The Colas c26.42

c26.42

The local assemblies often co-operated with one another and with other corporations in pursuance of common objects. The *sabhā* of Tiraimūr, the *nagaram* and the *dēvakanmis* of a temple in Tiruviḍaimarudūr were together responsible for the proper management of the temple and when they transacted its business, they met in the theatre (*nāṭakaśālā*) of the temple.⁸⁰ The emoluments of the servants of another temple at Tiruvāmāttūr were fixed at a common meeting of the *sabhā* of the place, the *ūr*, the Śivabrāhmaṇas, the Rudragaṇa who sang sacred hymns before god, and the servants of the temple including the *uvaccar*.⁸¹ The presence at the meeting of the servants whose emoluments were being fixed implies that this was not done without some regard for their wishes in the matter, a typical instance of the elastic and humane character of the economic arrangements of the time. Again the priests of a temple at Polonnaruva and other servants on its establishment are, together with the *nāṭṭavar* of the division,⁸² placed in charge of a cash endowment for a lamp. There is one instance on record of the *sabhās* of two neighbouring villages coalescing and agreeing that the two villages should thenceforth count as one.⁸³ This happened in the reign of Parāntaka I, A.D. 933, and constitutes a measure of the freedom enjoyed by these local bodies. The union of villages was the result of their voluntary choice and was effected without any direct reference to the central government. The grant of *brahmadēya* or *dēvadāna* in its execution involved the co-operation of many organised groups. A typical instance is the grant of Paḻaiyanūr, which is put through by the *nāṭṭār* of Paḻaiyanūr-nāḍu with the assistance of the elders⁸⁴ of *brahmadēya* villages, the *ūrgaḷilār* of all *ūrs* including *dēvadāna*, *paḷḷiccandam*, *kaṇimurrūṭṭu*, *veṭṭippēṟu* and old *aṟaccālābhōga* and the *nagarams*.⁸⁵ This enumeration of co-operating local authorities is of interest in two ways: it mentions some special tenures by which land was held; these will be discussed elsewhere. And it shows clearly that the assembly of the *nāḍu* (*nāṭṭār*) was a body distinct from the assemblies of the villages (*ūrgaḷ*) and towns (*nagarangaḷ*). Unlike the Leyden grant which is addressed to local groups in more or less the same terms and is signed by the representatives of all villages and towns in the *nāḍu*, this grant, from Tiruvālangāḍu, is attested only by the villages whose land rights were affected by the gift, besides the officials of the revenue department. Except for this difference in detail the two grants remarkably confirm each other, and imply that the assembly of the *nāḍu* was made up of representatives from the assemblies of all the villages and towns in the division.⁸⁶ Instances are not wanting of a number of such assemblies of the *nāḍu* co-operating for some common purpose.⁸⁷