The Study of Nayakatana in the

1
Vijayanagara Empire with Special Reference to
Tuluva Dynasty

MINOR RESEARCH PROJECT

Submitted to the university grants commission
NEW DELHI
Ref. No. MRP(H)0941/13/14/KATU 008/UGC-SWRO
Dated 28 Mar 2014

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
Dr. D. N. Yogeeswarappa
Principal and Associate professor,
Department of History,
Sree Siddaganga college of Arts,Science, and Commerce for women
TUMKUR

Sri Siddaganga college of Arts Science and Commerce for Women

TUMKUR

2
 CERTIFICATE

I here by declare that this minor Research Project entitled The Study of
Nayakatana in the Vijayanagara Empire with Special Reference toTuluva
Dynasty is conducted by me at the Department of History, Sri Siddaganga
College of Arts Science and Commerce for Women, Tumkur under the financial
assistance of University Grants Commission, New Delhi.

This Project has been submitted to U.G.C. in 2012 and this work has not
been submitted to any other purpose so far.

Place : Tumkur Signature of the

Date : Principal Investigator

3
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was conducted under the financial assistance of University Grants
Commission.(U G C ) I am thankful to U G C for sanctioning the grants to minor research
project scheme during 2013-14. I am indebted to them for having given this opportunity to
pursue my studies.

With reverential pranams , I express my sincere gratitude and salutations to His

Holiness Karnataka Ratna, Trividha Dasohi , Sree. Ma. Ni. Pra. Swa. Dr sree , sree
Shivakumara aswmigalu and Sree Ma Ni Pra Swa Sri Sri Siddalinga Swamigalu of Sri
Siddaganga kshetra, for his unlimited blessings.

I am very greatful to the Sri Siddaganga education society for providing me an

opportunity to take up this work. First ,I am thankful to our institution secretary Sri T.K.
Nanjundappa and special officer Sri K. S. Shankaraiah. I express my deep sense of
gratitude to Sri Siddaganga college for women, Tumkur; the temple of learning which has
provided me an opportunity.

I am especially thankful to collegues of my department and also college. I benefited

greatly from the help, advice and experience of Pro B.Lewis, Illinois university, America.
Dr. S K Aruni Deputy Director I.C. H. R. Southern Region Bangalore, Ota Nobuhiro
Associate professor Tokyo university Japan, My senior friend V Cheluvarajan of
Pavagadah, Dr D V Paramashivamurthy , Dr B. nanjundaswamy , Dr venugopal, my
thanks to them.

My gratitude to the members of my family Smt H V Yogasheela , her constant

encouragement and support was a tower of strength at all times. I am also thankful to my
daughter Sahana , Nayana and Son in law Arunkumar P S I Dandeli. I also extend my
thanks to my research stydent N.G.Prakash. My thanks to Mr Umashankar, Sateesh
Hebbaka and Basavaraju for neat D T P work.

With regards,

Dr.D.N. Yogeeswarappa
Principal investigator.

4
 CONTENTS

1. Introdution 01
2. The Royal titles of the first two rules of 05
Vijayanagar state
3. Nayaka System - Discussion 13
a) Origin
b) Definition
c) Communities
4. Tuluva Dynasty (1491 – 1570 CE) 29
a) Tuluiva History
b) Nayakatana - Krishnadevaraya period
c) Saluva Thimmarasu
d) Mallappa Nayaka 0f Tamil Nadu
5. Nayaka Polity A Theoretical Appeaisal 71
6. Conclusion 81
a) Bibliography
b) Appendix, Photos

5
 Chapter - I
Introdution
The Vijayanagara Empire takes its name ‘City of Victory’ from its capital. It is
situated on the banks of River Tungabhadra. Its rulers over three centuries claimed a
universal sovereignty-‘to rule the vast world under a single umbrella’- and they also more
modesty, referred to themselves as the rulers of Karnataka. The Vijayanagara rulers seemed
to have the sense that the kingdom established in the fourteenth century, revived an earlier
universal sovereignty in Karnataka that of the Chalukyas of Badami and also adopted their
emblem ‘Varaha’ or ‘Boar’.

There were several distinct lineages or dynasties among Vijayanagara rulers. The first
of these was Sangama, whose sons Harihara and Bukka established the kingdom around 1336
AD on the banks of river Tungabhadra. Bukka I (1344 – 1377) the son of Sangama expanded
the city and ruled until the late fourteenth century. when a second or Salva ruling line was
established briefly by a vijayanagara generalissimo, saluva Narasimha. In 1505, the third
dynasty came into being called Tuluva, established by Tuluva Narasa nayaka. The famous
ruler of this lineage Krishnadevaraya took the Empire to zenith of power during the short
term of only twenty years. i.e. 1509-1529 AD under their six decades of rule, the realm
reached its greatest extent and its rulers their greatest power. (Krishnaraya, Achyutaraya,
Sadashivaraya)

The last Vijayanagara dynasty, of the Aravidu family, assumed authority in 1570 at
Penugonda, Members of this family held diminished imperial authority until the 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 credentials from the kingdom.

Among the Indian kingdoms, rule of three centuries is very long and this together
with the large territory over which Vijayanagar rulers makes it one of the great states in
Indian history. For this, Nayankara system was responsible. The Nayaka held land of the
emperor under a military tenure called Amaram. They were consequently known by the name
Amaanayakas. They claimed to hold the land for Nayankara.

Aims and objectives of the study

It is known fact that the study of Nayaka was always a theme of research for the
Historians from time to time. The researchers have already pointed out that Nayakas played a
significant role in the political and military system of vijayanagara Empire. But, on the basis
of the contemporary inscriptions and other documents a research on Nayaka is done
qualitatively and quantitatively. Although the scholars have not yet reached at consensus
about the relationship of the Nayaka with the king, family background and economic
independence. There is no consensus amongst scholars even on such basic points as the
definition of Nayakas namely who should be identified as Nayaka. Generally speaking, it is
seen that those who suffixed the honoric title of nayaka to their personal names have been
considered as Nayaka. In this background it is identified that in history could find more
Nayakas than the inscriptions. Is it possible to have so many Nayakas in the Vijayanagara
kingdom? What were their role and responsibilities in the administration? This question is
still unanswered. Emphasizing Tuluva rule in mind i am here an attempt to answer.

6
 During the Vijayanagara Empire, especially in the Tuluva dynasty period Nayankara
system worked as systematic political administration. The King grants land through
Nayakatana for some brave men on certain conditions. Thus one who held the land from the
king through Nayakatana was considered as Nayaka. The title of Nayaka with their personal
names was not enough, who held the land through Nayakatana become Nayaka. Similarly
some who had the title of Nayaka also become Nayaka. Therefore “one who receives the land
or sirmai from the king through Nayakatana and in his province ruled like a little king were
known as the Nayakas”. Those who suffixed the honoric title of Nayaka to their personal
names were not considered as Nayaka.

The Nayakas worked as highest land revenue officers in the Vijayanagara Empire. So
i hereby would like to throw light on these Nayakas, who held land through Nayakatana
during Tuluva period. They are the subject of my project.

In Tuluva period particularly in Krishnadevaraya’s period the empire was extended to

all the three major regions of south India. So to have a research on him one should have the
knowledge of all the three languages such as Tamil, Telugu and Kannada. In addition to this
he had the knowledge of Sanskrit also. Although the number of research have been done on
his achievements. But no study was conducted about Nayakas, who held responsibility of
administrative machinery. From this point of view I have taken this issue as my subject of
study.

Area of study
Present study roughly covers a period of seventy years, i.e. from the rise and fall of
Tuluva dynasty. During this period the Vijayanagara Empire was extended from Krishna
River in the north to Kanyakumari in the south, Cuttack in the east to Arabian Sea in the
west. Therefore the present research is confined to south India. Especially Karnaaka,
Andrapradesh and Tamilnadu. My research subject is mainly on the basis of inscriptions. So
the inscriptions discovered in all three states in respective languages should be studied.
Therefore one should have the knowledge of kannada, telugu Tamil and Sanskrit. The study
area is also known for its history and culture from the ancient period. Major political
activities take place in this area.

Scope of the study

The present project work deals with “the study of Nayakatana in the Vijayanagara
Empire with special reference to Tuluva Dynasty”. Sources like inscriptions and
contemporary literature are used for this work. The research project is divided in to six
chapters.

1. Introduction
2. Nayaka system – Origin, Evolution and Growth
3. Nayakatana – 1.Political history of Tuluva dynasty
2. Krishnadevaraya period (1509- 1529)
3. Post Krishnadevaraya period (1530-1565)
4. Powerful Nayaka Families – Salva Thimmarasu family.
5. Conclusion
6. Bibliography and photos.

As for the plan of the work the first chapter is Introduction, it deals with the aims and
objectives, scope and nature of the present research. It also discussed about various sources.

7
 The second chapter is devoted to a study of the Nayaka system. It discussed about the
origin of the nayaka system and its definitions. The king granted nayakatana on certain
condition for brave men of different communities. This subject is also discussed in this
chapter.

The third chapter deals with the Nayakatana during Tuluva dynasty. First it discusses
about the political history of the Tuluva dynasty. Tuluva ruler Krishnadevaraya in his
extraordinary rule of twenty years had conquered and controlled the entire south India. The
whole land of his empire was granted to his loyalists through nayaktana. I have given all the
list of nayakas referred in the inscriptions. By this, it become easy to analysis how the
nayakatana is working in his administration.

The fourth chapter elucidates the part played by some important nayaka families.
These families were influential in Vijayanagara administration. They had the prestigious
positions like that of Mahamandaleshwara, Rayasa, Bokkasadavaru, Pradhana,
Mahapradhana etc., For ex;- Salva Thimmarasu family in Karnataka. Mallappa nayaka family
in Tamilnadu. The activities of these families are discussed in this chapter.

The fifth chapter is the last and concluding chapter. It sums up, how the Nayaka
system was working in Tuluva administration. At the end index and Bibliography is given.

Methodology
Present project is an administration aspect of the selected region. The study aim is to
bring out how the Nayankara system was worked during Tuluva dynasty.

This period is selected for study the obvious reason that source material –
epigraphical and foreigners’ accounts, besides literature are available and they make research
very interesting.

Inscriptions have been used as principle source with literary works constituting
secondary sources of this study. There are two reasons for this, first, Kannada abounds in
inscriptions and it is the richest of all states in India in inscriptions. Secondly there is no
other better and more reliable source for our study than inscriptions. As Colebrook rightly
puts it “in the scarcity of authentic history of Hindu race, importance is justly attached to all
genuine monuments, and especially inscriptions on stone and metal which are occasionally
discovered though various accidents” ( Asiatic research IX (1987) pp412, 421, 422)

Through background research consisting of collection and in-depth study and analysis
of the literature pertaining to the study of Vijayanagara Empire has been carried out.

8
 Chapter - II
The Royal titles of the first two rules of
Vijayanagar state
It has been commonly pointed out in South Indian historiography that the Vijayanagar
empire, established in 14th century, was at the height of political excellence for about 250
years in South India took an unique characteristics which no antecedent South Indian
dynasties bore. K. A. Neelakanta shastri wrote “ Vijayanagar was Perhaps the nearest
approach to a war state ever made by a Hindu Kingdom; and its political organization was
dominated by its military needs.”1 Vijayanagara,(Hampi) the capital city of the Vijayanagar
Empire, surpassed any preceding capital cities of south India. It was surrounded by several
rows of defence walls, unprecedentedly extensive. Magnificent palaces, administrative
offices, military facilities, temples meant for royal families were packed rather closely in the
central part surrounded by inner rows of city walls.2 Such congregation of government
facilities in the centre of the city is special of the Vijayanagara. This city continued to be the
absolute capital of the Vijayanagara Empire from its foundation to the decline. (1336 A D-
1565 A D) Without such a stable capital, probably the emperors could not have built a
magnificent and vast empire. This city was built with a firm foundation for the empire by
Sangama brothers especially Harihara and Bukka.

It should be noted here that in the historiography of south India, the rise of the
Vijayanagar Empire has been sometimes represented as an expression of the Hindu resistance
to the advancement of Muslim powers.3 This is the truth, because the contemporary
inscriptions described them as champions of the Hindu culture, restorers of the social order
disturbed by Muslim advancement. The titles used by the members of this empire, are those
alluding to their attempt to restore Vedic Religion. For example: Vedamarga
sthapanatatpara,4 vaidika marga sthapana charya,5 vaidika marga prathisthapaka6 veda
dwijathi parirakshana.7 These titles were adopted by the emperors after 1377 A D i.e
Harihara II. Before incepting these, which titles they had? What was their importance? It is a
matter of curiosity for the researcher. So this research paper aims to collect the titles referred
in contemporary inscriptions and try to analyze them with historical background.

II
Vijayanagara Empire flourished in South India as the successors of Hoysala dynasty.
It began in 1336 A D and occupied territories which were under the control of Hoysala. For
ex. In 1333 A D Myleya nayaka was the feudatory ruler of Hoysala Ballala III, who was
ruling Kukkalanadu, but by 1340 A D he had become the subordinate of Harihara I of the
vijayanagara empire.8This clears that sangama brothers invaded the Hoysala kingdom and
conquered it. In Indian history, it is generally accepted that whenever a king has conquered
new territories which belonged to another king, also incepted their titles. It would increase
their prestige by and large.9 But the Sangama brothers although conquered Hoysala territories
did not assume any of their titles or prashasties. They created and incepted their own self-
earned titles. This tradition began from 1340 A D. For ex: the Badami inscription of 1340 A
D referred Harihara I as with the following series of titles.10 Sriman Mahamandaleswara, ( the
prosperous great tributary ) Ariraya Vibhada, (punisher of enemy kings) Bhashege Tappuva
Rayara Ganda, ( Vanquisher of kings who break their word) Purva Paschima
Samudradhipathi, (lord of the eastern and western oceans) Sri Veera Hariyappa Vodeyar.(
Auspicious hero Hariyappa vodeya). In the earlier inscriptions he had described himself only
as Mahamandaleswara11, Manmaharajadhiraja Rajaparmeswara.12 infact, Herman Kulke
opines that “ Initially , they all held the typical title of great tributary lord(
9
Mahamandaleswara ) where as this title seems to have remained the only title of Harihara I
throughout his life time.”13 But one may not accept Kulke, because In the other four
inscriptions available Harihara I had assumed the title Maharajadhiraja Rajaparameswara
also. This imperialistic title was first incepted by him in 1339 A D. Along with this, in other
eleven inscriptions the feudatory title of ‘ Mahamandaleswara was also assumed by him. The
feudatory title Mahamandaleswara for Harihara I was first appeared in 1327 A D, even then
imperialistic title ‘Maharaja’ first appeared in 1339 AD. However it is clear that in most of
his inscriptions Harihara I described himself as Mahamandaleswara.
If we scrutinize the titles of Bukka I ,(AD 1357-1377) he seems to be more advanced
in the matter of assuming the titles than his elder brother Harihara I (1336-1357 A D). As
early as in 1333 A D he incepted the imperialistic title Manmaharajadhiraja Raja
Parameswara, who used seven times 14 in his ruling period. I.e. A D 1333,
1351,1353,1354,1368, 1375, and 1377. This proves that the opinion of Herman Kulke that
the imperialistic title “Maharajadiraja Raja parameswara” was first used by Bukka I in the
year 1368 A D.15 can be rejected. Bukka I also used the title Sriman Mahamandaleswara 74
times between 1345-1377 A D like his elder brother. Another speciality about him is, he has
assumed the title which is both imperialistic as well as feudatory. For ex. In 1346 A D he
assumed the title both “Sriman Mahamandaleswara , Rajadhiraja Parameswara Sri Veera
Bukkaraya.”16

In this title Sriman Mahamandaleswara is used before Rajadhiraja Raja Parameswara.

What could be the reason for feudatory title coming ahead of imperialistic title? Probably
they felt that their empire had not yet attained that perfect stability. So they merged these
titles together. The successors of Bukkaraya I continuously began to use this imperialistic
title.

On the basis of these epigraphical evidences, we can conclude that the first two
sangama brothers used more feudatory title Mahamandaleswara then imperialistic title
Maharajadhiraja Raja Parameswara. This shows that the sangam brothers obviously hesitated
to bear imperial title. Vijayanagara Empire began during the decline of Hoysala dynasty. So
the first generation rulers displayed some sincerity to Hoysala rulers by assuming feudatory
titles. This can be proved by another evidence. For ex. In 1354 A D it is mentioned in an
inscription that Bukka ruled from his capital Hosapattana over the kingdom which belongs to
the dynasty of the Hoysalas.17 This shows that the first two rulers of sangama dynasty were
though the masters of Hoysala provinces, they describe themselves by feudatory title
Mahamandaleswara as a symbol of sincerity.

III
Sangama brothers Harihara and Bukka ruled the empire from 1336 to 1377 A D as
Mahamandaleswara. During this tenure they also assumed the titles ‘Ariraya Vibhada’
‘Bashege Tappuva Rayaraganda’ ‘Purva Paschima Samudradhipathi.’ They started to use
these titles from 1340 A D as already mentioned in the previous part. Subsequently they used
these titles till the end of 1377 A D.

When we study these titles except Poorva Paschima Samudradhipathi (lord of eastern
and western ocean) other titles Ariraya Vibhada,( punisher of enemy kings) Bhasege
Tappuva Rayara Ganda ( vanquisher of kings who break their word) were also used during
Hoysala period with some minor modifications. For ex ‘Bhasege Tappuva Rayara Ganda’
which during Hoysala regime was Bashege Tappuvanakadanegalteya Lenkara Ganda, 18

10
which was assumed by Kuvara Lakshmana, a minister of Ballalla II. It is clear that the same
title with some modification was used by Harihara I.

Another title Ariraya Vibhada’ is also the same. The word Ariraya in this title was
already referred in the inscription of 1019 A D as Ariraya Taleya Karavattam, Ariraya
Selavam. Ariraya means enemy kings ‘Taleya Karavattam’ means be headed. It means that
“to cut off the head of enemies”. In another title the word ‘Selvam’ means conqueror. So it
means “the conqueror of enemy kings” But Harihara I used the word Vibhada along with
Ariraya. Vibhada means destroy. So the meaning of this title is destroyer of enemy kings.
Thus we can conclude that, the above mentioned two titles were already used by their
predecessors with different words of same meaning. But these two emperors used the same
titles with a few changes in words.

The title ‘Poorva Paschima Samudradhipathi’ was a newly created title. It means that
the lord of eastern and western ocean. This shows that their empire was extended from the
eastern sea to the west. According to Somashekar S Y “This title represents their control over
Malabar and coromandal coast.”19 However, did they conquer and extend so much by 1340 A
D ? This needs more research.

IV
The first generation rulers of the sangama dynasty not only adopted the titles
discussed in previous part, but also created their own self earned title. The most important is
“Hinduraya suratrana” According to Philip B Wagoner “In an inscription dated 1352 A D
Bukka I (1344-1357 A D) had himself described with “Hinduraya Suratrana” this inscription
represents the first documented used by a vijayanagar ruler of this title.20

However this title was already used in 1347 A D by Marappa another brother of
Bukka I referred in the Hejje copper plate inscription. It describes him with the following
series of titles 21 Moovaru rayaraganda,(conqueror of three kings) poorvapara Dakshinarnava
deeshah, (lord of the eastern , western and southern oceans) Bhashege tappuva rayara
gandaha, (punisher of kings , who break their words) Ariraya manaharah,(destroyer of the
pride of fierce hostile kings) Hinduraya Suratalah,(Sultan to Hindu kings) muhammadiraya
vibhada (destroyer of muhammadian rulers). Therefore it is clear that this title was first
adopted by Marappa not Bukka I.

The title “Hinduraya Suratala or Suratrana” continued in use by not only Sangama
rulers but also in Saluva, Tuluva rulers for at least an another 250 years until as late as the
beginning of 17th century. It seems that the historians did not give much importance to this
title. Most historians have glossed lightly over this title, without much comment. However
the famous historians like Vasundhara Filliozat, Herman Kulke , Philip B Wagoner try to
discuss this title with their own views.

Vasundhara Filliozat writes, “this word (Hinduraya suratrana) presents difficulties

neither in Sanskrit nor in Kannada. We must assume Suratrana represents a sanskratization of
the muslim title Sultan, a phonetic transliteration independent of any meaning. In the same
way Suratalu would represent an equivalent transliteration in Kannada. one thus obtains the
more satisfactory meaning of ‘Sultan of Hindu kings’ a title which would have been given to
Bukka by his Muslim neighbours.”22

11
 According to Herman Kulke “the meaning of this unusual title is not clear. But it is
quite likely that the early kings of Vijayanagar laid claim to a status among the Hindu rajas
equal to that of the Sultan among the muslim rulers. Suratrana was equal to that of the
muslim title Sultan. The examples might have been the Sultan of Madurai, (since 1334)
Bahamani Sultans (since 1347) rather than the distant Sultan of Delhi.’’23

Philip B Wagoner opines that “the title Hinduraya Suratrana was used in a much more
literal and direct sense as a means of proclaiming that the Vijayanagar rulers could actually
be considered a sultan not in terms of relative political standing but in concrete terms of
substance and style. In particular this title would have served to differentiate its bearer from
ordinary Hindu kings by signaling his willingness to participate in the political discourse of
Islamic civilization.”24

Sadashiva Athavale said that “Suratrana is a pure Sanskrit word sur means God, trana
as an adjective means protected. So Hinduraya Suratrana means, A Hindu king, who is
protected by God or who has the armour of god.”25

Among these interpretations three accepted that the word suratrana is equal to that of
sultan. The other one rejected it. The rejecter agreed that the Suratrana is a pure Sanskrit
word, and he tried to analyze its meaning through the division of the word in to sur and trana
is not correct. But the Vijayanagar rulers also used Suratala, Suratana,with Hinduraya instead
of Suratrana. So all the three words (Suratala, Suratrana, Suratana) are equal to that of Sultan.
They are a Phonetic transliteration in Kannada.

The above mentioned three scholars show difference in their use. Fillozat said that
“this title was given by neighbouring Muslim sultans.” “This title was incepted to show that
they are equal to Sultan” Herman kulke said. But Wagoner differs than two and said that
“they tried to follow the culture of Sultan through the adoption of this title.”

We are known that there was a lot of Persian cultural influence over Indian rulers by
the study of Medieval Indian history. There were many local Hindu Kings who used the
Persian title ‘sultan’ through the local words known by the Vijayangar rulers title “Hinduraya
Suratrana”It means sultan over Hindurayas. Rana Kumbha of Mewar also called himself a
“Hindu Sultan” and even placed the name of Allah in Persian letters on top of his famous
victory tower . This shows that the influence of Persian civilization transcended religious and
cultural boundaries and the new Indo-Persian civilization emerged in the Indian Sub
Continent. During this time’ Sultan’ was not associated with any particular religion or culture
and was used by all. In any society cultural exchange is a natural process.

The Muhammadian Sultanas described themselves ‘Maharaja,’ before Vijayanagar

emperors called themselves as ‘Hinduraya Suratrana.’ It was justified by 1326 A D stone
inscription. It described him as “Maharajadhiraja Sri Suratana Muhammadhah Rajye tatpada
padmopa jeevi” 26 On the basis of this inscription the word suratrana was first appeared in
1326 A D and they used both maharaja and sultana.
The Muslims of foreign origin established an empire in north India during 12th
century. However as early as in 14th century they tried to expand their power towards south
India. After conquering South India, the sultans appointed the officers of foreign origin to
newly conquered territories. Those officers settled permanently here, were influenced by
local culture and described themselves as ‘Maharaja.’ By calling like this; they tried to

12
project themselves as Maharaja in their ruling areas. So it seems that they described
themselves as “Maharajadhiraja Sri Suratana” This is an example for how one culture has
influence over another. In this background, we can see that Muslim sultans were the first to
describe themselves as Maharaja sri Suratrana and their kingdom was Muhammadean state. It
was not a special for their contemporary Vijayanagar Emperors to describe themselves as
“Hinduraya Suratrana.” So it is clear that the word ‘Suratrana’ of the title emerged through
the background of give and take policy of culture.

The first two sangama brothers assumed this title Hinduraya suratrana at least eleven
times during their ruling period. Among Bukkaraya I adopted nine times and Harihara and
Marappa each one.The word ‘Suratala’ was used in a much more literal and direct sense not
in their terms of relative political standing. In the year 1356 A D Bukkaraya I was described
as “Sujana Nirupala Suratrana dheera Ariraya vibhada vinodhiraya bhuvara nidhi
Bukkaraya.27

But in this inscription Hinduraya is dropped and suratrana is used instead of suratala.
Some argued that suratrana is a pure Sanskrit word Sur means God trana means Protected and
also as a noun it means armour or a helmet.28

Thus the early rulers of Sangama dynasty used this title in the form of ‘Suratrana’
Hinduraya suratrana, Hinduraya suratala. They adopted this title eleven times. Among once
Hinduraya was dropped. The correct meaning of the word Suratrana or suratala is not clear.
However we agree that Suratrana or suratala is the localization of a muslim word sultan. It
first appeared in 1326 A D Inscription of Muslim rulers. Both muslim and Hindu rulers
assumed this title. They used this title not in relative political standing but in the influence of
cultural exchange.

End notes and references

1. Neelakanta shastri K A. - A history of South India, 4th edition, Page 307, Oxford university
press, Madras. 1975.
2. See: Fritz, john M Robert P, Brubaker and Teresa P, Raczek (Eds),- Vijayanagar;
Archaelogocal exploration 1990-2000: papers in memory of channabasappa S patil, 2
parts, New Delhi , Manohar- 2006.
3. For ex, see: Krishnaswamy Aiyangar S - South India and her Muhammadan invaders
(1921; repri.1991 -New Delhi, Asian educational services.) XII, 184 cf stein,
Vijayanagar, 4-6
4. E.I-8: No 31, page 301 ASI, New Delhi, 1892.
5. Ibid 3, No 19, page 122.
Pratapa Harihara bhupam Dhanava mardhananamtire meensgadhe pandhiyagadha pthrathirupam Taana
pratapa Hariharanenuddarisidano Vedamam Medeniyam (Kannada university Inscription vol 3, Hampi 69,
p 58,) this part documented the avatars of Vishnu who is avatara of matsya saved the immersed Vedas
under water and in avatara of varaha rescued the earth.
6. MAR 1933 page 135 line 25.
7. Ibid line 39.
8. In 1340 A D records the grant of certain maha samanthdhipathi myleya nayaka who was ruling
kukkalanadu as a subordinate of Harihara I.This chief appears to be a descendent of myleyanayaka
cinneyanayaka, who was ruling in kukkalanadu as a subordinate of Ballala III in 1333 A D (EC IX (old series)
Nelmangala 9) This shows that myleyanayaka transferred his allegiance to the king of Vijayanagar some times
before 1340. Myleyanayaka would not have recognized Harihara as his overlord unless he was subjugated by
army. This invasion happened between 1333 and 1340 AD (Venkataramanaiah N- Vijayanagar origin of the city
and the empire, original 1933 repri 2007 Asian educational services, New Delhi, page 143).
9. Yogeeswarappa D N- Kalpa shodha, page 57, pragathi graphics, Bangalore, 2012.
10. Kannada viswa vidyalaya shashana vol.9- Badami 350, Indian Antiquiry, X 87.

13
11. Epigraphic carnatica (old series) vol 10 Kolar , 1313 A D.Epigraphic karnatica (new
series) Vol 3 Nanjanagud 152,1327 A D. Vol 15 Sagara 63 1339 A D .South Indian
inscriptions vol XVII, No 700, 1339 A D.
12. Inscriptions of Vijayanagara rulers (IVR) Vol 1 No 1,4,14,17 Indian council of Historical
Research, New Delhi.
13. Herman Kulke-kings and cults- original 1993, reprint 2001 page 217, Manohar
publishers, New Delhi.
14. IVR Vol-I No.28,30,31,90,126,135. EC (New series) Vol 4, Chamarajanagar 227.
15. Herman Kulke - op.cit-page 217.
16. IVR Vol I No 24.
17. Herman kulke - op.cit- page 218.
18. EC (old series) Vol V Belur 112, A D 1220. E C(New) 9 Belur 300.
19. Somashekar s Y- Showrya parakramagala prateekavagi vijayanagara kalada Birudugalu in
Vijayanagara Adyayana. Vol -5, page 106, Directorate of Archaeology and Museum, Mysore. 2000.
20. Philip B Wagoner “Sultan among Hindu kings” ‘Dress, titles, and the islamicizatopn of
Hindu culture at Vijayanagar’ in the journal of Asian studies vol-55, No -04(1996) page 861-862.
21. Mysore Archaelogical reports 1929- p 249.
22. Filliozat, vasundhara -1973-L’Epigraphic de Vijayanagr du debuta’ 1377 paris Ecole
Francaised’ extreme orient. ref Wagoner Philip B-Sultan among Hindu kings in the
journal of Asian studies vol 55 No 4, page 862.
23. Heman Kulke- op.cit - page 218.
24. Philip B Wagoner - op.cit.page 863.
25. Sadashiva Athavale-A note on Hinduraya Suratrana in quarterly Journal of Mythic
society vol-88 no -3 page 110-111, Bangalore.
26. Kannada Vishwa vidyalaya shashana vol-8 Basavakalyana 13 Ad 1326.
27. IVR vol 1-op.cit No 37.
28. Sada shiva Athavale-op.cit page 110.

14
 Chapter - III
The origin of the Nayaka system
When did the Nayaka system start? This is the basic question. Many scholars,
researchers have tried to find the root answer for this question. Including As T V
Mahalingam, the early researchers like N Venkataramanaiah, Krishnaswamy statesthat “the
Nayakas system was a part of Vijayanagaraadministration”

N. Venkataramanaiah in his work called”Vijayanagara origin of the city and the

Empire” published in the year 1933 opines that “the system of distributing the lands for
nayakas was in progress during the first dynasty of Vijayanagara Empire”(Venkataramanaiah
1990 : 108-109)

No one hastaken this statement before 1964. WhenKrishnaswamy published his work
“The Tamil country under Vijayanagara” conducting a serious research in his studies and he
says that during the rule of Krishnadevaraya the administration of the provinces had a
tremendous change. The states which were under Mahamandaleshwaras (Governor) started to
rule by thenayakas.(Krishna swamy 1964:194) means, according to him the provinces of
Vijayanagara Empire were ruled by Mahamandaleshwaras in the beginning. During the
16thcentury the Nayakas occupied that place. He also says that during 14th century when the
vijayanagara kings conquered Tamilnadu then they started the Nayakas system.
Mahamandaleshwaras had control over the Nayakas provinces were a part of the
Mahamandaleshwara’s region.(Krishnaswamy A. 1964 : 181, 191) But this argument is
against to his earlier opinion, as he has opined that nayakas had their own status when
compared to mahamandaleshwaras.

When Krishnaswamy opined these points in his work it is very clear that he used
several inscriptions. But the scholars who did research prior to him were based only on the
writings of the Portuguese. Even Venkataramanaiah collected and used the word Nayakas
from the inscriptions, but while discussing about the Nayaka system he used less number of
contemporary inscriptions. But Krishnaswamy has used more number of inscriptions as the
evidences in his works. It has become a great turn in the history of the study of the Nayakas.
Even the Japanese historian Khureshima also says “the Nayaka system came into being
during the late 15th century and continued till the middle of 17th century. He said this by
verifying the Tamil inscriptions where the word “Nayakatanam” has been mentioned.
According to him Nayakatanam means distributing the land for nayakas (Khureshima
2002:16).

Hence Krishnaswamy says the system of nayaka was started in the late 14 th century,
Khureshima says that it started during late 15th century. Like this both of them gives different
period. They also opined that the name Nayaka mentioned in the Tamil inscriptions tell us
about the beginning of the Nayaka system. So their opinions should be studied very carefully.
After verifying the Tamil inscriptions which had the references of the word Nayakatanam
that were used by Kaharashima we can say its reference is less in the first half off the 14 th
century. (Kharashima – 2002 :66)

Based on the same method Talbaat studied about the Nayakatana and opines as “after
1490’s the inscriptions had more references of the Nayakatana.(Talbaat 2001 b : 255) He
added his voice to Khurashima, saying that this system started in Andhra more or less during
the Vijayanagara Empire.

15
Dr. D.N. Yogeshwarappa who had a research on Karnataka inscriptions opined that “the
system of Nayakas was at the peak during the period of Krishnadevaraya”(Yogeeshwarappa
DN 2011 : P 90-110) Hence these records give us evidence that the Nayakas had emerged
prior to the great king Krishnadevaraya. This meant that after the decline of Sangama dynasty
in the early 15ht century and during the crisis the emperors could have started this system for
their supremacy. Even a researcher from Japan by name Ota Nobuhiro says that the nayaka
syatem was in existence during 15th century. (Ota N. 2008 : p 108)

From the above said evidences it is very clear that except Venkataramanaiah’s
opinion the Nayakas prevailed during the 15th century.The answer from Venkataramanaiah’s
view says that “the nayaka system was in service during the Kakatiya rulers and it was a part
of their rule. This system came into being by PrathaparudraII. As per “Prataparudra charite”
Prathaparudra assigned the responsibility of safeguarding his capital to 77 velan Nayakas and
divided his kingdom into 77 districts and distributed them to the nayakas. Hence he was able
to rule effectively.This information is supported by the Sanskrit Kaluvacheru inscriptionof
1432. It says that after the death of Prathaparudra, the Kaapayanayaka protected the region of
Telangana from the invasion of Mohammadans. Then he received the service of 75 nayakas.
This development was because of the queen Rudrambe. Hence no doubt we can say that the
last Kakatiya rulers started the Nayaka system. Later the Vijayanagara rulers borrowed this
system from them. (N. Venkataramanaiah 1990 : 109-111) The same opinion by Prof.
Lakshman Telagavi and he says “the Kakatiya rulers of Andhra Pradesh adopted this system
for the first time” The Datti inscription issued by the queen of Kakatiya Rudrambe or
Rudrammadevi(1262-1286) supports this. (Lakshman Telagavi 2009 : 26)
Synthia Talbot asserts that Nayakana System is unquestionably the intention of
kakathiyas and its first came into practice in Andhra Pradesh. Later the Vijayanagar emperors
implemented and emended it. (Talbot 2001 a: 165-166) when Talbot’s opinion in concerned,
it suggests that Vijayanagar empire adopted and modified Nayakara System. Hence it should
be noticed that it clearly highlights the difference between Nayakara system of Vijayanagar
Empire and kakathiyas. Indeed, Talbot says that vavasory areas in the Nayakara system of
kakathiya period were very small in amplitude with very few number of villages and
sometimes, equal to provincial parts. He has also recognized that even the subordinate
officials possessed such vavasory areas (Talbot 2001a:165-166) Hence it can be stated
playing its role as an aid both in the amplitude of Nayaka vavasory and Nayaka vassal’s
political power limitedly. Because, in the study of the inscriptions of Kakathiyas, savannas
and Hoysalas, who ruled prior to Vijayanagar empire, it can be noticed only in the
inscriptions of last tinglings of kakathiyas and the inscriptions of Reddy ancestry who ruled
such bounds in Andhra province as predecessors of Kakathiyas that the word ‘Sime’ was
used for the provincial sections of a state. On the basis of this, N .Venkataramanaiah says that
the administrative section called sime arose in the eastern part of Andhra and later spreaded
to the west as Vijayanagar Empire expanded (N.Venkataramanaiah 1990:106-108) Nayakara
was adopted besides simes, the provincial section, in Kakathiya Empire. According to
Talbot, such simes were not given as Nayakara vavasory areas. But the inscriptions justify
that such bounds were given as vavosry areas during the period vijayanagar empire,
especially during the reign of Krishnadevaraya (D.N.Yogeeswarappa 2011:92-93)

If we go through Talbot’s research. The inscriptions of Nayakatharas references are in

less number in the early 15th century. In 1933, Venkataramanaiah also mentioned in his work
about Nayakathanas during sangama period. His references to inscriptions are mentioned
below.

16
1. In 1339 AD, Hoddilapalli Singama Nayaka received Denuvakonda
Village for Nayakathana (NDI ii 035)
2. In 1352 A D, Mahasavanthadipathi Balavantha Arikenayaka’s son
received Anjadunadu for Nayakathana (EC iXDV29)
3. In 1392 A D, Theppada Naganna’s Grand son was the Nayaka of
Thirumalanathada (EC 10bg15 Tamaga Salluva)
4. In 1412 AD, Somagandanahalli village of Harasunadu belongs to an
office of elder mudiya Nayaka. (EC ix An44 Namma Nayakathanage
Salluva)
5. In 1418AD, Hammiranadu belongs to an office of Jakemuddenayaka (EC ix
Ananthapura and Thamma Nayakathange Salluva)
If we examine the above mentioned references of inscriptions, the area of
Nayakathana umbalis was equal to a village or Nadu.

The rulers of Viajayanagara used to give land for the Nayakas. They took care of
these provinces and also help as administrative wing for the emperors. Some scholars say that
the origin of Nayaka system is from west Asia and they relate it to Muslim rule and to Ikta
system. According to Ravi Aravind Palat “The Ikta system was modified to Nayaka system
by the Vijyanagara Empire” (Palat 1987 : 174)He also said that it was not necessary to take
such grants from ancestral property. (Palat 1987 :175) Khureshima continues by saying “the
Nayaka system is compared to isllamic rule of Ikta, Soyurgal,or Jagir traditions”( Kharashima
1999 :157) He further says that “the Vijayanagara kingdom followed this tradition and
inculcated during their rule”

But in 1996 during the 25th South Asian Conference, wagoner and other two
American scholars proved that the Nayaka system has its origin from the Ikta rule and they
linked that to the Nayaka system. This gives much evidence for the system of Nayakas being
brought to our country.

Wagonar says that the system of Vijayanagara resembles to that of Ikta rule. (wagonar
2000 :318) He adds to the point that the people who gave land revenue and Ikta should also
serve the country as a soldier.

They also highlight the system of Kakatiyas as that also resembles the Nayakas and
Ikta system. Based on these points, when the Islamic rule began in our country they brought
this system to India. And later it might have been adapted to several states and provinces.

The medieval nayaka system was studied by Shishir Kumar Pande. He stated his
opinion in his own way “The Nayaka system was started by Vajrahasta deva and
Ananthavarma when they ruled Orissa during the later Ganga period. The local Nayakas who
received the Nayakatana increased their respect. (Shishirkumar pande 1988 : 105) It is
believed that Vajrahastadeva III invited Kutaadi Nayakas son Ganapathi nayaka to Kalinga
and gave him the position of Nayaka. This proof has been found in 1037 inscription during
the rule of Vajrahastgadeva.Hence according to this inscription, the first ruler of Gangas
Vajrahastadeva III started the nayaka system in Kalinga.

But Pande also adds that though it started in Kalinga there is less evidence to prove it.
The Nayakas were from local communities. He also doubts that the Nayaka system might
have been originated from the Southern Dravidian territories as they spoke Telugu. (Shishir
kumar pande-1988:97)

17
 So it is cleared that the Nayaka system was existed in the later Ganga’s of Orissa even
before Kakatiyas. As the scholars did not give the correct chronology of the Ikta system, it is
difficult to say that the Nayaka system is its gift. So as for now from the available evidences
and the scholar’s opinion we can only opine that later Gangas of Orissa started this system
and later Kakatiyas adopted this. Further their immediate successors, the Vijayanagara rulers
adopted and as time being revised and developed it. Since how long this opinion will
continue is depend upon the future researches.

References

1. Krishnaswamy A : 1964- The Tamil Country under Vijayanagara- Annamalai nagar : Annamalai
university.
2. Shishirkumar Panday : 1988- Nayaka Syatem in Medieval Andhara in K.K. Das Gupta, PK Bhattacharya
(Ed) shraddanjali, D.C. Circar Commemoration Volume, Delhi, Sandeep prakashana.
3. Karashima Noburo : 2002 –A Condordance of Nayakas : The Vijayanagar inscriptions in South India, New
Delhi: Oxford University Press.
4. Ota Nobuhiro : 2008-A Study of TwoNayaka families in the Vijayanagara kingdom in the 16th Century in
memories of the Research development of the Toyo Bunko, 66 : 103-129.
5. Lakshman Telagavi : 2009- Vijayanagara Amaranayakaru Mattu Palegararu in Virupakshi
poojarihalli(Ed)Charitre Adhyayana Vol.4 Issue2, Vidyaranya(Prasaranga Kannada
university(in Kannada)
6. Yogeeswarappa D. N -2011-Charitreya putagalu(Kannaada Book) Bangalore C.V.G.
India.
7. Venkataramanayya N. 2010- Studies in the History of the Third dynasty of Vijayanagara
(reprint) Delhi, Gian Publishing House.(Originally published in Madras1935.
8. 2007- Vijayanagar : Origin of the city and the Empire (reprint) New Delhi: Asian
educational services(Originally published in 1933)
9. 2001- B –The Nayakas of Vijayanagara Andhra: A preliminary prosography in Kenneth R
Hall (ed) structure and society in early South India, Oxford Uni. Press.
10. Karashima N. -1999- Vijayanagara Nayakas in Tamilnadu and the king, in Noburu
Karashima(ed) Kingship in Indian History, New Delhi, Manohar publication.
11. Wagonar Philip B. -2000 Harihara, Bukka and the Sultanate, Delhi Sultanate in the
political imagination of Vijayanagar” in David Gilmartin and Bruce B. Lawrence
(ed)Beyond Turk and Hindu Shaping Indo Muslim Identity in pre modern India.
Gainesville University Press of Florida 300-326.
12. Palat Ravi Aravind-1987 : “The Vijayanagaras Empire reintegration of the agrarian
order of Medieval South India 1336-1565” in HJM classen and Pieter van de velde
(ed) early state dynamics(studies in Humansociety Vol-2) leiden : E.J.Brill,170-186.

18
 The definition of Nayakas System (Reintrospection)
The role of Nayakas is very crucial in the administration of Vijayanagar Empire. The
people who had their power and influence in army and politics were called “Nayakas” they
took the empire to the great heights especially during the Tuluva rule. There have been many
surveys, reports, and discussion as what the word ‘Nayaka’ mean? What is their family
background? How was their relationship with the emperors? Etc has not been found the
correct answers. So I have tried honestly to understand and bring out the definition and
background of this in this article. In addition to this I have tried my best to discuss the rumors
and suspects about their rule, so this might help for the future research and could provide a
detailed study about them.

As per the records Robert Sewell is the first to undertake studies and investigation
about Vijaynagar Empire. His work ‘A forgotten empire “which was published in 1900 And
in that he says he has surveyed only the Sanskrit and local inscriptions but also he used
Portuguese and the works of Munich as his evidence. He has also translated them in to
English. They have given much evidence about Nayakas. According to that “All the lands
belonged to the king and from his hand the captain’s hold it. They also pay to him every year
sixty lakhs of tributes as royal dues” *(Sewell 1900 Page 379,373)

The word captain in English has meaning like Nayak. Leader, Dalapathi, head etc. As
Sewell used the word “Captain” which has also many equivalent words like “Nayakas”
amaranayaka etc many researchers has used them in many of their works. The one who used
this was N Venkataramanaiah. He utilized the works of Nuniz as their base for research. So
he transcribed the word captain to Nayaka and said that they used to hire the land from the
empire and they were called Nayakas.*(Venkataramanaiah 2010. P 172)

The word used in Kannada as Nayaka has also been used extensively in Telugu as
Nayakas and in Tamil as Nayakattan. Venkataramanaiah has used amaranayaka more to the
word Nayaka.He gives reason from the Telugu work “Rayavachakamu”*(Venkataramanaiah
2010. P 171, 172)

He also noted about the word Nayankas being used widely in his work. So there is no
much difference between two words

Talbot who identified some difference between Nayak and Amaranayak. He said that
the rights of Nayakas were limited within their province where as Amara is forced within the
village. But still he also left the discussion opened and confused.* (Talbot 200, P 253)
Subbarayalu another researcher said that amaram means the down trodden nayakas as
and his small belongings of land. *(Subbarayalu, 1996, P 77)

As per his meaning Amaram is nothing but (GA§½) Grants which is given by
Nayakas, and Nayakas means Grants (GA§½) received directly from the king. Hence Nayak
and Amara Nayak have some difference. Hence there is a need to rethink about the definition
of Venkataramanaiah.

The opinion by venkataramanaiah his research is very important to understand the

rule of vijayanagar empire and its development.

19
 Many scholars have defined the word Nayak in their own way. I have collected them
and have listed according to the chronology.

1. Salatone “the officials under the control of dandaNayakas were called

Nayakas” (Salatone 1934 P 267)
2. T V N Mahalingam “the people who received the land from the kings
were called Nayakas” (T V Mahalingam 1942, P 195)
3. T D M Derret “The ones who used to train the army persons and who were
compared to the captains in the English army are called Nayakas” this word is found
during the inscriptions of 11th century. (J D M Derret 1957, P 25)
4. Krishnaswamy “the word Nayaka is the name of head of the army. he
should have the land and should assign the word Nayaka to his name”(
Krishnaswamy ,1964, P 180)
5. D C Sarkar “Nayakas are the people who had a treaty with the vijayanagar empire to
join the army and took the land from them (D C Sarkar, 1966, P 214)
6. Burtonstan “Nayaka is a title given to a common soldier. He should participate in all
wars behalf of the king but he has all the independence to execute his rights. (Burton
stain, 1980, P 401)
7. Shivanna K S “the persons who owned the land from the emperor.
Their position was not inheritable. (Shivanna K S, 1983, P 39)
8. Shishir Kumar Pandey “Nayakas were military people his position was to get from
his ability and leadership qualities. (Shishir Kumar Pandey, 1988, P 105)
9. Waganor Phillip”the soldiers were portrayed as amara Nayakas and
they were pictured as the army people. They used to get a part of the
land and needed to take care of his regiment by giving fixed part to the
Vijayanagar Empire. (Waganor Phillip ,1993,P 101-102, 198-200)
10. Nobaru Khurshima “Nayaka means title or he should be a mediator to the king and
people or he should attained some territory from his leaders hip. any ability out of
these three was called a Nayak “ (Nobaru Khurshima , 2002, P 75 – 85)
11. Ota Nobuhera “the one who worked under the control of the
Vijayanagar empire by taking care of a portion of the land was nayaka
“(Ota Nobuhera , 2008, P 66)
12. Laxman Telagavi “Nayaka is nothing but the head of the army service. He used to get
amaran or permanent land for this means by signing to the treaty to provide the army
men , horses, elephants to the army used to get some villages, as gifts. He was called
Nayaka. this was called the system of nayankaram. ( Laxman Telagavi,2009, P 23)
13. D N Yogeeshwarappa “(2011) to get a land or portion from the king, and ruling a
small portion as small ruler under the supreme control of the emperor was Nayak. No
one becomes Nayak by adding the word to their name individually. (D N
Yogeeshwarappa , 2011 P 90)

The above mentioned definitions have proved that Nayakas were almost related to the
army service. But there is still confusion as who should be called Nayaka exactly. Most of the
scholars have taken the Portuguese writing of Sewell or Venkataramanaiah work as their
base.

So there is no fixed opinion as who should be identified as Nayakas. Some opine

about the word being used in their names as Nayaka. But some ignore this totally.

20
 Those who received the land by the kings only come under the name of Nayakas (Ota
Nobuhera and D N Yogeeshwarappa) and some say just they added the mere word Nayakas
to their name as they rented the land for purpose.(Krishnaswamy A)

The early writing has the base and evidence of only the writings of the Portuguese.
Even Venkataramanaiah also borrowed this word from many recorded inscriptions. He has
also given less examples of the modern or recent evidences to prove that after him
krishnaswamy used the inscriptions to prove this system. This is really a significant in the
research. But still there is no clear definition about the word Nayakas because during the
vijayanagar rule the one who borrowed the land were called as Nayakas.

But krishnaswamy in contradiction to this takes the evidence from the Tamil
inscriptions and uses the word to the individual names and also the one who rented or lived
the land from the kings both as the same. So it is not fair to consider both as one.
krishnaswamy has used the Nayaka and Nayaka system together in many of his evidences.
( Subbarayalu 1996 P 74)

The scholars after him gave importance to the title and opined in their own ways.
Among Stain and Nobura are the most prominent.

Burton Stain who gave correct evidences by taking the idea of segmentary state in the
parts of south eastern India, and who added the word Nayaka to their name as a major tool to
measure. But still it doesn’t sound good with the exact meaning he has given to the word.

Stain cleared by taking the evidence of Krishnaswamy who listed the vijayanagara
inscriptions and the relationship of kings with Nayakas by saying that they were not courted
by the rulers. He also questions the reality of the word captaincy in the Portuguese writings;
he says that it might be a translation done by tourists’ o f Portugal. (Burton Stain, 1980, P
375, 396- 398)

He gives his opinion by saying that Nayakas were primarily had their own rights
locally and they were local magnates. They had a mutual understanding with the army of
vijayanagar. The emperors used to keep some strong people as their agents to their provinces.
But these people started to rule the localities independently. (Burton Stain, 1980, P 407- 410)

Totally they were obedient to the king. And also they were the part of segmentary
state politically.

Generally Burton used to take the evidences of earlier works, but when he started
working and moving further he used the word Nayaka system. He might have followed
Krishnaswamy.

Steyn argues that Nayakas were obedient to the emperors and they also ruled their
provinces independently. But to the question as how did they control them (Nayakas) ?. To
this krishnsaswmay continues that the governors were appointed to control and take care of
these Nayakas” means majority of the Nayakas were non-Brahmins and to take care of these
people there used to be a (chief Nayaka) who was a Brahmin to particular part of the areas.
( Burton Stain, 1980, P 410 – 13)

21
 To this argument both Steyn and Krishnaswamy had the same opinion, and Steyn for
their used a local language as “Durgadanayaka” and agrees with that of Krishnaswamy.
(Krishnaswamy called Mahamandaleshwara as the governor)

Nobaru Khurashima after Steyn took the study of Nayaka. Both of them have the
same definition, and khurashima calls them as kings who Feudal kings, and he lists out 2
major points.
1. The king handed over the authority to rule so as to make a systematic rule.
2. Nayakas had some authority and rights over the yields that came from the
land.(Kharashima, 1992, P 37)

From the above opinions the system of Nayaka was related to the Zamindari syatem
socially. In this the Nayaka took care of the lands and tenures and there by statistically and
systematically ruled the province. The study taken by these two people has enlarged the idea
of word Nayak. And has contributed to the study of Vijayanagar Empire significantly. It also
major importance to the local brought politics and local society with the democratic set up of
the center.

The research and study of Steins about the Vijayanagar Empire has surpassed the
individual role in the political and has given a complete set up of the community. The
Nayakas were also a part of it.( Burton Stain, 1980, P 398-99)

But still the definitions by these people are very large. There is a little difference in
the political and social picture.

Stain himself agrees that there is a gap between the political and social scenario about
the role of Nayaka. He states that the title of Nayaka was to the man who had no proper
bondage with the vijayanagar army.

But Khurashima states there was a gradation among the Nayaka. All of them were not
treated the same. So there is still doubt and confusion about the role, their limitations and rule
of Nayakas. Even there is also a doubt whether the word Nayaka was used for the gradation
of people in their empire? We have already understood that by the base of Portuguese
writings we came across the word Nayakas.

The land territory they got, the tenure and period is still unknown properly, hence it is
little abrupt to see this system with that of comparison to the European Feudal
(G½UÀªÀiÁ£Àå) system. So we might think that Burton has used this imagination and has
compared the Nayakas system with that of European system. (Burton Stain, 1980, P 374)

Though Burton stain verified the sources, failed to justify his opinions about the
Nayaka system. According to him there was no effective political system in Vijayanagara
then. So the emperors made the nayakas as mediators and appointed as the military agents in
different regions. Later such Nayakas established their own power. (Burton Stain 1980, P
408) Against to this Kharashima quotes”Vijayanagara emperors had an effective control over
the Nayakas”. He turned his attention towards their states and quotes it as the link between
the king and Nayakas. He gave a list of the references of the inscriptions *( Kharashima 2002
P 75)

22
 Ota Nobuhiro and Dr. DN Yogeeshwarappa rejected the Nayaka definitions of Stain
and Kharashima by studying their works completely. According to the present author, the
Nayaka system propounded by them is different from the Nayaka system. As Stain and
Kharashima understands those who had the suffix of the word Nayaka with their individual
name became the Nayakas and comes under Nayaka system. If we observe this, we get more
number of nayakas than referred in the inscriptions. Is it possible? It is not possible to
become Nayakas by adding the word nayaka to their name.

Especially during the time of Tuluva dynasty Nayanka system was running as a
systematic political organization. In which the king used to give some Seeme /Area to
Nayakatana for the people who are adventurous. So it is good to call the people those who
received the land for the Nayakatana as the Nayakas. Some of them who did not have the
word Nayaka with their name also in the list of Nayakas. Because, they received the land for
Nayakatana by the emperor. *(D N Yogeeshwarappa 2011, P 108,110). So there was no rule
to have the title Nayaka, those who received the land for Nayakatana.

In conclusion Krishnaswamy in the year 1964 defined the Nayaka system as those
who had the title Nayaka along with their names.

Further Burton Stain, who followed Krishnaswamy, changed the Nayanka System as
the Nayaka system in the year 1980.

Further Japanese historian Kharashima accepted the opinion of Krishnaswamy and

Burton stain. He divided the definition of Nayaka system, in which it had any one aspect
called as Nayaka in the year 2002. Prof. Lakshman Telagavi also followed the same.

But recent researchers Ota Nobuhiro and Dr. D N Yogeeshwarappa did not accept the
above opinions. According to them any one becomes Nayaka by merely adding the word
Nayaka to their individual name. It was not possible to play a major role in the Vijayanagara
for such nayakas. Those who received lands for Nayakatana, by the king are called as the
Nayakas. They only come under Nayaka system.

It is not suitable that Burton Stain and Kharashima used the word nayaka in the
Nayaka system parallel to the Telugu word Nayanka, the Kannada word Nayakatana and the
Tamil word Nayakkatanam as recorded in the Vijayanagara inscriptions. Because in that
system all those who had the name Nayaka along with their individual name included. So it is
better to call this system as Nayankara / Nayakatana. Earlier studies also mentioned the same.

Reference :
1. Saletore B A -1935- Social and political life in Vijayanagar empire-2 vols-Madras-B G Paul & com.
2. Mahalingam T.V-1942 –Administration and Social life under Vijayanagar –Madras: Uni Madras.
3. Derret J.D.M:1957 –the Hoysalas. A Medieval Royal family-New Delhi-oxfordUni Press.
4. Krishnaswamy A : 1964 - The Tamil Country under Vijayanagar-Annamalai Nagar: Annamalai Uni
5. Circar D C :1966 – Indian epigraphically Glossary -Delhi
6. Burten Stein: 1980. Peasant state and society in medieval south Indian-oxford-oxford Uni. Press. 1989:
Vijayanagar, Cambridge-Cambridge Uni Press.
7. Shivanna K S: 1983, the Agararian System of Karnataka (1336-1761) Mysore, Prasaranga, Uni of Mysore.
8. Shishir Kumar Pandlay :1988- Nayaka System in medieval Andhra in K.K Das Gupta, P K Bhattacharya
(ED) Shraddanjali, D C Circar commemoration volume, Delhi, Sandeep Prakashana
9. Wagoner Phillip B :1993- tidings of the king : A translation and ethno Historical Analysisof the
Rayavachakamu, Honolulu, Uni of Hawali Press

23
10. Karashima Noburu :2002-A concordance of Nayakas: the Vijayanagar inscriptions in
South India, New Delhi: Oxford Uni. Press
11. Ota Nobuhrio :2008 –A study of two Nayaka Families in the Vijayanagar kingdom in the sixteenth century
in memoirs of the research development of the toyo Bunko, 66:103-129
12. Lakshman Telagavi :2009 –Vijayanagarada Amara Nayakaru Mattu palegararu in virupakshi Poojarihalli
(ed) charittere Adyayana vol.4. Issue 2. Vidyaranya (Prasaranga kannada uni. (in kannada )
13. Yogishwarappa D N -2011-charitreya putagalu (Kannada book) Bangalore C V G India.
14. Subbarayalu Y: 1996-Socio political formation of south India Vijayanagar period in KKN Karup (ed) New
dimensions in south Indian History: felicitation volume in Honour of Dr. M R Raghava Varier Calicut.
Association for Peasant studies, uni of Calicut, 66-95
15. Karashima N -1992- towards a new formation south India society under vijayanagar rule, New Delhi:
oxford uni press.
16. Venkataramanayya N -2010-studies in the history of the third dynasty of vijayanagar
(repri) Delhi, gian publishing house(originally publish Madras 1935)
2007-Vijayanagar: origin of the city and the empire (repri) New Delhi; Asian educational
services (originally published in 1933)
17. Tolbot, Cynthia -2001 –A Pre-colonial India in practice society region and identity in
Medieval Andhra, New Delhi, Oxford Uni Press.
2001-B-The Nayakas of Vijayanagar Andhra: A preliminary Prosography in Kenneth R Hall (ed) structure
and society in early south India, Oxford Uni Press
18. Robert Sewell -1990 –A Forgotten Empire II edition, London, reprint Asian Publishers,
Delhi 1962.

24
 Nayakaship and Nayaka Communities
The word Nayaka is not a caste indicator as it is understood now a days. It means a
leader or a head. The Sanskrit word Nayaka is found in Bharata Natya Sastra a Sanskrit work,
written in 3rd A.D but I have shown in my book (Yogeeswarappa-2009: XXIV) that the word
is used as an indicator of power in the political history of Karnataka during the end of the 9th
century.

Inscriptions in my work “ Madya kalina karnatakada Palegararu”, that I have given an

explanation on the basis of an inscription during Ganga rule where the hero Poggade Nayaka
died in a Gograhana war. Later this term was being widely used in the inscriptions of kalyana
chalukya’s evidence in the study of chalukyas point out that the Brahmins were appointed in
commissions as office supervisors. Such persons were called Niyogins and we can see the
term ‘Niyogika vallabha’ in the inscriptions of the Eastern Chalukya king Mangai Yuvaraja
of 9th century (JEA III-239.LL-25-26; Kanaka Durga 1983:41) like this, the divisions of
Brahmins in to local groups and divisional groups came into existence. Yet, such divisions
and groups might have been existed even earlier. We are not certain that this division came in
to being practice in the above mentioned period. It is possible that when people other than
Brahmins joined the state administration, they were called Nayakas Prof. R Narasimha Rao
opines that the Nayaka’s were a different sect. From Shudras who sent themselves against
Brahmin representation in state services this term Nayaka’s was not continued to Sudra
community (Narasimha Rao-1967:108 Kanaka Durga :41) Kanaka Durga who has given a
long list of inscriptions stated that the name with the suffix ‘Nayaks was being used from
Maha Mandelesswara’s to servants( Kanaka Durga 1983:41,42)So, Nayaka is not a specific
position, it is an indicator of an official position. Many who came under Shudra category in
the Varnashrama Dharma had occupied this Nayaka position. Yet we must note with care that
the Brahmins also held the same positions Kanaka Durga taking inscriptions as an evidence,
shows that Erappa Nayaka the chieftain of Ganga Madhava temple, Raja Nayaka the minister
in the court of Racheriya were both Brahmin’s, (Kanaka Durga 1983:42). So, we can
conclude that to become the head or leader of caste was not the only qualification and persons
belonging to any caste could occupy ‘Nayaka Position’. Kanaka Durga is silent about the
qualifications for Nayaka job. Yet, she has shown that since the kakateeya period of 1250 A
D, all the available evidense indicate that the Nayaks belong to the farmers of Shudras
community and specially from velama, Balija, Teliga groups (Kanaka Durga -1983:44).
Panday, who has done research on the medieval Nayaka system in Orissa has shown from
Inscriptions that Nayakas belong to Brahmin, Vysya and kshytriya communities. (Sisir
Kumar Pandey 1988:97) Hence, it can be said that leadership was not continued to any one
caste or community.

When the Vijayanagar empire, adopted this system in its administration, it also
allowed the same Nayaka System which included all communities. The early historian
N.Venkata Ramanaiah in his Study on ‘ Nayaka System’ has stated that the state used to
select governors from among Brahmana Nayakas At least a few Nayakas were among
Brahmins. There is evidence in the Telugu work Amukta Malyada by Krishnadevaraya that
the defence of the fort should be given to his relative (Nirupa 2010 :63) Krishnadevaraya
used to give the control of local governors and protectors of fort to Brahmins because
Brahmins used to show their prime loyalty to the emperor besides, establishing their
supremacy in controlling the officials who belong to Kshtriya, Vysya , Shudra community I
have detailed account and list of 22 Brahmin Nayaka’s along with their sub castes and names
of their provinces to which they were the nayakas in my article Nayaka’s of Krishnadevaraya

25
period( Yogeeswarappa 2011:96,97). It can be concluded that the majority of the leaders of
Nayakas were from among the Brahmins. Tolbot also endorses the above point and say’s that
the Brahmins were a powerful community, during the krishnadevaraya period (tolbot
2001:P257) We can come to an understanding that though the Brahmins established their
supremacy, the Nayaka’s or leaders were from all communities.

Burtain Stein has mentioned that Brahmin governors were appointed to control Non-
Brahmin Nayakas. It is possible to reduce that Nayakas were not Brahmins and only non-
Brahmins were Nayakas and to control them Brahmin governors were appointed. Nayaka
System had reached its Zenith during Vijayanagar Empire, specially during Krishnadevaraya
period but a doubt arises, from the statement of Burtain Stain, whether existing governor’s
position was different from Nayaka Position.

We have already seen in the historical writings of Vijayanagar Period, the use of the
word Governor instead of the local titles Maha Mandaleshwar or Durgada Dannayaka.

Either too true research has not been done whether the use of the title Maha
Mandaleswara was only a symbolic title of Honor or it was used for a specific position during
the Vijayanagar political system. Yet, some scholars opined that Brahmins were appointed to
governor’s position. But there is no such example to show that the title Maha Mandaleswara
was given to Brahmins. I have authentically pointed out Rachi Raja family which was
belonged to the Brahmin community played a prominent role in the local administration
during krishnadevaraya period and Maha Mandaleswara was not a honorary title but a
superior office (Yogeeswarappa 2011: P-99-100). I have also given examples to show that
Maha Mandaleswara’s themselves have given Nayaka Position to their subordinates
(Yogeeswarappa-2009:P376). So, we can say that Maha Mandaleswara (Governors) and
Nayakas worked together in discharging assigned duties in the vijayanagar local
administration.

Tolbot who has made extensive research in Andhra region points out that during the
Sada Shiva raya period 1/3 of 63 Amara Nayakas were belonged to Ara veedu and Nandyala
Dynasty (Tolbot 2001:P260) Yet they pointed out their lineage never revealed their religion
or community. Lakshman telagavi in his article 77 poligars has accepted that kamma reddy
Boya, and Balija Nayakas were subordinate Nayaka’s of vijayanagara empire) (Lakshman
Telagavi 1988:P227, NG Ranga 1971:P108) During Krishnadevaraya period the gifted land
to Nayakas was owned half by Brahmins and the remaining of half by others. For Ex. Bedara
Narasa Nayaka of Kundur Pi, (Para Brahma Sastri 2009: P no 141) Bedara Thippa Nayaka of
Basava Konda Province (Para Brahma Sastri 2006 : PVO 142) Pradhana Basavappaiah Who
belonged to Yerragolla tribe (Para Shiva Murthy D V 2010:1,No 159)In my study of poligars
of medieval period of Karnataka, I have pointed out that majority of Nayakas hailed from
telugu or tamil areas. But it is not possible to identity either their community or tribe In
Ragavacha Ramu work, ‘it is shown that kamma’s and reddi’s were Nayakas. As far as
Amara nayaka’s of Karnataka are concerned we can identify four or more communities.

They are Beda, Golla, Lingayata, Gowda, Kuruba and other. In Tamil nadu Kallar and
Marwar and in Maharastra Ramoshi, can be identified in this category. It is possible that
some of Amara Nayaka’s were the relatives of Vijayanagar emperors (Yogeeswarappa 2009
P X), So we can conclude that Amara Nayakas did not belong to one particular community,
to expand this further Nayaka’s were from among many communities like Kshatriya , Balija,
Kamma, Velama, Brahmana, Boya and others

26
 Soma reddy opines that Muslims were also appointed as Nayakas during that period.
(Soma reddy 1984:P.210) Subba rayalu has also opined that Nayaka System transcended
caste and communities and it is possible that some tribals were also trained to become
Nayakas. (¸Àħâ gÁAiÀÄ®Ä 2005 :P 73) Hence we can say that all research and study
exhibits a variety of opinions about the Nayaka community. Though the Brahmins played a
pivotal role in the Nayaka system, other communities were not neglected.

It can be concluded that the most of the shudra communities had also participated in
the Nayaka system of administrations.
Reference :-
PÀ£ÀßqÀ :
1. AiÉÆÃVñÀégÀ¥Àà.r.J£ï.(2009) ªÀÄzsÀåPÁ°Ã£À PÀ£ÁðlPÀzÀ ¥Á¼ÉAiÀÄUÁgÀgÀÄ, zsÁwæ
¥ÀĸÀÛPÀ ¥ÀæPÁ±À£À. ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ.
2. AiÉÆÃVñÀégÀ¥Àà .r.J£ï.(2011) ZÀjvÉæAiÀÄ ¥ÀÄlUÀ¼ÀÄ, ¹.«.f. EArAiÀÄ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ
3. AiÉÆÃVñÀégÀ¥Àà .r.J£ï.(2009) “«dAiÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ PÁ®zÀ vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ ¥ÀæzÉñÀzÀ
£ÁAiÀÄPÀgÀÄ Dgï.UÉÆÃ¥Á¯ï (¸ÀA.) vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ f¯Áè EwºÁ¸À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
¥ÀÄgÁvÀvÀÛ÷é, ¥ÀÄ: 366-394 ¥ÀÄgÁvÀvÀÛ÷é ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀ¸ÀÄÛ¸ÀAUÀæºÁ®AiÀÄ
E¯ÁSÉ, ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ.
4. ¤gÀÄ¥ÀªÀiÁ (2010) ²æà PÀȵÀÚzÉêÀgÁAiÀÄ£À DªÀÄÄPÀÛ ªÀiÁ®åzÀ, ¥Áæ¸ÁgÁAUÀ, ºÀA¦,
PÀ.«.«.
5. ®PÀëöätvÉ®UÁ« (1988) “J¥ÀàvÉÛüÀÄ ¥Á¼ÉÃAiÀÄUÁgÀgÀÄ” EwºÁ¸À zÀ±Àð£À ¸ÀA-03
(¸ÀA, ¸ÀÆAiÀÄð£ÁxÀ PÁªÀÄvï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ®PÀëöätvÉ®UÁ«), ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ
PÀ£ÁðlPÀ EwºÁ¸À CPÁqÉ«Ä, ¥ÀÄ.225-252
6. ¥ÀgÀªÀIJªÀªÀÄÆwð r.«.(¸ÀA)(2010) PÀȵÀÚzÉêÀgÁAiÀÄ£À ±Á¸À£ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀA-1, ºÀA¦,
PÀ£ÀßqÀÀ.«.«., ¥Áæ¸ÁgÁAUÀ.

English:
1. Shishir Kumar Pandlay (1988) “Nayaka System in Medieval Andhra” K.K Das Gupta. PK Bhattacharya
(Ed) Shraddanjali, D C Circar Commemoration volume, Delhi, Sandeep Prakshana.
2. Kanaka Durga (1983) Role of Nayakas in Medieval Andhra(1000-1259) Andhra Pradesh
History Congress Vol, P.40-45.
3. Narasimha Rao R. (1976) Corporate life in Medieval Andhra, Secundarabad.
4. Ranga N.G.(1971) Kakateeya Nayaka’s and their contribution to Dakshinapathas
Independence, Nidobrolu, Andhra.
5. Soma Reddy (1994) “Nayanakara System in Medieval Andhra, Some observation in
Proceedings of South Indian History Congress, 14 th session Tirupathi 308-314.
6. Tobat Cynthia (2001) : “ The Nayakas of Vijayanagar Andhra” A preliminary Prosography” in Kenneth R
Hall (ed) structure and society in early south India, essays in honor of Noboru Karashima Oxford: Oxford
university press 251-275.
7. Parabrahma Sastry (2009) inscriptions of Vijayanagar Rulers, volume IV, Bangalore,
ICHR Southerb regional Centre.
8. Subbrayalu Y.(2005) “ The Vijayanagar State” in J.S. Grewel (ed) the state and society in Medieval India
(History of Indian Science Philosophy and culture in Indian Civilization vol VII-Pp.67-76. oxford:O.U.P.
9. Ota Nobuhiro (2008) “Study of two Nayaka families in the Vijayanagar Kingdom in the
sixteenth century” in memories of the Toya Bunko, 66:103-129.

27
 Chapter - IV
Tuluva Dynasty (1491 – 1570 CE)
This is known as a third Dynasty which ruled Vijaynagar Empire. The dynasty was
named “Tuluva” because they belonged to the Tulu speaking region called “TULUNAD” and
their mother tounge was “Tulu” language. They were originally from Karnartaka. Tuluva
Dynasty was one of the ruling lines of the Vijayanagara Empire of Southern India. It had
given five emperors for the Vijaynagar kingdom and was ruled with Vijayanagara capital.
Krishna Deva Raya was the most famous ruler of their period. The empire attained it greatest
glory of time.

Tuluva kings list:

*Tuluva NarasaNayaka (1491-1503 CE) who belonged to the Bunt community (Tulu
speaking forward class Matrilineal Hindu community beloning to the Nagavanshi Kshatriya,
order found mainly in southern coastal Karnataka) was the able commander of the
Vijayanagar army under the rule of SaluvaNarasimha Deva Raya and the de-facto sovereign
during the nominal rule of the sons of SaluvaNarasimha.

After the death of King SaluvaNarasimha, crown prince ThimmaBhupala was

murdered by an army commander. The faithful NarasaNayaka then crowned the other prince,
Narasimha Raya II but retained all administrative powers in order to bring stability to the
kingdom. He was called the rakshakarta (protector) and svami (Lord). He held the offices of
the senadhipati (commander-in-chief), the mahapradhana (Prime Minister) and the karyakarta
(agent) of the king. He successfully kept the Bahamani Sultans and the Gajapatis away from
the kingdom and quelled many rebellions by unfaithfull chieftains, trying to exert their
independence.

*Viranarasimha Raya (1503-1509 CE) who belonged to the Bunt community became the
king of Vijayanagarempire after the death of Tuluva NarasaNayaka. The younger
Krishnadevaraya was the king’s half brother.

The death of their capable father Tuluva NarasaNayaka resulted in feudatories rising
in rebellion everywhere. At first, ImmadiNarasaNayaka, the eldest son of Tuluva
NarasaNayaka became king and lasted at the throne for two years before being assassinated.
Viranarasimha Raya was next crowned in 1505 and spent all his years fighting rebel
warlords.

When on his death bed, legend has it that Viranarasimha Raya requested his minister
SaluvaThimma (Thimmarasa) to blind Krishnadevaraya so that his own eight year old son
could become king of Vijayanagar. Thimmarasa however brought a pair of she-goat eyes to
the king and informed him that he had Krishnadevaraya killed. However there is no record to
prove anything but a friendly relationship between the two half brothers and that the
coronation of Krishnadevaraya was a smooth one.

*Krishna Deva Raya (1509-1529 CE)

Sri Krishna Deva Raya was the most famous king of Vijayanagara Empire. He
belonged to the tuluva bunt community. Presiding over the empire at its zenith, he is regarded

28
as a hero by Tuluvas, Kannadigas and Telugus, and one of the great kings of India. Emperor
Krishna Deva Raya also earned the titles Kannada Rajya Rama Ramana, MooruRayara
Ganda (meaning King of three kings) and Andhra Bhoja. Krishna Deva Raya was assisted in
administration by the very able Prime Minister Timmarusu, who was revered by the king as a
father figure and was responsible for his corronation. Krishna Deva Raya was the son of
Nagala Devi and Tuluva NarasaNayaka an army commander under SaluvaNarasimha Deva
Raya, who later took control of the reign of the empire to prevent it from disintegration. The
king’s coronation took place on the birthday of Lord Krishna and his earliest inscription is
from July 26, 1509 CE. He built a beautiful suburb near Vijayanagara called Nagalapura in
memory of his mother.

*Achyuta Raya (1529-1542 CE) who belonged to the Bunt community was a ruler of a
Vijayanagara Empire of South India. He was the younger brother of Krishna Deva Raya,
whom he succeeded in 1529. Upon his death, the succession was disputed. His nephew,
Sadashiva, finally became king while yet a child, under the regency of Aliya Rama Raya, a
son-in-law of Krishnadevaraya.

The time when Achyuta Raya became the king was by no means a favorable one. The
peace and prosperity of the halcyon days under Krishnadevaraya were coming to an end.
Feudatories and enemies were waiting for an opportunity to bring down the empire. In
addition, Achyuta Raya had to contend with the powerful Aliya Rama Raya, who was
competing for the throne.

While the works of Nuniz speak very lowly of Achyuta Raya as being a king given to
vices and cruelty, there is enough evidence to prove that the king was indeed noteworthy in
his own right and fought hard to keep the prosperity of the kingdom alive. He had been
handpicked by Krishnadevaraya himself as an able successor.

Ismail Adil Shah of Bijapur invaded and captured the Raichur doab. However the
Gajapati’s of Orissa and QuliQutub Shah of Golconda were defeated and pushed back. Now
Achyuta Raya along with his general Salakaraju Tirumala went on a southern campaign to
bring the chiefs of Travancore and Ummatur under control. This they did successfully. Then
they invaded the doab north of Tungabhadra and recaptured the forts of Raichur and Mudgal.

The two Sanskrit works Achyutabhyudayam and Varadambikapa- rinayam describe

the kings life and rule in detail.

Throughout his rule, Achyuta Raya had to contend with the manipulations of Rama
Raya who in his powerful capacity had replaced many of the faithfull servants of the
Kingdom in high ranking positions with men of his own favour. On more than one occasion
the Bahamani Sultans were brought in to play the role of mediator between the king and
Ailya Rama Raya in the game of power sharing. This would further weaken the kingdom. In
1542 Aliya Rama Raya imprisoned Achyuta Raya in a coup and made Sadasiva Raya the new
regent. Aliya Rama Raya became the de-facto king and let very little governance in the hands
of Sadasiva Raya.

The Tiruvengalanatha Temple was built at Vijayanagara during his reign. It has
become popularly known by his name as Achyutaraya Temple, rather than by the name of the
deity Lord Venkateshwara to whom the temple was dedicated.

29
*Sadashiva Raya (1542-1570) who belonged to the Bunt community was a ruler of the
Vijayanagara Empire, a powerful South Indian empire based in the Deccan in 16th century
India.
When the Vijayannagara ruler, Achyuta Raya died in AD 1541, his son, Venkatadri,
succeeded him. He was a weak ruler and six months later his cousin, Sadasiva, became king.
Sadasiva Raya was controlled by his minister Rama Raya, the de facto king, who restored the
Vijayanagaraempire’s power which had diminished after the rule of Krishna Deva Raya.
Rama Raya’s strategy was to play the Deccan Sultanates against each other by first allying
with one and then another.

30
 A study of Nayakatana in the Krishnadevaraya period in the 16th
century
The vijayanagar empire occupied very important position in medieval south indian
History.It extended to all the three major language regions of south India, and ruled by four
royal dynasties. Among them Tuluva is very important. Tuluva Krishnadevaraya took this
empire to zenith of power during the short term of only twenty years (1509-1529) of his
administration. For this , his Nayankara system was responsible. In this field, the research
have already pointed out that the Nayakas played a significant role in the political and
military system of vijayanagar empire. But a research on Nayaka does not clearly mentions
about their basic points. Emphasizing this iam here an attempt to answer it, on the basis of
contemporary inscriptions. So I define “one who received the land or sirmai from the king
through Nayakatana and in his province ruled like little kings known as Nayakas. Those who
suffixed the honorific title of Nayaka to their personal names were not considered as
Nayakas.”

Krishnadevarayas inscription mentions that there were 68 Nayakatana in all the three
states of Andra, Karnataka,Tamilnadu distributed to 55 Nayakas.Among Brahmins were in
upperhand. The others also had the Nayakatana .The powerful families who received
Nayakatana from the king were the Timmarasu in Karnataka and Mallappa nayaka in
Tamilnadu. Majorty of the individuals who held Nayakatana assumed different positionsin
administration. It was not a compulsory for a person to hold Nayakatana to have a Nayaka
title in his name. So the Nayakas were ruling mediators between King and Subjects.

It is a known fact that the study of Nayakas was always a theme of Research for the
historians from time to time. The Researchers have already pointed out that Nayakas played a
significant role in the political and military system of Vijayanagar empire. But, on the basis
of the contemporary inscriptions and other primary documents;A research on Nayakas is
done qualitatively and quantitatively. Although the scholars have not yet reached at
consensus about the relationship of the Nayaka with the king, family background and
economic independence., There is no consensus amongst scholars even on such a basic point
as the definition of nayakas namely who should be identified as Nayakas. Generally speaking
it is seen that those who suffixed the honorific title of Nayaka to their personal names have
been considered as Nayakas. In this background it is identified that in History we could find
more Nayakas than the Inscription. is it possible to have so many Nayakas in the Vijayanagar
kingdom? What were their role and responsibilities in administration? This question is still
unanswered. Emphasizing Krishnadevaraya’s rule in mind, I am here in an attempt to answer
it. Before this I would like to throw light on the various interpretation by different scholars to
the “Nayaka”.

1. According to D.C. circar “one who received the land from Viajayanagar Emperors on
the condition of offering military service is Nayakas” (Cirar D C 1966:214)
2. J.D.M. Derrett (on the basis of 11th century inscriptions) compare the Nayakas with
British captains implying military service (Derrett JDM 1957:25).
3. In the opinion of Monear Williams “Nayaka is one who had the Leadership of a
particular army and the most dignified person.” (Williams monier 2005:536)

31
4. S.N. Rangaraju while dealing with the Ganga inscriptions states on the basis of the
Sukra Niti that the officer who bears the title nayaka is the head of a group of Ten
villages and used to get a kola measures of the land from the state.”(Rangaraju SN
1998:324,325.)
5. According to A. Krishnaswamy “Nayaka was the name of the military Chief, who
received land from the king.”(Krishnaswamy A 1964:180)
6. T.V. Mahalingam said that “one who had been given land by the king was considered
as Nayaka.” (Mahalingam TV 1969:195)
7. According to Burtain stein Nayaka is the generalised designation of apowerful warrior
who at times associated with the military expedition of kings, but who at all times was
a territorial magnate in his own right.(Stein B 1980:408)
8. According to Noburo Kharoshima Nayaka was one who possessed any of the
following three qualifications. 1) Nayaka title 2) His own territory referred as
Nayakkattanam or Sirmai 3) His status as an agent of the king.(Kharashima N
2002:75to85)
9. In the opinion of Ota Nobuhiro “one who held the land from the king through
Nayakatana was called Nayaka.”(Ota N 2008:66;103to129)
10. Lakshman Telagavi said that “basically Nayaka offered military service
to the king. For this he received permanent umbali of land.”(Lakshman
telagavi 2009:23)

The research on Nayaka studies including Krishnaswamy accepted the above broader
meaning definitions. Although the scholars do not divide the definition like Noburo
Kharasima, all scholars have not accepted him.

During the Vijayanagara empire especially during the Tuluva period Nayankara
system worked as systematic political administration. The king grants sirmai through
Nayakatana for some brave men. Thus one who held the land from the king through
Nayakatana were considered as Nayaka. The title of Nayaka with their personal names were
not enough; Who held the land through Nayakatana became Nayakas. Similarly some have
who had the title of Nayaka also become Nayaka. Therefore “One who received the land or
sirmai from the king through Nayakatana and in his province ruled like little kings known as
Nayaka.” Those who suffixed the honorific title of Nayaka to their personal names were not
considered as Nayakas.

The Nayakas worked as highest land revenue officers in the Vijayanagar empire so I
here by would like to throw light on these Nayakas, who held land through Nayakatana
during the most famous ruler Krishnadevaraya of the Tuluva dynasty. They are the subject of
my research.

Krishnadevaraya’s Empire was extended to all the three major language regions of
South India. So to have a research on him, one should have the knowledge of all the three
languages such as Tamil, Telugu, Kannada. In addition to this he had the knowledge of
sanskrit also. Although the number of Research have been done on his achievements. But no
study was conducted about Nayakas who held responsibility of Administrative Machinery.
From this point of view I have taken this issue as my subject of study. I have collected
sources pertaining to Krishnadevaraya’s period only from the following references.

1. Krishnadevaraya shasana samputa (Vol. 1)-2010 (Edi) D.V.

Paramashivamurthy, Prasaranga Kannada Uni. Hampi

32
 (as Kri.Sha.Sam In this article-is referred)
2. Inscriptions of the Vijayanagar rulers-vol IV Telugu inscriptions (Edi)
P.V. Parabrahma Sastry-2009 I.C.H.R Bangalore
(I have referred as I.V.R.)
3. A concordance of Nayaks-Karashima-2002, Oxford Uni. Press, Delhi.
4. South Indian inscriptions, 26 Vol, New Delhi Archaeological Survey
of India 1890-1990 (This is used SII in the article)
5. Annual report on Indian Epigraphy, New Delhi, Archaeological
Survey of India (Referred as AR)

Krishnadevaraya in his extraordinary rule of 20 years had conquered and controlled

entire South India. The whole land of his empire was granted to his loyalists through
Nayakatana. These are referred as Nayakatana in Kannada inscriptions, Nayakkattanam in
Tamil inscriptions and Nayamkara in Telugu inscriptions. The basic meaning of this is
“Nayakatva”. It can be understood that Krishnadevaraya in his administration, the
responsibility of the land was handed over to the most loyal and brave persons through
Nayakatana. I have listed all the Nayakas at the end of this article. By this it can be analysed
that “Nayakatana worked as corner stone of administrative system in the Krishnadevaraya’s
rule.” This can be shown in this table.

Nayakatana in chronological order

Period Andra Pradesh Karnataka Tamilnadu Total
1509-1513 AD 04 04 03 11
1514-1518 04 05 - 09
1519-1523 06 09 08 23
1524-1530 12 10 03 25
Total 26 28 14 68

The Number of sime included to Nayakatana :

From the list given above we can know that in the first ten years of rule (1509-1518
AD) Krishnadevaraya granted land through Nayakatana 20 times. At the end of his rule
(1519-1530) he granted 48 times in all the three states. By considering inscriptions given in
the appendix, the name of the sime for Nayakatana referred many times, considered for only
once; The first ten years Krishnadevaraya. granted 20 simes through Nayakatana (1509-1518
AD) In the second half of his rule 35. Therefore it can be known from inscriptions, there were
55 ‘sime’s in Andhra, Tamilnadu and Karnataka during the rule of Krishnadevaraya. Among
them 17 were in Andra 24 in Karnataka and 14 in Tamilnadu. They are as follows.

Sime’s during Krishnadevaraya

1. Karnataka State
1. Raminayakanahalli 9. Solur 17. Kukkalanadu
2. Neluvagilu 10. Jajur 18. Vastare
3. Channapattana 11. Mugur 19. Ravudakundi
4. Terakanambi 12. Koppana 20. Tekala
5. Malenahalli 13. Dadiga 21. Jagalur
6. Malebennore 14. Gonibeedu 22. Hosavadastala
7. Lingadhahalli 15. Ummattur 23. Sri Rangapattana
8. Hassan 16. Kote 24. Sindhagatta

33
2. Tamilnadu State
1. Manjinda Pennagara 8. Dindugal
2. Padaveedu 9. Ilaiyattakkudi
3. Maladu 10. Kunnarattur
4. Tiruchinapalli 11. Muluvayi
5. Eraivanaravoor 12. Kavilechervina
6. Karvachi 13. Amarasirmai
7. Bhuvaneikaveerapattana 14. Puvirundavalli

3. Andrapradesh State
1. Panem 7. Kondaveeti 13. Addanki
2. Potladurti 8. Venukonda 14. Mosali Madagu
3. Gutti 9. Kundurpi 15. Maratur
4. Poluri 10. Basavakonda 16. Adavani Durga
5. Nagarjunakonda 11. Alampur
6. Gandikota 12. Sakali

The Number of Individuals received Nayakatana

By considering the Krishnadevaraya’s inscriptions, many a times, a person having the
same name had been given Nayakatana in different territories. When examined meticulously
it is identified that a person may be same or different, for which his father name was used for
identification.
For Ex.

1. Saluva Govinda referred six times from 1513 to 1522(See appendix S

No 10, 12, 18,23,32,34.)
2. Triyambakarasa two times (Appendix S.No. 13, 43)
3. Bukkaraju Timmaraju two times (Appendix S.No. 19, 27)
4. Timmappa Nayaka three times (Appendix S.No. 21, 22, 26)
5. Dhemarasaiah two times (Appendix S.No. 49, 51)
6. Viravanee vesaiyalya devar two times (Appendix S.No. 37, 52)
7. Krishnaraya Nayaka two times (Appendix S.No. 58, 59)
8. Rayasam Ayyapparasu two times (Appendix S.No. 62, 64)

Hence it is clear that eight persons with same name are mentioned for 21 times in the
inscriptions. Therefore in the mentioned 68 simes, 8 persons had been placed for 21 times. By
accounting this (68-21+8=55) I noticed that totally 55 persons had received Nayakatana.
Hence we can conclude that Krishnadevaraya, during the rule of his 20 years granted 55
simes to 55 loyal persons through Nayakatana. The number may also differ in the future,
depending upon the discovery of new inscriptions.

Nayakatana : Caste groups

Nayakas were the heads, were given land or sime by the ruler through Nayakatana,
Nayaka is not the name of the particular community persons who suffixed the title of Nayaka
with their name is evidenced from inscription. By considering Krishnadevaraya’s inscription,
who granted Nayakatana for a person of different communities. Among most of them were
Brahmins. Krishnadevaraya in his Amukta Malyada said that “The responsibility of the
security of the fort and defence had to be given to the close relatives.”(Nirupama N 2010:63)
He had given the provincial governorship and fort commandership to the Brahmins only.

34
Because it was stated that Brahmins would be sincere first to their king and also they would
be the first warriors to fight against the Kshatriya, Sudra, Beda for the sake of their kings.
Rangaswamy Saraswathi also mentioned the same in his article.(Rangaswamy saraswati
1925:72)

“The king can lay his hand on his breast and sleep peacefully who appoints as master
of his fortress. Such Brahmins are attached to himself are learned in many sciences and arts
are addicted to dharma are heroic...”
It can be clearly known that Brahmins dominated over others in acquiring the Nayakatana.

Sl.No. Name Gotra Sime

1. Mahamandalaeswara Rachi Raju Koundinya Gotra Potla Durti
(Andrapradesh)
2. Saluva Govindaraju Koundinya Gotra Terakanambi, Gutti
3. Triayambakarasa Vasistha Gothra Malenahalli (Karnataka)
4. Dhananjayaraya Wodeya Atreya Gothra Hassan
5. Pedasingama Nayaka Hariti Gothra Nagarjunakonda
(Andhra)
6. Apparasaiah Son in law of Solur (Karnataka) Saluva Timmarasa
7. Bhandarada Timmappaiah Koppala (Karnataka)
8. Nadendla Gopaiah Koushik Gothra Kondaveeti (Andra)
9. Sarvaiah deva Kasyapa Gothra Vinukonda (Andra)
10. Kondamarasa Koundinya Gothra Dindugal (T.N.)
11. Visanna Rahuta Kashyapa Gothra Kavilechervina
(Karnataka)
12. Devarasaiah Gargeya Gothra Gandikote (Andra)
13. Rananatha Rahuta Kasyapa Gothra Jagalur (Karnataka)
14. Rayasada Ayyappa Koundinya Gothra Jagalur (Karna)
15. Krishnaraya Nayaka Kasyapa Gothra Srirangapatna
(Karnataka)
16. Bhogaiah deva Maha arasu Atreya Gotra Srirangapatna
(Karnataka)
17. Rayasam Ayyapparasu Bharadwaja Gothra Addanki (Andra)

18. Avasaram Chandra Shekaraiah - Mosali Madagu (Andra)

19. Basvappaiah Marita Gotra Alampura (Andra)
20. Dixitaiah - Alampura (Andra)
21. Yallammarasuvaiah Srivatsa Gothra Sakali (Andra)
22. Peddaraju Vasisthta Gothra Karvachi (T.N.)

In this way Brahmins acquired most of the Nayakatana granted by Krishnadevaraya it

may also increase. Like the Brahmins Narasanayaka and Tippanayaka of Beda community
held Kundarpi and Basavakonda sime of Andrapradesh respectively Pradhana Basavappaiah
of Kote sime belonged to yarragolla caste. The details of the others are not mentioned in the
inscriptions.

INFLUENTIAL FAMILY
It was Rachiraja’s family which was influenced by acquiring Nayakatana from
Krishnadevaraya. His father was Yarragaddamaiah Maharaju.(Parabrahma sastry 2009:Num
84) The Maharaja in their name itself identified them to be the kings family. Rachiraja was
also the Mahamandaleswara in 1513 AD and had Nayakatana of potludurti sime from
Krishnadevaraya.(Parabrahma sastry 2009:Num 84). He had two sons. Saluva Timmarasu
was the elder son and the younger was saluva Govindaraja or Govindaiah. Their family was
also strong during the saluva dynasty. During the rule of Tuluva Vira Narasimha; Saluva
35
Timmarasu, son of Rachiraja was the Prime Minister (Maha Pradhana) of Vijayanagar even
though he, with his influence acquired the Nayakatana of Gutti State from Krishnadevaraya
in 1509AD (Parabrahma sastry 2009:Num 72) Krishnadevaraya had conquerred the
Kondaveedu and had given it to the incharge of Saluva Thimmarasu after gave it to the
statehood.(Parabrahma sastry 2009:Num 128). Similarly in 1517 AD he had received the
mulukinadu sime from the Raya,(Parabrahma sastry 2009:num 70,) The inscriptions refer
that Rayasada Kondamarasu son of Saluva Timmarasu had the Nayakatana of Kundurpi sime
in 1512.(Paramashivamurthy D V 2010:Num 296). Poddila sime in 1516 (Parabrahma sastry
2009:Num 98) and administered the Kondapalli and Kondaveedu state (Parabrahma sastry
2009:Num99). It was very clear that the Prime Minister Thimmarasu was very influential to
the king to appoint his own son to the surrounding states of his sime. The same Kondamarasa
was ruling at Dindigal through Nayakatana in 1522 referred in inscription (S.I.I.vol v: Num
292) By this it clearly known that he was transferred from Kondaveedu to Dindigal.

Rayasa Kondamarasa had a son by name Rayasada Ayyapparasu. He ruled the

Gondikote Sime.(Parabrahmasastry 2009: Num 162) and Addanki Sime of Kondaveeti state
(Parabrahmasastry 2009 : Num 163) through Nayakatana in 1529 AD. We can conlude that
Saluva Timmarasu, Mahapradhana of Krishnadevaraya with his influence and loyalty to the
emperor was able to appoint his son and grand son at most suitable position. Not only this, he
himself was the Prime Minister and his son and grandson were Rayasada officers.
(Parabrahmasastry 2009 : Num 163).

In this way Saluva Timmarasu was able to give the responsibility of Rayasadha office
to his son and grand son through which he sent informations throughout the state and it is
evident that by this all the political power was restricted to one family which was very loyal
and intimate to the emperor.

Saluva Timmarasu’s son-in-law Apparasaiah was ruling at soluru sime through

Nayakatana in 1520. (Parabrahmasastry 2009:Num 134) His distant relative Nadendla Gopa
was the minister who held the Nayakatana of Kondaveeti sime. ( Parabrahmasastry
2009:Num 139)

Saluva Timmarasu also had an able and eminent younger brother by name Saluva
Govindaraja who held the Nayakatana of Terakanambi sime in 1513 AD.(Parabrahmasastry
2009:Num 48) It was when Saluva Timmarasu was shifted from Gutti state to Kondaveedu,
he was also given the Nayakatana of Gutti sime from the emperor in
1514.(Parabrahmasastry 2009:Num 85) But Saluva Govinda did not vacate the Terakanambi
sime. In addition to this he also acquired the Ummattur state in 1516 AD. By this time he had
become an important (court shiromani) head jewel of court of
Krishnadevaraya.(Paramashivamurthy 2010:Num 86) It is said that he was also known as the
prime minister of Krishnadevaraya in 1519 AD and had the responsibility of Ummatturu
sime.(Paramashivamurthy 2010:Num 118)

Most of the family members of Saluva Timmarasu are staying at the capital where he
looked after the administration of sime’s of Nayakatana granted by the king.

For example: The certain gaudas, like Marasa Gauda and Virayya Gauda went to
Vijayanagar and met the king Krishnaraya and others like saluva Timmarasayya and
Govindarajayya”(E C Vol IV (New series): Hanur 83)

36
 Based on these evidences, it was possible to say that they had their office at
Vijayanagar. It can be concluded that “Saluva Govindaraja held the Nayakatana of vast
territories of Terakanambi, Ummattur and Gutti and administered all these from Vijayanagar.
When required, he visited his territories like that of the Modern ministers. These three states
had very fertile land and fetched him good income. Guttii was known for its mines where as
ummattur and Terakanambi states were on the bank of the river Kaveri . it can also be said
that the family members of saluva Timmarasu held the Nayakatana of fertile lands during
Krishnadevaraya. Saluva Govindaraja when promoted to the post of Mahapradani, it is said
that he gave up the Nayakatana granted by Krishnadevaraya, because in 1526 AD Gowrava
Narasappa. (Paramashivamurthy D V 2010 : Num 207) from Ummattur MahaMandaleswara
Anivarana Simhavaru Singaraiyyanagarru ruled Gutti in 1531 AD.(Parabrahmasastry 2009:
num 182) By this, it can be said that during Krishnadevaraya’s rule Nayakatana of sime was
not heriditary.

Genealogy
YarraGaddamayya Maharaja
|
Mahamandaleswara Rachiraju
(Nayakatana of Potludurti sime)
|
_________________________________________
| |
Saluva Timmarasu Saluva Govindaraju
(Gutti, Kondavidu Nayakatana (Terakanambi, Gutti
Mulukinadu Sime) Ummattur Sime)
|
Rayasada Kondamarasa
(Poddila Sime Kondapalli, Dindugal
Kondaveedu sime)
|
Rayasada Ayyapparasu
(Gandikote, Addanki Sime)

Mahamandaleswara Rachiraju and his ancestors were Telugu Niyogi Brahmins who
raised from Telugu region. They ruled the present Kadapa District. During the Tuluva
dynasty, his eldest son Saluva Timmarasa accquired a very noble position in the kingdom and
had the Nayakatana in Telugu regions. His son and grandson were able to get the high
position in Rayasa office and had the Nayakatana in the present Kadapa, Hindupura and
prakasam District, through that they showed their favour towards Telugu language. Even
though saluva Govindaraju had the Nayakatana in Karnataka, he did not leave Gutti in
Andrapradesh. Therefore by all these Telugu officers, during Tuluva dynasty Telugu
language got prominence and was able to cherish.

Many of the persons who had Nayakatana were influential persons in Vijayanagar
administration. They had the prestigeous positions like that of Mahamandaleswara. Rayasa,
Rahuta, Bhokkasadavaru, Pradhanas, Mahapradhana, Avasaram as mentioned below.

1. Mahapradhani
(a) Saluva Timmarasu - Gutti, Kondaveedu, Mulukinadu sime
(b) Saluva Govindaraju - Terakanambi, Gutti, Ummatturu

37
2. Mahamandaleswara
(a) Rachiraju - Potla durti sime
(b) Sarvaiah deva konda Maharaju - Vinukonda sime
(c) Bhogaiah deva Maha Arasu - Sri Rangapattana sime
(d) Bukkaraju - Thimmaraju - Ganjikunta sime
3. Karyake Kartaru
1 Chakravarti - Denkana Kote
4. Rayasadavaru
(a) Rayasam Ayyapparasu - Gandikote sime
(b) Rayasam Ayyappa - Addanki sime
(c) Kondamarasa - Dindugal, Doddila sime, Kondapalli Kondaveedu
5. Ravutaru
(a) Vittahala Ravuta - Tekala Sime
(b) Visanna Ravuta - Kavile chervina sime of Uchchangi vente
(c) Ranganatha Ravutha - Jagalur sime
6. Bhokkasadavaru
(a) Peddi Nayak - Alampura sime
(b) Vakiti Peddi Nayanigaru - Panem sime
(c) Bhandarada Thimmappaiah - Koppanada sime
(d) Honnappa Nayaka - Panem sime
7. Pradhana
(a) Mallarasa - Jajur sime
(b) Basavappaiah - Kote sime (H.D. Kote)
8. Avasaram
(a) Chandrasekaraiah - Mosali Madagu sime
(b) Demarasaiah - Ummatturu Sime

The above mentioned persons had different responsible positions in the administration
Mahapradhani had direct contact with the emperor. The position Karyakekarta is very
difficult to explain. They were very much like the private secretaries. who performed almost
all the responsibilities of the king. For ex. Saluva Timmarasu was the Karyakekarta of
Krishnadevaraya (Paramashivamurthy D V 2010 : No. 134) Timmaraya Chakravarti of
Tipparasa (SII-VII No. 15) Uligadha MadeNayaka (Paramashivamurthy D V 2010. - No. 89)
Pradhana Mallarasa(Paramashivamurthy D V 2010: No 100) of Krishnadevaraya’s
Karyakekarta.

During the period of Krishnadevaraya Rayasam office was handled by loyal senior
officers. Rayasa literally means a written message, a communication or a letter sent through
somebody. In epigraphical parlance, it meant a royal order or communication from an
authority. A person incharge of managing or regulating such communication was known as
Rayasam. It was in this office saluva Thimmarasu’s son Kondamarasa, grandson
Ayyapparasu rendered their service. This denoted the sincerity of the family to the king for
which they were given such trust worthy positions. The persons who hold Nayakatana, tried
to develop good relationship with the king. To grab the attention of the king they used to
grant some gifts of land to the temples or brahmanas. The gift was made for the religious
merit of the king. For Ex. : During Krishnadevaraya, among the 55 Nayakas referred in
inscriptions, 26 of them made donations for the religious merit of the king. It is clearly shown
that they received the land through Nayakatana develop political relationship with him, some
parts of that gift to the temple in the name of the king enhanced their relationship. Through
this gesture they tried to continue to remain in the power.

38
 The inscriptions of Krishnadevaraya do not give any details about role and
responsibilities of Nayakas. Paes who visited Vijayanagar in 1520 AD gave ,a details.
According to him (Vivek rai 2005: 88) “The Nayakas were the heads of the soldiers and they
were the Manneyas. They held the villages, cities, towns of the kingdom. They were the local
kings. Among them they had the income of 1 lakh to 1.5 crore pardhaohs. As each one had
revenue.so the king fixed for him the number of Troops which he must maintain in Foot,
horse and elephants. Whenever they may be called out, and where ever they may have to go.”

According to Nuniz “These Nayakas were tenants, who received land from the king.
They not only possessed land they also had to pay taxes. Every year they had to pay 6 lakhs
as tenancy tax. It is said that the fields yielded an income of 120 lakhs. Out of the total yield
that 60 lakhs were remitted to royal treasury and from the remaining amount they maintained
the army.”(Vivek rai 2005:186) Nuniz continued “All the lands belonged to the king and
from his hand the captains held it.” “The kingdom of Bisnaga was divided between more than
200 captains who were all heathen.”(Vivek rai 2005:186)

Though Paes and Nuniz writings give us some information about functions of the
Nayamkara system the inscriptions of Krishnadevaraya do not give any details of the number
of soldiers supplied to the state or how much tax remitted to the royal treasury. Nuniz in his
travellogue mentions that “The total income from the Nayakas land was 45,36,000 gold
pardhos out of that the share of the state was 15,08,000 gold pardaos.(Vivek rai 2005: 186)

On its basis, therefore we can say that Krishnadevaraya collected 30% of the total
amount from Nayaka lands. The remaining amount was spent by Nayakas. Every year the
king fixed the land revenue of Nayakas in the month of September.

The Activities of Nayakas :

By considering Krishnadevaraya’s inscriptions, the persons who received the land
through Nayakatana, they were not only the collectors of the tax imposed by the government
but also spent some portions of it for the purpose of giving donations for public works. They
thought that donation led to Aparigraha. According to them giving donations to Brahmanas,
temples and mathas were very pious. The temples being the religious centre also gave way
for the cultural life for the people. The temple activities like Pooja, festivals, regular rituals
and repairs needed financial assistance. So the upper classes experimanted a weapon of
Dharma to collect money from the people since ancient times. In this background, the
Nayaka’s during Krishnadevaraya involved in the activity of giving donation as community
leaders as referred in inscriptions.

The inscriptions mention that there were 68 Nayakatana during Krishnadevaraya,

majority of them donated inscriptions. Among which 54 grants were donated to temples, 8 for
the establishment of Agraharas, 2 for the mathas and remaining for individuals.

Among these donations 25 gifts were donated for the religious merit of the king
Krishnadevaraya. The Brahmin community Nayakas who administered through Nayakatana
gifted 22 donation to the temples for daily offerings to God. 6 Gifts in the name of God, 6
for Brahmin agraharas for the religious merit of the king Krishnadevaraya. The remaining 7
were given to the temple without referring to any name of the individuals. (See the details in
the Appendix). The donations included Land village income and tax. From this flow income
to the temples by donating to the Agrahara, non agricultural classes also accquired land

39
ownership. This activity upheld the varnasramadharma and also spread them. The donations
were linked with the communication between the rulers and the ruled. The Nayakas paid not
only annual tribute to the king but also maintained an army. In addition to that, he involved
in the activities of donations. So they need much money. According to Nuniz “The common
people were subjected to a lot of harassement by the Nayakas who owned the land.(Vivek rai
2005: 175) This statement of Nuniz is by and large true.

There were 55 persons who received sime for Nayakatana mentioned in

Krishnadevaraya’s inscriptions. Some of them did not get Nayakatana directly from the king;
but received from stronger or higher status person, their number is very limited for ex:
1. Pedda singama Nayaka received Nagarjuna Konda sime for Nayakatana by Vakiti
Timmappa Nayaka in 1518 AD.
2. Maha Mandaleswara Sarvaiah deva Koda Maharaja received Vinukonda sime for
Nayakatana by Mahapradhani Saluva Timmarasu in 1522 AD.
3. Andambar Kandaiyan Papayyar received Amara sirme Nayakatana from Swami veera
narasingaraya in 1524 AD.
4. Siddavatam Yellapparasuvaiah was given Nayakatana of the Sakali Sime from Rayasada
Ayyapparasu in 1529 AD.

In this way the land was granted for Nayakatana only after the consent of the king.
Therefore the donor first mentioned the name of Krishnadevaraya. Everybody had not the
authority of empowering Nayakatana. They had the powerful post in the kings court or he
was very strong in his province.
For Ex:

(1) Saluva Timmarasu was the Prime Minister of the Viajayanagar

Empire;
(2) His grandson Rayasada Ayyapparasu was the higher officer in the
Rayasada office, both had direct contact with the king
Krishnadevaraya.
(3) If Swami Veera Narasingaraya was very influential person in
Tamilnadu, whereas Vakiti Timmappa Nayaka in Andrapradesh.

Krishnadevaraya had given more than one sime for Nayakatana to some persons For
ex Saluva Timmarasa’s younger brother Saluva Govindaraja received Terakanambi Gutti,
Ummattur sime for Nayakatana and administered it. Similarly Timmappa Nayaka had also
received three sime’s., who was the chief vassal of the palace and also the son of Mallappa
Nayaka. He had a brother by name Chinnappa Nayaka.

Timmappa Nayaka had received the Iravainavur sime of the Rishivandyam region for
Nayakatana in 1519 AD by Krishnadevaraya through that he became separate Nayaka(A R
1943-44:110) In the same year he also received Tiruchinapalli sime(A R 1936-37:105) Thus
both the sime’s came under his Nayakatana. In the year 1520 AD he had also the Nayakatana
of Bhuvanaikaveera Pattana Sime (A R 1937-38:494) In the year 1521 he remitted the taxes
of this sime to the royal treasury, the details are in the Epigraph.

In this way it is possible to say that, “Mallappa Nayaka was responsible for his son
Timmappa Nayaka to hold Nayakatana of 3 provinces immediately.” Therefore the two
families viz saluva Timmarasu and Mallappa Nayaka, were very predominant and influential
during Krishnadevaraya’s rule.

40
Transferability of the Nayakas
The Nayakas were transferred from one place to another during Krishnadevaraya. But
this transfer was very less. For ex: In the year 1515 AD Triyambakarasa held the Nayakatana
of Malenahalli Sime of Shimoga District, where as in 1523 he held the Nayakatana of
Muluvayi sime in Salem District of Tamilnadu state.Because Krishnadevaraya donated
Malenahalli to Narayana Yateendra of Kudala matha in 1527 AD(Paramashivamurthy DV
2010:Num 227) Therefore after Triyambakarasa was transferred from Malenahalli, it directly
came under Krishnadevaraya.

In the same way Bukkaraju Timmaraju holding the Nayakatana of Poluri sime in
1517, was at Gandikote sime in 1521 AD. When he had the Nayakatana of poluri sime,
Gandikote was in the custody of saluva Govindaraja as referred in inscriptions
(Parabrahmasastry 2009: Num 109) In the year 1528 AD the same Gandikote was included
to the Nayakatana of Rayasam Ayyapparasu. Therefore Bukkaraju Timmaraju was
transferred from polur (1517) to Gandikote (1528 AD). After 1528 AD we donot know where
he was transferred, perhaps the king snatched the Nayakatana from him or he died, is not
clear.

The Neelavara inscription of 1528 AD refers that Krishnaraya Nayaka was ruling at
Barakur State. (Paramashivamurthy D V 2010:Num 248) Then he handed over that to
Timmanna vodeya and in the same year he got the Nayakatana of Sri Rangapattana and
Sindhaghatta sime from Krishnadevaraya. (Paramashivamurthy D V 2010: Num 236,237)
But in the month of June 1528 AD Mahamandaleswara Bhogaiahdeva maha arasu was at
Srirangapattana mentioned in inscription (ParamashivamurthyD V 2010Num 249) show that
Krishnaraya Nayaka limited himself only to Sindhaghatta and vacate the Srirangapattana. It
was clearly revealed that any of the Nayaka retained his Nayakatana was upto the confidence
of the king. If the king lost confidence about him, he was detached (removed) from his post.
It is clear from the case of Krishnaraya Nayaka.

Krishnadevaraya also granted Nayakatana who had excelled in the field of literature.
For Ex. Peddiraju who was known as Andhra Kavi pithamaha referred in inscriptions was
given Nayakatana of Karivachi sime. He worked for the completion of the temple at Annur
village of that sime and installed Varadaraju perumal God. He donated the whole income of
Annur village for the Maintainence of that temple (Parabrahmasastry 2009: Num127)
Peddiraja was the son of Allasani Chokkaraja. So Allasanipeddanna (Who was one of the
Ashta Diggaja of Krishnadevaraya’s court) himself was peddiraja who got Nayakatana.
Allasnipeddanna was well known as Andhra Kavi Pithamaha. Why did Krishnadevaraya
grant Nayakatana to him in Tamilnadu not in Andhrapradesh? Was Annur his ancestor’s
place? or was it to complete the temple which was incomplete, he had accomplished Annur?
The answer for these questions have no records to explain.

This depicted that the king did not give prominence to only power but he also gave
importance to Intelligence and wisdom at the time of granting Nayakatana.

Krishnadevaraya also granted Nayakatana to Veerappodeya, who was the father of

queen chennadevi. He was at Srirangapattana in 1516 AD and described in the inscription as
“Sri Manmaha Sena Samudra Saluva Gajasimha”(ParamashivamurthyD V 2010:Num85) He
was the son of Chikkodeya, who also assumed the same title 1521 AD inscription mentions
that veerappodeya hold the Nayakatana of Dadiga sime. It shows that Raya also granted

41
powers to his close relatives. It was a common feature in those days that the distribution of
political powers among close relatives, siblings and the nearer ones.

By considering Krishnadevaraya’s administration it can be altogether summed up

with the following main points such as,

1. The inscriptions documented there were 68 Nayakatana in all the three states of Karnataka,
Andhra and Tamilnadu. Only 55 simes included to Nayakatana.
2. 55 Individuals administered different simes through Nayakatana.
3. Raya granted Nayakatana to different community among these Brahmana’s were in upper
hand. 50% of that post were accquirred by them. The others like Beda, Golla also had the
Nayakatana.
4. There was no heridatory rule in sime’s of Nayakatana. A few cases of transfer from one
place to another.
5. It is clear that some time Raya granted Nayakatana more than one sime to single
individual. The highest was three simes at a time.
6. The highly influential families who received Nayakatana from the king were the families
of Timmarasu in Andhra and Mallappa Nayaka in Tamil Nadu.

7. Majority of the Individuals who held Nayakatana assumed different positions in

administration. Such as Mahamandaleswara, Mahapradhani Rayasadha, Karyakekarta.
Bhokkasada, Rahuta, Pradhana etc. The direct contact of these people with the king was
responsible.
8. The Nayaka’s not only looked after the administration of their simes but also collected the
taxes and remitted it to the royal treasury. There was no uniformity in the fixed tax system
of simes of Nayakatana. So the Nayaka’s, who remitted highest tax to royal treasury,
harassed the people.
9. If the Nayakas were not loyal to the king, his Nayakatana was confiscated. So in order to
exhibit the loyalty to the king they donated for his religious merit. For ex. 25 Nayakas
donated to the temples for religious merit of the king. Two Nayakas donated two mathas in
the name of Raya etc. By this way the Nayakas used the technique of Dana (charity) to get
the support of the king.
10. Among 55 Nayakas only 19 of them had Nayaka title at the end of their name. So it
was not compulsory for a person to hold Nayakatana to have a Nayaka title in his name.
For Ex. the family members of saluva Thimmarasu had the previlige of holding
Nayakatana but they did not have Nayaka in their name. Another influential family at the
time of Krishnadevaraya was Mallappa Nayaka who had included Nayaka title at the end
of their name (Timmappa Nayaka, Chinnappa Nayaka)
11. Krishnadevaraya’s inscriptions show that Nayaka was not a caste name. For Ex.:
Ahobala Devaiah was a Brahmin whose sons name was Krishnaraya Nayaka. He had the
Nayakatana of Sri Rangapattana. Therefore if an individual received Nayakatana then only
he would be called as Nayaka but not if he had Nayaka in his name.

Altogether it can be said that after receiving simes for Nayakatana by the emperor,
they were called Nayakas. They were ruling as mediators between king and the subjects.
They may be called as District incharge ministers of modern times.

References
1. Annual report of Indian Epigraphy- Archaeological survey of India-1890-1990,New
Delhi.
2. Circar D C ,1966-”Indian epigraphical glossary” New Delhi.

42
3. Derrett J D M 1957-”The Hoysalas-A Medieval royal family” Oxford.
4. Epigraphia carnatica Vol IV (New series)
5. Karashima N 2002-” A Concordance of Nayakas: The Vijayanagar inscriptions in south
India” New Delhi,Oxford university press.
6. Krishnaswamy A 1964-” The Tamil country under Vijayanagar” Annamalai Nagar
Annamalai university.
7. Mahalingam T V 1969- “ Administration and social life under Vijayanagar” Pt 1 Madras
(originally published in 1942) : university of Madras.
8. Nirupama 2010- “Amukta malyada “ of Krishnadevaraya Kannada translation Vidyaranya,
prasaranga kannada university.
9. Ota N 2008-” A Study of two Nayaka families in the Vijayanagar kingdom in the sixteenth
century” in memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko ,66: 103-129.
10. Parabrahma sastry (Edi) 2009- “Inscriptions of the Vijayanagar rulers” Volume IV Telugu
Inscriptions, Bangalore I C H R.
11. Paramashivamurthy D V (Edi) 2010:”Krishnadevaraya shasana samputa 1" Vidyaranya,
kannada university, prasaranga.
12. RAngaswamy saraswathi 1925 : “The political maxims of the emperor poet
Krishnadevaraya” in the journal of indian History 4 part 3.
13. Rangaswamy S N 1999: “Inscriptions of Orissa” (further 10) Vol III.
14. Stein B 1980 : “ Peasant state and society in medieval south India “ oxford oxford uni
press.
15. South Indian inscriptions 26 volumes ,Archaeological survey of India 1890-1990, new
Delhi.
16. Telagavi Lakshman 2009: “ Vijayanagara Amaranayakaru mattu palegararu “ in
Virupakshi poojari halli (Edi) Charitre adyayana Vol 4 Issue 2 Vidyaranya kannada uni.
Prasaranga ( in kannada).
17. Vivek rai B A (Edi) 2005 : Pravasi kanda vijayanagar”(in kannada) Vidyaranya, kannada uni
prasaranga.
18. William monear 2005: “A Sanskrit English dictionary : Etymologically and philologically
arranged with specil reference to cognate indo European languages revised by E
Leumann, C Cappeller”(ori 1899) motilal banarasidas New Delhi.
19. Yogeeswarappa D N 2009 : “ Madhyakalina karnatakada poligararu” Dhatri prakasana
Bangalore.
20. Yogeeswarappa D N 2011 : “ Charetreya putagalu” C V G India ,Bangalore.

APPENDIX
Epigraphical based List of Nayakatana
(AD 1509 to 1529)

1. Thimmaraya Chakravarti / .... (Agent of Tipparasa)

Nayakatana of Manjinada Pennagara Denkanakote within Muluvagila Chavadi
Grants a village as the charity of Thimmarasa AD 1509
SII VII-15 Dharmapuri Dist (T.N.)
2. Honnappa Nayaka S/o Bhokkasada Devappa Nayaka
Nayakatana of Panem Sime of Boodidepodu
Grants of a Land for Panikeswara God of Panyam AD 1510.
I.V.R. Vol. IV, No. 74 Karnool Dist. Andra Pradesh.
3. Yallappa Nayaka S/o..
Raminayakanahalli Sime of Handaralu Nayakatana
Grants of a land for Handralu Tirumala God for the religious merit of K.D. Raya Kru. Sha.
Sam 1, No-12, Tumkur Dist. Karnataka.
4. Veeranarasinga Nayaka.... Master of Vayirava Ni...
Irandayiravelli Parru in padaveeduraya Nayakatana Sirmai.
His agent makes land grants inNedungunaram in 1511 AD
AR 1934/35-27, chingalpet Dist (T.N.)
5. Ooligada Yellaiah S/o

43
Maratur sime RoddaNadu Uppadihalli Nayakatana
Grants of a land for Ahobala Narasimha for the religious merit of Raya in 1512.
Kru.Sha.Sam-1 No. 293 Anantapur Dist (Andhra)
6. Narasa Nayaka S/o....
Neluvagila Sime, Surabhi Devanapura Nayakatana
Grants of a land for the God Gowreeswara in 1512 AD
Kru.Sha Sam 1, No.26, Kolar Dist. Karnataka
7. Rayasta Kondamarasaiah
Kundurpi sime Kambhadoor Nayakatana
Grants of a land for Kambadur Mallikarjuna for the merit of K.D. Raya in 1512 Kru. Sha.
Sam 1, No. 296 Anantapur Dist (Andhra)
8. Kenchasomanna Wodeya S/o Devaraya Pattanada Timmanodeya Chennapattanada Sime
Kudalurusthalada Hosahalli
Grants of land for repair of Kudaluru Tank for the merit of K.D. Raya in 1513 Kru.Sha.Sam
1, No. 40 Ramanagar Dist. (Karnataka)
9. Mahamandalesvara Rachiraju S/o YarraGaddamaiah Maharaju,
Potla Duriti Nayakatana
Grants of sthala Tax for the daily pooja of Chennakesha in 1513
I.V.J Vol. IV No. 84 Kadapa Dist. (Andhrapradesh)
10. Saluva Govindaraja S/o Rachiraja
Tera Kanambi Sime.Nayakatana.
Grants of land for deity Triyambaka for the merit of K.D. Raya in 1513
Kru sha sam 1, No. 48. Chamarajanagar Dist. (Karnataka)
11. Akki Timmanayaka
Magadi Mandalam Maladu Sime Nayakkatanam
Establishes Agrahara Village in his own name in 1513
AR 1913, p. 403, Selam Dist. (T.N.)
12. Saluva Govindaiah S/o Rachi Rajaiah
Gutti Sime Thowdipura Nayakatana
Grants of a land at Gajatimmapura for God Ramadeva in p 1514 AD
IVJ Vol-IV No.85 Anantapura Dist. (Andhrapradesh)
13. Triyambakarasa S/o Tipparasa of Shivanasamudra
Bayirapura of Malenahalli sime Nayakatana.
Establishes a Agrahara and donated to Hariharadya in 1515 AD
Kru.Sha Sam 1 No. 48 Shimoga Dist (Karnataka)
14. Veerabhadra Maharaya S/o Gajapati Pratapa rudra
Malebennuru sime Lingadahalli Sime
Grants of the exemption of Marriage tax for the Merit of K.D.Raya & Prataparudra in 1515,
Kru.Sha.Sam-1, No. 82 Davanagere Dist. (Karnataka)
15. Dhananjaya Rayawodeya S/o Dalavayi Timmarasa
Bittugondanahalli of Hassan Sthala Nayakatana
Establishes an Agrahara Dhananjaya Grama & donated to Chenna Dixit in 1515
Kru.Sha.Sam 1, No. 82 Hassan Dist (Karnataka)
16. ooligada Made Nayaka.- Karyake Karta of Krishnadevaraya
Nayakatana of Solur Sime, Arisina Gunte
Grants of a village Arisina Kunte for veerannavodeya for the merit of K.D. Raya in 1516
Kru.Sha.Sam 1 No. 89 Ramanagar Dist (Karnataka)
17. Pradhana Mallarasa S/o.... Karyake Karta of Krishnaraya
Jojuru Sime Tegadhahalli Nayakatana
Grant of a Tegudhahalli Village in front of Hampi Virupaksha Vittala1517

44
Kru. Sha Sam 1 No. 100 Chitradurga Dist. (Karnataka)
18. Saluva Govindaiah S/o Rachiraju
Nayakatana of Guttisime
Grants of a land at Midattur Village for Burudati Vigneswara God in 1517
IVJ Vol. IV No. 110. Anantapur Dist. (Andhra Pradesh)
19. Bukkaraju Timmaraju S/o
Nayakatana of Polur Sime Namila Dibba
His son Krishnaiah took the permission of Brahmin & confirm the grant in 1517 IVJ Vol IV
No 111 Kadapa Dist. (Andhrapradesh)
20. Pedda Singama Nayaka S/o Ramanayaka
Received Nayakatana of Nagarjunakonda Sime from Vakiti Timmappa Nayaka.
Grants of a land at Gundala Village to Veereswara, Venkateswara God of Durgi in 1518
IVJ Vol. IV No. 121 Guntur Dist. (Andhrapradesh)
21. Timmappa Nayaka S/o Mallappa Nayaka
Nayakatana of Chola Mandalam Tiruchinapalli Sirmai
Grants a Lands in Four villages in 1519 AD
AR 1936/37 P. 105 Tiruchinapalli (T.N.)
22. Timmappa Nayak S/o Mallappa Nayaka
Irivanaravur bestowed by the king as his Nayakkatanam Sirmai
Grants a village for the merit of the king in 1519 AD
AR 1943/44, p-110, South Arcot Dist. (T.N.)
23. Saluva Govindaraju S/o Rachi Raju
Mugur Sthala bestowed by the king as his Nayakatanam
Grants of a land at Hosapur for Agastheswara of Tirumakudalu in 1519
Kru.Sha.Sam 1 No. 124 Mysore Dist. (Karnataka)
24. Apparasaiah Son in law of Saluva Timmarasaiah
Solur Sime bestowed by the king as his Nayakattanam.
Grant a village Settihalli to Nalladayamma for the merit of King in 1520AD
Kru. Sha. sam 1. No. 134 Ramanagar Dist. (Karnataka)
25. Pettiraju (Andra Kavitha Pitha Maha) S/o Allasani Chokkaraju,
Karvechi Sirmai bestowed on him as Nayakkattanam by the king in 1520
Built a temple and Grants a village in his Nayankara Sime
SII XVI-68 South Arcot Dist. (T.N.)
26. Thimmappa Nayaka S/o Mallappa Nayaka
As his Nayakkatanam Valudilam Pattu Uchavade Bhuvaneka Veerapattana sime
Remit taxes of a village for the merit of the king in 1520 AD
AR 1937/38 P. 494 South Arcot Dist (T.N.)
27. Bukkaraju Timmaraju (MahaMandaleswara) S/o
Ganjikunta Sime bestowed by the king as his Nayakkattanam.
Arranged for the repairs & Maintainance of panipenta Village Tank in 1521
IVJ Vol. IV No. 136 Kadapa district (Andrapradesh)
28. Bhandarada Timmappaiah S/o Bhandarada Apparasaiah
Koppanada Sime bestowed by the king as his Nayakatana
Grants a village Sindhogi for the God Channakeshava of Koppana in 1521
Kru.Sha. Sam-1 No. 143. Koppala Dist. (Karnataka)
29. Saluva Gajasimha Veerappodeya S/o Chikka Nayaka
Dadigada Sime Nagamangala Sthala bestowed by the king as his Nayakatanam
Grants a village to Tonta Matada Niranjanadevaru for the merit of King in 1521 Kru.Sha.
Sam 1. No. 144, Mandya Dist (Karnataka)
30. Gowradannayakara Baswappaiah S/o——————————-

45
Alampura Sime bestowed on him by the king on his Amara Dannayakatana
Grant a village Byrapura to Narasimha of Alampur for the merit of King in 1521
Kru.Sha.Sam 1. No. 337 Mehaboob Nagar Dist. (Andhra)
31. Nadendla Gopaiah S/o———————————-
Kondaveeti Sime bestowed on him by the king as his Nayakatanam
Grants of a land for someswara God of Verur. in 1521
IVJ Vol. IV No. 139 Prakasham Dist (Andhra)
32. Saluva Govindaraja S/o Rachiraja
Kudugunada Terakanambi Sthala bestowed on him by the king as his Nayakatanam
Grants of a land to Triyambaka God for the merit of Raya in 1521.
Kru.Sha.Sam 1. No. 148 Chamarajanagar Dist. (Karnataka)
33. Singappa Nayaka S/o Machappa Nayaka
Nayakatana of Gonibeedu Sime granted by the king.
Grants of a land to velapuri Chennakeshava God for the merit of king in 1522 Kru. Sha Sam
1. No. 151 Hassan Dist (Karnataka)
34. Saluva Govindaraja S/o Rachiraja
Ummatturu Rajya bestowed on him by the king as his Nayakatanam
Grants of a land to Tirumakudalu Agasthanatha God in 152
Kru. Sha Sam 1 No. 152 Chamaraja Nagar Dist. (Karnataka)
35. Sarvaiah deva Koda Maharaju S/o Yarraiahdeva Koda Maharaju.
Vinukonda Sime bestowed on him by Saluva Timmarasa as his Nayakatanam.
Grants of a land to purushottama God of Kundurpi in 1522
IVJ Vo. IV No. 139 Guntoor Dist. (Andhra)
36. Kondamarasa... .(Rayasam)
as his Nayakattanam Rarajapura - Uchavadi Dindukal Simai
For the kings Merit he makes a new Brahmana Villge by clubbing 2 villages in 1522
SII VOl-V P-292 Madurai Dist (T.N.)
37. Vairava Ni Visaiyalaiyadevar...................
Ilaiyattakkudi bestowed by the king as his Nayakkattanam
Grants a kudi-Ninga-Tiruvidaiyattam in his Sirmai in 1524
A R 1926-29 Ramanathapuram Dist (T.N.)
38. Pradhana Basavappaiah S/o…………………..
Kote Sime bestowed by the king as his Nayakkatanam.
Grants a Sarvamanya village to Ramesvaara God for the merit of King in 1522 Kru.Sha.Sam
1 No. 159 Mysore Dist.(Karnataka)
39. Narasa Nayaka S/o Kundurpi Timmanayaka
Kundurpi Sime bestowed by the king as his Nayakkatanam
Grants of a land at Byrasamudra to Tiruvengalanatha God in 1522 AD
IVJ Vo. IV No. 14 Anantapur Dist.(Andhra)
40. Vobilnayini Tippa Nayaka S/o…………………..
Basavakonda Sirmai bestowed by the king as his Nayakattanam.
Donated to Bommareddi Tippanna as Rayasa in 1523.
IVJ Vol IV No. 142 Chittor Dist (Andhra)
41. KommaNayaka S/o……………..
KukkalaNadu bestowed by the king as his Nayakattanam,
Grants of a land at Dasanapura to the God Tiruvengalanatha in 1523
Kru.Sha.Sam 1 No. 170 Bangalore Dist (Karnataka)
42. Chama Nayaka S/o Manikya Ni (Agent of Triyambaka Udaiyar)
Kunrattur Sirmai included in Muluvay which is the Nayakattanam of Triyambaka
Assign taxes on ulavayukkude and kasayakudi of the village in 1523

46
A.R. 1915, P-140, Salem Dist (T.N.)
43. Triyambaka Udaiyar S/o Tipparasa Udaiyar
Holding Muluvay as his Nayakkatanam in 1523
A.R. 1915, P-140 Salem Dist. (T.N.)
44. Basappa Nayaka S/o Ooligada Jakkanna Nayaka
Holding the Nayakatana of vastare Sime
Grants of an Income of Halmidi village to Belur Channakesava God in 1524
Kru.Sha Sam 1 No-181 Hassan Dist (Karnataka)
45. Vesanna Rahuta S/o Murari Rahuta
Nayakatana of Kavilechervina Sime of Uchchangi vente
Grants of a land to Narayanabhatta for the merit of K.D. Raya in 1524
Kru.Sha.Sam 1 No. 184 Davanagere Dist. (Karnataka)
46. Andambar Kandan papaiyan S/O…………………..
For his Nayakkattanam Amarasimai bestowed by viraNarasinghraya
Grants to the local temple a village in his amara sirmai in 1524
Avanam 10, 27, 4 pudukote Dist (T.N.)
47. Abbarahu Ayyanavar S/o.....
Ravudakundi Sime bestowed on him by Krishnadevaraya as his Nayakatana
Grants a land at Sali gundi village to Tirumala God at Ravuda Kundi in 1525 Kru.Sha. Sam 1
No. 190 Raichur Dist (Karnataka)
48. Vittala Ravutha S/o………………………
Tekala Sime bestowed on him by Krishnadevaraya as his Nayakatana
Grants a villages of uleyarahalli and Kolala as Bhattavritti
Kru. Sha. Sam 1 No. 192 Kolar Dist (Karnataka)
49. Devarasaiah S/o……………………
For his Nayakattanam Gandikote Sime, Sakalisime bestowed by the king
Grants a land to Chennakeshava for the merit of Krishnaraya and Devarasaiah
IVJ Vol IV No. 147 Kadapa Dist (Andhra)
50. Tirumalai Nayaka S/o……………
Puvirundavalli as his Nayakkattanam Sirmai
Assigns lands to Balaiya Nayaka in 1525
A.R. 1938-39, P-300 Chingalpet Dist. (T.N.)
51. Demarasaiah S/o…………….
Gandikota Sirmai as his Nayakkattanam
Grants of land to Lakshmikanta Temple of Porumamilla in 1526
IVJ Vol. IV No-150 Kadapa Dist (Andhrapradesh)
52. Vayirava Ni Visaiya Laiyadevar S/o Pellikonda perumal Visaiyalaidevar
His Nayakkattanam Ilaiyattakkudi in Kalvasalnadu
Establish an Agrahara in his Nayakkattanam in 1526.
A.R. 1926 , P-14 Ramanathapuram Dist. (TamilNadu)
53. Ranganatha Ravutha S/o Viswanatha Ravutha
Jagalur Sime bestowed on him by the king as his Nayakattanam
Grants of a Nibagur village to Brahmanas for the relegious merit of king in 1527 Kru.Sha
Sam 1 No-211 Davanagere Dist (Karnataka)
54. China Peddi Nayaningaru S/o Boodara Peddi Nayanimgaru
Alampur Sime bestowed on him by the king as his Nayakkattanam
Donated to Nine Gods at Alampura in 1527
IVJ Vol. IV No-152 Mehaboob Nagar Dist (Andhra Pradesh)
55. Peddi Nayaka S/o Bhandaradha Sidi Nayaka

47
Gokulapada of Alampur Sime bestowed on him by the king as his Nayakkattana Donated
Peddapur a village to Channakeswara temple of Chennipadu for the merit of Krishnadevaraya
in 1527
Kru. Sha. Sam 1 No. 343 Mehaboob Nagar Dist. (Andhrapradesh)
56. Sunkanna Nayaka S/o Dadi Nayaka
Kerebelagallu of Adavani Durga bestowed on him as his Amara Nayakatana lands of a grant
to virabhadra temple at Belagallu for the merit of King in 1527 Kru. Sha. Sam 1 No. 344
Curnool Dist (Andhrapradesh)
57. Demarasaiah S/o…………. (Avasarada)
Ummattur Sime bestowed on him by the king as his Nayakkattana
By the order of Krishnadevaraya Sarvamanya donation was given to Balakrishna temple in
1527
Kru Sha. Sam 1 No. 233 Chamaraja Nagar Dist. (Karnataka)
58. Krishnaraya Nayaka S/o Ahobala Devagalu
Sri Rangapattana Sime bestowed on him by the king as his Nayakattanam
Donated to Sri Ranganatha by the permission of Krishnadevaraya in 1528
Kru. Sha. Sam 1 No. 236 Mandya Dist (Karnataka)
59. Krishnaraya Nayaka S/o Ahobala Devaiah
Sri Rangapattana and Sindhagatta SIme bestowed on him by the king to Nayakatana Donated
254 Gold coins to Melukote Cheluva Narayana for the merit of K.D.R. in 1528 Kru.Sha.Sam
1 No. 237 Mandya Dist. (Karnataka)
60. Mahamandaleswara Bhogaiahdeva arasu S/o Timmaraja Chemeti
Gummanavritti Sthala of Sri Rangapattana Sime as his Nayakattanam.
Donated income of Devapuri Villages (govaraha) to Sri Ranga Nayaki temple in 1528 A D .
Kru.Sha. Sam 1. No. 249 Mandya Dist. (Karnataka)
61. Adiyappa Nayaka S/o………….
Maleyabennuru Village as his Nayakatanam
Donated taxes and customs to the repair of the temple of Malebennur in 1528 Kru.Sha.
Sam 1 No. 244 Davanagere Dist (Karnataka)
62. Rayasam Ayyapparasu S/o Kondamarasaiah
Gandikote Sime as his Nayakattanam
Lands donated to Pandilapatta Keshava Temple for the merit of King in 1528 IVJ Vol. IV
No.159 Kadapa Dist. (Andhra)
63. Vakiti Peddanayinigaru S/o Bhokkasada Nayinigaru
Panem Sime as his Nayakatana
Donated to the Agraharas of Lingapura and Panikeshvara Temple of Panyam in 1529 A D.
IVJ Vol. IV No. 160 Curnool Dist (Andhra)
64. Rayasadha Ayyapparasu S/o……………….
Gandikote Sime as his Nayakattanam,1529 AD
IVJ VOl. IV No162 Kadapa Dist. (Andhra)
65. Yallammarasuvaiah Karyakekarta of Ayyapparasa
Sakali sime Nayakatana was granted by Ayyapparasu
Donated to Chennakeshava Temple of Kathre Gundla in 1529 AD
IVJ Vol. IV No-162 Kadapa Dist (Andhra)
66. Dikshitaiah S/o Anjiayya
Amara Nayakatana of Alampuri Sime
granted ponnupadu village to Chennakeshwara temple of Channipudu in 1529 Kru. Sha. Sam.
1 No. 349 Mehaboob Nagar Dist. (Andhra)
67. Rayasam Ayyappa S/o Vemarasuvaiah
Addanki Sime of Kondaveeti State as his Nayakatanam

48
Donated to Tiruvenktadri Natha for the merit of Krishnadevaraya in 1529 AD IVJ Vol IV No.
163 Prakasham Dist Andhrapradesh.
68. Avasaram Chandrasekaraiah S/o
Mosali Madagu Sime as his Nayakattanam. 1530 AD
IVJ Vol. IV No. 165 Curnool Dist. (Andhra)

49
 Saluva Thimmarasu Dominent Person of Krishnadevaraya’s
Cabinet

Krishnadevaraya (1509–1529) in his memorable work Amukthamalyada has

described “Administration is not just wealth and army but needs the help of the people’’
‘Brahmin should be appointed to the higher positions. Then only he will correct the
administrative work skilfully.*1 If the administration of the kingdom has given to the non-
Brahmins they will revolt against the king, when the situation is favourable to them. Hence
Brahmins should be given the administrative powers.*2 He also mentioned that the
“Brahmins in the age group of 50 -70 years who are educated, have the knowledge of
political administration, treatise of knowledge, and afraid of committing sin should be given
the power of administration on request.”*3

Krishnadevaraya’s inner most feelings can be understood from these words. Therefore
he reserved all the higher positions in his administration to Brahmins. He had more faith on
Brahmins than people from other communities. That is why he had mentioned that people
from other community will not be faithful to king and revolt against him in adverse
situations. It is evident from the fact Krishnadevaraya had appointed Brahmins as chiefs for
22 provinces out of 55 provinces in his empire. Dr.D.N.Yogeshwarappa has prepared a list of
such Brahmin chieftains along with their lineage.*4 Hence it is evident that Brahmins had
upper hand in the of Krishnadevaraya’s administration. Some of them were able to promote
their family members to the good positions. Salva Thimmarasu family was the most
influential among these Brahmin families.

He was the Prime Minister of Vijayanagara. Though there were other Prime Ministers
like Mallarasa, Basavappaiah, Saravarasaiah, Immedi yeallappa Odeya etc, were not able to
promote their family members to any prominent positions in the administration.

There are numerous films and literature on Salva Thimmarasu in Telugu language.
One among them is an independent work called ‘Thimmarasu Mantri’ by Chilakuri
Veerabhadra Rao.*5 In Kannada literature Thimmarasu and his family members names have
been mentioned consciquently, but no independent literary works have been noticed by us.
Hence we are working in this direction. The purpose of our work is to document how
Thimmarasu (“Appaji”as Krishnadevaraya addressed him lovingly) and his family members
became instrumental in the development of Vijayanagara Empire.

To highlight this, we have mainly used “Inscriptions of the Vijayanagara rulers,

Vol,IV., published by I.C.H.R, Krishnadevaya’s edicts, Vol I, published by Hampi Kannada
University, “Amuktamalyada” written by Krishnadevaraya, “Jeerna Vijayanagara
darshanam” edited by Prof.Lakshmana Telagavi, Writings of foreigners like Nunez, Paius,
“Forgotten Empire” by Robert Sewell and other writings.

From the records of the following edict “Salva Thimmarasu Wodeyara Tamandirada
Saluva Govindaraja wodeyar”and “Salva Thimmarasa veramanumatadin thanuja Saluva
Govindarajagalu”,*6 it is clear that Thimmarasu’s younger brother was Saluva Govindaraja.
Some edicts have mentioned Rachi Raja was the father of Salva Thimmarasu. Rache Raja
was the son of Yerragaddamayya Deva Mahamandalesha. Another edict mentions that
Minister Rachi Raja was the son of Amathya Vemaiah,*7 so he belongs to the Amathya
family. Their lineage mentions that they belong to Kaundinya gothra, Apastambha suthra,

50
and yajushyakhe.*8 Therefore his children also belong to same lineage. Inscriptions mention
that Rachi Raja,being a Mahamandaleshwara got the over lordship of Pottadurthi province of
Kadapa district in Andhra Pradesh, by Krishnadevaraya in the year 1513 A.D.*9 These
evidences show that Thimmarasu was the grandson of Yerragaddamayya Deva maharaja, was
well educated, and had a good political contact. This was the reason for him, to get the Prime
Minister post. In the early period of Tuluva dynasty’s rule he was worked as a military chief,
later became the head (Supreme) Prime Minister. In the view of D.V.Parashivamurthy
Thimmarasu’s promotion happened in a short period of two years.*10 But this is not
acceptable. Because, some edicts mentions “Tatpaada padmaradakundaina shreeman maha
pradhana Salava Thimmayyagaru”*11(17 Jan 1508 A.D) 1512 March inscription mentions as
Timmappayyana pradhanikeyalli”*12 another edict in the month of June of 1512 AD
mentions “Saluva Thimmyya Danayakaru”.*13 Therefore it can be said that Prime Minister
had to shoulder many responsibilities of the administration, some times he used to take
charge of the army also. To conclude from these edicts, we can say that Saluva Thimmarasu
was the Supreme Prime Minister of Tuluva Veeranarasimharaya in January 1508 A.D.

Krishnadevaraya’s brother Veeranarasimha had honoured Thimmarasu with the

“Nayakathana”of Gutti region in 1508 A.D.*14 (Though he was Supreme Prime Minister)
Further Saluva Thimmarasu had annulled the marriage tax for the virtue of Veera
narasimharaya.*15 Along with this in May 1509 A.D, he had gifted the Neladalpadu village
for the worship of Tadapatri Rameshwara devaru, and constructed Prakara, Gopura,
Boghamantapa for the virtue of Veeranarasimha.*16 It appears that, probably Gutti province
was under the control of Salva Thimmarasu till Krishnadevaraya had appointed Salva
Govinda as its Nayaka (1514 A.D). Saluva Thimmarasu was ruling Gutti province for seven
years from 1508 A.D to 1514 A.D.

Salva Thimmarasu, was familiar with the palace’s etiquette and conduct from the time
of Veeranarasimha. He was aware of the unrest that was rising in the surrounding kingdoms
at the time of the death of Veeranarasimha. Bahamani kingdom had been disintegrated into
five branches. Gajapathi of Orissa had occupied some provinces of Vijayanagara. Internally
Vijayanagar had to face the hatred ness of Ganagraja of Ummatturu and Shambuvaraya of
Kanchi.

Salva Thimmarasu in spite of Veeranarasimha’s wishes (Veeranarasimha wanted his

young son to ascend the throne) was successful to bring Krishnadevaraya to the throne. Salva
Thimmarasu had good relationship with Veeranarasimha’s family, and lot of love for
Krishnadevaraya. In Domingo Paes words “Krishnadevaraya’s favourite was Thimmarasu, he
controls the royal family, Krishnadevaraya treats him as the King”. “Salva Thimmarasu is
the important person who enters the palace without permission and supervises the activities
of the palace.*17 This is because he had brought up the King from the childhood and
instrumental in appointing Krishnadevaraya as the king. Krishnadevaraya called him as
“Appaji” (father) and always addresses him as “Dorae Salpataka.’*18

From these documents it is evident that Saluva Thimmarasu had brought up

Krishnadevaraya with love from the childhood. King respects him very much and honoured
him with “Kanakabhisheka.” To show his gratitude Krishnadevaraya commemorated copper
coins by printing “Thimmarasu”on one side of the coin and his name on the other side. It is
extraordinary to find the name of the King and his Prime Minister on the same coin. Hence an
edict in Bapatta taluk documents that “Krishnadevaraya and Saluva Thimmarasu were like
single body”.*19

51
 It has been mentioned that Saluva Thimmarasu was ruling Kondaveedu province in
October 1510 A.D after Krishnadevaraya became the emperor.*20 Saluva Thimmarasu
appointed Abbanayaka as the chieftain of Kocheralakattae Kattaka of Ammanabrolu province
which belonged to him. The same edict mentions that Abbanayaka therefore gifted the land to
the Amareshwara temple in Gonagunte village for the virtue of Saluva Thimmarasu. This
edict does not mention Saluva Thimmarasu as “Prime Minister” but in the same year, another
edict mentions him as “Prime Minister”.*21 It is hence certain that Saluva Thimmarasu was
the Prime Minister from the beginning of Krishnadevaraya’s rule (Prime Minister from the
time of Veeranarasimha) and continued afterwards also.

Salva Thimmarasu, who brought Krishnadevaraya to the throne, was an experienced

statesman. Edicts have appreciated him as Udayagiri Kannadiga Kulatilakam, Vijayanagara
Satkula Prasutham, Shivapooja durandara, Sarvaguna Sampanna”.*22 So we can come to the
opinion that he was a Smartha Brahmin and a prominent Kannadiga.

He helped Krishnadevaraya to expand his kingdom throughout South India. During

the military expedition of Orissa, Krishnadevaraya had divided his army into two parts and
Saluva Thimmarasu had lead one part. He joined the King near Kondaveedu, after winning
Kandakuru, Vinukonda, Nagarjunakonda, Kondaveedu forts. To show his gratitude
Krishnadevaraya appointed Saluva Thimmarasu’s son Rayasta konda marasayya as the chief
of Udayagiri fort in 1514 A.D.*23

Grants of Thimmarasu as referred in the Inscriptions

Being a Prime Minister of Veeranarasimha, with his permission, Thimmarasa gave
many grants to the temples. More than that he did many public works by pleasing the
emperor, such as;

1) During 1508 AD Thimmarasa cancelled the marriage tax of the pennabaali seeme of
the Gutti state, and installed an inscription for the vertue of his master
Veeranarasimha. (Inscriptions of Vijayanagara vol. IV no. 70, ICHR, B.lore, 2009
2) During 1509 AD for the vertue of Veeranarasimha, he donated Neladaala paadu
village of Pennabadi seeme of Gutti state to the Rameswra temple’s Pooja, Prakara
and Gopura construction. (Inscriptions of Vijayanagara vol. IV no.72.)
3) In the year 1512 AD he donated Paraantalure village of Pottappinaadu to Tirupati
Venkateshara swamy. He ordered to collect the income for the worship and offerings
of the God from the localities, also ordered to receive the wealth from the royal
treasury to supply the necessity things.
4) In the year 1514, Thimmarasa gave 132 Gadyana’s, the income of Kaavalihalli
village in Thayuru Sthala to Talakadu Keerthi narayana Swamy. (krishnadevaraya’s
Inscriptions vol.I no.52)
5) During 1617, Thimmarasa donated three kanduga land for the daily worship of
Tiruvengala Devaru of Kadapa grama in Mulaki nadu seeme (Vijayanagar
Inscriptions vol.IV no.108)

6) During 1517, for the vertue of his family members he donated 12 varaha’s income
of Peddapadu grama to Kapoteshwara temple of chejarla grama (Vijayanagara
inscriptions vol IV, no.107)

52
7) During 1518 Thimmarasa renovated Rameshwara temple of Madanur through
Kattamallaiah also built Bhoga mantapa and Prakara. Further for the vertue of Sri
krishnadevaraya, he granted Madanur village for the daily poojas.

For the virtue of emperor Krishnadevaraya, Salva thimmarasa gave many grants to the
temples. Similarly his under officers gave many grants for the virtue of Prime Minister
Thimmarasa. Ex;-

1) For the vertue of Salva Thimmarasa and his wife General Ahobalaiah’s subordinate
Vavilapati Devaraju Nagaiah gave land grants to te Shiva temple of Vavilapaadu in
the Penugonde Majvard Seeme.*24
2) In the name of Thimmarasa, Gurujapalli Channaiah constructed a Chaultry at
Chiddirapaala village for the benefit of the Sataani Vaishnava and Brahmana
piligrims who visited Tirumala during the holy Tirunala days.*25

It has been told that Saluva Thimmarasu was ruling Udayagiri fort. Krishnadevaraya
appointed him as the Chief of Kondaveedu province also. It was Saluva Thimmarasu’s plan
that enabled Krishnadevarya to conquer the Kondaveedu province during his eastern
expedition. So he made Kondaveedu as the centre for this newly conquered province, and
gave it to the experienced administrator, Saluva Thimmarasu.*26

The edicts indicate that Salva Thimarasu was ruling Kondaveedu during 1510 AD,*27
till it was handed over to his son Rayasta Kondamarasayya.(1510 AD) The edicts of February
1516 AD mentions that Rayasta Kondamarasayya was ruling Kondapalli, Kondaveedu
provinces.*28 So Saluva Thimmarasu had installed his son Rayasta Kondamasayya as the
chieftain of Kondaveedu. The edict of May 1520 A.D mentions that Salva Thimmarasu’s
younger son-in-law was ruling Kondaveedu.*29 So by that time Salva Thimmarasu may have
relieved his son and gave it to his younger son-in-law. Further Kondamarasayya was
transferred to Udayagiri in May 1520 A.D.*30 It is clear that from the edict of his son
Rayasta Ayyapparasa, who had granted Jaluvatte village of Kundirpe province to
Kambadootha Mallikarjuna swamy, for the virtue of his father.*31 From the edicts, it is clear
that Rayastha Kondamarasayya died in 1525 A.D. The edict of August 1527 A.D mentions
that the Udayagiri fort was under the control of Rayastha Ayyapparsu after the death of
Rayasta Kondamarasayya.*32
Saluva Govindaraju, the younger brother of Salva Thimmarasu, was ruling
Terakanambi province during 1513 A.D.*33 When Saluva Thimmarasu was shifted from
Gutti to Kondaveedu during 1514 A.D, his brother Govindaraju was given Gutti province,*34
along with that he was also given Ummatturu province in 1516 A.D.*35 From this, it is clear
that Saluva Govindaraju was ruling Gutti of Andhra, Terakanambi and Ummatturu of
Karnataka. Terakanambi, Ummatturu were on the Cauvery basin and were very fertile areas.
Gutti was famous for its mines. All these were important provinces, bringing a large share of
income. The powerful Saluva Thimmarasu had his control over these provinces during
Krishnadevarays’s rule.

Though Saluva Thimmarasu was Supreme Prime Minister he was also in charge of
Gutti, Udayagiri, Kondaveedu & Mulukinadu. He handed over the charge of Gutti to his
brother Govindaraju, may be for heavy work pressure or for some other reasons. He
appointed his son Kondamarasayya to Udayagiri gave the management of Kondaveedu to his
son-in-law Nadendla Gopa. In this manner he not only distributed the kingdom to his family

53
members but also gave additionally Poddila Seema, Kondapalli to his sons. He presented
Gandikote, Adanki provinces to his grandson Rayasta Ayyapparasu.

After the death of Rayasta Kondamarasu in 1525 A.D Udayagiri fort came under the
control of Rayasada Ayyapparasu. It is clear from these things that major provinces of
Andhra Pradesh were under the control of Saluva Thimmarasu’s family members. If analysed
the reason for not appointing outsiders for these provinces we can assume certain points.

Firstly, this family was devoted to Vijayanagar Kings. Saluva Thimmarasu was
successful in planning and bringing Krishnadevaraya to the throne. This was the reason for
the King to trust Saluva Thimmarasu and his family members.

Secondly, Udayagiri, Kondaveedu, Gudikote and Gutti provinces were prominent.

They were important highways of trade and commerce, connecting Koramandal coast of
Andhra Pradesh to the main land. (One route through Kondaveedu. Another through
Penugonda). Diamond mines of Gutti brought a lot of income.

Thirdly, Emperor wanted reliable persons must be in the provinces, to stop the
invasion of Gajapathi of Orissa. So Krishnadevaraya may have had lot of faith in Salva
Thimmarasu’s family and had given these provinces to them.

Vijayanagara Empire was under the control of Salva Thimmarasa and his family
members for a long period. It also shows how influential this family was in VIjayanagara.

Rachi Raja was the father of Saluva Thimmarasu and elder of this family. He was the
Maha mandaladeeshawara of Pottadurthi province. Saluva Thimmarasu was the Supreme
Prime Minister of the empire and also appointed his younger brother Salva Govinda as Prime
Minister in 1519 A.D*36 He was in the post of Bagila pradhani in 1529 A.D.*37
Kondamarasayya and Naranappa sons of Saluva Thimmarasu and grandson Ayyapparasu
were the prominent officers in the administration. His son-in-law Nandendla Gopa was
managing the administration of Kondaveedu as its chieftain. In this way Salva Thimmaasu
and his family members were in the prominent positions of the Empire and controlled the
administration.

It looks, many were jealous of this family. So they were waiting for an opportunity
against Saluva Thimmarasu. They alleged Saluva Thimmarasu’s hand in the death of
Krishnadevaraya’s six year old son Thirumala. It has been said that Krishnadevaraya believed
this and ordered to plucking of Thimmarasu’s eyes. But recently scholars have rejected this
argument with proof. Yet those people who did not tolerate Saluva Thimmarasu’s
prominence may have spread the rumour about this incident. So the king who had lost his
son, may have listened to these accusations made by Saluva Thimmarasu’s detractors may
have stopped giving prominence to him. To support these accusations no edicts of Saluva
Thimmarasu or his family members had been found after 1524 A.D. This indirectly supports
this argument. But the inscription of Aug 1527 A.D mentions that Rayasta Ayyapparasu was
ruling Udayagiri*38 and October 1525 A.D inscription mentions that he was the chief of
Kundurpi province.*39 Krishnadevaraya may have regretted his wrong action against Salva
Timmarasa after a year of his son’s death. So it appears that Krishnadevaraya had appointed
Salva Govinda as the Bagila pradhani to rectify his mistake.

54
 Salva Thimmarasu’s name had not been found in any of the edicts for five years from
1525, but makes an appearance in the Deekshitaiah Amaranayaka’s inscription of April
1529*40 He had donated the land in the name of Krishnadevaraya and Salva Thimmarasu.
Thimmarasu may have lived till April 1529 A.D who had suffered the death of his son
Kondamarasayya and also the murder accusation of Krishnadevaraya’s son. Afterwards no
edicts mention his name. Though his grandson continued in the administration of
Achyutharaya’s period, nowhere Saluva Thimmarasu’s name had been mentioned in any
edicts. So it can be concluded that he may have died during this period.
Salva Thimmarasu sister was Krishnambika and daughter Thirumalamba. He married
his sister to Nandindla Kona mantri. Their son Appamathya married Thimmmarasa’s
daughter Thirumalamba. Appamathya & his younger brother Gopa mantri were made as
chieftains of Kondaveedu by Saluva Thimmarasu. Gopa mantri had written commentary to
“Praboda Chandrodaya” and “Krishnarjuna Samvaada”. In these literary works he had
mentioned that, he had been appointed as the chieftain of Kondaveedu fort by the grace of
Salva Thimmarasu. Salva Tnimmarasu was not only the administrator but also a scholar. It
has been told that he had written commentaries to Augasthyakrutha Champubharatha.

Iti shreeman maharajaadhiraja raja parameshwara karnatakeshwara shree Krushnaraya

shira pradhana sakalaagama varamparapareeta Salva Thimmaya dandanaatha Virachitayam
baala Bharata vyakhyaya manoharaakhyayam panchamassargam.*41

END NOTES
1) Amukta malyada of Krishnadevaraya (translated to Kannada) by Dr. Nirupama, page 43, prasaranga,
Hampi Kannada University, 2010
2) Dito page 46
3) Dito page 64
4) Dr. DN Yogeeshwarappa - Nayakatanas under Krishnadevaraya’s rule - unpublished
article - presented in the Vijayanagar study seminar held at Hampi on Jan 27& 28,
2011.
5) Chilakuri Veerabhadra Rao- “Thimmarasu Mantri” (Telugu Language) Arya
pustakalaya, Rajamahendri – 1950.
6) D V Parashiva murthy- Krishnadevaraya’s Inscriptions Vol -55 and 47, Taragapura,
Prasaranga Hampi Kannada Universoty.
7) Inscriptions of Vijayanagara Vol IV No- 48, 69, 85, 110, 109, 124,148,152,128. ICHR,
Bangalore 2009.
8) Dito No 48, 85, 109,124,152.
9) Inscriptions of Vijayanagara Vol IV No- 84,
10) Krishnadevaraya’s Inscriptions Vol –I, Introduction, page 60.
11) Inscriptions of Vijayanagara Vol. IV No- 70,72.
12) Krishnadevaraya’s Inscriptions Vol –I,No 21.
13) Dito No.23
14) Inscriptions of Vijayanagara Vol. IV No- 70,72.
15) Dito No. 70
16) Dito No 72
17) Pravasi kanda Vijayanagara (Ed) Vivek Rai Page, 65. Prasaranga, Hampi Kannada
v.v..2005
18) Dito Page 78 & 79.
19) Epigraphia Collections of 1897, No 186.
20) Inscriptions of Vijayanagara Vol. IV No 75, ICHR, Bangalore 2009.
21) Dito No 76.
22) Krishnadevaraya’s Inscriptions Vol –I,No 331. Cholasamudram.
23) Inscriptions of Vijayanagara Vol. IV No 93, ICHR, Bangalore 2009
24) Dito No 129.
25) Dito No 132.
26) Dito No 128.
27) Dito No 75.

55
28) Dito No 99.
29) Dito No 128.
30) Dito No 130.
31) Krishnadevaraya’s Inscriptions Vol –I,No 341.
32) Inscriptions of Vijayanagara Vol. IV No 156.
33) Krishnadevaraya’s Inscriptions Vol –I,No 48.
34) Inscriptions of Vijayanagara Vol. IV No 85.
35) Krishnadevaraya’s Inscriptions Vol –I,No 86.
36) Dito No 118
37) Dito No 242.
38) Inscriptions of Vijayanagara Vol. IV No 156.
39) Krishnadevaraya’s Inscriptions Vol –I No 341.
40) Dito No.349.
41) Sources of Vijayanagara History. Page. 143.

56
 The Family of Mallappa Nayaka
in Tamil Nadu
During the period of the Vijayanagar empire, mainly in the sixteenth century,1 many
nayakas were sent by the kings to Tamil Nadu from Karnataka of Andhra Pradesh as military
leaders as well as administrators. Through it is vaguely understood by scholars that thery
were transferred from onr place to another by the kings, so far no proof has been presented to
substantiate this hypothesis.2

This transferability of the nayakas is a crucial point for an understanding of the role
which these nayakas played in the administration and therefore, for the elucidation of the
Vijayanagar state structure. According to Burton Stein, who put forward the so-called
‘segmentary state’ theory, the nayakas in Tamil Nadu, except such big nayakas as the Senji,
Thanjavur and Madurai Nayakas, were local powers, similar to the zamindars of the Mughal
period, who had their communal relations among the population.3 To Stein, therefore, the
idea of the transfer of the nayakas must have been quite unacceptable, being antagonistic to
his own interpretation.Through I have discussed this point to a certain extent in Chapter 1
above, the following examination is an effort to resolve this crucial issue based on the
evidence found in the sources in Tamil Nadu.

If we check with the Alphabetical List of Nayakas in Part Two, we find thirty-seven
Mallappa Nayakas appearing in Tamil Nadu. Out of these thirty-seven, we are able to identity
fourteen Mallappas as one and the same. While in three cases he appears independently in the
inscriptions recording his own acrivities, in the rest he is reffered to as the father of his
son(s). The three inscriptions in which he records his own activities are no. 1 (Soranjeri,
1500), no. 2 (Ramancheri, 1501) and no. 3 (Ramancheri, 1509-29), all from Chingleput
District. No. 1 records his grant of a village in his nayakkattana-sirmai to a temple for the
merit (punniyam, hereafter p) of Narasa Nayaka and the king. Through the name of the sirmai
is not given, it must have included Mangadu-nadu in which the temple and the village were
located. No. 2 and No. 3 record a similar grant of land to a temple for the marit of the king,
the word danmam (hereafter d, including for the variant forms darmam and dharma) being
used for the merit in No. 3. Through the dates of these three inscriptions are different, we can
easily identify these three Mallappas as ond and the same, because in all of them he appears
having the status of vasal (chief palace guard)4 and the two inscriptions (nos. 2 and 3) come
from the same village. The similar contents of these inscriptions also support the
identification made of this individual. He seems to have started his career as a nayaka at the
turn of the sixteenth century in the present day Chennai area, having some relationship with
Narasa Nayaka (de facto king) as well.

The reason why this Mallappa (cited in nos. 1, 2 and 3) is identified with the other
eleven Mallappas, who are mentioned as the father of some other Nayakas, also concerns his
status as a vasal. He is mantioned as a vasal in no. 11 (Elavanasur, 1520) in the following
way; vasal mallappa nayakkar ayyan kumarakal timmappa nayakkar ayyan adiyappa
nayakkar ayyan channappa nayakkar aiyyanukkum and in no. 15 (Arakandanallur, 1523) in
the following way, vasal mallappa nayakkar putran chinnappa nayakkar. In the case of Tamil
inscriptions, it is not easy to judge whom the status word such as vasal qualifies whether
father or son. If there is no insertion of such a word as kumaran, putrab or magan between
father and son, the qualifying word most probably goes with the son, but since there is a word
between father and son in these cases, we may sey that Mallappa was a vasal, thus

57
establishing a link between the two Mallappa groups. Another point favouring this
identification is the chronological sequence of the father / son inscriptions. Through no. 3 can
be dated only as belonging to Krishnadevaraya’s reign (1509-29), nos. 1 and 2 are dated to
1500 and 1501 respectively. His wouldbe son’s inscriptions fall in the period between 1513
and 1539.5 This chronological sequence supports the identification.

As to the kinship relations, it is clear from no. 11, quoted above, that Mallappa
Nayaka had three sons named Adiyappa, Chinnappa and Timmappa. All of them were
nayakas. This father / son relationship is verified from other inscriptions as well. And it is
also known from no. 7 (Rishivandhyam, 1519) that Mallappa had a daughter called
Vayichchamman. In This record, Timmappa Nayaka, son of ‘irayar vasal’ Mallappa Nayaka,
remited certain taxes for the merit (d) of his elder sister (tamakkaiyar) Vayichchamman.
From this inscription and others we know that Mallappa was the vasal of the king (irayar).
Now we shall examine the inscriptions of his threesons.

First, Adiyappa Nayaka appears in three inscriptions. We shall see them in

chronological order. No. 4 (Srimushnam, 1513, February) records that Taiyalar, an agent of
Chinnappa Nayaka who is a brother of Adiyappa, remits tax for the nattavars of the 17-parru,
making an oath to his master and the king and in this Adiyappa is mentioned as a vasal. In
no. 5 (Srirangam,. 1513) he donates a grove to the Srirangam temple along with his brother
Timmappa Nayaka. They are mentioned as sons of Vasavasankara Mallppa nayaka, who is a
vasal of krishnadevaraya. In the latter part of this damaged inscription, chinnappa Nayaka
also appears as a donor along with his two brothers. In no. 11 (Elavanasur, 1520) he and
Chinnappa Nayaka appears as brothers of Timmappa Nayaka and Timmappa Nayaka
permitted an agent (Iramaiyar, son of Vasava Nayaka) of Chinnappa Nayaka to convert
taxable land to tax-free temple land6 after Timmappa Nayaka took over the sirmai. Adiyappa
appears in this inscription, therefore, just as a brother and is only given merit by his brother’s
agent through his act of charity. Though it is very defficult to say from these three
inscriptions where and when Adiyappa’s territory was, he might heve been in charge of
Tiruchirapali-sirmai in 1513, as he was a vasal in that year and the grove granted to the
Srirangam temple in the same year is stated to be on the sacred island.

For Chinnappa Nayaka we have seven inscriptions. The earliest two are those which
we have seen in relation to Adiyappa Nayaka and dated 1513. While in no. 5 (Srirangam,
1513) he appears perhaps as a co-donar in his brother’s charity, he appears in no. 4
(Srimushnam, 1513, February) having an agent who remitted tax for the benefit of the 17-
parru nattavars, from which we may infer that the 17 parru was his sirmai. In no. 6
(Sengupatteri, 1518) he donates a village after purchasing it to the Tiruvannamalai temple
and remits tax, getting the permission of the king. Though the location of the village is not
clear and his agent executes an act of charity, converting a taxable village into a tax-free
village for a temple, the person who gave permission is Timmappa Nayaka. No. 15
(Arakandanallur, 1523) records that Chinnppa Nayaka, son of the vasal Mallapa Nayaka,
granted two villages in his sirmai to a matha for the merit (p) of his father. His sirmai is
identifiable with either Valudilampattu-uchavadi or Tirukkoyilur-parru, included in the
former. In no. 16 (Tiruvedagam, 1526), however he appears as the rular of Madurai-
mandalam. It records that while he was ruling (tiruvirajyam panni) Madurai-mandalam,
Kandiyattevar, his agent, granted a village to a temple with his permission for the merit (d) of
the king. In no. 18 (Sivapuri, 1531) he appears asrge king’s vasal and Vasavappa Iramappa
Nayaka, his agent, makes a grant of a village (Kannamangalam) in Chola-pandya-valanadu to
the Sivapuri temple in Kerala-singa-valanadu for the merit of his master. The village which is

58
located close to the temple, must have been included in Madurai-mandalam, which is
identical with the old Pandya-mandalam.

We are able to say on the basis of the evidence of the seven inscriptions of Chinnappa
Nayaka cited above that he held Valudilampattu-uvhavadi or Tirukkovalur-parru as his sirmai
in 1523, ruled Madurai-mandalam in 1526 and was a vasal of Achyutadevaraya in 1531, most
probably retaining his possition as the ruler of Madurai-mandalam. It is also interesting to
notive that the same agent (Iramaiyar / Iramappa) appears in two inscriptions, namely no. 11
(SA, 1520) and no. 17 (Rd, 1531), indicating that he followed his master to the place where
the master was transferred and that he is decribed as Iramappa Nayaka in the latter, indicating
his promotion to the status of a nayaka. Thus, these seven Chinnappa inscriptions clearly
show the transferability of the nayaka in Tamil Nadu.

Timmappa Nayaka appears in fourteen inscriptions. In no. 5 (Srirangam, 1513), he

grants a grove to the Srirangam temple along with his brothers. No. 7 (Rishivandhyam,1519,
September) records that Timmappa Nayaka, son of the kings vasal, Mallappa Nayaka,
remitted certain taxes imposed during the rule of the Vanniyas and instituted certain services
in the temple for the merit (d) of his elder sister. No. 8 (Jambukesvaram, 1519, November)
records that Timmappa Nayaka, son of the kungs vasal, Mallappa Nayaka, granted land in
two villages in his nayakkattanam to the Tiruvanaikka temple. Though Chola-mandalam
comes first amont the divisions mentioned in his nayakkattanam, Tiruchirapalli-sirmai,
included in Chola-mandalam, seems to have been his nayakkattanam, since Chola-mandalam
had lost its actual meaning as an administrative territory during the Vijayanagar period. No. 9
(Jambukesvaram, 1519, December) records that Timmappa Nayaka, son of
Krishnadevaraya’s vasal, Mallappa Nayaka as signed land in some village to the
Tiruvanaikka temple for the expenses of celebrating festivals for the merit (d) of the king.
Though the name of the village is given simply as tenkarai irajagembira valanattu vadavur, it
must have been in his nayakkattanam (Tiruchirappalli-sirmai) as it was located on the
southern bank (tenkarai) of the Kaveri river. In no. 10 (Rishivandhyam, 1520, January) he
appears himself as the vasal. It records that he granted a village in his nayakkattanam to the
Rishivandhyam temple for the merit (d) of the king.

His nayakkattanam seems to have been Iraivanaravur-sirmai, which included

Magadai-mandalam. No. 11 (Elavansur, 1520, Febrauary) which we have seen in relation to
Adiyappa and Chinnappa, records that as agent of Chinnappa Nayaka re-converted the old
devadana villages, which had been made taxable, into tac-free devadana villages in the 12
parru which is his maganai-sirmai.7 This re-conversion was made with the permission of
Timmappa Nayaka when the sirmai become that of Timmappa Nayaka. This seems to refer to
Timmappas taking over as his nayakkattanam Valudilampattu-uchavadi or
Bhuvanekavirappattana-sirmai which included the 12-parru. No. 12 (Elavanasur, 1520, July)
records that Timmappa Nayaka, son of Krishnadevarayas vasal, Mallappa Nayaka, remitted
for the merit (d) of the king the taxes of a village in Bhu-vanekavirappattana-sirmai in
Valudilamapattu-uchavadi, which was his nayakkattanam. Though Valudilamapattu-
uchavadi comes first in the list of devisions relating to his nayakkattanam, it is difficult to say
which of the two, Valudilamapattu-uchavadi, of Bhu-vanekavirappattana-sirmai included in
it, was his nayakkattanam.
There is snother inscription, no. 13 (Suriyanarkoil, 1520) in which a son of the vasal,
Mallappa Nayaka appears though his name is lost owing to the damage to the stone. He
grants to the Suriyanar temple a village in his nayakkattanam identifiable with either
Valudilamapattu-uchavadi or a parru whose name is lost. This son is either Timmappa

59
Nayaka or Chinnappa Nayaka, judging from their association with Valudilamapattu-
uchavadi in 1520 (no. 12) and 1523 (no. 15) respectively. In no. 14 (Koviladi, 1521)
Timmappa Nayaka (son of Krishnadevaraya’s vasal, Mallappa Nayaka) remits taxeson land
granted to the Tiruppernagar temple by Taiyalarpillai, who appears in no. 4 as an agent of
Chinnappa Nayaka. Timmappa Nayaka seems to have had jurisdiction in this locality near
Tanjavur. In no. 17 (Kiliyanur, 1531) Timmappa Nayaka appears himself as the vasal of the
king and Pattama Nayaka (a soldier under Timmappa Nayaka ?) grants land to temple for the
merit of Timmappa Nayaka and the king. Timmappa Nayaka seems to have had jurisdiction
in this locality also.

Now there remain four inscriptions, all of which come from chingleput District. No.
19 (Nedungunram, 1533) records that Timmappa Nayaka, son of the vasal, Mallappa Nayaka,
granted a village to a temple for the merit (p) of the king. The village is in Nedungunra-nadu
in Puliyur-kottam in Jayangondachola-mandalam. No. 20 (Kondangi, 1537) records a similar
grant of a village to a temple for the merit (d0 of the king. The village wasin
Chengalunipattu-sirmai in Kumuli-nadu in Amur-kottam. According to the Annual Report on
South Indian Epigraphy (1932-33), no. 21 (Madras , 1537), whose transcript I could not see,
records Timmappa’s grant of a village to the Brahmanas, In no. 22 (Agaram, 1539) he
appears without any status or kinship relations, but we can identify his as Mallappa’s son,
since the village he grants in this inscription is a hamlet of the village Kondongi which he
donated in no. 20. This inscription records again his grant of a village to Brahmanasas
agrahara and also his grant of the water tax (nis-kuli) together with others, including a
nayaka. Though there is a two year difference in their dates no. 21 and no. 22 may refer to the
same grant, as no. 21 is a copper-plate grant. Important grants are often recorded on both
stone and copper.

Timmappa seems to have started his career as a separate nayaka around 1519 in the
Rishivandhyam area, with Iraivanaravur-sirmai as his nayakkattanam. In the same year,
however, he is known to have had Tiruchirapalli-sirmai as his nayakkattanam. He might have
held both of themas his nayakkattnam. In the next year he was in charge of either
Valudilamapattu-uchavadi or Bhu-vanekavirappattana-sirmai, holding it as his
nayakkattanam. In 1521 he remits tax in the area near Thanjavur and in 1531 he seems to
have had some jurisdiction in a part of South Arcot District. Between 1533 and 1537 he is
found in Chingleput District, granting villages to temples and Brahmanas, as the vasal of the
king, though his nayakkattanam is not mentioned. He seems to have retained a close
relationship with Achyutadevaraya.

The above examination reveals the close relation that the Mallappa Nayaka family
had with the king and the cases of Chinnappa Nayaka and Timmappa Nayaka clearly show us
that the nayakas in Tamil Nadu were transferred from one territory to another rather
frequently. This is a sure indication oe state control over them. After the defeat or Rakshasi-
Tandani in 1565, however, many nayakas in Tamil Nadu seem to have strengthened their
locally-based power and become independent of state control. If the Vijayanagar kings had
retained their earlier power during the seventeenth century, these nayakas would have
become feudal lords under their control, just like the daimyos during the Tokugawa regime in
Japan. In actuality, however, they established in their locality the so-called little kingdoms
under the illusion of Vijayanaga sovereignty.8

60
 Inscriptions examined and chronologically numbered

1. AR, 1945/46-90, CgD-SpT-Sorajeri, 1500.

2. AR, 1953-253, CgD-TlT-Ramancheri, 1501.
3. AR, 1953-254, CgD-TlT-Ramancheri, 1509-29.
4. AR, 1916-246, SAD-CiT-Srimushnam, 1513, Feb.
5. SII, xxiv, 364, TPD-TpT-Srirangam, 1513.
6. AR, 1941/42-183, NAD-PoT-Sengupatteri, 1518.
7. AR, 1943/44-111, SAD-KlT-Rishivandhyam, 1915, Sep.
8. AR, 1936/37-105, TPD-TpT-Jambukesvaram, 1519, Nov.
9. AR, 1936/37-107, TPD-TpT-Jambukesvaram, 1519, Dec.
10. AR, 1943/44-110, SAD-KlT-Rishivandhyam, 1520, Jan.
11. AR, 1937/38-495, SADTkT-Elavanasur, 1520, Feb.
12. AR, 1937/38-494, SADTkT-Elavanasur, 1520, Jul.
13. AR, 1927-230, TJD-KuT-Suriyanarkoil, 1950, Jul.
14. AR, 1968/69-273, TJD-TjT-Koviladi, 1521.
15. AR, 1934/35-175, SAD-TkT-Arakandlmmanallur, 1523.
16. AR, 1905-677, MDD-NlT-Tiruvedagam, 1526.
17. AR, 1916-167, SAD-TdT-Kiliyanur, 1531, Feb.
18. AR, 1929-33, RDD-TyT-Sivapuri, 1531, Mar.
19. AR, 1935-26, CgD-CgT-Nedungunram, 1533.
20. AR, 1935-53, CgD-CgT-Kondangi, 1537, Aug.
21. AR, 1933-A8, CgD-MC-Madras (CP), 1537.
22. AR, 1935-55, CgD-CgT-Agaram, 1539.

61
 Chapter - V
Nayaka Polity A Theoretical Appeaisal

In the history of south india, Vijayanagara and post Vijayanagara period identified the
political and cultural transition. The post Vijayanagara period evidenced the deterioration of
vast Empires and emergence of the local chiefs like Amaranayakas - Palegars, who were very
close to the common people. Vijayanagara Emperors are responsible for the rise of such
palegars. So as the background of this study, the nature of Vijayanagara Empire is discussed,
as under.

The scholars have divided the research that took place until today about Vijayanagara
Empire in to three periods. Such as

1. from 1900 to 1936

2. from 1936 to 1947
3. from 1947 to till date.

Important factors that can be noticed in these periods are, first period is drowned in
the influence of the British colonial policy, and second period is creating an idea of
nationalism, which was the outcome of the freedom movement. Apart from these two, the
third stage includes the Micro level studies of a particular region, language, caste, religion
etc.

Although Before 1900 A.D., Mark Wilks and Colonel Collin Mackenzie gave partial
records about Vijayanagara Empire. However, during 1900 Robert Sewell wrote a full-
fledged book called ‘A Forgotten Empire’, by keeping Vijayanagara Empire as its centre. In
which he describes the Vijayanagara Emperors as “The cruel rulers of the east”, also tried to
explain the feudal relationship of the powerful vassals and the royal family.

From 1900 to till date, many reserches have done about Vijayanagara Empire. Among
them Krishnaswamy Aiyangar’s ‘Sources of Vijayanagara history (1919), Neelakanta shastri
and Venkata ramanaiah’s “Further sources of vijayanagara history (1946). P.B. wagonor’s
Tidings of the king: A translation and ethnological analysis of the Rayavachakamu(1993) are
very important, and provides us good information.

Regarding the Regional history Vijayanagara emperors ruled the areas of three
linguistic states of south India, regarding its history, social & political life in the Vijayanagara
empire (1931) (for Karnataka) of B.S. Saletore, Studies in the third dynasty of Vijayanagara
(1935) (for Andhra Pradesh) of Venkataramanaiah, Administration and social life
inVijayanagara (1940) and Economic life in Vijayanagara(1951) of Mahalingam T.V., and
the Tamil country under Vijayanagara (1964) (for Tamilnadu) of A. Krishnaswamy are very
important.

Regarding its cultural history where kings and gods meet: the royal centre at
Vijayanagara (1984) India of Pritz, Mishall & Nagaraj rao. City & Empire: New currents of
research (1985), edited by Dellaphilkola & Lalematt are very important works.

62
NATURE OF VIJAYANAGARA EMPIRE.
There is no unanimity among the above mentioned works, regarding the nature of
vijayanagara empire.For Ex. K.A.Neelakanta shastri,1 and Krishnaswamy Aiyangar,2 argued
that “mainly centralized system of administration was practiced in vijayanagara empire, and
itself was its nature”. According to Prof. A.V.Venkataratnam,3 ‘’Vijayanagara Empire was
characterized by united feudalism and decentralized elements in its nature’’. According to
Venkataramanaiah,4 Sangama brothers, the founders of vijayanagara were Telugu people and
they came from Andhra coast, basically they were in the service of the Kakatiya state of
Andhra . After occupying Karnataka region, they implemented the Kakatiya type of
Administration in Karnataka also. Further he gave a comparison between the Nayakara and
Aayagaara systems that were practiced in Kakatiya state and the vijayanagara empire
respectively.

Krishna swamy pillai wrote a book called ‘The Tamil country under vijayanagara’ in
1964, in which he quotes that “feudal system was practiced everywhere in vijayanagara
empire, so that the central administrative system was weak in vijayanagara period”.

During 1980, Burton stein criticize the ‘central polity’ theory of Neelakantashastri in
his works called ‘peasant state and society in medieval south India’ and ‘vijayanagara’. He
profounded the ‘’segmentary state theory’’. According to him “vijayanagara was never be an
empire and centralized administration was not practiced like medieval European countries. If
such system was parcticed in Europe, the same was existed in India, is not correct. Instead of
that in Vijayanagara a number of segmentary states existed. They were free from the control
of the capited and had their own administrative system”.

Thus Vijayanagara emperors were not absolute monarchs like contemporary rulers of
medieval Europe. Instead of that, they were mere ritual figures.

Prof. Kharashima, renowned historian of Japan, Opines that “Vijayanagara Kingdom

made compromise between the cetralised and decentralised elements in their administration”.
Like this, many concepts developed about the nature of Vijayanagara Empire. However, one
should accept that there were provisions for the decentralization in Vijayanagara Empire.
However, the historians like Burton stein purposefully neglected the information given by the
Portuguese travelers Nuniz &Domingo paes. According to paes’s report, vijayanagara
commanders ruled the cities, towns & villages like kings. Some of them got a million or one
and half million pardavo as income; others got hundred thousand pardavo as income.
According to their income, king fixed the number of soldiers maintained by each commander.
Besides maintaining their army, every commander should give annual tributes to the king.
Bisnagar king had five senators and many other commanders, who had a vast areas & large
income under their control.5

According to Nuniz All the lands belonged to the king, commanders received it by the
king and ruled,6. Bisnagar state was divided among more than 200 Nayakas, who belonged to
the different religions,7 considering the information given by these travellers “In Vijayanagar,
during 16th century the political power was decentralised.

Nuniz wrote “There were two hundred different grades of captains serving in the
lower range of hierarchy. The captains mentioned by Nuniz may be compared to the
Amarnayakas referred to in vijayanagara inscriptions. This establishes beyond doubt the
presence of political and economic decentralization in Vijayanagara Empire.

63
 Totally, the political & Economic power in Vijayanagara Empire was not
concentrated only in the central government. It was distributed among many Amaranayakas,
through several military units.

NAYAKA SYSTEM : CRITICISM

Amaranayakas were originally the military officers. They received land by the king
on the condition of providing military service. According toT.V.Mahalingam “All lands
belonged to the king; he distributed it among his dependents. Like this, who received the
lands by the king were called as the Nayakas8. Contemporary inscriptions throw light upon
such Nayakas and receiving of lands by the king. The land grants given to them were called
as Amaramagani,9. Amaranayakara,10. Amaramahale11 Amara umbali,12 Amara pandeya
nayaka,13 etc. The studies about such nayakas are still in primary stage. Regarding Nayaka
research, it need much clarity. The technical problem for its slow study is; the problem of the
use of inscriptions, which are considered as the primary sources. Because vijayanagara
empire was extended far & wide of kannada,Telugu & Tamil language zones of south India.
Even many Sanskrit inscriptions also found here. Not only this many inscriptions belonging
to Vijayanagara were waiting for publish and some were destroyed. This type of
dissatisfaction enviornment, the different languages of the inscriptions and many unpublished
inscriptions made the study of Nayaka dynasty very difficult.

The Vijayanagara emperors identified such Amaranayakas locally, and gave them
recognition. In return, they had to render their services to the Empire. They had to show their
loyalty to the Empire by offering tribute with looking after the given provinces. This system
is often called as the Nayaka system.

We can notice two stages in the evolution of Nayaka system,

1. From 1500 AD to 1625 AD.
2. After 1625 AD.

Nearly 125 years, the administration of Vijayanagara Empire was more or less as a
part of the existence of the palegars-Amaranayakas. In this period, they bowed to their
masters. In the second stage majority of the Amaranayakas got independence and established
their own administration.

Totally, during vijayanagara period Amaranayaka-palegars were the centre point of

the state. Burton stein says “Amaranayakas were the middlemen between the emperor and the
people and it was a slight deviation from hither to existed system,14.

Amaranayaka was an able man who received a fixed land as a grant, by the king and
ruled that land as obedient to the king. He should maintain an army in his province and
assigned the royal service in case of necessity. Nayaka also collect the taxes of his region and
pay a fixed amount to the king in every September. This system was beneficial to both king
and Amaranayakas. Such leaders were called as the Amaranayakas. But Prof. Kharashima, 15 a
Japan historian who studied about the Tamilnadu Nayakas, expressed his own idea.
According to him,
1. Title as Nayaka
2. He got the province through Nayakaship
3. Position of an intermediary between king and the people.

64
 A person, who had any one feature among the three, will be identified as
Amaranayaka. According to the scholars who studied about the Amaranayakas quotes that
“he only called as Amaranayaka, who had all the three features mentioned by Kharashima”.
In this backdrop, if we studied theNayakas, in my view “He only is accepted as nayaka, who
received the lands by an emperor, or a powerful nayaka, or Mahamandaleshwara for his
Nayakatana”. It is not possible to become nayaka, by just adding the title ‘Nayaka’ to his
name. Because there was no place for such Nayakas in Vijayanagar administrative system.

Nayaka system became systematic in Vijayanagara Empire, especially during Tuluva

period. Tuluva emperors granted some areas or provinces to the able leaders to administrate.
Such leaders were called as the Amaranayakas. Some leaders working as Amaranayakas
without having the title Nayaka with their name. Sometimes in some inscriptions, it is
mentioned as NAMMA AMARA NAYAKATANAKKE or AMARAMAGANIGE.........
instead of “NAMMA NAYAKATANAKKE PALISTE SEEME”. There is no fundamental
difference between nayakatana & Amaranayakatana. It should be clarified by the in depth
study of the inscriptions.

NAYAKA SYSTEM AND FEUDALISM

The Nayaka system was established by Vijayanagara Emperors is compared insome
aspect of the feudalism, which was practiced in medieval Europe. The combination of
military and land cultivation was the breath of feudalism. It was not possible to leave one or
the other. It was a stratifide society, where king or leader was in the top, the production
classes like peasants & surfs were in the bottom. There were intermediaries between the two
classes, who had two faces.

1. Showing obedience to the upper class

2. Receiving the same from the lower class16.

The local leaders Accepting the king as their master, showing obedience through the
submission of tributes was the important aspect of the feudal system. Though Indian feudal
system was not the replica of European feudalism, it had some concepts in it.

For Ex. Jahagirs & grants (umbalis) were the centers of the feudal activities in
Europe. Jahagirdar was under the control of the king, it was in the form of military. Similarly,
Amaranayakas received the land by the king, were obedient and reserved his military to the
service of the king. Nayaka was the real master of his province.
Vijayanagara Emperors gave lands to the Amaranayakas for their military service.
However, in medieval Europe, for safety and security, Land holders gave their holdings to
the king. Later they received the same as Jahagirs. The entire society was under the influence
of feudalism in Europe. But in Amaranayaka system, only the influence of feudalism can be
seen in Vijayanagara Empire. The principles of feudalism were not deep rooted in Nayaka
system. During 15th & 16th centuries, it took its birth as historical necessity in Vijayanagara,
due to the policies of the kings. In this background it is said that Vijayanagara had
decentralized & feudal system of administration. Amaranayakas were the pillars of the
empire; this system can be called as the Nayankara system. Kannada dictonaries described17
feudalism means “land is granted in return for service”. This type of grants appered in 16th
century Vijayanagara period inscriptions. Before 14th and 15th century Mahamandaleswara,
Mahapradhana, Dannayaka, Officers received land grants from the king. They were all Just
officers of the state. They had not their own Nayakatana. The features of Feudalism can see

65
only in 16th century Nayakas of Vijayanagara. During Krishnadevaraya & Sadashivaraya
period, more number of feudal lords were created. So it became easy for them to establish a
huge empire and maintain law & order. Because every Amaranayaka was responsible for
maintaining the law & order of his province. During 16th century they were all under control
of the king. There was a system of transfer of Nayakas before they become dominent in his
region. 18

We have the references that certain nayakas had Nayakatana over two provinces, 19.
Ex. Thimmappa Nayaka had Nayakatana over Iraivanaryur and Tiruchanapalli of Tamilnadu
in 1519AD,20. Therefore during Tuluva period Nayaka’s had received land grants for a
limited periods. They were transfered within they controled over their province. This transfer
system didnot break the feudalistic relation between king and the Nayaka’s. Thus, Emperor
was the ultimate owner of the land; the land officially received by him belonged to great man
called Amara Nayaka of feudalistic system. He should pay a fixed amount of tributes to the
king and protect the empire by maintaining the army. This system functioned well up to the
kings were powerful & held his control over Amaranayakas.

An analysis of nayaka polity from a different standpoint would bring the elements of
feudalism to light. In course of presenting grants to the temples or Brahmins, Amaranayakas
should mention the name of their emperors. This tradition tells us about their feudal factors.

At the end of the 16th century, central polity of Vijayanagara was declined. Many
nayakas make use of this opportunity, discarded the orders and started their own
administration. Under this situation, Vijayanagara Emperors made changes in their political
policies, stopped the transfer of Amaranayakas and started a new policy of recognizing them
as the hereditary ruler of their own provinces. Because of this Amaranayakas became
dominant in their own territories then they ruled at the same place for many years. Thus after
converting in to a political power, Amara Nayaka families started the wars for their survival
or expansion.In course of this, the powerful Amaranayakas defeated the weak Amaranayakas
and bring them under their control. Under this situation, they created the sub feudalism.

An analysis of nayaka polity from a different standpoint would bring the elements of
feudalism to light. As like the emperors, Amaranayakas also presented many grants to the
temples, Mutts, Agraharas, etc. This became a cause for the creation of feudal factors in the
economic system of Amaranayaka states. Such land tenure development extended from
starting to end can see in inscriptions. Because of this, economic policy, between Nayaka and
producer the mediators like Mutt, Temple, Agrahara etc were created, Thus collection of all
taxes, according land ownership and receiving adminitrative rights by the Nayaka’s helped to
developed the Mediators, become strong units in the administrative system. The individuals
& institutions, who received the grants were exempted from paying all kind of taxes, this
resulted in decreasing of the state revenue. Increasing number of grants resulted in the
increase of burden of taxes on the villagers.

Being intermediaries, the donated village owners and the institutions tried to keep the
people of their area, socially & economically under their control. Supporting to this, can
verify the Sringeri Samsthan Jahagir records.

Ex : Sringeri rose up its head as a dominant feudal unit up to the samsthana of 3000
seeme by receiving land grants & village grants from Vijayanagara and Keladi rulers.

66
 Thus Amara Nayaka system contains feudalistic pattern of elements. The states of
Amara Nayaka took its birth in the frame work of feudal system of Vijayanagara and
developed systematically. After the decline of Vijayanagara Amaranayakas established
feudal system of their own. They also created the intermediaries and small feudal units in
their provinces, by giving different type of grants to the inscriptions and the individuals.

Like this, the nature of 16th century Nayaka system is that, receiving lands by the
emperor, getting recognition over the right of administration. The Nayakas try to establish
rights over the maintainance of production in local province through that increased their
strength on one side and On the other side, it gave a chance to consider them as the feudal
lords.

KINGSHIP & THE AMARANAYAKAS.

Until now, the researches about kingship concept were based on the analysis of Manu
Dharmahastra or Kautilyas Arthashastra, or Veda, Brahmanaka and other religious texts. We
may say that, much work has not been done based on inscriptions & contemporary literature.
The scholors like Burton Stein used contemporary records & studied medieval south Indian
states is an important.

Burton Stein’s analysis about south Indian states including chola and Vijayanagara is
the segmentary state concept. According to him there was no centralized political system in
Vijayanagara. The duties of the king was limited to religious rites,21. Like this, he made
differentiation between the two types of sovereignty called religious rites & politics. He has
mentioned of it in one of his works,22. “Vijayanagara remained a segmentary state and
society: its kings-Rayas-exercised ritual sovereignty over an under polity of great and small
chiefdoms”.

Burton stein refused the control of the emperor over local chiefs & the people.
According to him, Amaranayakas were able warriors; they were military companions of the
emperor. However, they must be provincial rulers in all through.

In Indian thought, we consider the difference between religion and economy and took
it as only an imaginary concept; then only understand the soverignity of religion and politics.
Burton Steain argued that “there was no political soverignity for emperor over his empire”
this argument is not acceptable because the Vijayanagr inscriptions substantiates that the
emperor gave the land to the Nayakas for their Nayakatana only. According to Portuguese
merchant’s records “the nayakas maintained a fixed number of army and also paid the land
revenues to the king regularly,23. However, stein regarded it as an imaginary and rejected.
This is also not acceptable. Because whenever a nayaka want to give land grants, he was
expected to take prior permission of the emperor.

Ex: During Achutaraya’s period, there was an Amaranayaka in Holalkere called

HadapaBaiyapendra nayaka, he asked the emperor to permit him to give land grants to the
Brahmin scholars. Achutaraya granted the permission. It is mentioned in an inscription,24. Is
not it reflects the political power of the Vijayanagara Emperor over Amaranayakas and the
people?
The political relationship of Emperors with the Nayakas not only ended to Nayaka
level, it continued upto common people. Ex;-According to Nobura kharashima, “Natavars,
the local chiefs of south Arcot district of Tamilnadu, paid the three taxes of kanmala clan to
the emperor”. This Natavaras were the representatives of the emperor and the Nayakas. He

67
quotes this by taking the inscriptions as a reference. 25 So even the common people had the
knowledge of state hierachy. (from Emperor to Nayaka)

According to Noboru Kharashima the concept of common people about the king was
completely political one. Therefore, even the local temples also sent their representatives to
Vijayanagara through the Nayakas to decrease or to cancel the taxes.

Had Nayakas not been implementing the royal orders, they would have been getting
punishment available in literary documents. For ex. Thimmanna Nayaka of chitradurga and
Kempegowda of Yelahanka.

So during Vijayanagara period the emperor was not merely managed the religious
rites but also used his political power over Amaranayakas and the common people.

Notes:-
1. Neelakanta Shastri K.A. - 1958 -A History of South India from Histiorical times to the fall of Vijayanagar
Empire-Madras.
2. Krishnaswamy Ayyangar - Some contribution of South India to Indian Calture.
3. Venkata Ratnam A.V. - 1974-Local self Govt in Vijayananagar Empire, Mysore.
4. Venkata Ramanaiah - 1935-Studies in the History of the Third Dynasty of Vijayanagar,
Madras.
5. Sewell Robert - 1900-A Forgotten Empire - page 259 to 270, London.
6. -do- page 370.
7. -do- page 371.
8. Mahalingam T.V. - 1955-South Indian Polity-page 320, University of Madras, Madras.
9. Epigraphia carnataka vol 5, Manjarabad-9.
10. E.C. vol-12, Sira-1.
11 E.C. vol-11, Hiriyur-35.
12. E.C. vol-10, Kolar-163.
13. E.C. vol-5, Hassan-13.
14. Stein, Burton - 1980-peasant state and society in Medieval South India, p. 369, Delhi.
15. Karashima, Noboru - 2002-A Concordance of Nayakas-Oxford University, Delhi.
16. Yogeeswarappa D.N. - 1999-Hagalawadi Nayakaru, p. 60, Prasaranga, Kannada
University, Hampi.
17. Kannada Dictionary (revised) - 2001-Kannada Sahitya Parishat, Bangalore.
18. Yogeeswarappa D.N. - 2009-Madhyakalina Karnatakada Palegararu, page xii, Dhatri
Prakashana, Bangalore.
19. -do-
20. Karashima, Noboru - 2002-A Concordance of Nayakas, page 65, Delhi.
21. Stein, Burton - 1980-peasant state and society in Medieval South India, page 266, Delhi.
22. Stein, Burton - 1985-Vijayanagar and the Transition to Partrimonial system -
A.L.Dallpicola and S.L.Lallemant (Ed) Vijayanagar, city and Empire, New currents of
Research, Franz steiner Verlag, Wiesbaden.
23. Sewell, Robert - 1970-A Forgotten Empire, Vijayanagar, I.B.H., Page 354 and 370, New Delhi.
24. E.C. vol-11, Holalkere-131.
25. Karashima Noboru - 1992-Towards New Formation, South Indian Society under
Vijayanagar Rule, page 163, Oxford University press, New Delhi.

68
 Chapter - VI
Conclusion
Nayaka system played an important role in the Vijayanagar administration, especially
during the time of Krishnadeveraya. The findings of the Project “The Nayakataha During the
Vijayanagara Empire with Reference to Tuluva Dynasty” are as follows.

So it is cleared that the Nayaka system was existed in the later Ganga’s of Orissa even
before the Kakatiyas. As the scholars did not give the correct chronology of the Ikta system,
it is difficult to say that the Nayaka system is its gift. So as for now, from the available
evidences and the scholar’s opinion we can only opine that later Gangas of Orissa started this
system and later Kakatiyas adopted. Further their immediate successors, like Vijayanagara
rulers adopted, as time being revised and developed it. Since how long this opinion will
continue is depend upon the future researches.

In conclusion Krishnaswamy in the year 1964 defined “the Nayaka system as those
who had the title Nayaka along with their names.”

Further Burton Stain, who followed Krishnaswamy, changed Nayanka System as it

was in the year 1980.

Further Japanese historian Kharashima accepted the opinion of Krishnaswamy and

Burton stain. He divided the definition of Nayaka system, in which it had any one aspect
called as Nayaka. Prof. Lakshman Telagavi also followed the same.

But recent researchers Ota Nobuhiro and Dr. D N Yogeeshwarappa did not accept the
above opinions. According to them it is not possible to become Nayaka by merely adding the
word Nayaka to their individual name. It was not possible to play a major role in the
Vijayanagara for such nayakas. Those who received lands for Nayakatana, by the king are
called as the Nayakas. They only comes under the Nayaka system.

It is not suitable that Burton Stain and Kharashima used the word nayaka in the
Nayaka system parallel to the Telugu word Nayanka, the Kannada word Nayakatana and the
Tamil word Nayakkatanam as recorded in the Vijayanagara inscriptions. Because in that
system all those who had the name Nayaka along with their individual name included. So it is
better to call this system as Nayankara / Nayakatana. Earlier studies also mentioned the same.
They are Beda, Golla, Lingayata, Gowda, Kuruba and others. In Tamil nadu Kallar
and Marwar and in Maharastra Ramoshi, can be identified in this category. It is possible that
some of Amara Nayakas were the relatives of Vijayanagar emperors (Yogeeswarappa 2009 P
X), So we can conclude that Amara Nayakas did not belong to one particular community, to
expand this further Nayakas were from different communities like Kshatriya , Balija,
Kamma, Velama, Brahmana, Boya and others.

Soma reddy opines that Muslims were also appointed as Nayakas during that period.
(Soma reddy 1984:P.210) Subba rayalu also opined that Nayaka System transcended caste
and communities and it is possible that some tribals were also trained to become Nayakas.
(¸Àħâ gÁAiÀÄ®Ä 2005 :P 73) Hence we can say that, all research and study exhibits a
variety of opinions about the Nayaka community. Though the Brahmins played a pivotal role
in the Nayaka system, other communities were not neglected.

69
 It can be concluded that most of the shudra communities had also participated in the
Nayaka system of administration.

By considering Krishnadevaraya’s administration it can be sum up with the following

points. Such as,

1. The inscriptions documented that there were 68 Nayakatana in all the three
states of Karnataka, Andhra and Tamilnadu. Only 55 simes included to the
Nayakatana.
2. 55 Individuals administered different simes through Nayakatana.
3. Raya granted Nayakatana to different communities among them Brahmana’s
were in upper hand 50% of thae Nayaka position was accquirred by them.The others like
Beda, Golla also had the Nayakatana.
4. There was no heridatory rule in sime’s of Nayakatana. A few cases of
transfer from one place to another can be seen.
5. It is clear that some times Raya granted more than one sime to Nayakatana for single
individual. The highest was three simes at a time.
6. The highly influential families who received Nayakatana by the king were the Timmarasu
family of Andhra and Mallappa Nayaka family of Tamil Nadu.
7. Majority of the Individuals who held Nayakatana, assumed different
positions in the administration. Such as Mahamandaleswara, Mahapradhani,
Rayasa, Karyakekarta. Bhokkasada, Rahuta, Pradhana etc. The direct
contact of these people with the king was responsible for this.
8. The Nayakas not only looked after the administration of their simes but also collected the
taxes and remitted it to the royal treasury. There was no uniformity in the taxation of simes
of Nayakatana. So the Nayakas, who remitted highest tax to royal treasury, harassed the
people.
9. If the Nayakas were not loyal to the king, his Nayakatana was confiscated. So in order to
exhibit the loyalty to the king, they donated for his religious merit. For ex. 25 Nayakas
donated to the temples for religious merit of the king. Two Nayakas donated two mathas in
the name of Raya etc. By this way the Nayakas used the technique of Dana (charity) to get
the support of the king.
10. Among 55 Nayakas only 19 of them had Nayaka title at the end of their name. So it
was not compulsory for a person to hold Nayakatana to have a Nayaka title in his name.
For Ex. the family members of saluva Thimmarasu had the previlige of holding
Nayakatana but they did not have Nayaka in their name. Another influential family at the
time of Krishnadevaraya was Mallappa Nayaka who had included Nayaka title at the
end of his name (Timmappa Nayaka, Chinnappa Nayaka)
11. Krishnadevaraya’s inscriptions show that Nayaka was not a caste name. For Ex.:
Ahobala Devaiah was a Brahmin, whose sons name was Krishnaraya Nayaka. He had
the Nayakatana of Sri Rangapattana. Therefore if an individual received Nayakatana, then
only he would be called as ‘Nayaka’ but not if he had Nayaka in his name.

Altogether it can be said that, after receiving the simes for Nayakatana by the
emperor, they were called Nayakas. They were ruling as mediators between king and the
subjects. They may be called as the District incharge ministers of modern times.

70
 Bibliography and References
1. Ali, Sheikh. (Chief Ed.), Shivanna, K, S. (Ed.). 1997. Karnataka Charitre, Kri. Sha.
1336 – 1760, (Kannada), Vol. 3. Vidyaranya: Kannada University Hampi.
2. Anakru. 1971. Sri Krishnadevaraya (Kannada). Bangalore: I.B.H. Prakashana. Second
edition.
3. Balasubramanya (Translator). Suryanarayana, Rao, B. (Author). 2000. Mareyalagada
Mahasamrajya (Kannada). Vidyaranya: Kannada University Hampi.
4. Bhat, Gururaja, P. 1975. Studies in Tuluva History and Culture. Manipal: Power press,
Manipal.
5. D, V, Devaraja. And Patil C, S. (Eds.). 1991. Vijayanagara Progress of Research Report
1984 -1987. Mysore: Directorate of Archaeology and Museums.
6. Desai, P, B. (Ed.). 1970. Saluva Vamsha, Tuluva Vamsha, Karnataka Parampare
(Kannada). Bangalore: Kannada Sahitya Mattu Samskruti Ilakhe.
7. Desai, P, B. 1936. Vijayanagara Samrajya (Kannada). Dharwad: Vijayanagara
Smarakotsva Samiti.
8. Desai, P, B. 1970. Vijayanagarada Udaya Mattu Utkarsha, Karnataka Parampare,
Vol. II. (Kannada). Bangalore: Kannada and Culture Department.
9. Desai, P. B. 1981. A History of Karnataka. Dharwad: Kannada Research Institute,
Karnataka University Dharawad. Revised Edition.
10. Dikshit G. S. Ramasway, B. and Bhargavi, Shivaiah. 1997. Sree Krishnadevaraya Jeevana
Sadhanegalu (Kannada). Mysore: Directorate of Archaeology and Museums.
11. Dikshit, G, S. (Ed). 1988. Early Vijayanagara Studies in its History Culture. Bangalore: B.
M. Sri Smaraka Pratishtana.
12. Diwakar, R, R. 1968. Karnataka through the Ages. Mysore: Kannada Sahitya Mattu
Samskruti Abhivrunddi Ilakhe, The Government of Mysore. First edition.
13. Gouda, Shankara. 1997. History of Karnataka. Gadag: Vidya Nidhi Prakashana. 8 th
Edition.
14. Hemavathi, P. 1994. Vijayanagara (The Life and Times of Tuluva Narasimharaya).
Medras: New Era Publications. First Edition.
15. Heras, H, R. 1929. Beginnings of Vijayanagara History. Bombay: Indian Historical
Research Institute. First Edition.
16. Kalburgi, M, M. (Ed.). 1994. Karnatakada Kaifiyattugalu (Kannada). Vidyaranya:
Kannada University Hampi. Vidyaranya.
17. Kamath, Suryanarayana. 1973. Vijayanagara Samrajya (Kannada). Bangalore: Archana
Prakashana.
18. Kamath, Suryanath, U. 1980. A Concise History of Karnataka: From Pre-Historic Times to
the Present. Bangalore: Archana Prakashana.
19. Kamath, Suryanath, U. 2001. Concise History of Karnataka. Bangalore: MCC. Reprinted
2002.
20. Karmakar, D, P. (Ed.). 1936. Vijayanagara Sixcentenary History Commemoration
Volume, Committee of Vijayanagara Sixcentenary Commemoration. Dharawad:
Karnataka Historical Research Society.
21. Karmarkar, A, P. 1947. Cultural history of Karnataka: Ancient and Medieval. Dharwad:
Karnataka Vidyavardhaka Sangha.
22. Karur, R. Sree Krishnadevaraya (Kannada). Bellary: Karuru Sheshagiriraya Prakashana.
23. Keay, John. 2001. India: A History. London: Harper Collins.
24. Krishnaswami, A. 1964. The Tamil Country under Vijayanagara. Annamalainagara: The
Annamali University.
25. Krishnaswamy, Aiyyangar, S. 1916. A little Known Chapter of Vijayanagara History.
Madras: S.P.C.K. Press.
26. Krishnaswamy, Aiyyangar, S. 2000. Vijayanagara History and Legacy. Delhi: Aryan
Book International.
27. Kulke, Hermann and Rothermund, Dietmer.2004. A History of India. Routledge
(4th edition).
28. Mendis, Vernon L. B. 1981. Currents of Asian History. Colombo: Lake House
Investments.
29. Muddachari, B. 1982. Economic History of Karnataka – Vijayanagara Period. Mysore:
Udaya Prakashana.

71
30. Murthy, Sri Rama. 1994. Studies in the History of the Telagu Country during
Vijayanagara. Gulbarga: Gulbarga University.
31. Nelathur, Venkataramanayya. 1972. Krishna Devarayalu (Telugu). Hyderabad: Andhra
Pradesh Prabutvalu.
32. Nilakanta Sastri, K, A. 1955. History of South India - From Prehistoric Times to Fall of
Vijayanagar. New Delhi: OUP. Reprinted 2002.
33. Nilakanta Sastri, K, A. and Venkataramanayya, N. 1946. Further Sources of Vijayanagara
History. Medras: University of Madras. First Edition.
34. Paes, Domingo. Nunez, Fernao. And Sewell, Robert. 2006. A Forgotten Empire:
Vijayanagar: A Contribution to the History of India. Teddington: Echo Library.
35. Prasad, Durga, J. 1988. History of the Andhras up to 1565 A. D. Guntur: P.G. Publisher.
36. Prasad, Ishwari. 1982. A Short History of Muslim Rule in India: From the Advent of
Islam to the Death of Aurangzeb. Allahabad: Indian Press.
37. Rajashekar, S. 1985. The Map Approach to Vijayanagara History. Dharwad: Sujata
Publications.
38. Rama Rao, M. 1971. Krishnadevaraya. New Delhi: National Book Trust of India.
39. Rama Sharma, M, H. and Gopal M, H. (Ed.). 1980. The History of Vijayanagara Empire -
Vol. II. Bombay: Popular Prakashana.
40. Ramachandra, Oregunti. 1953. Studies on Krishnadevaraya of Vijayanagara. Waltair:
Andhra University.
41. Ramanayya, Venkata, N. 1933. Vijayanagara - Origin of the city and the empire. Medras:
University of Madras.
42. Ramesh, K. V. Introduction - South Indian Inscription, Volume 16 - Telugu Inscriptions
from Vijayanagar Dynasty. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India. Retrieved 2006.
43. Rao, Gurty, Venkata. Sources for the History of Vijayanagara. Bombay: Oxford
University Press.
44. Rao, Hayavadana, C. 1930. Vijayanagara Kingdom, Mysore Gazetteer, Vol. II, Part 3,
Bangalore: Government. Press.
45. Rao, Suryanarayana. 1993. A History of Vijayanagara - The Never to be Forgotten
Empire, Part I. New Delhi: Asian Educational Services.
46. Rice, B.L. 1897. Mysore Gazatteer Compiled for Government -Vol. 1. Madras: Asian
Educational Services.
47. Salatore, B, A. 1934. Social and Political Life in the Vijayanagara Empire, Vol. I and II.
Medras: B.G. Paual and Co. First Edition.
48. Sathyaprakash, N. 1995. The Vijayanagara Empire. Bangalore: Vidya Varadhaka Sangha.
49. Setter, S. Hampi. Bangalore: Kalayatre.
50. Sewell, Robert. 1998. A Forgotten Empire. Medras: Asian Educational Services. 5 th
Edition.
51. Sharma, Rama, M, H. and Gopal, M, H. (Ed.). 1978. The History of Vijayanagara
Empire - Vol. I. Bombay: Popular Prakashana Pvt. Ltd.
52. Sharma, T, T. 1971. Historic Documents. Bangalore: Kannada Sahitya Parishat.
53. Shetty, Narayana, K. 1972. Vijayanagarada Tuluva Vamsha (Kannada). Bangalore: I.B.H.
Prakashana.
54. Smith, Vincent, A. and Spear, Percival. 1981. The Oxford History of India. New Delhi:
Oxford University Press.
55. Stein, Burton. 1994. Vijayanagara. New Delhi: Foundation Books.
56. Vasantha Madhava, K, G. 1985. Vijayanagara Kalada Ithihasa (Kannada). Bangalore:
Directorate of Kannada and Culture.
57. Vasundhara, Fillozat.1977. The Vijayanagara Empire as seen by Domingo Paes and
Fernao Nuniz. New Delhi: National Book Trust of India.
58. Vendantha, Panchadashi Vidyaranya. 1930. Sree Maharajadhiraja Sri Krishna Raja
(Kannada). Kalyanapura: Karnataka Janapada. Second Edition.
59. Venkatarathnam, A, V. 1972. Local Self-Government in the Vijayanagara Empire.
Mysore: University of Mysore. First Edition.
60. Vyas, K, C., D, R, Sardesai. And S, R, Nayak. 1960. India through the Ages. Bombay:
Allied Publishers.
61. Yogishvarappa, D, N. 1999. Hagalavadi Nayakaru (Kannada). Vidyaranya: Kannada
University Hampi.

72
73
74
75
76