ADMINISTRATION OF VIJAYANAGAR STATE

Introduction
The Vijayanagar state was established in 1336, by two brothers, Harihar and Bukka.

I. KING
The King or the raya was the head of the state.

Political History
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.
Saluva Narsimha set up the next dynasty. This was the Saluva dynasty, which lasted
from 1485 to 1505. 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 established control over the nayakas and dealt with the
Bahamanis and Gajapatis. 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.

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.

II. COUNCIL OF MINISTERS

The King had a Council Of Ministers, which was under-developed under the Cholas.
Satish Chandra observes that it mostly consisted of the great nobles of the kingdom.
They were appointed by the king and maintained their position so long as they
remained in his favour.

III. NAYAKAS – NAYANKARA SYSTEM

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

Nayakas –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
According to 16th century European reports, some part of the resources, which they
commanded was transferred to the capital in the form of tribute.

Features
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.
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.

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

A. Centralization
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.

B. 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.

C. 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.

D. 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 D.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.
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.
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) 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.
2) 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.
3) 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.
4) 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.
5) 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’).
E. 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.
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.

F. Military basis of state – War-State

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.

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 geograohical, 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.

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.

G. 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.

H. 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.

IV. PROVINCIAL GOVERNORS

There is a debate about the existence of Provincial Governors. 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. Their main functions included right to
hold courts, maintaining law and order, appointing officers and maintaining armies,
and imposing taxes. They seem to have maintained coordination of work with the
Centre, like paying a fixed contribution in men and money.
V. 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.
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 were given specific land grants for this purpose. These were the bhandarvada
grants.
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.

In Chola times the support of brahmanas and their settlements was granted by
locally dominant peasant groups through their spokesman, the nattar. During the
VN period, brahmanas became increasingly the instruments for enhancing imperial
control through their direct political function as commanders and governors of
fortresses.
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.

In the Chola period, the position of the brahmanas was legitimized by brahmadeyas.
However, by the VN period, this was done by the cooperation of brahmanas with the
nayakas in their support to temples.
VI. LOCAL INSTITUTIONS
1) Assemblies
There is a controversy about this. 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.

Scholars like Saletore and Venkatramanayya hold the view that the assemblies
continued to exist and perform an active role. The essential difference to which
these scholars draw attention is that of ideology. The struggle to maintain Hindu
institutions in the face of an Islamic threat is believed to have produced a militant
defence of existing institutions. The term purvamaryade (ancient usage) is invoked
in this debate to show that there were few social and cultural changes in South India,
arguing that the raya respected the ancient customs and traditions. Hence these
local assemblies would have continued.

Scholars like Sastri and Krishaswami acknowledged the ideological basis of VN but
argue that under the VN protectors of Hinduism, many of the earlier social and
economic arrangements of South India changed. They argue that the raya may have
respected purvamaryada but this would have been confined to customary ritual
rights and did not necessarily imply continuation.

Specifically, these divergent views focus upon the question of why such local
institutions, as the sabhas of brahmana settlements, the urs of peasant settlements,
and the nadu locality assembly, first declined then virtually disappeared during the
VN rule.
Iyengar, Stein and Mahalingam believe that there was a considerable decline in
the powers of these assemblies.
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. He also says
that the emergence of institutions like the ayagar also played a role in the decline of
the assemblies.
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. He also blames the ‘highly centralized feudalism’ of VN for the
usurpation of formerly self-governing villages and locality institutions. Finally he
attributes the decline of local institutions to what in effect were substitute local
institutions, the nayankara and ayagar systems.
CONCLUSION - We can say that these assemblies may have continued but they
would not have played any significant role.

2) Local Officers
There were a few local officers who were a link between the Imperial government
and the local authorities. Mention may be made of parupatyagar (Executive
officer), adhikari (special officer), nattunayakkar (the superintendent of the
nadu), gaudike etc.

Village officers were paid either by grants of land or a portion of agricultural

produce. King maintained contact with them through officers called
mahanayakacharya.

3) Ayagar System
Another important local institution was the ayagars (village servants), which seems
to have existed in every village and is referred to as an institution of eight or 12
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 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.
They would be assigned rights over some plots of land in the village, which were
tax-free. The ayagar derived their income from the manyu tenure, which was the
tenure granted to the brahmanas in the form of brahmadeya and devadanas.
Debate - The ayagar system of the VN period is treated by Krishnaswami as having
no precedent in Tamil country during earlier times. But Stein says that the
suggestion that ayagars were new to the country is implausible. Chola inscriptions
refer to land records and accountants and also headman. There were also artisans
and people responsible for irrigation works. What was new in the Tamil country
was the support of these persons and functions by special village tenures. This
change appears to signify a change in the character of authority and control in the
nattar body, even an end to its corporateness.

VII. LAND ORGANIZATION

Stein says that the new basis of locality leadership altered earlier relations in a
decisive way and led to significant changes in the land system of the time.
Revenue department was known as athavana.
Land revenue was 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
holders of land.
Customs duties or trade was another important source of revenue.
Excise duties on salt and toddy.

1) Types of land tenures

The sources mention three types of land tenures. They refer to them manner in
which the shares of income from villages were distributed.
Bhandarvada (Crown village) – the income of this land tenure went in support of
forts and fortresses all over the empire
Manyu – tax-free villages. 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. Is believed to constitute 75% of all village land. Rights over village land refer
to shares of income not abstract legal proprietary rights in land, particularly
applying to amaram.

2) Village - In the VN Period, it was not the locality but the village which became
the major unit in which land rights were distributed. This shift in organizational
focus from the nadu, localities, to consequent villages, is of greatest significance
considering VN land system. This process can be located in connection with temple-
centered urbanization, increased trade, and the emergence of more complex forms
of localized society, requiring more centralized leadership.

3) Temple - Temples came to play an important especially with the decline of

various local institutions.
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.
Temples in the VN period became major landholding and land-managing
institutions. There was in increase in the temple grants or devdanas. 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.
Special officers of the temple oversaw the management of the devadana villages to
assure that the income endowed by the grant of rights in a village was applied to its
specified purpose.
Most of the temples can be supposed to have had several devadana villages to
support their ritual functionaries and to provide the goods or the money necessary
for ritual performances.
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.

4) Development Projects
Amaranayakas were among the most active rural entrepreneurs. 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.

VIII. JUSTICE
Justice in the VN kingdom was administered by a hierarchy of courts. Nuniz
however, says that the only law of the land was the law of the brahmanas.
Punishments were harsh and often barbarous. Death or mutilation were common
for crimes like adultery or theft or treason.

IX. POLICE SYSTEM

It was fairly efficient. There were 2 kinds of police forces – one maintained by the
state and the other maintained by the local people. In the provinces, nadukas were
responsible for maintaining peace.

X. 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.