The Colas c26.44

c26.44

That the villages were little 'republics' which had a large measure of autonomy in the management of their own affairs is seen from the powers of taxation for local purposes, and of granting exemptions from such taxes and dues, enjoyed by their assemblies, and from the separate administrative staff, comprising doubtless only a few officials, employed and controlled by them. Of their power of taxation for local purposes, an idea may be formed from the instances in which the assemblies grant remissions and assignments of dues without any reference to the king's government and in the exercise of their own powers. In the second year of a Rājakēsari, the *sabhā* of Nālūr⁸⁸ assigned, in perpetuity, to the local temple to which they owed some money, the proceeds of a local cess on shops (*aṅgāḍik-kūli*) in lieu of the interest on the loan. The *nagarattār* of Kumara-māttāṇḍapuram⁸⁹ made over their annual income from *vārā-vaigal*,—a cess of which the nature is not clear,—towards a fund for maintaining a Jaina shrine in good repair. At Tiruverumbūr, the *sabhā* of Śrīkaṇṭha-caturvēdimangalam resolved that no dues of any kind should be levied on the properties of the temple on their account from the date of resolution;⁹⁰ they got on another occasion a lump sum payment from a person as they wanted cash for digging a tank, and in consideration thereof assigned to him the right exercised till then by the assembly of collecting paddy at a certain rate from the cultivators of the village. The *ūr* of Uḷḷiyūr obtained a number of exemptions in perpetuity on behalf of a temple in their hamlet, and these were pronounced by the *sabhā* of Uttaramērūr who granted them to be free from the interference of all extraneous powers.⁹¹ In these and many other instances of a similar nature, the village assemblies were clearly disposing of rights that were exclusively vested in them and that they were free to utilise in any manner calculated to advance the social good of the little community whose affairs they managed. These assignments and remissions of the taxes and dues collected by themselves should not be confused with another class of tax remissions for which the village assemblies became responsible. In the latter class of cases, in lieu of a lump sum payment made in advance to it, the assembly undertakes to pay all dues to the local and central governments on particular plots of land for all time. The lump sum in these instances was the capitalised value of the annual dues chargeable to the land, and was generally called *iṛai-dravyam* or *iṛai-kāval*.⁹² Possibly the term *pūrvācāram*⁹³ which occurs in some inscriptions in a similar context has the same meaning. Such advance payment in a lump sum of future taxes was due to two general causes. First, persons who endowed charities by setting apart land, often desired to secure for such land freedom from all dues and imposts, and the common way of doing this was to pay their capitalised value to the assembly of the village where the land was located, making them responsible for all future payments. Secondly, the assemblies, on their own initiative, often raised money in this manner for immediate capital expenditure for public purposes, which could not be financed otherwise. The *sabhā* of Śiṟṟānaiccūr, a *brahmadēya*, for instance, owed a considerable sum of money to a person whose properties became forfeited to the king for reasons not stated; when the *sabhā* was called upon to remit the amount to the king's treasury, they had to borrow the sum from the local temple and undertake to pay the taxes on some temple lands.⁹⁴