnataka. This was a share in the increased income of peasants due to the developments. This could be between 1/3rd 1/4th and 1/5th.

Land revenue was also a major source of income for the state. It was probably calculated according to the quality of the land and would have varied between 1/6th and ½ of the produce. It was collected by the state officials especially in the core regions where the raya exercised effective authority. For certain categories the rate of revenue was very low. For brahmanas it was 1/20th and for temples it was 1/30th. Often revenue also came through revenue farming, which was undertaken in the Core regions or maybe through local bodies like the ayagar, the nayakas or other holdrs of land. Customs duties or trade was another important source of revenue.

Swell believed that the peasantry under the VN empire was exploited. Mahalingam however says that this is a very sweeping generalization to make. He conceded that taxes could be high, but peasants were always free to migrate. Oppression by the state was also not continuous or universal. Probably the conditions of the peasantry didn’t change much from the Chola period. It seems that there was limited production at the village level in terms of industry and handicrafts but this was mostly for local use.

South Indian society was divided into two castes – the Brahmanas and the non-brahmanas or the Shudras. There was no kshatriya caste. Professional life also determined caste identity. Two groups are mentioned. One was Valangai or the right handed castes. They were involved in agriculture and related activities. The second was the Idangai or the left handed castes. These were people involved in manufacture, crafts, trade etc. in this period there was definitely a growing consciousness of identity among the castes and we also have evidence of conflict between the two. The Brahmanas were the dominant group and as seen earlier there was an increase in their role and functions in the VN period.

The temple continued to play an important socio-econmic role. It was the biggest employer, the hub of religious and cultural identities, and a number of economic activities also revolved around it. It also played an important role in development projects, like irrigation tanks, dams and wells.

Certain institutions which had earlier been in their nascent stage developed by the time of the VN state, such as the Council of Ministers, Provincial Governors, Nayakas, and military role of Brahmanas. Shastri referred to the VN state as a war state. One reason was the confrontation with the Bahamanis. 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.

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.

There was a considerable increase in the powers of the state in the VN period. 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.