Kingship
The spirit underlying the resurgence of Dharma under the rulers of Vijayanagar
found favour with Hindu lawgivers from Manu and Kautilya down to Thiruvalluvar
and Sayanacharya (a Vedic scholar in the court of Vijayanagara emperors, Bukka
Raya I and his successor Harihara I). Great sage Vidyaranya’s (Madhavacharya)
evocation to Harihara and Bukka Raya to restore the order of Dharma was
embodiment of the statement found mention in ancient Indian texts of polity.
That the king is the creator of the age, and that the nature of his rule
produced corresponding variations in the social, moral, and even physical
condition of the times found expression in Dharmashastras, and epics like
Ramayana and Mahabharata. Manusmriti says, “The various ways in which a king
behaves (resemble) the Satya, Treta, Dvapara and Kali ages. Hence the king is
identified with the ages (of the world)”. Bhishma who had the boon of
Svecchamṛtyu (self-willed death) when decided to die was requested by Lord
Krishna to give a lesson on polity to Yudhishthira, says “Whether it is the king
that makes the age, or it is the age that makes the king, is a question about
which thou shouldest not entertain any doubt. The truth is that the king makes
the age”. [4]
We have ample evidence to suggest that rulers of Vijayanagara imbibed such
political principles which argues that king is the marker of the age. From their
point of view, “national” regeneration could only be achieved when political
emancipation gets secured. Harihara and Bukka was taught by their guru
Vidyaranya that the ruler had to create the proper political environment in
order to foster all that is recommended in Dharmashastras. That this was exactly
in the minds of the Vijayanagara Empire rulers is evident from the manner in
which they promoted the ancient social and moral laws. In many of the their
inscriptions and contemporary literature, they were referred to as ‘Defenders of
the Dharma’ for the political rejuvenation they brought in that ultimately led
to preservation of ancient heritage.[5] The ancient ideal of the
Hindu monarchs, who thus firmly established Dharma, and converted thereby the
Kali (dark) age into the Satya age of righteousness, find mention in the
writings of the greatest king of Vijayanagara, Krishna Deva Raya, who in his
Telugu epic poem, Amuktamalyada, says. “A crowned king should always rule with
an eye towards Dharma”.[6] The following regulations, which were
established by none other than Krishna Deva Raya, are meant to serve as broad
guidelines for the conduct of kings. Thus, he writes in Amuktamalyada,
“A king should rule collecting round him people skilled in state crafts,
should investigate the mines yielding precious metals in his kingdom and
extract the same, should levy taxes from his people moderately, should
counteract the acts of his enemies by crushing them with force, should be
friendly, should protect one and all of his subjects, should put an end to
the mixing up of the social groups among them, should always try to increase
the merit of the Brahmans, should strengthen his fortress and lessen the
growth of the un- desirable things and should be ever mindful of the
purification of his cities and thus strengthen himself and increase his
longevity just as a man strengthens his own body and increases his longevity
by consulting good doctors, by learning the properties of the seven
Dhatus…”[7]
The Vijayanagara monarchs set for themselves a duty to give protection to all
their subjects and redress their grievances. This primary duty called raksanam
entailed a double responsibility of protecting the country from the foreigner
and to maintain an efficient police and military organization to ensure the
preservation of law and order in the country. Krishna Deva Raya, in particular,
desired that the he as a king should always be anxious to protect their subjects
and redress their grievances. [8]
Two instances of kings redressing the grievances of his subjects are worth
mentioning. Two valuable lithic records, one found at Elavanasur and the other
at Keller, (both in the South Arcot District) discloses that when the ministers
took presents by force, the discontented farmers migrated to other regions due
to which worship and festivals ceased in temples and the country became full of
disease. Hence the king interfered and prohibited such extortion in future, and
order engraved order in the whole country. These records show that the kings
took an active interest in orderly government and tried to put an end to
oppression by their subordinates. Another inscription at Aragalir in the Salem
district speaks of the oppression by the rajagaram (royal officers), and the
king’s interference. It registers that three sthinikas of the temple of Perumal
Kariyavar went on a deputation to the king at Vijayanagar, and complained of the
injustice done by the rajagaram in village belonging to the temple. The king met
them generously and redressed all their grievances.[9] These records
show that the kings took an active interest in orderly government of the country
and tried to put an end to oppression by their subordinates if they ill
administered.
The Vijayanagar Empire was governed under a monarchical constitution in which
the king was the head of the government and occupied a supreme position in the
State. In fact, the king was the pivot of the administrative
machinery.[10] According to ancient political thinkers the State
consisted of seven elements viz. Svamin (Lord), Amatya (minister), Janapada
(Territory), Durga (fort), Kosa (treasury), Danda (army) and Mitra (ally) of
which the king was the most important. However, for the well-being of the State
it was suggested that all these elements should work in harmony for the common
weal.[11] Amuktamalyada of Krishna Deva Raya also emphasises that the
Sarvabhauma (Emperor) should be able to enforce his commands.[12] The
Navaratnramulwu and Saptingapaddhati, a series of verses addressed to
Vijayanagara emperor, Saluva Narasimha Deva Raya, provide credence to this as it
leaves the impression that the monarch was the most important person in the
Vijayanagar Empire. [13]
In the Vijayanagar Empire, the kings appointed their successors and anointed
them Yuvaraja during their life-time. By making a prince Yuvaraja, the king gave
him official training in administration. The crowned prince was placed in charge
of the government of a part of the kingdom, the king watching his rule and
guiding him from a distance. Generally the ceremony called Yuvarajapattabhisekam
was celebrated when the crown prince had gained all theoretical knowledge of
administration. We have indications of that system of Co-Rulership prevailed in
the Vijayanagar as we have reference that suggest that Harihara I and Bukka I,
the founders of the empire ruled jointly. It seems that Yuvraja would have been
a Co-ruler with the reigning king. Bukka would be a Yuvraja during the reign of
Harihara and in this capacity should have ruled as co-ruler but when Harihara
died, he must have assumed the position of king. We have numerous evidences,
where crown princes had assumed imperial titles and ruled independently in their
province.[14]
The rule that eldest son succeed to the throne was also not rigidly followed as
we see that even the second ruler of the Vijayanagar Bukka Raya I was the
brother of Harihara I, the first king of Vijayanagar Empire. But in certain
circumstances, when the king wants to retired from active politics to spend the
rest of their life in pious meditation, and a crown price, Yuvaraja still very
young, he appoints a regent (Pampu) for a minor king. Thus, according to
Rajanatha Dindima II who wrote Saluvabhyudayam, king Saluva Narasimha Deva Raya
was installed to the throne of Vijayanagara by his father when he retired to the
forests as a Vanaprastha (part of the Vedic ashrama system, which starts when a
person hands over household responsibilities to the next
generation).[15] Krishna Deva Raya also appointed his half-brother,
Acyutadeva Raya as regent to his son Tirumala when he decided to retire.
However, usurpation was not uncommon in the Vijayanagara.[16]
Council of Ministers
The idea of a ruler conducting the administration of the country with the aid of
civil service is as old as Manu. Manusmriti says, “Even an undertaking easy
(in itself) is sometimes hard to be accomplished by a single man; how much
(harder is it for a king), especially (if he has) no assistant, (to govern)
a kingdom which yields great revenues”.[17] Krishna Deva
Raya was evidently conversant with the injunction of Manusmriti, as is clear
from the following statement he made in his Amuktamalyada:
“When the work of a single subordinate (officer) is entrusted to a number of
men and when each of them is assisted by his friends the business of the
State may easily be accomplished. On the other hand when the staffs are
decreased, work cannot be turned out when business increases. No business
can be accomplished by money alone without the cooperation of many big
officers. For having them in due subordination the following are essential —
absence of greed, absence of cruelty and truthfulness”.[18]
The inscriptions as well as the accounts of foreign travellers throw light on
the general features of the administration of Vijayanagara. The king was
assisted by a council of ministers. It was a permanent body which influenced the
policy of the king. In its constitution and powers it was analogous to the
Mantriparisad of Kautilya. It appears the Council of Ministers generally met in
a special chamber. We get to know from Acyutarayabhyudaya of Rajanatha Dindima
that the council met in a hall called Venkatavilasamantapa.[19]
Barbosa mentions a council room where the king sits present on certain days with
his governors and officers to hear the correspondence and attend to the
administration of the kingdom”. [20]
About the council or secretariat, we have good details in the chronicles of the
Portuguese travellers Nuniz, while describing an incident in the diplomatic
relations between Krishna Deva Raya and Sultan Adil Shah of Bahmani kingdom.
When Adil Shah misappropriated the revenues belonging to the Vijayanagara,
Krishna Deva Raya King showed such an indignation that he was determined to take
full vengeance. But the ministers advised the king not to go for war for such a
small sum of money and it would be unwise to break prolonged a peace between the
two states for such a trifling reason. However, when the ministers saw that the
Krishna Deva Raya remained unmoved from his determination to make war, Nuniz
describe, they then consulted him, saying:
“Sire, do not go to war by that route (Dabull), but go against Rachol,
which now belongs to the Ydallcoa but of old was part of the kingdom; then
the Ydallcoa will be forced to come to defend it, and thus will take
vengeance jointly both on one and the other”. [21]
Nuniz says that king held this advice to be good and prepare for his departure.
This is an evidence of an influence of a council on the stubborn stand made by
the king as regards the question of war, of the equally persistent attitude of
the ministers, and last but not the least, of the manner in which the emperor
yielded to the advice of his council of ministers. Thus, a high qualification
was expected of the minister. He was to be a scholar, afraid of adharma (that
which is not in accord with the dharma, connotations include betrayal, discord,
disharmony, unnaturalness, wrongness, evil, immorality, unrighteousness,
wickedness, and vice), well versed in rajaniti (politics), between the ages of
fifty and seventy, healthy in body, his connection with the king coming down
from previous generations, and he was not to be conceited.
Krishna Deva Raya himself assures that under such a minister, the, angas of a
king (the constituents of royalty) would increase.[22] His court was
also famous for Ashtadiggajasis - the collective title given to the eight Telugu
scholars famous in legend. Ashtadiggajasis included much celebrated Tenali Raman
known for his wit and wisdom. He was special advisor to Krishna Deva
Raya.[23]
It is also said in Catupadya Manimanjari, that the king should possess a
versatile minister well adept in Sastra (scriptures) and Astrasastra
(sword).[24] We have ample evidence which suggest that this was not
mere ideal aimed at by the Vijayanagara emperors for their ministers. The
history of the Vijayanagar furnishes a long line of skilled and successful
ministers. A Vedic scholar Sayaṇacharya who wrote many commentaries on the Vedas
and was well-versed in art of combat is worth mentioning here. He was prime
minister in Bukka Raya's court and carries Vedas in his hand and keep sword on
his waist.[25] Sometimes even a strong monarch like Krishna Deva Raya
felt council of minister too powerful as he is said to have remarked in one of
his monologue: “I am sitting on the throne, but the world is ruled by the
ministers; who listens to my words?” [26]
From the inscriptions of the period we may infer that in Vijayanagar Empire, the
Pradhani or Mahapradhani was the designation for important administrative
officers of state, who also served as the ministers of the king. The Pradhani
generally bore the title Dandandyaka was thus an administrative officer in
charge of the general administration of the empire. The Pradhani seems to be the
fore-runner of the Maratha Peshwa. About Saluva Timma, the Mahapradhani of
Krishna Deva Raya, Paes writes, “He commands the whole household and to him all
the greatest lords act as to the king. And Nuniz observes that Saluva Timma was
the principal person in the kingdom.”[27] The Mahapradhanis were
assisted by an Upapradhani in the administration of the empire. In Vijayanagara,
the designation for the Senapati of ancient India was called Dalaadhikari or
Dannayaka who at times also referred to as Saravasainyadhipati or
Sarvasainyadhikari (Commander-in-Chief of all the forces). While the
Mantriparisad had a President known as Sabhanayaka who preside over its
deliberations. Possibly Mahapradhani was the President of the Council of
Ministers. The chief priest Raja-Guru occupied an important standing in
Vijayanagar court. [28]