Social and Political Life in the Vijayanagara Empire (A.D. 1346 – A.D. 1646) v1.c12.s2.t1: A. Sketch of Local Administration in Pre-Vijayanagara Days
Social and Political Life in the Vijayanagara Empire (A.D. 1346 – A.D. 1646) v1.c12.s2.t1
- Language
- English
A. Sketch of Local Administration in Pre-Vijayanagara Days
v1.c12.s2.t1.1
The history of the activities of the village units forms a small but significant chapter in the account of the political life of the Vijayanagara people. From the earliest times of Indian history down to our days, village organizations in some shape or other have figured in the annals of the country. According to some the village sabhās effected a powerful control over the central samitis in early ages.¹ The activities of the village communities of southern and western India are by no means inferior to those of northern India.² But in describing some salient features of the village administration of pre-Vijayanagara days, we shall have recourse to the details in contemporary epigraphs rather than to those left to us by writers of our own days.³ On the whole it may be said that village administration in southern India was characterized by a remarkable spirit of co-operation among the people. This, we admit, was a common feature of village life in the north as well as in the south.⁴ But since much of the stability of the Vijayanagara Empire is to be traced to the hitherto unnoticed vigour of the local units, and since the nature and powers of these had already been shaped in early Tamil and Karṇāṭaka times, it is only proper that we should deal with some of the main features of village administration in the early ages of south Indian history.⁵
v1.c12.s2.t1.2
¹ Majumdar, Cor. Life, pp. 113-25, 132, seq., 139 seq.
v1.c12.s2.t1.3
² For an account of village communities read Altekar, Village Communities in Western India; Baden Powell, Indian Village Community. Also his Land Systems of British India, (3 Vols. Oxford, 1892); Pietro della Valle, Travels, II, p. 207, seq.; Acharya, Dicty of Hind. Arch., pp. 184-5; Havell, Ancient and Med. Arch., p. 8, seq., 13, 170; Anand Coomar Swamy, Indian Craftsmen, p. 129; Bāṇa, Harshacharita, pp. 190, 198; Radhakamal Mukerjee, Democracies of the East, P. III, pp. 162, seq., 258 seq., 295, seq., (1931).
v1.c12.s2.t1.4
³ Buchanan, A Journey, I, p. 266, seq.; II, p. 109; III, p. 449; Wilks, The Sketches, I, p. 117, seq. (1810); I, p. 73, seq. (1869) Rice, My. Gaz. I, pp. 467-9 (1st ed.); I, p. 574; (Rev. ed.); Hemingway Tanjore Manual, pp. 193-4; Nelson, Mad. Country, p. 148. See also Iswari Prasad, Med. Ind., p. 429.
v1.c12.s2.t1.5
⁴ S.I.I., III, P. I, pp. 1-22; Majumdar, ibid., p. 156.
v1.c12.s2.t1.6
⁵ The importance of village assemblies in purely revenue matters has been discussed above in Chap. IV, Sec. 5, Land Revenue Settlement. A. Theory and Practice in Pre-Vijayanagara days. See S. K. Aiyangar, Ancient India, pp. 158 seq. for some remarks on this subject.
v1.c12.s2.t1.7
In about the ninth century A.D. there were three kinds of village assemblies in southern India. One of these was composed entirely of Brahmans. The other two kinds were made up of cultivators, merchants, and men who belonged to other professions. Some of the rules laid down for membership of, for example, the brahmadēya or Brahman villages are interesting. The Uttaramallūr inscriptions of the times of Parāntaka I contain some details about this question. The information supplied by these inscriptions is confirmed by earlier epigraphs dated in the thirty-fifth year of the reign of Mārañjadaiyan (circa ninth century). It is stated that of the children of share-holders in the village, only one, who is well behaved and has studied mantra-brāhmaṇa and one dharma (i.e., Code of Law), may be on the village assembly (manru) to represent the share held by him in the village; and only one of similar qualifications may be on the village assembly for a share purchased, received as present, or acquired by him as stridhana (through his wife); (2) that (shares) purchased, presented, or acquired as stridhana could entitle one, if at all, only to full membership in the assemblies; and in no case would quarter, half or three-quarters membership be recognized; (3) that those who purchased shares must elect only such men to represent their shares on the assembly, as had critically studied a whole Vēda with its pariśiṣṭas; (4) that those who did not possess full membership as laid by rule (2) could not stand on any committee (vāriyam) (for the management of village affairs); (5) that those who satisfied the prescribed conditions should in no case persistently oppose (the proceedings of assembly) by saying 'nay, nay' to every proposal brought before the assembly; and (6) that those who did this together with their supporters would have to pay a fine of five kāśu on each item (in which they had so behaved) and still continue to submit to the same rules.¹
v1.c12.s2.t1.8
¹ Ep. Report for 1913, p. 98. See also A.S.R. for 1904-5, pp. 131-45.
v1.c12.s2.t1.9
The assemblies of the other residents which existed side by side with Brahman organizations, were known by the names ūr and nagarollōm. As regards the rules concerning membership of these two kinds of assemblies, we have unfortunately not many details; but "it is not unlikely that all the conditions pertaining to membership in the Brahmanical sabhās prevailed, except perhaps the knowledge of the Vēdas".²
v1.c12.s2.t1.10
² Ep. Report for 1913, ibid. From Dr. L. D. Barnett's unpublished MS. styled The Ancient Tamil Township and Village,—which he was pleased to place at my disposal,—I append the following: "The Assembly of the Brahmans bears names of Sanskrit origin: usually it is called (1) Sabhai, or more vernacularly Savai, from sabhā, a term that is as old as the Vedic times, often in combination with other words, as mahā-sabhai, and peruṅ-guṟi-sabhai, or (2) paṟuḍai or paṟaḍa, from the Sanskrit pariṣad or paṟṣad, which sometimes appears in continuation as mūla-paṟuḍai, 'Fundamental Assembly'. The Assembly of the humbler classes, the Town in
v1.c12.s2.t1.11
Inscriptions, however, contain some information about the composition and sessions of the village sabhā. The epigraphs found in Chingleput, for example, refer to the hall (chatuśśālā) known as Rājēndraśōḻan in the village of Nattam where the sabhā held its session; to the various committees, as, for example, the annual committee (saṁvatsara-vāyam) which met from and after the month of Tulā (October); and to the number of members who composed these committees. The Annual Supervision Committee, for instance, comprised twelve members, and it formed a part of the great assembly (mahā-sabhā). The Committee which was made up of village officers, and which was called by the name of ūr-vāriyam, looked after the questions of cultivation and produce of the village. Here it has to be noted that members who comprised these committees had to change every year.¹ The assumption that it was not unlikely that the assemblies of the Brahmans of a village were governed by rules similar to those given above, is proved by an inscription which refers to the village assembly of Uttama-Chōḻa-chaturvēdimaṅgaḻam. It was laid down that only those who were capable of reciting the mantra-brāhmaṇa were eligible for membership to the ūr-vāriyam (i.e., the village supervision committee). Further, it was stipulated that those among them who were guilty of misappropriating the property of Brahmans or of other heinous crimes, were to be denied that privilege.²
v1.c12.s2.t1.12
¹ Ep. Report for 1913, p. 98. For some great committees of the village assemblies, see S.I.I., III, P. I, pp. 2, 5, 9; P. II, pp. 233, 327. See also 393, 394, 395, and 396 of 1905; Ep. Report for 1899, p. 23, seq.; 449 of 1906.
v1.c12.s2.t1.13
² A.S.R. for 1921-2, p. 117.
v1.c12.s2.t1.14
It was not only in the halls built by kings, and called, as related above, by the name Rājēndraśōḻan or, as in other places, by the name Sembeyanmahādēvi-pperumaṇḍapam,³ that village assemblies held sessions. They sometimes gathered under the shade of a tamarind tree or in the local
v1.c12.s2.t1.15
³ Ep. Report for 1916, p. 116.
v1.c12.s2.t1.16
our modern sense, appropriately gives itself the Tamil title ūr, which literally means 'town'. Each body forms a distinct corporation, and acts as such. Very likely the purely Vēḷāḷan villages were attached as 'Town' to same way as the Vēḷāḷan communities that were attached as 'Town' to the Brahman 'Town'. Their Assemblies also bore the title of ūr, and handled similar business". The Ancient Tamil Township and Village, p. 21 I am deeply indebted to Dr. Barnett for this and other passages from his book. B.A.S.
v1.c12.s2.t1.17
temples.¹ In the reign of Rājarāja Dēva III (who ascended the throne in A.D. 1216), the assembly of Nālūr, Tanjore district, met under a tamarind tree, and decided that the residents of their village should not do anything against the interests of their village nor against those of the temple of Tirumayāṇam-Uḍaiyār.² From another epigraph we know that the name Rājēndraśōḷaṉ was by no means confined to the halls. For, according to this inscription, the assembly of the *brahmadēya* village Pāvikkuḍi alias Nittavindōḍa-chaturvēdimaṅgaḷam met under a tamarind tree which was also called Rājēndraśōḷaṉ on the bank of the channel Suttamalivāykkāl.³
v1.c12.s2.t1.18
¹ *Ep. Report* for 1910, p. 94; Majumdar, *Corp. Life*, pp. 154-5.
v1.c12.s2.t1.19
² *Ep. Report* for 1911, p. 75.
v1.c12.s2.t1.20
³ *Ep. Report* for 1910, p. 90.
v1.c12.s2.t1.21
An inscription dated in the sixteenth year of Rājarāja I (A.D. 1001) supplies us with the interesting details of how village assemblies were summoned. The members of the assembly of Kiḷinallūr, (mod. Kilyanūr, S. Arcot district), a *brahmadēya* village in Oymā-nāḍu, were called together by the blowing of a trumpet, and the herald was entitled to get daily two *sōru* from the village.⁴ Another epigraph informs us that village assemblies transacted business even at nights, though in the generality of cases, it is found that business was conducted during day time.⁵
v1.c12.s2.t1.22
⁴ 156 of 1919; *Ep. Report* for 1919, p. 95.
v1.c12.s2.t1.23
⁵ 180 and 186 of 1919; *Ep. Report* for 1919, p. 95.
v1.c12.s2.t1.24
The powers and privileges of these village assemblies, which sometimes were composed of eighty prominent men,⁶ were clear and well defined. The sphere of their jurisdiction has been given thus: "We shall not be entitled to levy any kind of tax from this village. We . . . shall not be entitled to claim, at the order of the assembly, forced labour (*veṭṭi*), *vēdilai* and *vālakkāṇam* from the inhabitants settled in this village. (*If*) a crime (*or*) sin becomes public, the god (i.e. the temple authorities) alone shall punish the inhabitants of this village (*for it*) . . . If we utter the untruth that this is not (*as stated above*), in order to injure (*the charity*), we shall incur the sins committed between the Gaṅgā and Kumārī".⁷ They settled some questions concerning land in their townships; they received money (in return for taxes in grain, etc); they maintained the revenue registers; they dealt with minor judicial questions of importance; they decided cases concerning tanks and irrigation; and they guarded the rights of the māhēśvaras. The members of the assembly authorized the māhēśvaras "(the right to) levy, in case they chose (to do so), to be credited to the council of justice (dharmāsana) a fine of these two hundred kāṇam on each of the persons that show (any such tax) (in the books)".¹
v1.c12.s2.t1.25
⁶ S.I.I., III, P. III, p. 253. See also Majumdar, ibid., p. 164.
v1.c12.s2.t1.26
⁷ S.I.I., P. I, p. 20. See also S.I.I. III, P. III, p. 253.
v1.c12.s2.t1.27
¹ S.I.I., III, P. III, p. 253.
v1.c12.s2.t1.28
In some instances the village assembly settled disputes concerning the waste land in the village.² The judicial powers of the local bodies can be determined by noting the method in which they dealt with grave crimes. An epigraph dated in the fourth year of Rājakēsarivarman Rājādhirāja (II) records a deer hunt and the death of a man by accident. It states that in order to decide the question of expiation which was to be prescribed for the offender,—so "that he may escape the possible mischief of the revengeful soul of the victim",—the Brahmans of the village assembly of Olakkūr, the residents of the main division and those of the subdivisions met together, and decided that the guilty person had to present a lamp to the shrine of Vātāpi-Viṭaṅkar in the Tiruvagattīśvara temple at Ulakkaiyūr, South Arcot district.³ The village assemblies sometimes also fined the culprits. Three kinds of fines were levied by them. These were called maṇṟupāḍal, daṇḍa, and kurram.⁴
v1.c12.s2.t1.29
² Ibid., p. 327.
v1.c12.s2.t1.30
³ Ep. Report for 1910; p. 95; Majumdar, Corp. Life, pp. 151-3.
v1.c12.s2.t1.31
⁴ S.I.I. III, P. I. pp. 38, n. (5), 43; see also 282 of 1906.
v1.c12.s2.t1.32
The village assembly was empowered to dismiss any of its officials. In A.D. 1234-5 in the reign of Tribhuvanachakravartin Rājarājadēva, the assembly of the village called Rājasundari-chaturvēdimangalam (mod. Kaḷḷa-Perumbūr) in the Tanjore district, dismissed a village accountant who had cheated the villagers. It also debarred his descendants and relatives from holding the appointment.⁵ In some instances the property belonging to the village accountant was sold by public auction. Thus, according to an inscription dated in the forty-eighth year of Rājakēsarivarman alias Tribhuvanchakravartin Kulōttuṅga Chōḷa Dēva, the village *sabhā* (of Elavānasūr, S. Arcot district) sold the land belonging to two absconding accountants.¹
v1.c12.s2.t1.33
⁵ 583 of 1904, Ep. Report for 1905, p. 46.
v1.c12.s2.t1.34
¹ 164 of 1906. As regards lands held in common by the villagers, see S.I.I., III, P. III, p. 339; S.I.I. II, P. III, p. 112. About the question of villagers asserting their occupancy rights, S.I.I. III, P. III, p. 226. For an account of the administration of the south under the Pāṇḍyas, read Nilakantha Sāstri, *The Pandyan Kingdom of Madura*, p. 215, seq. (1929).
v1.c12.s2.t1.35
These regulations may also have governed the conduct of the village organizations in the Karṇāṭaka. We can only conjecture this, since information about them is very meagre. We have, for instance, a few details about the manner in which they regulated the affairs of the ancient *agrahāra* of Sōraḍe during the times of the Kadambas. "All the inhabitants of the ancient *agrahāra* of Sōraḍe (now Choraḍi) devoted to the observance of Prāṇāyama and other Yōga practices, all assembled in thousands, made a gift of a wet and a dry field together with the remission of house-tax and family-tax to Chiladalāra Bopadalāra (modern talāra, police, watchman) in appreciation of the victory he won against royal cow-lifters on their way to make a raid of cows of the village. Whoever takes away the gift will be cast out of the country".²
v1.c12.s2.t1.36
² *My. Arch. Report* for 1923, p. 74.
v1.c12.s2.t1.37
Whether in the Karṇāṭaka or in the Tamil land it is not to be supposed that the village assemblies which enjoyed considerable autonomy in revenue and judicial matters, were free from the control of the Central Government. The affairs of the village of Sirriyārrūr in Maṇaiyil-nāḍu, a subdivision of Maṇaiyil-kōṭṭam, may serve as an example. That village had been granted as a *dēvadāna* and *brahmadēya* estate in the twenty-first year of the Chōla king Toṇḍaimānārrūr-tuñjina-Uḍaiyār, to the *sabhai* of Puduppākkam, also a *bhramadēya* village in Purisai-nāḍu, of the same *kōṭṭam*. The condition of the grant was that the donor should make over a fixed quantity of the produce of the village and a certain amount of gold every year to the temple of Mahādēva at Tirumālpēru. In the twenty-second year of the same reign (i.e., of Toṇḍaimānārrūr-tuñjina-Uḍaiyār) the boundaries of the village were determined and a document (*sāsana*) was drawn up. But the village was not entered in the accounts as a *dēvadāna* and *bhramadēya* estate. This mistake was rectified in the fourth year of Parakēsarivarman, "who took Madira and Iḷam", and the *sabhā* of Puduppākkam made over the stipulated produce and gold to the temple. In the thirty-sixth year of Parakēsarivarman (with titles), an additional item (specially omitted from the original grant) was made payable from the village of Sirriyāṟrūr to the temple at Tirumālpēgu and entered into the accounts. The village assembly of Puduppākkam were misappropriating this item and the temple authorities made a complaint to the king while he was at Conjeeveram. The king sent for both the parties, and, after due enquiry, satisfied himself that the village assembly of Puduppākkam had been misappropriating the revenues assigned to the Siva temple at Tirumālpēgu. The village assembly was fined and the grant restored in the fourteenth year of the king's reign.¹
v1.c12.s2.t1.38
¹ *Ep. Report* for 1907, p. 71.
v1.c12.s2.t1.39
The above instance of the interference of the State in village administration together with the other details we have enumerated give us a glimpse into the life of the village assemblies in pre-Vijayanagara days. If the claims of the rulers of Vijayanagara to have been promoters of ancient constitutional usage are granted, then, it may be allowed, that a good deal of the early village activities must have continued uninterrupted in mediaeval times. This brings us to the topic of local administration under Vijayanagara.
Cites (3)
- Harṣacarita — Bāṇabhaṭṭa, Sanskrit
- South Indian Inscriptions
- Mahadeva(Rameshwara) temple