Q) Analyse the political administration of Vijaynagar empire with special reference to Nayak

system.

The kingdom or ‘empire’ of Vijayanagara takes its name, ‘City of Victory’, from its capital on the
Tungabhadra River, near the centre of the sub-continent. Its rulers over three centuries claimed a
universal sovereignty - ‘to rule the vast world under a single umbrella’ - and they also, more
modestly, referred to themselves as the rulers of Karnata, modern Karnataka. This seemingly humble
reduction of the scope of their suzerainty from the world to a small portion of the Indian sub-
continent is somewhat deceptive. Among Indian kingdoms, a rule of three centuries is very long, and
this together with the large territory over which Vijayanagara kings reigned makes it one of the great
states in Indian history. Vijaya-nagara kings seemed to have had the sense that the kingdom
established in the fourteenth century revived an earlier universal sovereignty in Karnataka, that of
the Chalukyas of Badami (ancient Vatapi in Bijapur district of modern Karnataka). Vijayanagara kings
adopted the emblem of the Chalukyas, the boar, or va.ra.ha , and perhaps quite consciously
modelled their capital on the Chalukyan capitals of Vatapi and Aihole of the sixth to eighth centuries.
Late seventeenth century when, as a result of repeated invasions from Muslim states to the North
and civil wars within, Vijayanagara authority was fragmented among a set of smaller, independent
regional domains tracing their ruling credentials from the kingdom.

ADMINISTRATION OF Vijayanagara EMPIRE

The administration of Vijayanagara resembled the administrative system of Hoysalas and Saunas. But
the Vijayanagara emperors brought in timely changes and reforms to suit their administrative
requirements. They had built a very strong army to realize their goals. The mighty army of the empire
raised the stature of the king in the eyes of neighboring kings. But it was not completely a military
state as the governance of the state was not completely under the control of the army. Moreover,
the purpose of forming such an army was not just the security reasons. Along with the expansion of
the empire, the army was entrusted upon the activities of carrying out reforms and maintaining
peace and order. Welfare of the people was the first and foremost aim of their administrative system.
The rulers responded to the needs and requirements of the various sections of the people. Diverse
opinions have been expressed by different scholars over the nature of Vijayanagar state. Various
theories have been applied such as feudal structures, Segmentary state, military fiscalism etc. The
system of administration in Karnataka evolved gradually, every succeeding dynasty retaining the
system it inherited and making certain necessary changes suitable to the changing conditions. Robert
Sewell interpreted the system as the changelessness of structure as part of the Vijayanagara polity.
His notion is that the kingdom became the ‘saviour’ of the south for 250 years and the rise of
Vijayanagar kingdom was ‘no miracle’ but, ‘the natural result of the persistent efforts made by
Muslims to conquer all India. But in reality, Vijayanagara was involved in war not solely with Islamic
states but also with many Hindu states. Continuous involvement in wars for offensive and defensive
purposes of Vijayanagara magnified the royal power and gave the state, some extent, a military
character. Historians like Nilakanta Sastri, viewed the later medieval period in South India, during
which the Chola and Vijayanagara empires took shape, as a period of cultural resurgence, marked by
the re-emergence of highly centralized and powerful polities, after a period of early medieval
fragmentation and decline. For, Nilakanta Sastri, Vijayanagara was an exemplar of the Hindu Culture,
whose task as to conserve Hindu society and save it from the dissolution which threatened it from
several directions. Thus, Sastri, viewed Vijayanagara as a powerful and centralized military state that
because the focus of a resurgent Hindu culture. This is because of the prevalence of Nayankara
system and the prevalence of Nayakas as warrior chieftains. It is appropriate to note here that
Nayakas were asked to assist the Vijayanagara rulers at the time of war as royal subordinates, but
military duty played only minor role in the selection of a Nayaka by the rulers. Therefore, the view
that the state is based on military tenure may not hold true. D.C Sircar also supported the view of
Nilakantha Sastri. The entire political system was interpreted by T.V. Mahalingam as a bureaucratic
set up with divisions like central, provincial, and local governments. This interpretation of
Vijayanagara, as a highly centralized and effective military state, drew primarily on inscriptions and
historical accounts and remained the dominant view of the empire. But it may be wrong to call
Vijayanagara an essentially military state, because the administration was not completely in the
hands of the military personnel nor was, war its sole purpose. Burton Stein observes a new form of
polity in the Vijayanagara period. He applied a radical new model to interpreting the polity of the
Vijayanagara. His Segmentary state model adopted a perspective and overturned the long standing
view of Vijayanagara as a strong and centralized empire. Burton Stein argued that, the kings under
Vijayanagara were ritual figures, rather than like their contemporaries in Western Europe autocrats
ruling bureaucratized absolute regimes. Outside the core territory of the empire, the Vijayanagara
monarchs exercised only a ritual sovereignty and that even at the height of their power and the
resources commanded were formidable, the Rayas were content with the homage and occasional
tribute of distant chiefs. Moreover, they tolerated, if they did not actually foster, the creation by their
nominal agents of compact territories – known as the Nayaka states, whose competition later
contributed the decline of the empire. So Burton Stein rejects the centralized and feudal mode of the
state polity during Vijayanagara. He not only applies it to Vijayanagar but to late medieval South
India. The Characteristics of Segmentary State are;

 A central government with absolute authority at the centre and ritual or nominal sovereignty over
the similar and mutually exclusive peripheral constituencies.

 A specialized administrative staff for centre and its repetition on a small scale in the peripheral
constituents organized into a hierarchy in relation to the centre.

 The power of the centre repeated at each level in a descending order and the flexibility of the
political relations of the remote points of the territory to the centre.

Burton Stein adapted the Segmentary state model as an assemblage of numerous states of which
one has primacy as a source of ritual sovereignty, but all exercise actual political control over a part,
or segment, of the political system encompassed by the state, subordinate levels of zones of the
Segmentary state may be distinguished and the organization of these if pyramidal. The relationship
between the centre and the peripheral units of any single segment is the same-in reduced form-as
the relationship between the prime centre and all peripheral focuses power. Burton Stein identified
such state system under Vijayanagara. Burton Stein adopted the African model of Aiden Southal.
Southal adopted this to African tribal society. So severe theoretical objection came against the
application of a model evolved out of the tribal society and polity in Africa to an advanced peasant
polity and beyond. Historians of conservative methodology distanced themselves from this model,
because it had weak empirical base. But Japanese scholar Noboru Karashima rejected the
Segmentary State model to the polity of Vijayanagara. The system of sub-infeudation was applied to
Vijayanagar state by Karashima. He adopts feudal interpretation to the Vijayanagara polity,
particularly in the 16th century. He observes a difference of grade among Nayakas in relation to the
central power which may suggest the existence sub-infeudation. His model focused upon the
relations between kings and local lordship and the appearance of complex land holding rights.
Karashima has expanded the empirical ground of Nilakanta Sastri through exhaustive incorporation
of new inscriptions and through analysis of the inscriptional contents by using the most sophisticated
tools and able scholarship of historians like Subbarayalu. But the argument, whether the
Vijayanagara State was a feudal one or not assumes importance because of the existence of military
tenures and the economic obligation involved. Though the king was at the apex of the
administration, the presence of Nayankara system and the Ayyagar system at the provincial level
weakened the authority of the king. Though, the feudatories seem to obey the king’s orders at the
initial stages, their hold over military troops and lands sustained their position. It ultimately loosened
king’s grip over administration and led to oppression at the lower levels of society.

KING

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 Vijayanagara kings did not adopt
high sounding titles. Some scholars like Shastri, Ishwari Prasad and Smith believe that the
Vijayanagara 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 Vijayanagara raya.

3) They were influenced by the smriti literature and the raya was an upholder of dharma.

4) Local institutions also acted as a check on the power of the king.

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. The king was supported by
a council of ministers, the most important being the Ashtadiggajas (meaning "Eight Pillars of the
Empire"), a group of highly esteemed scholars and ministers who advised the king on various
matters, including administration, policy, and military affairs. These ministers were often prominent
figures in society, both for their wisdom and their military capabilities. In addition, the empire
employed Amara Nayakas, who were military governors appointed by the king to manage specific
territories or regions within the empire. These governors were responsible for maintaining law and
order, overseeing revenue collection, and defending the region from external threats. The Amara
Nayakas had significant autonomy in their domains but were ultimately accountable to the central
authority of the king.

NAYANKARA SYSTEM

The Nayankara system was the central feature of the administrative system of the Vijayanagara 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
Vijayanagara Empire, where they strengthened and weakened dynasties.
 - 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 Vijayanagara 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.

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 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 Vijayanagara 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 Vijayanagara 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 Vijayanagara polity was a centralized polity, and
the king had control over the nayakas and the provincial governors. Shastri emphasized the
centralized nature of the Vijayanagara state more emphatically than Mahalingam. He said that
Vijayanagara 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 Vijayanagara
state, indicating a centralized state structure.
B. Critique of centralization by Burton stein and SEGMENTARY STATE theory
Burton Stein completely rejected this theory. Vijayanagara 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 Vijayanagara 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 Vijayanagara 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 Vijayanagara 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 Vijayanagara 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 Vijayanagara 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 Vijayanagara 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 Vijayanagara 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
Vijayanagara in the 1530s, there were some 200 nayakas in the empire and each held land rights
from the Vijayanagara king who owned all the land subletted it and paid 9/10 th 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 Vijayanagara 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 Vijayanagara 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 3/4 th of the total land was given to the nayakas.
Iyengar also writes that the nayakas were military agents of the Vijayanagara raya and the nayakas
had a major role to play in the expansion of the Vijayanagara Empire. And as the Vijayanagara
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 Vijayanagara 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 Vijayanagara 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 Vijayanagara 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
Vijayanagara 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 16 th
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 Vijayanagara state. After making a study of
Vijayanagara 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 Vijayanagara 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 Vijayanagara 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 Vijayanagara
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 Vijayanagara state it is not backed by
enough empirical or inscriptional evidence Stein points out that the nayakas issue coins in the
name of the Vijayanagara raya, indicating ritual authority. But his critics point out that this
indicates that the nayakas were under the complete authority of the king.
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 Vijayanagara fortifications usually
under brahmana commanders. These were the core elements of Vijayanagara 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 Vijayanagara 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 Vijayanagara period there was a considerable increase in the
growth and functioning of the state.

PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATION

The empire was divided into several administrative units that allowed for efficient governance
across its vast territory, which included present-day southern India and parts of Andhra Pradesh,
Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, and Telangana.

 Provinces (Nadus): The empire was divided into large territorial units called Nadus or
Sirkals. These provinces were further subdivided into smaller units called Kottams
(regions) and Hoblis (villages). The provinces were governed by Nayaks or Maharajas, who
were appointed by the king. The provincial governors were often given substantial
 autonomy to govern their territories but were required to report to the central
administration and ensure the collection of taxes.

 District Administration: Each district was administered by a Karnam (village head) and a
Munsif (revenue officer). These officials were responsible for maintaining order, revenue
collection, and the administration of justice.

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.

LOCAL ADMINISTRATION

1) Assemblies

There is a controversy about this. Some scholars believe that Chola local assemblies had declined
by the Vijayanagara 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
Vijayanagara but argue that under the Vijayanagara 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 Vijayanagara
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 Vijayanagara soldiers to these institutions. He
also blames the ‘highly centralized feudalism’ of Vijayanagara 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.

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 Vijayanagara 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.

In the above we have discussed political administration with special reference to Nayankara
system. The military and judicial administration were not mentioned as they were not related to
‘political’ administration.

Bibliography:

 Notes and lectures by Nidhi Gaur Mam

 Burton stein’s The New Cambridge History of India
 A History of SOUTH INDIA from Prehistoric Times to the Fall of Vijayanagar authored by
K.A. Niakanta Sastri.
 Some research papers from the internet.
THANK YOU