Nature and Concept of State of Vijayanagara

State and Segmentary State of Burton Stein

Nature and Concept of State

1) King’s power

Kingship was a hereditary monarchy and there was a considerable increase in the powers and role of the

king from the Chola period. Hence, unlike the Chola kings, the Vijayanagara kings did not adopt high

sounding titles. Some scholars like Nilakanta Shastri, Ishwari Prasad and Vincent Smith believed that the

Vijayanagara Raya was an autocrat. Scholars like Mahalingam argue that it was a paternalistic kingship

characterized by a concern for the welfare of the people.

Other scholars say that he did not exercise absolute power, and argue that there were certain important

institutional checks on the power of the Raya. One was the a) Council of Ministers, which had been in its

nascent stage in the Chola period but had now developed as an important institution. b) Customs and

traditions also acted as a check on the Vijayanagara Raya. c) They were influenced by the Smriti literature

and the Raya was the upholder of dharma. d) Local institutions also acted as a check on the power of the

king.

2) Centralization

Scholars like Shastri and Mahalingam says that the VN polity was a centralized polity, and the king had

control over the nayaks and the provincial governors. Shastri emphasized the centralized nature of the VN

state more emphatically than Mahalingam. He said that Vn state was a centralized bureaucratic set up.

This view is based on the accounts of Paes and Nuniz, Portuguese travelers, who described the nayaks as

agents of the Vn state, indicating a centralized state structure.

3) Critiques of Centralization: Segmentary State

Burton Stein completely rejected this theory. Vijayanagara state was not a centralized bureaucratic state

like the Cholas or the Pandhya states. He applied the Segmentary state model and argued that the VN king

exercised a ritual authority just like the Chole king. He derived this theory from Southhall’s

anthropological studies, which had been applied to Africa. Thus the VN state was an important variant
 form of segmentary organization in which the chiefly office, nayaka was more formal and independent of

the dominant landed groups of a locality. The term amaranayankara encapsulates the rights of the nayaka

for it signifies an office (kara) possessed by a military chief (nayaka) in command (amara) of a body of

troops.

There were various units of authority in the VN state:-

- The King in the core region

- The Mandalam or the province

- The nadu or the districts

- The grama or the village(Devadana, Brhamadeya, Dalavay agrahara or Karagrama)

He identified certain Core regions, which were located in the fertile riverine regions having high

population density. Here the king exercised maximum authority. The Chola state was located in the

Kaveri river basin. For the Vijayanagara state, the core region was situated in the Tungabhadra region. He

saw the macro areas where the king’s authority takes the form of ritual authority, in the form of gifts,

tributes and military assistance.

Stein saw this as constituting a pyramidal structure, with the core region at the apex of the pyramid, where

the relations between two units were replicated at various levels. The relationship between the king and

the nayakas and the provincial governors were described in a ritual manner.

Critique of Stein

The view of Burton Stein has come under a lot of criticism

1) The first is that it is a conception model. It has been borrowed and cannot be applied to the Vijayanagara

state.

2) There is not just ritual authority exercised by the king. There was a considerable increase in the power of

the king from the Chola period. There was also an expansion in the scope and role of the state and king.

Certain institutions like the Council of Ministers developed further.

3) Stein said that there is not much of a distinction between the provincial governors and the nayakas.

Scholars like Shastri and Mahalingam emphasize the differences between the two. These differences are

a) generally, the provincial governors were from the royal family, and were representatives of the royal

family. The nayaks were military chieftains who enjoyed rights over land given to them. b) the provincial

governors were subject to transfer and dismissal, and were under greater control of the king as compared

to the nayakas who enjoyed relatively more autonomy. Yet, the provincial governors had some freedom

to make appointments and some power over the armt. The provincial governors seem to replace the role

which was played by the Chola Assemblies in the early period.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The nature of the villages (whether it was devadana, brahmadeya, dalavay agrahara or karagrama),