A new site, built from published sources. Spotted a mistake? Please tell us

Government & administration

Kingship, the nayankara system, village officers, land revenue and law.

Full-length portrait of a moustached man in a white cap and long dark robe with a sash and the star of an order, standing beside a curtain.
Full-length portrait of a moustached man in a white cap and long dark robe with a sash and the star of an order, standing beside a curtain. · A. Claude Campbell (ed.) (opens in a new tab) · Public domain

This page follows how the Telugu country was governed, from the earliest royal charters to the merger of two administrations in 1956.1 Two threads run through it. One is the relation between kings and the powerful local men through whom they ruled: nobles, nayakas (military chiefs), poligars (local military chiefs), zamindars (landholders) and jagirdars (holders of land grants). The other is the village, with its headman, accountant and watchman.23 The headman collected the land revenue.2 Every government depended on that revenue.

About the sources. The sources change over time. For the early kingdoms there are only royal charters, which show the court as it wished to be seen. For the Kakatiyas there are hundreds of inscriptions, explained mainly through one modern historian. For the 17th century there are reports by Dutch and English merchants. For the 19th there are the gazetteers written by British officials, who judged earlier governments by their own standards and usually found them wanting. Their judgements are reported here as theirs.

Kings, nobles and charters

The Ikshvaku inscriptions of the 3rd century at Nagarjunakonda name nobles by title.4 The titles include mahasenapati (“great commander”), mahadandanayaka, and mahatalavara.4 The meaning of mahatalavara was unclear to their editor, J. Ph. Vogel. Women of these families bore the matching titles, such as mahatalavari.4 The titles show a ranked nobility around the king, but not what its members did.

The first glimpse of royal orders being carried out locally comes from a Pallava copper-plate grant found at Mayidavolu.5 In it, the crown prince Sivaskandavarman writes to his officer at Dhannakada about the gift of a village.5 Dhannakada was the old Satavahana centre near Amaravati. Robert Sewell dated the grant to about 234 CE.5 D. C. Sircar, writing later, placed it about the first quarter of the 4th century.6

The copper-plate grants of the Eastern Chalukyas of Vengi follow a fixed form. The Nandamapundi grant of 1053 is a royal command to “the cultivators, headed by the Rashtrakutas”, of a district (vishaya).7 It was issued “in the presence of the Mantrin, Purohita, Senapati, Yuvaraja, Dauvarika and Pradhana”.7 These were the minister, the royal chaplain, the commander, the heir-apparent, the doorkeeper and the chief minister.7 The grant names the officer who carried out the order, the poet who wrote it and the scribe who engraved it.8

A pillar inscription of 1202 at Pithapuram uses the same formula.9 It calls together “the Rashtrakutas and all other ryots” of the district. It announces that a village has been given to a temple free of all taxes.9 The king addressed the district and its leading cultivators, not individual peasants.79

The Kakatiya state

How the Kakatiyas ruled is known mostly from inscriptions, as explained by P. V. Parabrahma Sastry.10 He stresses that they never claimed imperial titles. Throughout their rule they kept the feudatory’s title mahamandaleshvara (great lord of a province).10 They left their lesser chiefs free in everything except military matters. They did not insist on being named in those chiefs’ records.10 In his view, this was a deliberately decentralised kind of kingship.10

For administration, the kingdom was divided into nadus.11 These were governed by officers of the rank of amatya or preggada.11 The nadus were divided into sthalas, groups of villages that each had an accountant, a toll-collector and other officers.11

In each village, a set of servants called ayagars kept the accounts and collected the taxes.12 They included the karanam (accountant), the talari (watchman) and the nirukatta, who shared out the water of the village tank.12 They were paid with land, and with shares of grain from the cultivators.12

Parabrahma Sastry gives great weight to local bodies.13 The people of a village or group of villages were spoken of as the eighteen samayas or ashtadasa-praja.13 These were group bodies of castes, crafts and religious communities.13 In his reading of the inscriptions, chiefs and officers needed the consent of these assemblies before they gave away village land or put on a new tax.13

He cites an inscription of 1292 at Inkirala in Nalgonda district.14 There, an officer asked the gathered people of three villages to grant a small tax on wet land for a temple.14 In another inscription, at Penumoli in Tenali taluk, villagers protested at an officer’s unjust taxes, and he withdrew them.14 He went so far as to compare these assemblies favourably with the panchayats of his own day. That comparison is his.14

Disputes were often settled locally as well.15 In 1214 Ganapatideva sent two ministers to settle a boundary dispute between three villages in Guntur district.15 Local men of standing decided it.15 A villager walked the traditional boundary behind the boundary watchman, while stones were set up.15

Military service was organised separately, through the nayamkara system.16 Under it, nayakas held villages in return for troops; see Forts & warfare.16 New villages were founded on cleared forest land.17 Many were founded by the kings and queens and named after them, usually with a tank.17 Settlers could be given tax exemptions to help a new village grow.17

Nayakas, poligars and Vijayanagara

The Imperial Gazetteer of Madras drew on inscriptions to describe Vijayanagara.18 It says the empire was divided into provinces under governors.18 Each governor owed a fixed payment to the royal treasury, kept a set number of troops and policed his area. He kept whatever revenue remained.18 The gazetteer saw in this the start of a system of sub-renting the state’s revenue that lasted for centuries.18

The gazetteer’s authors also wrote that revenue collection under Vijayanagara and its successors came with “merciless oppression”.18 This is a British administrator’s judgement on the governments the British replaced.18 Local evidence fits the provincial picture. Gooty was the capital of a province.1920 Gandikota was the seat of a district under the province of Udayagiri, whose governor was usually a close relative of the emperor.1920

After Talikota (1565), the sultans ruled Rayalaseema through their own governors or through poligars.21 These were local chiefs who paid tribute but were otherwise “virtually in independent power”.21

Thomas Munro was the first British collector of the region.22 In 1801 he wrote that, by tradition, Vijayanagara had taken half the produce of the land in kind.22 This was converted into money at a price that was unfair to the cultivator.22 He also held that land had always been regarded as the property of the state.22

A century later, the Imperial Gazetteer stated the Madras government’s view differently.23 By “immemorial law and custom”, it said, the ruler had a right to a share of the crop.23 But the cultivator’s hereditary right to occupy his land was complete.23 Both are British readings of the Indian past, made for the needs of administration, and they do not agree.2223

Golconda: revenue farms and the kamil

Under the Qutb Shahis, the court was Persian in style. W. H. Moreland edited Dutch and English reports from the 1610s.24 He describes how the post of governor of each district was farmed out (rented out) every year to the highest bidder.24 The governor could do much as he liked, so long as he paid.24

An anonymous Dutch account in Moreland’s collection adds detail from the port of Machilipatnam (then Masulipatam).25 The farm was paid in three instalments a year. Governors who fell short were flogged, so they hid any profit.25 Most farmers were Brahmins or merchants, with Muslim officials as supervisors.25 The writer’s hostile remarks about the farmers’ character tell us about his own prejudices as much as about them.25

Inland, the assessment (tax rate) was more regular. Munro reported on Kadapa (then Cuddapah), Gurramkonda, Cumbum and the other eastern taluks of the later Ceded Districts.26 There the standard assessment, the kamil, rested on an actual survey.26 The survey was begun early in the 17th century, soon after the country passed to Golconda. It was finished in about four years.26

The survey’s stated principle was “the equal division of the crop between government and the cultivator”.26 The share was converted into money at the average price of the previous ten years.26 Grants of land (inams) to village servants, Brahmins and temples continued as before.26

Mughals, Nizams and zamindars

Asaf Jah founded Hyderabad State in the 1720s.27 According to J. D. B. Gribble, he divided it roughly into thirds:27

  • one for the ruler’s privy purse (sarf-i-khas)
  • one for the expenses of government
  • one granted as jagirs, estates held in return for service, the most important of them military fiefs27

On the coast, the Northern Circars came under the East India Company from 1765.28 Its officers found two kinds of land. Havili land round the chief towns had been managed directly by the Muslim governments, to support their garrisons.28 Elsewhere, zamindars collected the revenue. In theory they were agents who could be removed at will.28

In practice, the Godavari gazetteer says, the zamindars had become hereditary.28 They lived in forts, kept troops and saw themselves as owners of the soil. They paid a fixed sum to the government and kept the rest.28

The Company’s Committee of Circuit inquired into the Circars in the 1780s.29 Drawing on its reports, the gazetteer says that custom allowed the cultivator a large share of the crop.29 But in practice he seldom kept more than a fifth or a quarter.29 In 1794 the Company abolished its provincial councils and appointed Collectors.30

In 1802–03 the Company brought in the Permanent Settlement, copied from Bengal.31 Existing zamindars were confirmed in their estates for ever.31 They paid a fixed peshkash (yearly tribute) of about two-thirds of their past collections.31 The rest of the land was cut into new estates (muttas) and auctioned.31 A regulation of 1802 required landholders to give tenants written leases (pattas).31

The gazetteer calls the settlement “a dismal failure”.32 Many estates were sold for arrears (unpaid dues). They passed to speculators and then to the government.32 In 1822 Munro, by then Governor, blamed the frequent disturbances on government attempts to enforce moneylenders’ claims against old zamindar families.32

The ryots (cultivators), the gazetteer says, were made to pay crushing rents by managers and middlemen.33 After famine, cyclones and the collapse of the weaving trade, an inquiry was ordered in 1843.33 Its report led to the Godavari irrigation works.33

In the Ceded Districts, Munro took the opposite course.34 In 1800–01 he settled with each village as a whole, through its headman (potail) and accountant (karnam).34 From 1801–02 he made the ryotwari settlement. In it, each cultivator held his land directly from the government, under a patta stating his assessment.34 Between 1802 and 1805 his staff surveyed and measured every field.34

The Company then tried leasing whole villages to renters, for three years from 1808 and then for ten.35 Both experiments failed, and the ryotwari system was restored.35 By 1908 it was, in the Imperial Gazetteer’s words, the “distinctive system of the Presidency”.36 Under it, a registered occupant could keep his field as long as he paid the assessment.36 From 1864 the assessment was fixed at half the estimated net produce, settled in cash for thirty years.36

Village officers

The gazetteers describe a village establishment with a long history. In the Madras districts, each village had a headman.2 He was responsible for collecting the revenue and held small judicial powers. There was also an accountant who kept its records, and there were menial servants.2 The offices were usually hereditary.2

In Godavari district, a reorganisation of 1866 allowed each village these officers:3

  • a munsif (headman)
  • a karnam
  • a talaiyari (watchman)
  • one or more vettis (menials)
  • in upland villages, nirgantis to distribute tank water3

They were now paid in cash from a cess (local tax).3 Before, they had held customary fees and rent-free land.3 Village barbers and leather-workers kept their service land, on condition of serving the village.3 Several of these offices appear among the village servants of the Kakatiya inscriptions: the accountant, the watchman and the distributor of tank water.12

In Hyderabad State, the headman was the patel. The accountant was the patwari, karnam or kulkarni.37 Larger villages had separate revenue and police patels.37 Until 1870 they too were paid with service land. After that, cash payments were brought in.37

Policing rested on the same village servants.38 According to the official police history, police work in the districts was done by irregular troops, armed retainers and village servants, before the reforms of the later 19th century.38 In Telangana these servants were called mannevars and mazkuris.38 Stolen property that was not recovered was made good by a levy on the watchmen, the landholders and the villagers.38 Torture was used on suspects.38

Salar Jang and the Nizam’s government

From 1853 the minister Salar Jang reshaped the Nizam’s government.39 The Imperial Gazetteer says that the state’s revenues had earlier been farmed out to bankers, and to Arab and Pathan soldiers.39 These farmers forced what they could out of the cultivators. Salar Jang ended the farming system on taking office.39

As regent from 1869, Salar Jang organised the government into departments under assistant ministers.40 He brought in a revenue survey and settlement, and set up civil and criminal courts.40

By the early 1900s, the state was divided into districts under talukdars (district officers), and taluks under tahsildars (revenue officers of taluks).41 In Telangana, a revenue inspector checked claims for remission (tax relief) when tanks failed or breached.41 A Legislative Council was set up in 1893 and reformed in 1900, with six non-official members out of nineteen.42

The common tenure was ryotwari, and the holder was called a pattadar.43 Most districts had been surveyed and settled for thirty or fifteen years.43 Large areas lay outside this system.4344 The gazetteer describes several kinds of jagir.4344 Among them were the paigah estates, granted to nobles for keeping troops.4344 Others were samasthans such as Gadwal and Wanaparthy, held on a fixed tribute.4344 In 1901 jagirs and samasthans together covered 24,400 square miles, with more than three million people.45

After 1948

After the end of the Nizam’s rule, the new administration abolished the separate estates.46 The sarf-i-khas villages were taken over from February 1949.46 The Hyderabad Jagir Abolition Regulation was issued on 15 August 1949.46 Within weeks, 6,585 jagir villages had passed to government management.46 Before the change, paigahs, samasthans and jagirs had covered almost 31 per cent of the state.46

The same report records a regulation banning vetti and begar, forced labour.47 It says forced labour was still common, although officially discouraged.47 The report counted 378 village panchayats.48 Their members were chosen in an open meeting of the village householders. The head was nominated by the district talukdar.48

Andhra Pradesh was formed on 1 November 1956. Two systems built up under different rulers then had to be joined.1 The police history describes the joining of the Andhra and Hyderabad police as a time of intense departmental activity.1 The later history of the state is outlined on Andhra State & Andhra Pradesh and Legislatures & government, 1952–2014.

Footnotes

  1. History of the Andhra Pradesh Police (1961), pp. 260, 262–263 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  2. Imperial Gazetteer: Madras, Vol. I (1908), pp. 83–84 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  3. Hemingway, Godavari (1907), pp. 178–179 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  4. J. Ph. Vogel, “Prakrit Inscriptions from a Buddhist Site at Nagarjunikonda”, Epigraphia Indica XX (1933), pp. 5–7 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  5. Robert Sewell, The Historical Inscriptions of Southern India (1932), p. 16 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  6. D. C. Sircar, “Two Inscriptions from Guntur District”, Epigraphia Indica XXXII (1959), pp. 88–89 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩

  7. F. Kielhorn, “Nandamapundi Grant of Rajaraja I”, Epigraphia Indica IV (1897), p. 302 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  8. Kielhorn, “Nandamapundi Grant”, Epigraphia Indica IV (1897), p. 303 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩

  9. E. Hultzsch, “Pithapuram Pillar Inscription of Mallapadeva”, Epigraphia Indica IV (1897), p. 242 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  10. P. V. Parabrahma Sastry, The Kakatiyas of Warangal (1978), pp. 175–179. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  11. Parabrahma Sastry, The Kakatiyas of Warangal (1978), pp. 191–193. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  12. Parabrahma Sastry, The Kakatiyas of Warangal (1978), p. 193. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  13. Parabrahma Sastry, The Kakatiyas of Warangal (1978), pp. 180–186. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  14. Parabrahma Sastry, The Kakatiyas of Warangal (1978), pp. 186–187. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  15. Parabrahma Sastry, The Kakatiyas of Warangal (1978), p. 189. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  16. Parabrahma Sastry, The Kakatiyas of Warangal (1978), p. 195. ↩ ↩2

  17. Parabrahma Sastry, The Kakatiyas of Warangal (1978), pp. 198–199. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  18. Imperial Gazetteer of India: Madras, Vol. I (1908), p. 90 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  19. W. Francis, Madras District Gazetteers: Anantapur (1905), p. 156 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2

  20. C. F. Brackenbury, Madras District Gazetteers: Cuddapah, Vol. I (1915), p. 192 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2

  21. Francis, Anantapur (1905), p. 22 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2

  22. Francis, Anantapur (1905), p. 102, quoting Munro’s letter of 12 August 1801 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  23. Imperial Gazetteer: Madras, Vol. I (1908), p. 93 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  24. W. H. Moreland (ed.), Relations of Golconda in the Early Seventeenth Century (1931), p. xvii (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  25. Moreland (ed.), Relations of Golconda (1931), pp. 81–82 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  26. Francis, Anantapur (1905), pp. 102–103, quoting Munro (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  27. J. D. B. Gribble, A History of the Deccan, Vol. I (1896), p. 377 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  28. F. R. Hemingway, Madras District Gazetteers: Godavari, Vol. I (1907), pp. 160–161 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  29. Hemingway, Godavari (1907), pp. 161–162 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  30. Hemingway, Godavari (1907), p. 163 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩

  31. Hemingway, Godavari (1907), p. 164 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  32. Hemingway, Godavari (1907), pp. 165–166 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  33. Hemingway, Godavari (1907), pp. 166–167 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  34. Francis, Anantapur (1905), pp. 106–107 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  35. Imperial Gazetteer: Madras, Vol. I (1908), p. 443 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)); Imperial Gazetteer: Madras, Vol. I (1908), p. 94 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2

  36. Imperial Gazetteer: Madras, Vol. I (1908), pp. 94–96 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  37. Imperial Gazetteer of India: Hyderabad State (1909), pp. 51–52 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  38. The History of the Andhra Pradesh Police (1861–1961) (1961), p. 5 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)); Imperial Gazetteer: Hyderabad (1909), p. 70 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  39. Imperial Gazetteer: Hyderabad (1909), p. 17 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)) and p. 60 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  40. Imperial Gazetteer: Hyderabad (1909), pp. 18–19 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2

  41. Imperial Gazetteer: Hyderabad (1909), pp. 50–51 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2

  42. Imperial Gazetteer: Hyderabad (1909), p. 53 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩

  43. Imperial Gazetteer: Hyderabad (1909), pp. 58–59 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  44. Imperial Gazetteer: Hyderabad (1909), p. 52 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  45. Imperial Gazetteer: Hyderabad (1909), p. 52 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩

  46. Report on the Administration of Hyderabad State, September 1948 – March 1950 (1950), pp. 3–4 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  47. Report on the Administration of Hyderabad State (1950), p. 11 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2

  48. Report on the Administration of Hyderabad State (1950), p. 89 (archive.org (opens in a new tab)). ↩ ↩2

Photos

Show all (32)

References

Sources (14)
  1. Hirananda Sastri (ed.), Epigraphia Indica, Vol. XX (1929–30) (opens in a new tab), Archaeological Survey of India, 1933, pp. 5–7. J. Ph. Vogel, Prakrit Inscriptions from a Buddhist Site at Nagarjunikonda. [Public domain]
  2. Robert Sewell (ed. S. Krishnaswami Aiyangar), The Historical Inscriptions of Southern India (Collected till 1923) and Outlines of Political History (opens in a new tab), University of Madras, 1932, pp. 16. [Public domain in India]
  3. D. C. Sircar and B. Ch. Chhabra (eds.), Epigraphia Indica, Vol. XXXII (1957–58) (opens in a new tab), Archaeological Survey of India, 1959, pp. 88–89. D. C. Sircar, Two Inscriptions from Guntur District (No. 8). [Public domain in India]
  4. F. Kielhorn (articles); E. Hultzsch (ed.), Epigraphia Indica, Vol. IV (1896–97) (opens in a new tab), Archaeological Survey of India, 1897, pp. 242, 302–303. E. Hultzsch, Pithapuram Pillar Inscription of Mallapadeva; F. Kielhorn, Nandamapundi Grant of Rajaraja I. [Public domain]
  5. P. V. Parabrahma Sastry, The Kakatiyas of Warangal, Government of Andhra Pradesh, 1978, pp. 175–179, 180–189, 191–193, 195, 198–199. Cite-only; paraphrased. [All rights reserved (cited, not reproduced)]
  6. Government of India, Imperial Gazetteer of India, Provincial Series: Madras, Vol. I (opens in a new tab), Superintendent of Government Printing, Calcutta, 1908, pp. 83–84, 90, 93–96, 443. [Public domain]
  7. W. Francis, Madras District Gazetteers: Anantapur (opens in a new tab), Government of Madras (Addison & Co.), 1905, pp. 22, 101–103, 105–107, 156. [Public domain]
  8. C. F. Brackenbury, Madras District Gazetteers: Cuddapah, Vol. I (opens in a new tab), Government Press, Madras, 1915, pp. 192. [Public domain]
  9. W. H. Moreland (ed.), Relations of Golconda in the Early Seventeenth Century (Hakluyt Society, 2nd ser., No. 66) (opens in a new tab), Hakluyt Society, London, 1931, xvii, 81–82. Cite-only; paraphrased. Published 1931; includes an anonymous Dutch account of Golconda written in the 1610s. [Public domain in India]
  10. J. D. B. Gribble, A History of the Deccan, Vol. I (opens in a new tab), Luzac & Co., London, 1896, pp. 377. [Public domain]
  11. F. R. Hemingway, Madras District Gazetteers: Godavari, Vol. I (opens in a new tab), Government Press, Madras, 1907, pp. 30, 160–167, 178–179. [Public domain]
  12. Government of India, Imperial Gazetteer of India, Provincial Series: Hyderabad State (opens in a new tab), Superintendent of Government Printing, Calcutta, 1909, pp. 17–19, 50–53, 58–60, 70. [Public domain]
  13. Inspector-General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, The History of the Andhra Pradesh Police (1861-1961) (opens in a new tab), Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, 1961, pp. 5, 260, 262–263. [Public domain in India]
  14. Government of Hyderabad, Report on the Administration of Hyderabad State, September 1948 - March 1950 (opens in a new tab), Government of Hyderabad, 1950, pp. 3–4, 11, 89. [Public domain in India]

Spotted an error on this page? Tell us

Last updated: