Vijayanagar

Title: Vijayanagar – As Seen by Domingo Paes and Fernao Nuniz and Others

Editor: Vasundhara Filliozat

Publisher: National Book Trust, India, 1999 (First published 1997)

ISBN: 81-237-2658-9

Pages: 370

There are many books available now that offer much information about Vijayanagara Empire. Almost all of them base their conclusions and arguments on the descriptions of three medieval personalities, two of them Portuguese travelers, Domingo Paes and Fernao Nuniz and the other Ferishta, a historian in Nizam’s court. This book is a welcome change from the run of the mill histories as it has included the accounts of all travelers who had remarked anything about Vijayanagara, including in addition to the two Portuguese above, we have Nicolo Conti, Abdur Razak, Nikitin, Varthema, Tome Pires, Barbosa, Frederici and an anonymous letter. In addition to this, two travelogues on Hampi done in 1878 and the 18^th century are included to provide an interesting comparison to the state of things now. The author has displayed keen intellect in solving some of the riddles in the chronicles which makes this book a worthwhile companion to those who study the history of Vijayanagara. The author, Vasundhara Filliozat was born in Karnataka and brought up in an environment soaked in Sanskrit and Kannada culture. She has studied in France and has published about twenty books and numerous articles in Kannada, English and French. She had married Pierre-Sylvain Filliozat, a Frenchman who taught Sanskrit in Paris. This book is eminently readable even though it reeks occasionally of a strong patriotic Karnataka flavour.

In the section on ‘Historical Introduction’, a bare new idea is propounded. While every book on Vijayanagar are more or less about the name of the empire and its capital city to be the same, the author differs from this assertion and proposes that the capital city was named thus, but the empire was known as Karnataka. It is to be admitted that the effort is well founded on epigraphical evidence. The kings were called ‘emperors of Karnataka’ on many inscriptions, and the branch of classical music which was popular in the South was called Karnataki, in the sense that the music flourished in the empire of Karnataka. However, the author takes much pain to dispel any doubt on the similarity of the name with that of the modern Indian state of Karnataka. She argues that though the empire was named Karnataka, its vassals calling themselves Nayaks of Karnataka ruling from Madurai, were Tamils. Not only that, the court language of the empire was Telugu. Hence, it may be said that the author’s efforts to sing the praise of a Karnataka empire previously not recognized as such, turns out to be a Pan-South Indian kingdom. But there seems to be a flaw in Filliozat’s argument. She states that Ballala III, king of the Hoysala Empire was also called King of Karnataka as noted in a commentary by Ferishta (p.13). This point raises further doubts. There is no contention on the fact that Ballala’s empire was called Hoysala and its capital city Dvarasamudra, but still he is often referred to as a king of Karnataka. This can only mean that the term Karnataka was meant only as a geographic indicator like ‘Deccan’ and there is nothing to eulogize for Kannadigas (the people inhabiting present-day Karnataka state). Being a Kannadiga herself, Vasundhara tries her best to paint the rulers of Vijayanagar in glowing terms. How the kings of Karnataka could be anything but good and compassionate? She omits an incident in the life of Devaraya I, noted by many historians, which ended in much ignominy for the king. His lustful overtures towards a farmer’s daughter in a contested territory with Bahmanis were turned down and the king made a raid on the town. The farmer and his family fled, but the king’s invasion resulted in a counter attack by the Bahmani sultan that ended in Devaraya’s defeat. One of his daughters was handed over to the sultan and the farmer’s daughter, who was instrumental for all these events, was taken over by the sultan’s son. The author is silent on this episode and instead sings praise on Devaraya I for his rule.

The book would have been much better and objective if the Kannada chauvinism bursting the banks of reason and drowning the sensible part too, had not been so distinctly discernible. In her heroic attempt to depict everything concerned with the Karnataka Empire headquartered at Vijayanagar in favourable light, Vasundhara has crossed all limits of appropriateness. Many visitors had remarked about the gruesome practice of Sati (widow burning or burial) that was widely enforced in Vijayanagar and has written eloquently about this inhuman ritual. But this was practiced in Karnataka and how does the author react to it? She boldly comes up with the ridiculous notion that “the European travelers were wonderstruck at this heroic custom of women of India facing the death so courageously” (p.243, foot note). Here we have a rationalization of Sati and that too, coming from a woman! This was outrageous. Again, the unwarranted comparison of Hampi to the temples of Tamil Nadu is another act of militant patriotism, when she says, “the Karnataka architecture was adopted in the construction of mandapas at Madurai, Sucheendram and other temples, but they cannot hold a flame to the charm and musicality of the pillars of Vittala Temple at Hampi” (p.52).

The foreign visitors provide a glimpse into the lives of the kings, nobles and commoners of Vijayanagar. Regarding the culinary tastes of the royal personages, Nuniz writes, “The kings of Bisnaga eat all sorts of things, but not the flesh of oxen or cows, which they never kill in all the country of the heathen because they worship them. They eat mutton, pork, venison, partridges, hares, doves, quail, and all kinds of birds; even sparrows, and rats, and cats and lizards, all of which are sold in the market of the city of Bisnaga” (p.225). If anyone had an inkling that the kings were vegetarians, that is indeed very far from the truth! The city was neck deep in corruption even under the reputation of Krishna Devaraya as an enforcer of justice and discipline. Nuniz says again, “Every merchant who brings merchandise in horses and other things which he may have brought to sell to the king, if he desires an audience, has to offer him a present of a piece of goods or a horse of the best that he has brought, in order that he may obtain an audience and transact his business. And this, not only to the king. You must perforce pay bribes to all the several officers with whom you have to deal. They will do nothing without some profit to themselves” (p.230). The king’s sexual tyranny was intolerable with modern standards. The nobles and particularly their daughters lived very submissive lives to the whims and sexual fantasies of the king who considered all women as his sex slaves. All of the courtiers were forced to send their daughters to the harem. And they lived a degraded existence in the seraglio, as Barbosa says “The king has in his palace many women of position, daughters of great lords of the realm, and others as well, some as concubines, and some has handmaids. For this purpose the fairest and most healthy women are sought throughout the kingdom, that they may do him service with cleanliness and neatness, for all the service is carried out by women, and they do all the work inside the gates, and hold all the duties of the household. They are all gathered inside the palaces, where they have in plenty all that they require, and have many good lodgings. They sing and play and offer a thousand other pleasures as well to the king. They bathe daily in the many tanks as kept for that purpose. The king goes to see them bathing, and she who pleases him most is sent for to come to his chamber. There is such envy and rivalry among these women with regard to the king’s favour that ‘some kill others’ and some poison themselves” (p.304-5).

This book is noteworthy in the sense that it has successfully explained some of the incongrueties in Nuniz’s chronicle. For example, Nuniz declares that Tughlaq’s invasion took place in the year 1230, whereas the actual year was 1309. Sewell and others believe this to be an error on the chronicler’s part. But the author asserts that this number represents the same year as 1309 in the Saka calendar, which is the official calendar of the country now, but was in widespread use among the Hindu kingdoms. This reasoning enhances Nuniz’s credibility, but the author goes against him in many other places when his description does not lend credit to the glory of Krishna Devaraya or the Vijayanagara kings. Krishna is reported to have blinded his minister Saluva Timma, to whom he owed his throne and who faithfully served him for many decades, under the suspicion that Timma had poisoned the heir apparent, Krishna’s son, who was only 6 years old. This incident rattles against the Raya’s fame as a just ruler when reflected with the ignominy of his ungrateful act. Vasundhara attacks Nuniz for fabricating a ‘cock and bull story’ based on court intrigue, but don’t disclose her own reasons for making this offensive conclusion. The author’s passionate regard for Karnataka bordering on chauvinism overshadows her objectivity on many occasions, including this one.

The book is recommended.

Rating: 2 Star