Vishwith Shetty
H.O.D. and Assistant Professor in History, Pompei College, Aikala Post, Mangalore Taluk, D. K. District, Karnataka, India-574141
*Corresponding Author Email: vishwithshetty@yahoo.com
ABSTRACT:
The common notion is that Nayakas under Vijayanagara Empire were very influential in political and military units of the state. They were mediators between the king and the subjects. But there was no concrete idea regarding the term Nayaka. There were heterogeneous views. There were no unanimous opinion regarding to whom should be called as Nayaka? The present article sheds a light on different views expressed by the various scholars regarding the Nayakatana system under Vijayanagara Empire. This paper contains healthy academic discussion among Indian scholars and foreign scholars which opens the gate for new ideas.
KEYWORDS: Captain, Nayaka, Nayakatana, Amaranayaka, Mandaleshwaras.
0.1. INTRODUCTION:
Nayakas have played an important role in the administrative pattern of the Vijayanagara Empire. The common perception is that Nayakas were very influential in political and military units of the state. In Kannada speaking areas this new administrative system was introduced by the Vijayanagara rulers in general and Tuluva dynasties ruler Shri Krishnadevaraya in particular. In his rule it has reached its high watermark. Eventhough there were innumerous studies undertaken by the scholars but there is a dilemma on the following contents:
i. Meaning of the term Nayaka.
ii. Definitions
iii. To whom should consider as Nayaka?
iv. What was the family background of the Nayakas?
v. Nayakas relations with the Crown.
There is no consensus on the above said matters. The present article has healthy discussions on the meaning, definitions and origins of nayakas. Shedding the light on earlier studies and by taking consideration of contemporary factors here I have tried to solve the above tricky questions.
0.2. Meaning: Heterogeneous views:
But Cynthia Talbot made a clear-cut differentiation between Nayaka and Amaranayaka. In his view the term Nayaka or Nayankara only confines to specific region or Seeme (Kannada terminology) and his rights only limited to that region. But Amaranayakas has the lordship over the village. (Tolbot, 2001. p. 353).
0.3. Definitions , Interpretations and Re-Analysis
i. B.A.Salettor-Officials under the Dandanayakas were known as the Nayakas. (Salettor, 1934, p. 267).
ii. T.V.Mahalingam-Nayakas were those who received the land from the kings. (Mahalingam, 1942, p. 195).
iii. J.D.M. Darret- Nayakas were the providers of military service who can be equated to the English terminology Captain. (Darret, 1957, p. 25). This interpretation is based on the 11th century epigraph which referred the term Nayaka.
iv. A. Krishnaswamy-Nayaka was a chief of the army. He should have territorial rights and must possess the prestigious title Nayaka. (Krishnaswamy, 1964, p. 180).
V. D.C.Sarkar-Nayakas were the receivers of the land from the Vijayanagara Emperor in lieu of providing military service. (Sarkar, 1966, p. 214).
Burtein Stein-Nayaka refers a common title of a powerful soldier. He should have participate each and every war on behalf of the king. But in all occasions he would exert his powers independently in his respective provinces. (Stein, 1980, p. 804).
vi. Shivanna. K. S.-Independent tenets were the Nayakas. But this inherited land is not hereditary one. It means they did not have the hereditary rights on that rented land. (K. S., 1983, p. 39).
vii. Shshir Kumar Pandey-Nayakas were the military genius. They inherited the Nayakaship by valour and leadership qualities. (Pandey, 1988, p. 105).
Viii Wagener Philip B-Head of the military was a Amaranayakas who received the from the emperor. All the cost and expenditure borne from the income derived from that land and a fixed amount was paid to the Vijayanagar king. (Philip, 1993, pp. 101-102, 198-200).
x. Noboru Karashima-Nayakatana was comes from:
A. Title.
B. Land (Seeme) or region given by the king.
C. Mediation between the king and the subjects.
If one has possessed any one of among three qualifications then he can be called as the Nayaka. (Karashima, 2002, pp. 75-85).
xi. Nobuhiro Ota-Land tenets received from the Vijayanagara king through the Nayakatana can be called as Nayakas. One cannot be called as Nayaka because of his surname. (Ota, 2008, p. 66).
xii. Laxmana Telagavi-Originally Nayaka was a leader who provides military service to the state and in lieu he received land-grants or Amaram land (Permanent land) from the king. It mean on the condition of providing military services-Infantry, Cavalry, Elephantry and Chariots- and supplying garrisons in the course of war, he receives land or a village or more than one village as a grant or gift from the king is known as Nayaka. (Telagavi, 2009. P. 23).
xiii. D.N.Yogeeshwarappa-Those who received the land from the king and ruling in their respective territory like a chieftains under the ambit of the king is known as Nayaka. It is wrong to call everyone as Nayaka only because of his mere surname. (Yogeeshwarappa, 2011. p. 90).
By analyzing the above interpretations critically we can acknowledge the fact that Nayakas were coming under the category of military personnel. But there is no unanimous opinion regarding to, to whom to be called as Nayaka? Most of the scholars used the Portuguese references used in the Robert Sewell’s work or work of N. Venkata Ramanayya who for the first time used the Sewell’s work as a source material in his research on the Nayakas.
It is clear that there are no unanimous views in the above interpretations with regarding to the recognizing of the Nayakas. One school of thought reiterates: Mere surname Nayaka is enough to call one as Nayaka. Another school of thought outrightly disapproved it.
According to Nobuhiro Ota and D.N. Yogeeshwarappa, Nayakas were only those who received the land from the king and they were only coming under the Nayaka system of Vijayanagara administration.
Krishnaswamy held that, if one has possessed the land and the Nayaka title also can be called as Nayaka.
The early studies on the Nayaka system were only based on the writings of Portuguese travelers. N. Venkata Ramanayya has also used the term Nayankara from the local epigraphs documented by the early colonial governments. Whole his study on Nayankara system he has least utilized the contemporary epigraphs for his justification. Later Krishnaswamy-who comes next to the study of Nayaka system after Venkata Ramanayya-has extensively used the contemporary epigraphs in his study on the Nayankara system. It was major milestone in the study on the Nayaka system. Eventhough he used epigraphs to interpret the Nayakas but there is no clarity because of lack of skill to read the epigraphs and the way in which he understood the inscriptions.
It is common notion that Nayakas were the supplier of the military service and caretaker of the Vijayanagara administration for which they received the land or territory as a grant. But quite contrary to this the Krishnaswamy’s opinion based on the Tamil epigraphs The Nayaka is:
i. One who possess the respective title Nayaka.
ii. Receiver of the land or territory in lieu of providing military administrative service.
In my opinion the mere surname Nayaka is not enough to call on as Nayaka. We can call one who as Nayaka to whom the king given land to administer in lieu of military service to the kingdom. We have plenty of examples of one is holding the same surname those having by the rulers or administrators. For e.g.:
i. Moodbidri of South Kanara district in the early medieval era the rulers had the surname as Ballala, Chowta, Ajila. But same surname having in the Bunt and Jain castes and people have the same surname. So we cannot call these people as rulers or administrators.
ii. Keladi rulers known as Nayakas. But same Nayaka caste we can see across Karnataka and all they were not rulers.
But here Krishnaswamy never makes any difference between Nayaka surname by birth and Nayaka by the king. They are one and same as opined by the Krishnaswamy. In reality among them only few have inherited the Nayakaship. It is not justifiable to argue that Nayakas were one who possesses the surname. Krishnaswamy in his research wherever found the surname Nayaka considered them as Nayakas of ruling class. (Subbarayulu, 1996, p 74).
Later scholars have also developed their own theory with regarding to the title Nayaka on the lines of A. Krishnaswamy. Noboru Karashima and Burtein Stein were notable figures among them.
Burtein Stein has profounded a well known theory known as Segmentary State Theory. He applied it on while studying the nature of South Indian states of Pre-Colonial era. According to this the state has divided into different segments (administrative units) and it was ruled by different officials deputed by the king. Here he referred the term Nayaka as a head of those respective segments. He acknowledged the view of A. Krishnaswamy that if one has the title or surname Nayaka then without having any doubt he can be called as Nayaka and also receiving the land in lieu of services to the state. Based on the contemporary inscriptions of Vijayanagar enlisted by the Krishnaswamy, Burtein Stein held that there were no cordial relationships between the Vijayanagara rulers and the Nayakas. He questioned the term Captain instead of Nayaka. According to him it was only just corrupt English translation of Portuguese word. (Stein, 1980, pp. 375-376, 396-398).
According to him Nayakas were primarily local magnets with influential personality and they associated with political and military sphere of Vijayanagara Empire. By that they can protect their interests. Kings frequently used to depute prominent Nayakas to different provinces as the head. But after their very strong presence in their respective provinces, they tried to rule independently.
Nayakas traditionally obedient and subservient to the king but they had political and military power in their respective territory. So it led to the formation of segmentary states. (Stein, 1980, pp. 407-410).
Based on the early studies on the Nayakas Burtein Stein used the term Nayankara in his research. But when his area of the study expanded, for the first time he used the term Nayaka, Nayakara instead of Nayankara. While he considered Nayaka surname holders as Nayakaras it was inevitable to him to make change Nayankara as Nayakara. Here he was fall in line of A. Krishnaswamy.
Stein argued that majority of the Nayakas under the Vijayanagara kingdom was disloyal to the king and the acted independently against the wishes of the king. Then there is a question of how these Nayakas were controlled by the king? For this question answer is:-To control the Nayakas effectively there was a creation of Governor post, who were higher to the Nayakas in the hierarchical system of administration. Similar view expressed by the A. Krishnaswamy. According to Burtein Stein the majority of the Nayakas were Non-Brahmins and to have effective control over these Nayakas their higher officials like Governors were from Brahmin community. In strategic areas like forts Brahmin Nayakas were appointed. It means for the sake of safety and efficient administration the Vijayanagara rulers appointed Brahmins to the highest rank of the post. (Stein, 1980, pp. 410-413).
Eventhough Stein and Krishnaswamy holds similar opinions Stein used vernacular word Durgada Nayaka (Nayaka of the Fort) instead of the term Governor. Here he followed the model of N. Venkata Ramanayya. Krishnaswamy pronounced Mahamandaleshwara instead of Governor.
Another historian who undertook the study on nayakas after Burtein Stein is Noboru Karashima. Eventhough there were similarities regarding the interpretation of the Nayakas by them, Karashima called Nayakas as Feudal lords. For this he listed three points:
i. Nayakas rule was systematized by the king by giving land or area.
ii. Nayakas had territorial rights over that land.
iii. Entire cost and expenditure were borne by the Nayakas from the income derived from their respective territory. (Karashima, 1992, p. 37).
According to him the Nayaka system was feudal in character. Here King comes first, next was Nayaka and bottom level were subjects. The interpretations given by the above two scholars in relates to Nayakas system has expanded the study of the political system of Vijayanagara empire. So hitherto neglected provinces socio-political scenario and relationship between local rulers and central authority now got momentum. The study of Burtein Stein on the Vijayanagara polity was beyond the study of important political personalities and his study has covered the entire community of the region. (Stein, 1980, pp. 398-399). Their interpretations on the Nayaka system have broader outlook. According them Nayakas were also from respective social and political background. Stein himself acknowledged the fact that there were socio-political associations among the Nayakas. There was a Nayakas who did not have any connection with the military of Vijayanagara Empire. (Stein, 1980, pp. 434). It means Nayakas were not only coming under military category but also in political and social field. In Vijayanagara polity some were very influential inside and outside the court also. They also had the title Nayaka and they excreted the power. In society some of the influential persons were involved in delivering justice and maintaining law and order and they also called Nayakas. Totally we can say the Nayakas were not only belonged to the military field but also to political, social and other fields also. If we restrict them only to the military field then it is a narrow outlook. We should have expand the scope of study the Nayaka system by studying the Nayaka families from different fields. For e.g.: Thimma Nayaka during the SriKrishnadevaraya’s era.
But according to Noboru Karashima there was a hierarchical system in the Nayaka system of administration and each and every Nayakas did not have the same relationship with king. Some of them had direct relationships and some of them had indirect relationships. There were different ranks among the Nayakas. It is clear that Burtein Stein and Noboru Karashima acknowledge the fact that there was different political status among the Nayakas. They tried to expand the study of Nayakas by taken into consideration of surname of the persons with Nayakas. But Whether Nayaka title is symbol of any position in the Vijayanagara Empire remained unsolved.
We have already seen that the early study on the Nayankara system was mainly based on the Portuguese records rather than contemporary epigraphs. But there is no clarity on the following aspects which is core matter of the Nayaka system:
i. The size of the land received by the Nayaka. Whether there was any minimum or maximum limit?
ii. The territorial jurisdiction of the Nayakas.
iii. The term of the Nayakas. (For e.g.: For 05 or 10 years)
iv. Their powers.
Without answering the above questions it is not right to equate the Nayaka system of Vijayanagara Empire to the Feudal structure of the Europe. But Burtein Stein completely neglected the real meaning of the source materials and above listed characters and imbibed the concept of European Model of Feudalism to the Nayaka system. Stein was failed in justifying his argument by completely utilizing the source materials. (Stein, 1980, pp. 374).
According to Burtein Stein there was no proper political system under the Vijayanagara Empire. Vijayanagara rulers used their own Nayakas as their agents or mediators or representatives. Theses Nayakas were appointed as military representatives in different parts of the kingdom. Later these Nayakas established their independent rule in there. (Stein, 1980, pp. 408).
Quite contrary to this according to Noboru Karashima:
i. Vijayanagara rulers maintained systematic and very effective control over the Nayakas.
ii. These Nayakas power is known as Nayakatana (Nayakaship).
iii. This Nayakatana served as a bridge between the King and the Nayakas.
By supporting his arguments he has given a list of epigraphs in chronological order. (Karashima, 2002, p. 75).
By studying the works of the various scholars and inscriptions, Nobuhiro Ota and D.N.Yogeeshwarappa have rejected the theories of Burtein Stein and Noboru Karashima on the Nayaka system of Vijayanagara Empire. According to D.N.Yogeeshwarappa Nayankara system was different than that of Nayaka system. According to Burtein Stein and Noboru Karashima if any individual associated with the surname or title with his name they can be called as Nayaka and they are coming under the ambit of Nayaka system. If we taken into consideration of above statements then there is certain doubts arises. They are:
i. There was more in number of Nayaka surname or title holders rather than listed in the inscriptions.
ii. Why others were left?
iii. Was it possible?
According to my opinion based on the archaeological and literary survey it is not possible to call one as Nayaka because of his mere title or surname. There was no any role to them under the Vijayanagara administration. If Nayaka title of post given by the king then we can call him as Nayaka. Vijayanagara Emperors rule in general and Tuluva dynasty’s Sri Krishnadevaraya’s rule in particular Nayaka system was worked systematically and efficiently. It was the apogee of Nayaka system. Rulers used to give land, seeme, region or particular territory to the brave soldiers and few prominent figures to rule and they were known as Nayakas. If one has received the land or territory directly from the king then he can be called as Nayaka. Just having Nayaka surname or title with the name is not a qualification to become a Nayaka. Nayakatana must be transmitted (pass) from the king but not by the surname of title. Here king was the decider of Nayakatana and not a surname. One becomes Nayaka only after the land or region or territory received from the king. They had immense importance in the polity of Vijayanagara and particularly the rule of Sri Krishnadevaraya of Tuluva dynasty. There was also the some individuals enjoyed the Nayakatana (Nayakaship) eventhough they did not have the title or surname of Nayaka. They received the land from the kings. So to become a Nayaka, surname or title Nayaka is not important but it must be transmitted from the king through land grants or other means but which was only through the king. (Yogeeshwarappa, 2011, pp. 108-110). Otherwise anyone can become Nayaka by just putting surname Nayaka. All the receivers of the land from the king were not Nayakas. King has to confer title or recognize him as Nayaka. Here king’s approval as Nayaka is very important.
Krishnaswamy in 1964 included the Nayaka surname holders in category of Nayankara system in his interpretations on the Nayaka system. Same model followed by the Burtein Stein who changed the Nayankara as Nayakas. Later Noboru Karashima in his thesis has also opined that the Nayakas were:
i. One who possess Nayaka surname or title.
ii. Receiving the land from the king as a Nayaka.
He has also fall in line of A. Krishnsawamy and Burtein Stein. Same was approved by Laxmana Telagavi.
But recently Nobuhiro Ota and D.N.Yogeeshwarappa have outrightly rejected the view of Nayaka surname holders are all as Nayakas of administrative system of Vijayanagara Empire. There was nothing to-do with the Nayaka surname and Nayakatana (Nayakaship). To get Nayakatana one must receive the land from the king as Nayaka. They only had the importance in the Vijayanagara polity. Vijayanagara rulers’ inscriptions referred the word Nayakatana, Nayankara and Nayakattanam in Kannada, Telugu and Tamil languages respectively. Burtein Stein and Noboru Karashima have used the word Nayaka as alternative to this. But it is not correct one. They included Nayaka title holders all as Nayakas of the polity of the Vijayanagara Empire. It is better to use Nayakatana or Nayankara or Nayakattanam instead of Nayaka. Because in anywhere the Vijayanagar inscriptions have never referred the terminology Nayaka and it has only recorded as Nayakatana, Nayankara and Nayakattanam in Kannada, Telugu and Tamil languages respectively.
0.4. REFERENCES:
1. Derret, J D M. (1957). The Hoytsalas-A Medieval Royal Family. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
2. Durga Kanaka, P S. (1983). Role of Nayakas in Medieval Andhra (1000 A.D.-1259 A.D.). Andhra Pradesh History Congress, Vol. VII. pp. 40-45.
3. Karashima, Noboru. (1992). Towards a New Formation of South Indian Society under Vijayanagar Rule. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
4. Karashima, Noboru. (2002). A Concordance of Nayakas: The Vijayanagara Inscriptions in South India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
5. Krishnsawamy, A. (1964). The Tamil Country under Vijayanagar. Annamalai Nagar: Annamalai University.
6. Mahalingam, T V. (1942). Administration and Social Life under Vijayanagara Empire. Madras: University of Madras.
7. Nirupama. 2010. Shri Krishnadevarayana Amuktha Maulyada (Kannada). Hampi: Prasaranga, Kannada University, Hampi.
8. Ota, Nobuhiro. (2008). A Study of Two Nayaka Families in the Vijayanagara Kingdom in the Sixteenth Century. In the Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko. Tokyo: Toyo Bunko. pp. 103-129.
9. Pandey, Shishir Kumar. (1988). Nayaka system in Medieval Andhra. In K K Das Gupta & P K Bhattacharya. (Eds.). Shraddhanjali, D.C Sarkar Commemoration Volume. Delhi: Sandeep Prakashana.
10. Paramashiva Murthy, D V. (Ed.). (2010). Krishnadevarayana Shasanagalu, Vol. I. Hampi: Prasaranga, Kannada University, Hampi.
11. Ranga, N G. (1971). Kakathiya Nayakas and their contribution to Dakshinapathas Independence. Nidobrolu: The Indian Peasant Institute.
12. Rao R, Narasimha. 1967. Corporate Life in Medieval Andhra. Secundarabad.
13. Reddy, Soma. (1994). Nayankara system in Medieval Andhra: Some observations. In the Proceedings of South Indian History Congress, 14th session. Tirupathi. pp. 308-314.
14. Salettor, B A. (1934). Social and Political Life in Vijayanagara empire, Vol. II. Madras: B.G.Paul and Com.
15. Sarkar, D C. (1966). Indian Epigraphical Glossary. New Delhi.
16. Sasthry, Parabrahma. 2009. Inscriptions of Vijayanagara Rulers, Vol. IV. Bangalore: ICHR Southern Regional Centre.
17. Sewell, Robert. (1900). A Forgotten Empire: Vijayanagar-A Contribution to the History of India. 2nd Edition. London.
18. Shivanna, K S. (1983). The Agrarian System of Karnataka (1336-1761). Mysore: Prasaranga, University of Mysore.
19. Stein, Burtein. (1980). Vijayanagar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20. Stein, Burtein. 1980. Peasant State and Society in Medieval South India. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
21. Subbarayulu, Y. (2005). Socio Political Formation of South India Vijayanagara Period. In K K N Kurup. (Ed.). New Dimensions in South Indian History: Felicitation Volume in Honor of Dr. M R Raghava Warier. Calicut: Association for Peasant Studies, University of Calicut. pp. 66-95.
22. Subbarayulu, Y. (2005). The Vijayanagara State. In J S Grewal. (Ed.). State and Society in Medieval India: History of Indian Science Philosophy and Culture in Indian Civilization, Vol. VII. Oxford: OUP. pp. 67-76.
23. Talbot, Cynthia. (2001 A). Pre-Colonial India in Practice- Society, Religion and Identity in Medieval Andhra. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
24. Talbot, Cynthiya, (2001 B). The Nayakas of Vijayanagar Andhra: A preliminary Prosography. In Kennith, R Hall. (Ed.). Structure and Society in Early South India: Essays in Honor of Noboru Karashima. New Delhi: Oxford University Press India. pp. 251-275.
25. Telagavi, Laxmana. (1988). Eppatthelu Palegararu. In Suryanath, Kamath. (Ed.). Ithihasa Darshana, Vol. III. Bangalore: Karnataka Ithihasa Academy. pp. 225-252.
26. Telagavi, Laxmana. (2009). Vijayanagarada Amara Nayakaru Mattu Palegararu. In Virupakshi Poojarahalli. (Ed.). Charitre Adyayana, Vol. IV, Issue 2. Vidyaranya: Prasaranga, Kannada University, Hampi.
27. Venkata Ramanayya, N. (2007). Origin of the City and Empire. New Delhi: Asian Educational Services.
28. Venkata Ramanayya, N. (2010). Studies in the History of the Third Dynasty of Vijayanagara. New Delhi: Gyan Publishing House.
29. Waganar, Philip B. (1993). Tidings of the King: A Translation and Ethno Historical Analysis of the Rayavachakamu. Honolulu: University of Hawali Press.
30. Yogeeshwarappa, D N. (2009 A). Madhyakaleena Karnatakda Palegararu (Kannada). Bangalore: Dhathri Book Publication.
31. Yogeeshwarappa, D N. (2011). Charitreya Putagalu. Bangalore: C.V.G. India. (In Kannada).
Received on 26.06.2018 Modified on 07.07.2018
Accepted on 19.07.2018 ©A&V Publications All right reserved
Res. J. Humanities and Social Sciences. 2018; 9(3): 629-634.
DOI: 10.5958/2321-5828.2018.00105.5