RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES AND MILITARY FEUDALISMThe linchpin of the imperial administration was obviously the nayaka,
whom Paes calls ‘captain’. We have seen that such nayakas were also of
great importance in Orissa. As far as Orissa is concerned, we could only
surmise that they held military fiefs because the names of the places to
which they belonged were explicitly mentioned. The reports on
Vijayanagar clearly tell us about revenue assignments (amara) which were
held by these nayakas and of their obligation to maintain a certain number
of troops in keeping with such assignments. This was exactly the system of
the Delhi sultanate, where such assignments were called iqta; the same
system was subsequently adopted by the Mughals, who provided for a
hierarchy of mansabdars to whom revenue assignments (jagir) were given.
In earlier Hindu kingdoms such dignitaries were often local men, but the
amaranayakas of the Vijayanagar empire were imposed on the respective
locality from above; under the later dynasties they were often Telugu
warriors. They had not only military duties, but also administrative and
judicial ones and in times of weakening central control they could convert
their assignments into patrimonial holdings or even emerge as warlords.
Many historians agree that this system may be termed one of ‘military
feudalism’. Even those Indian historians who reject the applicability of the
European concept of feudalism to other periods of Indian history have seen
in the amaranayaka system of Vijayanagar a close parallel to such a social
structure. In more recent years the American historian Burton Stein has
vehemently denied that this system could be called a feudal one, because
important elements—such as homage and vassalage—are missing in the
Indian case and there is even no proof of any kind of tributary relationship
either. Indeed, no indigenous documentary evidence has been found for any
transfer of tribute from the nayakas to the king. The Portuguese reports, so
Burton Stein argues, should be discounted in this respect, because their use
of the term ‘feudal’ must be understood in the context of their own
experience and their desire to explain Indian affairs to their European
readers in words which were familiar to them. According to Stein, the
strength of the Vijayanagar empire consisted in the ability of its rulers to
turn local dignitaries into imperial officers and to impose on many districts
Telugu nayakas from above. The military effectiveness of the empire was
based on a large army, the use of new firearms and the establishment of
swift cavalry units in which Vijayanagar was greatly helped by Muslim and
European mercenaries and the trade with the Portuguese.
The rulers of Vijayanagar based their empire not only on brute force,
they also pursued a religious policy quite akin to that of the Gajapatis of
Orissa. They endowed various temples, cultivated the heads of religious
communities, gave presents to priests and enlisted their moral support for
the struggle against Muslim rulers as well as against Hindu rebels. An
inscription of Krishnadeva Raya provides a good insight into this kind of
policy: it lists the temples which he endowed at the time of his accession as