The Colas c26.6
The Cōḷas c26.6
- Language
- English
c26.6.1
Before discussing the types of village assemblies and their working, the leading examples of the more limited groups may be briefly noticed. In speaking of these groups and of the village assemblies themselves as corporations, we are to understand, not that there was in existence any formal system of incorporation by which groups attained a particular legal status, but simply that they, in fact, acted like individuals, buying and selling, suing and being sued in their group capacity. They recognised also that the continuity of their life as corporations was independent of their changing personnel.² He who runs may read from the inscriptions that this was the universal rule. It was simply assumed that there was no difference in these respects between an individual and a group of persons banded together for a common purpose and well known as such in the neighbourhood. Such groups were organised for all sorts of purposes. Some were economic like the mercantile groups of Vaḻañjīyar, and the Maṇigrāmam, often named after the locality of their domicile;—Vaḻañjīyar of Tiruppuṟambiyam,³ Maṇigrāmam of Ādittapura⁴ are examples. These mercantile groups will come up for more detailed consideration in another connection. There were other groups, more numerous, organised on the basis of religion. The *mūlaparuḍaiyār* of different localities were clearly in direct charge of temples.
c26.6.2
In Śucīndram, this body was functioning under the control of the local Mahāsabhā (assembly) from the time of Parāntaka I to that of Rājarāja I; subsequently they threw up the management of the temple and restored it to the Mahāsabhā; and having done this, they dissolved themselves.⁵ We see here a body, constituted for a specific purpose, going out of existence when it is no longer able to function properly; and its duties thenceforth devolve on the Mahāsabhā. The Mūlaparuḍaiyār of Tiruk-kuḍa-mūkkil are stated to be in charge of the affairs of the temple of Tirunāgēśvaram.⁶ The priests attached to temples organised themselves into groups with many picturesque names. The generic name for these priestly groups of Śaivas was Śivabrāhmaṇas; those of Vaiṣṇavas were called Vaikhānassas. Among the specific names of particular groups, the following may be given as examples: Aga-nāḻigai-Śiva-brāhmaṇar;⁷ pati-pāda-mūlattar,⁸ tiruvuṇṇāḻigaik-kaṇapperumakkaḷ,⁹ tiru-vuṇṇāḻigai-sabhai.¹⁰ The Pan-māhēśvarar and the Śrīvaiṣṇavas whose protection is invoked at the end of almost every inscription recording a gift to the temples were the congregations of these sects, sometimes said to be spread over eighteen districts (*viṣayam* or *nāḍu*) which are nowhere named.¹¹ Śātta-gaṇam, Kumāra-gaṇam, Kṛṣṇa-gaṇam, Kāḷi-gaṇam and other such groups were in the position of managers and trustees of single shrines from which they took their names.
c26.6.3
The *pēriḷamaiyār*, and the *śaṅkarappāḍiyār*¹² were other bodies connected with temples though their duties are obscure. There are other names of groups related to temples, but they need not be reproduced. There are also instances of local groups within a village, and professional groups. The villages were often divided into *śēris*, streets or quarters, and the people of each *śēri* formed a group for certain purposes. Uttama Cōḷa appointed the people of two *śēris* of Kāñcīpuram to take charge of the Ūragam temple and manage its affairs.¹³ The *śēris* of Uttaramērūr formed the basis of representation on the executive committees of the village assembly in the constitution agreed to in the twelfth year of Parāntaka I.¹⁴ An inscription of A.D. 1103¹⁵ from Peṇṇāḍam mentions the *sabhās* of the *śēris* of Muḍigoṇḍa-śōḻacaturvēdi-mangalam, and in another instance the *śēris* appear to have been represented on the panel of members for drafting resolutions of the assembly.¹⁶ Examples of professional groups are the *kalanais* of Īḷas, carpenters, goldsmiths, ironsmiths, and washermen in Talaiccangāḍu (Tanjore),¹⁷ and the *Manṟāḍik-kalanai* (shepherds?) in other places.¹⁸ Some of these groups apparently ranked below others and were designated, accordingly, *kīḻk-kalanaigaḷ*.¹⁹