Write about the administrative system of Kakatiyas

Write about the administrative system of Kakatiyas

Kakatiya Administration

Romila Thapar – Kakatiya Administration resembles Mauryan administration.

Burton Stein – Kakatiya administration resembles Segmentary State administrative system.

According to majority of historians’ view Kakatiya administration was a decentralized administration.

Sources for Kakatiya Administration:

  1. Neethi Saara by Rudra Deva.
  2. Neethi Saara Mukthavali by Baddena.
  3. Purushaardha Saaram
  4. Sakalaneethi Sammatham – Madiki Singana (Though he was not of Kakatiya period, he quotes few things from Kakatiya period books)

The Kakatiya polity was based on monarchical system. The Kakatiya ruler was the pivot of the entire administrative structure, yet he was not an absolute autocrat. Generally, in the process of succession, they followed the law of primogeniture and as already referred; a woman coming to the throne was a remarkable exception.

The power appears to be decentralized between the ruler and the subordinates who owed allegiance to the ruler. P.V. Prabrahma Sastry rightly observes, “The peculiar type of political relationship between the Kakatiya rulers and their subordinates during the reign of nearly two centuries makes us believe that they tried to introduce a new type of polity other than imperialism. The subordinates were allowed to have their freedom in all respects except military matters. The only concern for the king was to check their overgrowth in power”.

This made some scholars characterize Kakatiya polity as a feudal polity of personalized rule by a warrior elite and a socio-economic formation marked by oppression of the peasantry, economic stagnation and de-urbanization. But a critical examination proves that this image was inappropriate in the case of Kakatiya Andhradesa.

Another alternative model of segmentary state suggested by Burton Stein does not appear to be applicable to the Kakatiya state. Cynthia Talbot maintains, “Stein himself excluded internal Andhra from the South Indian macro region characterized by the segmentary state and ritual sovereignty, calling Telengana, a shatter region on the borders of South India proper”.

Cynthia Talbot, after a thorough discussion of the suitability of the models – feudal, segmentary and integrative, declares the Kakatiya state as best understood as a fluctuating political network composed in large part of a multitude of personalities between lords and under­lings. Some of the fibres in the fabric of Kakatiya polity united the rulers directly to their primary subordinates, others led from these subordinates to different tiers of associates in a densely ramified pattern.

Connections extended horizon­tally, integrating localities spread over a wide territory, as well as vertically reaching down into villages and towns”. Cynthia Talbot is of the view that the Kakatiya polity is closely approximating to Weber’s patrimonial model of the State, i.e., personalized authority of a ruler through a class of dependent officials. R. Champakalakshmi is of the view that Cynthia Talbot has no specific model to offer for Andhra polity.

Talbot views the Kakatiya polity as a regional variant of a pan-Indian complex, a dynamic and an expansionist world. There is also a view that Kakatiya polity is an integrative polity. The Kakatiya rulers were assisted by a council of ministers and a host of officers at the centre as well as the provincial and local level. They took care to see that the territorial segments were properly divided and ruled effectively by loyal officials. Mandala, Nadu, Sthala, Seema and Bhumi were the names of the territorial divisions.

The Kakatiya state was a military-state ready to face the threat of internal and external enemies. The military organization of the Kakatiyas was based on Nayamkara system. In this system the ruler assigned fiefs to the Nayaks in lieu of their salaries and the Nayaks were to maintain some army for the ruler’s use.

The number of soldiers, horses, and elephants that are to be maintained by the Nayak were fixed by the king as per the fiefs enjoyed by the Nayak. Apart from the army that was supplied by the Nayaks, the Kakatiyas also maintained a standing army under the control of the commanders, who were directly respon­sible to the ruler.

In the military organization, forts played crucial role and the epigraphs refer to Giridurgas, like Anumakonda, Raichur, Gandikota and the Vanadurgas, like Kandur and Narayanavanam, the Jaladurgas, like Divi and Kolanu and the Sthaladurgas, like Warangal and Dharanikota. Nitisara of Prataparudra refers to the above mentioned four types of Durgas.

The military organization enabled the Kakatiyas to be aggressive and rapidly expand as an Andhra power from the core region or nuclear zone of Telangana to the coastal districts and hence to Rayalaseema or South-West Andhra and to penetrate to the Tamil region also. Talbot gives importance to the strategy adopted by the Kakatiyas in patronizing warrior chiefs, and promoting martial ethos and assumption of martial epithets by the rulers. The relationships between Nayaks and rulers are marked by layers of lord-subordinate relationships loosely bound through personal loyalties of allegiance and service.

Kakatiya kings took utmost care of their subjects. They honoured the feelings of local people. They were law fearing. For administrative convenience Kakatiya Kingdom was divided into

  1. Central Government – Naadu
  2. Provincial Government – Sthalam.
  3. Village / Local Government.


Naadu – ex: Renaadu, Paakanaadu, Kammanaadu, Sabbinaadu, Muliki Naadu were mentioned in the inscriptions.

Synonyms to Naadu –

Seema – ex: Gandikota seema, Sakili seema.

Bhoomi – ex: Aare Bhoomi,

Paadi – ex: Mettu Paadi, Mahaaraaja Paadi.

Sthalam – Sthalam was the provincial unit during Kakatiya Period.

Each Sthala consists of about 20 villages.

Ex: Gurindaala Sthalam, Pingali Sthalam, Magathala Sthala, Gangapura Sthala were mentioned in the inscriptions.

Sthalas were given to Nayankaras in lieu of their salary.


Village administration

There were 12 Ayagars in a village.

  1. 1. Karanam, 2. Reddy or Pedda Kaapu, 3. Talaari         4. Purohita       5. Kammari
  2. 6. Kamsaali 7. Vadrangi, 8. Kummari     Chaakali      10. Mangali
  3. 11. Setti 12. Charmakaara

Among these 12 Aayagaards, first there were under the government service. Remaining all used to render their service to the village. These Aayagaars were given aayamu. They were given some share from the agricultural yield as a payment for their service.


King and his council of ministers exercised great control over the administrative setup. Subordinate rulers / feudatory kings were given freedom to rule based on their local system.

Selections to important positions were made based on the ability irrespective of caste.

The state affairs were divided into 77 Niyogas. Niyogas means departments.

Each department of was under a Niyoga.

Bhattara Niyogadhipathi – The supreme chief on the seventy departments.

The Purushartha Saara of Shivadevayya mentioned about the Niyogas and their duties, powers etc.

King presides over the council meeting.

Mahaa Pradhani – Occupies second place after the King.

Malyala Hemadri Reddy – PM of Ganapathi Deva.

Muppidi Nayaka – PM of Prathapa Rudra II.


Mahaa Pradhani, Pradhana, Preggada, Amaathya, Manthri were important administrative officers. Along with these officers there is a reference of officers named ‘Theerthas’. Thtere were totally 18 Theerthas/ Ashtaadhasha theerthas.

Purushaardha saaram instructing the kings to consult ministers and Theerthas before taking decisions.

Nagarasri Kaavali – Chief of Palace guards.

Niyogas – Government Officers. There were totally 72 Niyogas.

Bahattara Niyogaadhipathi was the overseer on these 72 Niyogas. Kayastha Gangaya Sahini was the Bahattara Niyogaadhipathi during Ganapathi Deva period.

Tripurari, after him Ponkala Mallayya Preggada were the Bahattara Niyogadhipatis during Rudramadevi period.

During the Chalukya period, Brahmins were appointed to important offices like Manthri and Samantha Dandanaayaka. Kakatiyas made appointments based on the qualities of a person irrespective of caste.

Kakatiyas contented with a mere title ‘Mahaa Mandaleshwara’. They did not assume the title which indicate their over lordship over vast territories. This may be due to as most of their feudatories were given chance to rule according to their laws.

By the time of Rudramadevi, Kakatiya kings started depending hugely on Nayankara system. Nayankara system is equal to Delhi Sultans’ Iqta system. Due to this system Kakatiya kingdom had to face so many revolts from their feudatories.



Kakatiyas followed traditional system in imparting justice.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *