■論 文■

Nayaka Rule in the Tamil Country

during the Vijayanagar Period*

●

Noboru Karashima

Introduction

The first thing we notice when reading Vijayanagar Tamil inscriptions of the 16th century is the frequent appearance of the nayakas in relation to the tax remission and grants of villages to temples. Although the nayakas do appear in 15th century inscriptions, local administration in the Tamil country during and before the 15th century seems to have been carried out by high ranking officers such as mahamandaresvaras, pradhanis or their subordinates, adhikaris, as they appear more frequently in the ear-lier inscriptions)) If we count the number of tax remissions or imposi-tions made by the administrative authorities for all the period of the Vi-

jayanagar rule, this point will become clearer.2) During the 14th and 15th centuries, tax remissions or impositions were made mostly by the king, pradhanis, and other high ranking officers, while the same work was

predominantly undertaken by nayakas during the 16th century and after. The second thing is the distressed conditions of the people troubled

by the misbehaviour of adhikaris in their local administration during the 14th and 15th centuries. While collecting taxes working under the mahamandaresvaras, dandanayakas or pradhanis, the adhikaris seem to have oppressed the people by over-assessment and harsh collection of taxes or by taking over the land on many pretexts or even coercively. Such tyran-nical rule by the invading Vijayanagar armies during the 14th century resulted in an open revolt by the direct producers in the agrarian society

* This is a slightly revised version of the paper presented at the seminar on the

state in pre-colonial South India held at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New

Delhi, 28th-30th March 1989.

60

against the Vijayanagar government in the second quarter of the 15th cen-tury.3) Quite contrary to this, nayakas during the 16th century, who were

granted some specific territory (nayakkattanam) by the king for their own management, controlled the people better once they established their own

power base in the locality.4) The third thing is the development of handicraft industries such as

weaving and oil-pressing, and the consequent increase of power by the artisans and merchants during the Vijayanagar period, particularly in the 16th century. Nayakas encouraged them by granting them tax remis-sions and protections.

The last thing is the sharp decrease in the appearance of nattavars in 16th century inscriptions. The same tendency is also found in the ap-

pearance of the taxes related to them such as nattu-viniyogam and nattu-kanikkai. This indicates a decline in the power which nattavars had retained until the 15th century as the corporate body of leading land-holders.5)

From the above points, we are able to suggest that some change took

place in the Vijayanagar rule of the Tamil country towards the end of the 15th century in preparation for the emergence of a new socio -economic setup under nayaka rule. The purpose of this paper is to throw light on the historical significance of this nayaka rule by clarifying the change outlined above and also by comparing nayaka rule with that of the Cola kings.

1. Maladministration by adhikaris during the 14th and 15th cen-turies

The inscriptions of Tiruchirappalli and Thanjavur Districts show that three Vijayanagar governors ruled Colamandalam during the first half of the 15th century. They were Periya Sirupparasar, Chaudappa and Siru-

parasara Vitthana in chronological order.6) Siruparasara Vitthana had the title of mantri (minister). As to the period of their rule, the inscrip-tions indicate that Periya Sirupparasar held office in 1426, Siruparasara Vitthana in 1447 and Chaudappa in between. Judging from the above dates, these governors seem to have been transferred frequently, as their respective governorship in Colamandalam was rather short.7) As to their deeds recorded in inscriptions, Periya Sirupparasar seems to have taken measures to save the people of Tiruvarur-uchavadi from the op-

61

pression of adhikaris. Chaudappa was ordered by the king to grant a village and some lands in another village to a sthanika of the Srirangam temple, exempting them from all taxes. Siruparasara Vitthana remitted the taxes of four villages in Tiruvarur- and Tiruchirappalli-uchavadis to make food offerings to the deity of the Srirangam temple in the name of several important personages including one of his predecessors and himself.

Considering the deeds of these three governors and also the fact that they were transferred rather frequently, we can conclude that they served the state as important administrators.8)

The Tevur inscription,9) which refers to Periya Sirupparasar, affords us the best example of the distressed conditions of the people oppressed by the adhikaris who came to Tamil country and served as tax-collectors under the governors or ministers. According to this incomplete inscrip-tion, adhikaris imposed a poll tax on the people of Tiruvarur-uchavadi and farmed out the region to some local magnates for the collection of this tax. This farming out increased the quantum of the tax by competitive bidding and the amount increased from 200 to 2000 panams within the space of a year.

The anxiety wrought on the local populace by the farming or leasing out of villages or estates is also clear from many other inscriptions of the same period. There are six inscriptions dating to 1427 or 1428 from Chingleput, North Arcot, South Arcot and Tiruchirappalli Districts, which record the distressed conditions of the cultivators (kudigal) of some temple lands and the measures taken by the king to save them. It is stated in the inscriptions that cultivators and others of the temple land were distressed greatly by the imposition of many taxes by adhikaris and also by their taking over the temple land as kuttagai (lease). In response to the appeal made by some temple representatives, the king assured them that no more trouble should be caused by adhikaris and other government officers.10)

Although the king tried to improve this situation of maladministration by the officers of his government, an open revolt by the distressed people against the government broke out in 1429, shortly after the six inscriptions and Tevur inscription mentioned above. The revolts in South Arcot, Tiruchirappalli and Thanjavur Districts are recorded in nine inscriptions in the places where they occurred.11) It was direct producers such as

62

cultivators and artisans who rose in revolt. They came from the lower section of the agrarian society and had organized themselves into two supra-caste groups called Valangai and Idangai. They resolved not to

submit themselves to the oppression of the irajagarattar and kaniyalar, but to defend the rights they had been enjoying. Irajagarattar referred to ministers (pradhani) and other invading Vijayanagar officers, and kani-

yalar, Brahmana and Vellala landholders. The tyrannical rule of Vijayanagar officers is clear from these inscrip-

tions, but more significance should be given to the mention of the Brah-mana and Vellala kaniyalars in these inscriptions. They also are stated to have colluded with the Vijayanagar officers in oppressing the people.

This clearly indicates the antagonism existing between the cultivators and landholders. However, as the landholders were also oppressed by the Vijayanagar officers, Valangai and Idangai groups succeeded in persuading the landholders to take their side against the government in the later stage of the revolts. But for the tyranny of the Vijayanagar invaders, the antag-onism between the landholders and cultivators would not have become as acute as seen in this incident, but the existence of the class antagonism

itself cannot be denied.

The precarious position of the landholders placed in between the govern-ment and cultivators is also seen in the role and activities of the nattavars, into which the landholders had organized themselves. The Tevur inscrip-tion mentioned above records the order of Periya Sirupparasar given to the nattavars of Tiruvarur-uchavadi that measures should be taken to save the Valangai and Idangai people from the trouble given by adhikaris. Nat-tavars of the 15th century often appear as protectors of the interests of the local populace including cultivators and artisans. There are several inscriptions in the upper valley of the Veller river, which record the as-

surance of the nayakas to the nattavars of Magadai-mandalam that the burden of the heavy taxation on the people should be removed.'2) These inscriptions indicate that the nattavars took a firm stance in defending local interests against governmental oppression. During the 15th century nayakas seem to have concerned themselves more with restoration of the order which had been disturbed by the maladministration of adikharis.

In the middle valley of the Vellar river, nattavars in their local admin-istration collaborated with the Tandirimars, a militant community led by the Tamil chiefs called Kachchirayar, during the 15th century.13) The

63

Tandirimar also seem to have oppressed the cultivators and artisans in collusion with the Vijayanagar officers.

2. Nayakas' management of their own territory during the 16th century

In contrast to the three governors of Colamandalam in the 15th century,

who ruled only for short periods, we have for the 16th century evidence of a family whose members ruled the same area for three generations so far as we know. They were the members of a Brahmana family coming from Karnataka and appearing in Srirangam inscriptions and others.14) One inscription gives us their genealogy consisting of 18 members who belong to five generations. Eight of them belonging to three generations appear in inscriptions as the chief figure in the matter recorded there, mostly the donation of land or remission of taxes. Many of them have the title maharaja and three of them that of mahamandalesvara. How-ever, two of them are stated to have had their own territory, nayakkat-tanam, bestowed by the king, and granted some villages in it to the Sri-rangam temple.

Besides these, we can ascertain the local establishment of their power also from their activities such as purchasing lands from others in the local-ity for granting them to temples, owning mandapams in some villages, etc. One of them had an agent who worked for him in the middle Vellar valley, and three of the members were given merit by their subordinates and the nattavar of some region on the occasion of the latter's making a charity to a temple. It is evident, therefore, that their rule which had a base established in a locality differed greatly from that of their predecessors in the 15th century who merely acted as important administrators of the state. Emergence of many nayakas during the 16th century can be easily veri-

fied by an examination of inscriptions. If we count the number of nayakas appearing in inscriptions by checking them with the Annual Report on Epigraphy, we find almost two hundred names for the North and South Arcot Districts alone,15) even though some scholars believe that there were much less number of nayakas in the whole Tamil country during the Vijayanagar p eriod.1-6)

Besides the Brahmana family noted above, 16th century inscriptions reveal many examples of nayaka families who maintained power in a cer-

64

taro locality for a number of generations. Typical examples are the two families who came to be known later as Gingee Nayakas and Madurai Nayakas respectively. In the 16th century Srirangam inscriptions alone, three members belonging to different generations of Madurai Nayakas appear in relation to village grants or tax remission.17) In the inscriptions from South Arcot District, we find many nayakas who belonged to the family of Gingee Nayakas, though it is difficult to find a proper position in the genealogy for all of them.18)

Along with the emergence of the nayakas or the increase of their num-ber during the 16th century, significance should be given to the prevalence of nayakkattanam, clear cut territory granted by the king to nayakas for their own management. There are many inscriptions which refer to a nayakkattanam as the nayaka's own territory (sirmai) granted by king so and so. Though their emergence can be traced back to the 15th century, they only became prominent during the 16th century.19) It is not at all easy to assess how prevalent the nayakkattanam was, but we are able to suggest that the northern and central parts of Tamil country may have been mostly allocated to nayakas as nayakkattanams during the 16th cen-tury.20)

Besides the practise of granting nayakkattanams to nayakas by the king, sub-infeudation also seems to have been practised during the 16th cen-tury. According to some inscriptions superior nayakas bestowed a part of their nayakkattanams on inferior nayakas as nayakkattanams of the latter.21) This practise also suggests the local establishment of nayakas'

power in the 16th century. According to Fernao Nuniz and Domingos Paes who visited Vijayanagar

during the first half of the 16th century, nayakas kept some military con-tingents for the service to the king in return for the bestowal of a nayak-kattanam. However, the inscriptions offer no information on this point. Nuniz and Paes give us some other important information on the relation between the nayakas and the king. They relate that every year nayakas

paid the king certain amount of revenue accruing from their territory.22) On this point also the inscriptions give no direct evidence. However, there is a case in the inscriptions of the latter half of the 15th century, in which a reference was made to the detailed revenue record of the villages kept in the uchavadi office.23) Again, there are cases in the 16th century in-scriptions, in which nayakas sought the permission of the king to convert

65

some taxable land (pandaravadai) into non-taxable land such as tax-free

(maniyam) temple land.24) These cases might be taken as supporting the statement of Nuniz and Paes that nayakas were responsible for the remit-tance of some of the revenue of his territory to the king, or at least we can say from these cases that the central government had a detailed knowledge on the revenue which nayakas obtained from their nayakkattanams. This

point needs further study. Excepting the two problems mentioned above, information concerning

the nayakas' relationship with the king are not scanty in inscriptions. Many nayakas acted as agents of the king. For example, the inscriptions indicate that Isura Nayaka and Tirumalai Nayaka of Padaividu and Surap-

pa Nayaka and Kondama Nayaka of Gingee were agents of the king.25) More evidence of their subordinate relationship to the king can be

found in the expression " for the merit (punniyamaka) of king so and so " or " for the health (tiru rnenikku nanraka) of king so and so " often appearing in inscriptions recording their making some charity to the tem-

ples. They seem to have sought the favour of the king by showing their fidelity to him in this way.26)

Bestowal of a nayakkattanam by the king and two other points of their submission to the king examined above, show clearly that the nayakas de-rived the legitimacy of their rule from the king. It was so even in the case of Kondama Nayaka of Gingee who ruled a vast territory of Vira-narayana-sirmai towards the end of the 16th century, since he is described as an agent of Srirangadeva-maharayar in an inscription.27)

Regarding the management of nayakkattanam by nayakas, we can ascer-tain the following from the inscriptions. First, nayakas seem to have been eager to associate themselves with temples. Many of the temples of the time were big economic institutions controlling many villages and employing a large number of servants. Their association with a temple in the capacity of the protector of temple villages, the guardian of temple

treasury, the member of temple managing committee, etc. must have

procured the nayakas many economic gains besides the great prestige they enjoyed from such a position in Hindu society. Tirumalai Nayaka in association with the temple authority decided to lease out some of the

temple lands to himself.28) Nayakas seem to have obtained many priv-ileges in local society through their association with temples.

Second, nayakas displayed an eagerness to develop handicraft industries

66

in their own territory. Growth of handicraft industries such as weaving, oil-pressing, etc. becomes conspicuous from the 14th century onwards

judging from the occurrence of many revenue terms relating to these activities29) and also of community names such as Kaikkolas and Vaniyas in inscriptions. During the 15th century, however, artisans and merchants suffered serious oppression from Vijayanagar officers, but the nayakas in the 16th century encouraged them by granting tax remissions to artisans who came to their territory. They also encouraged merchants.30) For example, many nayakas reduced the burden of artisans and merchants by remitting pattadai-nulayam, tax payable by the artisans and merchants living in pattadai (workshops). Inscriptions often mention nayakas establishing pettai (markets). Kaikkolas are known to have settled in the temple precincts or temple villages, indicating the close relationship between the weaving industry and temples. This also explains the desire of nayakas to associate themselves with temples.

The inscriptions clearly reveal the growth of power by two artisan. communities, Kaikkolas and Kanmalas. They record that these commu-nities acquired privileges such as the right to use palanquins and blow conches on set occasions, or receive some tax exemption during the 15th and 16th centuries.31)

Although information concerning cultivators is scarce, we hear nothing about conflict between the cultivators and landholders or the government, or desertion by cultivators and artisans during the 16th century.

As to the nattavars, there seems to have occurred some change in their

position during the 16th century. First of all, they ceased to appear in inscriptions as frequently as they did in the previous centuries. References to taxes relating to them such as nattu-viniyogam and nattu-kanikkai also decrease during the 16th century,32) which may be taken as an indication of their loss of autonomous power under nayaka rule.

Second, the composition of the nattavars seems to have changed. Al-though we do not have much information on their composition during

the 14th and 15th centuries, influential members of the leading agricul-tural community, Vellalas, must have still composed the core as the 1429

inscriptions concerning the open revolt specially refer to the Vellalas as kaniyalar, together with another landed community, Brahmanas. The composition of the nattavars known from the 16th century inscriptions, however, reveals a much different situation. Here, we find among the

67

members of the nattavars the people of such communities as Vanniyar, Reddiyar, Mudaliyar and Idaiyar besides Vellalas (Pillai). Many of them have impressive titles like Kachchirayar, Kongarayar, Vanadarayar, Ton-daiman, Nayinar, etc. Telugu and Kannada names are also conspicuous.33) Settigal (merchants) also became big landholders by leasing villages.34) This caste-wise and regional multiplicity of landholders must have weak-ened the unity of the nattavars, resulting in their losing power as an au-tonomous body. Their role in local administration seems to have been taken over by Telugu and Kannadiga agents of nayakas. Though the

name nattavar remained after their decline and is still found even today in some regions, their original character as a corporate body of land-holders composed of a single community seems to have changed during the 16th century.35)

3. Comparison with Cola Rule

Through the foregoing discussion, some aspects of Vijayanagar rule in Tamil country, particularly rule through the nayakas during the 16th century, must have become clear. Now, we shall compare the nayaka rule of the 16th century with the Cola rule of the 9th to 13th centuries, in order to understand better the historical significance of nayaka rule during the Vijayanagar period.

The nature of the Cola state has recently been a topic of lively discus-sion.36) Though Burton Stein criticised the idea that the Colas had a

bureaucratic administration system,37) there is evidence to show the ex-istence of a bureaucracy-like machinery in the Cola administration or at least the effort of the kings of the middle Cola period to centralise the

government under a system. The piecemeal evidence available includes the establishment of a revenue department called puravu-vari-tinai-kalam, implementation of land surveys, re-organization of administrative divi-sions shown for example by assembling nadus into a valanadu, bestowal of certain titles (Brahmarayan, Pallavarayan and Vilupparayan) on admin-istrative officers.38) Creation of brahmadeyas by granting villages to Brahmanas in almost every nadu in the central part of the kingdom also suggests the same line of their policy.39) Thus, the Cola kings tried to control the peasants directly through their own administrative machinery by breaking through the autonomy of the nadu which had been the in-dependent unit of production during the preceding Pallava and Pandyan

68

period. Compared with this attempt by Cola kings to directly control peasants,

the Vijayanagar rule through nayakas revealed quite a different administra-tive setup. As we have seen, during the 16th century most of the Tamil country was controlled by nayakas, to whom it was parcelled out, though, Vijayanagar kings seem to have maintained rather tight control over na-

yakas at least until 1565. On the point of the landholding system, which defined production

relations during the ancient and medieval periods, we also find differences between the Cola and Vijayanagar periods. Towards the end of the Cola rule in the 13th century, we notice the emergence of big landholders, which indicates the progress of differentiation in Cola agrarian society, but from the 9th to 12th centuries or at least till the 11th century, the

peasants do not seem to have been stratified into landholders and cultiva-tors so clearly as they were in the later centuries.40) Of course, Cola society was a class society and we can distinguish the rulers and the ruled, and private landholding is also ascertainable to some extent. However, because of the strong communal ties among the people of the nadu, which were reinforced by the communal holding of land,41) and also because of the homogeneity of the agrarian society in a nadu or even in a larger area, the antagonism between the landholders and cultivators did not become strong, even though they were differentiated as such.

The effort to break through the nadu autonomy, the practise of granting villages to Brahmanas and high rank officers, and also the distribution of wealth accumulated through many victorious campaigns to the landholders of the central part of the kingdom during the heyday of the Cola rule, all combined to effect the disintegration of agrarian society, producing big landholders on the one hand and landless cultivators on the other. This

process of stratification of the society must have been accelerated by the development of foreign trade during the 13th and 14th centuries.42) Hence, the prevalence of landholders (kaniyalar) and the existence of antagonism between the landholders and cultivators in the 15th century. During the 16th century, however, these 15th century landholders who were still organised as nattavars were replaced by or put under the control of the Telugu or Kannadiga followers of the Vijayanagar nayakas. Agrarian society was further stratified and became more complex. The cultivators of the 16th century, therefore, would have suffered more under

69

the nayaka rule, though we do not hear in inscriptions of their " running away," let alone their " open revolt."

Conclusion

The difference in political structure and landholding system between the Cola and Vijayanagar periods has been examined above. There is a clear difference between the heyday of Cola rule in the 11th and 12th centuries and that of the Vijayanagar rule during the 16th century. The

period from the 13th to 15th century can be regarded as a transitional period, through which agrarian society gradually changed under the suc-cessive rule of the Pandyas, and by local powers like the Sambuvarayas and Vijayanagar governors. The nayaka rule introduced into the Tamil country towards the end of the 15th century, combined with the changes in agrarian society wrought during the transitional period, seems to have

generated certain feudal elements in the existing social formation.43) As a result, the nayaka rule which became predominant during the 16th century bears a resemblance to the feudal rule in medieval western Europe and Japan. Then, can we interpret this new regime of nayaka rule as feudalism? To answer this question, however, it is necessary to conduct many more studies on the various aspects of nayaka rule comparing them with those of Cola rule on the one hand, and those of Mughal rule on the other. Only after making such studies and re-examining therewith the concept of feudalism, we shall be able to answer the above question and understand better the historical development of South Indian society.

Notes 1) This difference has been noted in Karashima 1986A. 2) An analysis of this point has been made in Karashima et al. 1988. 3) Karashima and Subbarayalu 1983 studies this revolt. 4) Karashima 1985 studies nayaka rule in the Tamil country during the 16th

century. 5) This point has been discussed in Karashima 1986B and Karashima et al. 1988. 6) They are known from the inscriptions, SII, xvii, 562 and SH, xxiv, 309 &

335, respectively. 7) It is known from a Thanjavur inscription (AR 1922-448) that Saluva Tiru-

malaideva was the governor (mahamandalesvara) of Colamandalam in 1452. 8) Detailed discussion can be found in Karashima 1986A. 9) SII, xvii, 562.

70

10) More information is obtainable from Karashima and Subbarayalu 1983.

11) Same as note 9.

12) For detailed examination, see Karashima 1986B.

13) Same as note 11.

14) Their rule has been examined in detail in Karashima 1986A.

15) I have checked the names of nayakas with the topographical list of Vijayanagar

inscriptions by B. R. Gopal, the contents of which are almost same as the

brief descriptions given in the Annual Report on Epigraphy. I am grateful

to Dr. Gopal for allowing me to read the typescripts of this list. 16) A. Krishnaswami gives the names of 58 nayakas in the Tamil country for the

period from A. D. 1371 to 1530 (Krishnaszvami 1964, pp. 181-6), and this very insufficient survey is referred to by B. Stein (Stein 1980, p. 398) and also by

R. A. Palat (" Structures of Class Control in Late Medieval South Asia: Con-

struction of an Interstate System, circa 1300-1600," paper presented at the

39th Annual Meeting of the Association for Asian Studies, Boston, April 1987,

p. 29, note 108) as " exhaustive." Stein simply depended on Krishnaswami and Palat in his turn on Stein, both without counting the number of nayakas themselves.

17) They are Tirumalai Nayaka belonging to the second generation counting from the founder of the family (SH, xxiv, 434 & 435), Krishnappa Nayaka

(515) and another Krishnappa Nayaka (514), both belonging to the fourth

generation. 18) See Karashima 1985.

19) Karashima et al. 1988, p. 22.

20) N. Venkataramanayya classified the villages of the Vijayanagar empire into

the three groups, i.e., 1) the bhandaravada villages as crown land, 2) the amara

villages assigned to nayakas and 3) the manya villages in eleemosynary tenure,

and suggested that amara villages occupied roughly three fourth of the Vi-

jayanagar territory. However, as the bhandaravada villages were not crown land separated from the territory assigned to nayakas but the taxable land

which could be found even in nayakkattanam (amaram), his suggestion of " three fourth " has no basis in fact . See Karashima et al. 1988 p. 37, note

104. Since we find almost 200 nayakas in inscriptions for North and South Arcot Districts alone, we can infer that the northern and central parts of the

Tamil country, which were placed under tight Vijayanagar rule, were mostly

allocated to nayakas.

21) The problem of sub-infeudation is discussed in Karashima 1985, p. 18.

22) Nuniz gives the names of several nayakas, the amount of their revenue and

the amount they paid the king. According to his statement, the amount the

nayakas paid varies from 3.3 per cent to 50 per cent of their revenue, but

71

mostly around 30 per cent. See Karashima et al. 1988, p. 23.

23) AR 1925-270.

24) AR 1922-13 & AR. 1921-469.

25) Karashima 1985, p. 15.

26) This point has been discussed in Karashima 1985, p. 17. 27) SITI-994.

28) AR 1912-352.

29) Tari-kadamai and sekku-kadamai are the best examples. Karashima et al . 1988, pp. 74 & 75.

30) Nayakas' encouragement of artisans and merchants has been studied in Ka-

rashima 1985.

31) Evidence is available for Kaikkolas in AR 1927-473, 1928/29-291, 1918-162 , 1925-422, & 1917-368, and for Kanmalas in AR 1937/38-493, 1921-378,

1928/29-293, 1939/40-273 & 1922-65.

32) Karashima et al. 1988, p. 73.

33) Five inscriptions from the 16th century recording the acquisition of privileges

by Kanmalas reveal the composition of nattavars of an area by enumerating

their personal names. These inscriptions are listed in note 31. 34) AR 1921-321, 325 & 333 record the lease of the villages of Tirukkoyilur

temple to Gopala Chettis.

35) This point has been discussed in detail in Karashima 1986B. 36) Some of the recent works which discuss the topic are Champakalakshmi 1979,

Gough 1980, Hall 1980, Heitzman 1987, Karashima 1984, Shanmugam 1987,

Stein 1980 and Subbarayalu 1982.

37) Stein 1980, p. 256. 38) These points have been discussed by Gough, Heitzman, Karashima, Shan-

mugam and Subbarayalu in the works mentioned above.

39) Karashima 1984, Chapter 2, Section 1.

40) Karashima 1984, Chapter 1.

41) Karashima 1984, pp. 13-15.

42) Karashima 1987.

43) In this study I would like to define feudalism as having the following four

basic features: 1) the basic direct producers are not slaves but peasants who

own the means of production themselves, 2) local magnates who possess su-

perior rights to the land that the peasants cultivate, subdue the peasants under their control and extract surplus produce by means of extra-economic coer-

cion, 3) political power assumes a hierarchical structure which is sustained by land grants among the ruling class and also by a certain ideology , and 4) com-modity production is not generalised but limited only to the surplus portion

which is appropriated by the exploiting class. The second and third features

72

may be recognised well in nayaka rule.

References

Byres, T. J. & Mukhia, Harbans (eds.) 1985: Feudalism and Non-European

Societies, London.

Champakalakshmi, R. 1979: " Growth of urban centres in South India: Ku-damukku-Palaiyarai, the twin-city of the Colas," Studies in History, I-1 (New

Delhi).

Champakalakshmi, R. 1986: " Urbanisation in South India: The Role of Ideology and Polity," Presidential Address, Section I, Indian History Congress

47th Session.

Gough, Kathleen 1980: " Mode of Production in Southern India," Economic

and Political Weekly, Annual Number, February, (Bombay).

Hall, Kenneth R. 1980: Trade and Statecraft in the Age of the Colas, Delhi.

Heitzman, James 1987: " State Formation in South India, 850-1280," Indian Economic and Social History Review, XXIV-1 (New Delhi).

Jha, D. N. (ed.) 1987: Feudal Social Formation in Early India, Delhi. Karashima, Noboru 1984: South Indian History and Society: Studies from

Inscriptions A. D. 850-1800, New Delhi.

Karashima, Noboru 1985: " Nayaka Rule in North and South Arcot Districts

in South India during the Sixteenth Century," Acta Asiatica, 48 (Tokyo).

Karashima, Noboru 1986A: " Changing Aspect of the Vijayanagar Rule in the

Lower Kaveri Valley during the 15th and 16th Centuries," Paper read at XXXII

International Congress of Asian and North African Studies, Hamburg, 25-30 August.

Karashima Noboru 1986B: "Vijayanagar Rule and Nattavars in Vellar Valley

in Tamilnadu during the 15th and 16th Centuries," The Memoirs of the Institute

of Oriental Culture, 101 (Tokyo).

Karashima Noboru 1987: " Trade Relations Between Tamilnadu and China During the 13th and 14th Centuries," Paper read at the Sixth International Con-

ference-Seminar of Tamil Studies, Kuala Lumpur, 17 November (To be published

in EAST-WEST Maritime Relations, No. 1, Tokyo, 1989, under the new title " Trade Relations Between South India and China During the 13th and 14th

Centuries.").

Karashima, N. & Subbarayalu, Y. 1983: " Valangai / Idangai, Kaniyalar and

Irajagarattar: Social Conflict in Tamilnadu in the 15th Century," Socio-Cultural

Change in Villages in Tiruchirapalli District, Tamilnadu, India, Part 1, ed. N. Kara-

shima, Tokyo. Karashima, N., Subbarayalu, Y. & Shanmugam, P. 1988: Vijayanagar Rule in

Tamil Country as Revealed Through a Statistical Study of Revenue Terms in Inscrip-

tions, Tokyo.

73

Krishnaswami, A. 1964: The Tamil Country under Vzjayanagar, Annamalainagar.

Krishnaswami Ayyangar, S. 1919: Sources of Vzjayanagar History, Madras. Mahalingam, T. V. 1970: Administration and Social Life Under Vijayanagar ,

Pt. 1, Madras.

Mahalingam, T. V. 1975: Administration and Social Life Under Vzjayanagar,

Pt. 2, Madras.

Nilakanta Sastri, K. A. 1955: The Colas, 2nd ed., Madras. Nilakanta Sastri, K. A. & Venkataramanayya, N. 1946: Further Sources of Vi-

jayanagara History, 3 vols., Madras. Raychaudhuri, Tapan & Habib, Irfan (eds.) 1982: The Cambridge Economic

History of India, Vol. I, Cambridge.

Sewell, Robert 1970: A Forgotten Empire, 2nd Indian Edition, New Delhi. Shanmugam, P. 1987: The Revenue System of the Cholas, 850-1279 , Madras. Spencer, G. W. 1970: " Royal Initiative under Rajaraja I," Indian Economic

and Social History Review, VII-3 (New Delhi).

Stein, Burton 1980: Peasant State and Society in Medieval South India, New

Delhi.

Stein, Burton 1985: " Vijayanagar and the Transition to Patrimonial System," Vijayanagara-City and Empire: New Currents of Research , ed. Dallapiccola & Lallemant, Wiesbaden.

Subbarayalu, Y. 1973: Political Geography of the Chola Country , Madras. Subbarayalu, Y. 1982: " The Cola State," Studies in History, IV-2 (New Delhi).

Venkataramanayya, N. 1935: Studies in the History of the Third Dynasty of

Vzjayanagara, 2 vols., Madres.

(University of Tokyo)

74