Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Colas c27: Chapter XIX. Taxation: Finance

The Cōḷas c27

Language
English

Contents

Chapter XIX. Taxation: Finance

c27.2

The economy of the mediaeval state had little in common with that of modern governments, and the Indian State was no exception. Taxation was based partly on custom, and partly, especially in the case of new levies, on the consent, tacit or express, of the groups affected. Land was the mainstay of national economy and the land-tax, collected in cash or kind, or as often happened in the Cōḷa State by a judicious mixture of both methods, was the chief source of revenue. Customs and octroi, profession taxes assessed in various ways, and the taxation of gifts of nature worked up by man, such as the produce of mines, forests and salt-pans, were also resorted to. And the *corvèe* (*veṭṭi*, *viṣṭi*) was exacted with more or less regularity. When the cumulative effects of these burdens became too oppressive, the people abandoned their homesteads and betook themselves elsewhere; the fear of local depopulation was an ever-present check on the rapacity of the tax-collector.

c27.3

The nature of the charges on the public revenues depended upon the agency that gathered the tax or the due; for it was not merely the king's government that collected revenue in the form of taxes; local bodies and other agencies of a communal or professional character also raised levies for various purposes. The main charge on the revenues of the king was the salaries of officials, including the maintenance of the army and the navy; in the higher rungs of public service these salaries took the form of assignments of particular revenue items in particular areas so that what was paid into the king's treasury (*tālam*) was a net income that remained after deductions on account of such assignments. What remained after paying the charges of administration was the property of the king and entirely at his disposal. A good part of it no doubt went to the maintenance of the king's personal establishment including the numerous queens and their retinues. Members of the royal family who commanded the special affection of the ruling monarch, like Śembiyanmahādēvi in Uttama Cōḷa's reign, Kundavai in Rājarāja's, must have received very sumptuous allowances from the king's treasury. A great amount of treasure was kept in the form of jewels and precious stones which served the double purpose of personal distinction for the king and a financial reserve for the state. What Abu Zayd notes generally of Indian kings in the beginning of the tenth century no doubt applied to conditions in the Cōḷa court as well.¹ 'The Kings of India wear ear-rings of precious-stones mounted on gold. They wear round the neck collars of great value made of precious stones, red (rubies) and green (emeralds), but pearls have the greatest value and in most cases they are used. In fact, pearls constitute the treasure of the kings and their financial reserve.² The generals and the high functionaries wear equally collars of pearls.' On a smaller scale the assignees who were in the enjoyment of incomes of varying sizes from the areas assigned to them imitated the model set by the king. All of them distributed their resources among hoarding, personal expenditure, and 'charity', which went to meet much of what we should now call social expenditure.

c27.4

The language of the inscriptions describing the taxes and dues is seldom susceptible of complete or satisfactory interpretation at present, and nothing more can be done than to offer some tentative inferences from the records which will require confirmation or modification in the light of further study. The most general term for taxes and dues employed in the epigraphy of the period is *iṟai* or *vari*. Two other general terms are *manṟu-pāḍu* and *daṇḍam*. The former was of the nature of judicial fine incurred for specific offences.³ *Daṇḍam* is a closely related term and often goes with *manṟupāḍu*; in one instance the former is said to be an instance of the latter.⁴ But *daṇḍam* is a term also employed in another sense at least in one instance. A *daṇḍam* of 3,000 *kalañju* of gold was levied⁵ by Parāntaka I in his 38 year, A.D. 945, on the assembly of Tirukkuḍamūkkil, and the amount was to be paid by them to the Pāṇḍip-paḍai, perhaps the troops (engaged in the) Pāṇḍyan (war). Here the *daṇḍam* has the appearance of a special warlevy, though this is not quite clear. The inscription does not give the reason for the levy. The amount was very huge in this case, and the assembly was still arranging for its payment in the third year of Gaṇḍarāditya, by selling some lands to the local temple. It is also possible that this was a heavy punishment brought down on themselves by the *sabhā* in some manner. A record from Ālaṅguḍi states that Vīrarājēndra levied a special tax of one *kalañju* of gold per *vēli* of land to finance his war against Vēṅgī.⁶

c27.5

Another general term of somewhat uncertain import is '*iravu*', which, in one of the few instances⁷ so far known of it, figures as some sort of a cess paid in kind and amounting to a little over 20 per cent of the *puravu*, the land-tax. The word '*iravu*' (begging) reminds one of a famous saying in the *Kuṟaḷ* which compares to a highwayman the king addressing a request to his subjects (for financial assistance); this saying in turn recalls Kauṭilya's dicta on *praṇaya* (benevolence).

c27.6

Other general terms in common use were *Āyam* (revenue), *Kaḍamai* and *Kuḍimai* meaning literally 'duty' and 'tenancy-dues'. '*Āyam*' had apparently the same wide application as '*iṟai*' and a number of minor dues were grouped together under the general description of '*śittāyam*' or '*śillirai*' both sometimes found together in the same inscription.⁸ But the most significant grouping of the taxes and dues, that which provides a key to the whole tax-system, is that contained in a phrase like the following from an inscription of the twentieth year of Rājarāja I:⁹ 'Any kind of *Kuḍimai* due at the Sacred Victorious Gate, the taxation (*varippāḍu*) levied by the *ūr* (town or village), and any other type of *Kuḍimai*.' The same inscription expands the last of the three items named into: '*iṟai* on those on which *iṟai* was due, and *eccōṟu*.'¹⁰ The 'Sacred Victorious Gate' (*tiru-kkoyṟa-vāśal*) means no doubt the gate of the king's palace, and the first division of the taxes mentioned in this list comprised those levied by the king's government.¹¹ Then came the dues levied by the local assembly, *ūr*, *sabhā* or *nagaram*, and these were grouped under the name '*ūriḍu-varippāḍu*', 'taxes levied by the town (or village).' Lastly, it is to be noticed that the term *Kuḍimai* was applied to all the groups without distinction; thus understood, *Kuḍimai* stands for the 'duties of the *kuḍis*' or 'burdens of citizenship' and is quite close in meaning also to '*kaḍamai*.' After recording the gift of some fields as *ēri-paṭṭi* (tank-land), the assembly (*ūr*) of Nerkuṇam undertook never to exercise their rights of taxation in a manner calculated to abrogate the gift.¹² The expression *Ūr-kīḻ-Iṟaiyili*, tax-free under the *ūr*, employed of some lands also implies that such lands were exempted from all dues because the residents of the village had undertaken to pay these dues in the ratio of their holdings in the village.¹³

c27.7

A general order of Rājarāja I issued by him at his capital, Tañjāvūr, and applicable to the Cōḷa, Toṇḍai and Pāṇḍya countries shows the extent to which the local authorities could rely on themselves for the collection of local cesses, and the readiness of the central government to come to their aid, when necessary, in enforcing their demands. In certain classes of villages, those of the Brahmins, Vaikhānases and Śramaṇas, persons who held land under the service-tenure (*kāṇi-uḍaiya*) were slack in the payment of dues assessed upon them by the village authorities (*ūriḍuvarippāḍu*). The grounds for the attitude of these tenants are not stated; apparently, they held that they were not liable to these minor cesses; and there was an attempt at concerted action on their part. The dispute became a longdrawn affair, and the whole subject went up to the king for his decision. The inscription¹⁴ records the royal award which went against the tenants and authorised the villages to realise the taxes from them as from other villagers (*ūrgaḷilār*.) Those tenants who, from the sixteenth to the twenty-third year of the king's reign, were found to be in arrears for a period of two complete years and a third, were declared liable to have their lands distrained and sold by the village concerned, and the defaulting tenants were forbidden to take any part in such proceedings. This award was made by the king on the 124th day of the 24th year of his reign.

c27.8

The names of the taxes and their nature, so far as known, are generally learnt from the numerous records of exemptions granted to various institutions from the payment of these dues. Although the local assemblies are seen to have been responsible for the bulk of such exemptions, examples are not wanting of the king granting similar exemptions in particular cases.¹⁵ In either case, each authority must be understood to have remitted the particular dues which it would have been entitled to levy in the absence of the remission. This is expressly stated in some instances as when the *sabhā-viniyōgam* is said to be remitted on some temple lands which were already *ūr-kīḻ-iraiyili*.¹⁶ Cases of remission must be carefully distinguished from those of commutation in which, as has been shown elsewhere, all future dues were provided for by the pay-

c27.9

ment of a lump sum roughly equal to their value capitalised at current rates of interest. Though the formula of exemption was similar in either case, there was an important difference. When taxes were remitted no payment was due from anybody; when they were only commuted, the usual rule was for the assembly of the village, in which the property or the institution concerned was situated, to receive the lump payment made, to hold itself responsible to the authorities concerned, including itself, for the payment of future dues, and to issue a document to that effect to the parties concerned.¹⁷ Such a deed and the lump sum paid were alike known as *Iṟai-kāval* (lit. tax-guard).

c27.10

The village assemblies were held responsible for the land revenue due to the central government from

c27.11

the lands in the village. This arrangement was enforced right to the end of our period. A record from Kaḷappāl¹⁸ (Tanjore dt.) dated a.d. 1274 describes the sale, by the executive body of the village assembly, of land belonging to a certain person who had emigrated to the Pāṇḍya country and died there without having paid the dues on his lands for about ten years. That arrears of revenue were allowed to accumulate for so many years gives us incidentally a measure of the difference in the method of collection between now and then.

c27.12

The rôle of custom in governing assessments becomes clear from the references to ancient time-

c27.13

honoured standards in particular matters. In an age of active municipal life conscious imitation is necessarily one of the methods by which the practice of different towns tends to become uniform. One of the most conspicuous examples of this process in the Cōḷa period is furnished by the adoption of the 'ancient standard of Nandi-puram,' in the levy of *manṟu-pāḍu* in the towns of Mēlap-paluvūr and Tiruccengōḍu in the reigns of Sundara Cōḷa and Rājarāja I.¹⁹ Nandipuram, also known as Āyirattaḷi,²⁰ was a flourishing town in the Tanjore district often mentioned in the inscriptions. A verse preserved in the commentary on the *Vīra-śōḻiyam* calls Sundara Cōḷa the king of Nandipuram.

c27.14

Besides the regular taxes and dues, occasional contributions were also levied for particular purposes by local authorities. An inscription at Erode, of the year A.D. 922, records that the people of a whole *nāḍu* undertook to pay some new cesses for providing for the worship of Kṛṣṇa in a Viṣṇu temple at Erode. These new cesses were: half-*paṇam* on each household (*kuḍi*); an eighth (of a *paṇam*) each from either party to a marriage; and one *mañjāḍi* and one *kunṟi* of gold as due (*pāṭṭam*) from each crematorium,—indeed a strange assortment.²¹ In the 22nd year of Kannaradeva (c. 962) the *manṟāḍis* (shepherds) of Bāhūr-nāḍu undertook to give one sheep to the Perumāḷ (Viṣṇu) of Śrī Mūlaṭṭānam of Bāhūr (town) whenever any one among them consummated a marriage—*kāṭṭilērappōmpōdu*. This rule applied also to those who came and settled in Bāhūr from outside. If any one failed to give the sheep, the *gaṇapperumakkaḷ* (executive committee) and the *dēvaraḍiyār* (lit. servants of gods—either temple officials or dancing girls or both) were authorised to take two sheep by force. Again, at Talaiccangāḍu in Tanjore a sum of 100 *kāśus* was raised from the professional and religious groups of the locality for making certain necessary endowments in the local temple in the reign of Rājarāja I.²² In 1096, the people of Kāmarasavalli (Trichinopoly district) provided for a festival and for certain offerings in the temple by requiring the following collections to be made and remitted to the temple: one *kuruṇi* of paddy per *mā* of all the fields growing paddy, millet (*varagu*) or gingelly (*eḷ*); one nut from each areca tree and one *uḻakku* of oil from the house of every cultivator (*veḷḷān*).²³ In the 43rd year of Kulōttunga I (A.D. 1113) the shepherds of Tiruvāyppāḍi-nāḍu undertook to present each a sheep to a Viṣṇu temple, Jalaśayanam in Karur, on the occasions of nuptials (*kaṭṭil-ēṟudal*) of their sons, of their daughters setting up separate families, and *talaimani* (?)

c27.15

of their children. At Tiṭṭaguḍi (South Arcot), an image of the goddess Bhūmidēvi was set up about A.D. 1170, and the joint assembly of the Cittiramēḷi-periya-nāḍu and the Tiśai-āyirattu-āiññūṟṟuvar resolved to levy the following contributions for the requirements of services and offerings to the new deity: one *padakku* of paddy per annum on each plough (*ēr*), one *kuruṇi* on each labourer (*āḷ*), five *kāśus* to be paid by each florist (*mālai kaṭṭi parimāṟuvār*), two *kāśus* by each of the servants (*paṇi-makkaḷ*) employed under the two corporate bodies assessing the levy, four measures of *ghī* from each family of cowherds in the village. Those who went to the villages to collect these dues were to be given by each village: half *kalam* of white rice (*veḷḷai ariśi*), one *kalam* of *puri* rice, fifty areca-nuts, two *paṟṟu* of betel leaves, one *nāḷi* of salt, one *uri* of pepper, and one measure of gingelly oil; the collectors were also authorised to enter into dwellings, distrain metal vessels and break mud vessels in the process of collection.²⁴ One may doubt if these sanctions are to be understood literally; they might have been no more than an attempt to impress on the people the high importance and the urgency of the contributions thus levied. Four years later, in 1174, the guild of the oil-mongers subject to the Great Guild (*Mānagaram*) of Kāñcīpuram resolved that each oil-mill in the premises of a temple should provide for the specified number of lamps and offerings in the temple by contribution of the necessary *kaḍamai* and one old *kāśu* per annum, and should observe this rule as a caste-ordinance (*jāti-dharma*).²⁵ In 1232, the *māhēśvaras* attached to the temple and *maṭhas* at Tirukkaṇṇapuram (Tanjore district) resolved to supplement the dwindling resources of the temple by levying contributions, in cash and kind from the servants of the temples in specified areas and from those who wore the sacred cord (*pūṇūlē kuṟiyāga*); elaborate arrangements were also sanctioned for the collection of the dues and for the remuneration of the collectors.²⁶ The *pēriḷamaiyār* of Śangēndi (Trichinopoly district) order the collection of paddy from cultivators for meeting the requirements of the local temple.²⁷ In the eleventh year of Rājēndra III, A.D. 1257, the *nagarattār* of Kōvilūr (Tanjore district) made over to the temple of Uśāttānam-uḍaiyār some of the tolls and other dues, usually levied by them viz. the rice they got as *nilakkūli* on their lands, and the *pāḍi-kāval*, *kai-vāśi* and cash dues (*kāśu-vargam*) on each *podi* (bag) of rice brought into the township.²⁸ In 1264, an inscription from Ālanguḍi records the levy of a voluntary impost by the *rathakāras* on themselves for some purpose that is not clear owing to the damaged condition of the record.²⁹ Lastly an undated record from Tiruppaḻanam contains a resolution of the *nāḍu*, *nagaram* and *padineṇviṣaiyam* transferring to the temple certain dues usually collected by them from the farmers and the octroi duties on pepper, areca-nut, bales of cloth, bags of rice and so on.³⁰

c27.16

Such instances of local imposts, together with the express statement sometimes made that borrowing was resorted to because the people were not in a position to bear any additional taxation, raise the impression that on the one hand taxation in one form and another pressed the people rather hard, and that on the other hand, for most of the extra or *ad hoc* taxation resorted to, the active consent of the tax-payer was sought beforehand.

c27.17

Sometimes particular dues were ear-marked for a certain specified purpose such as the payment of interest on a perpetual loan given to a *sabhā* by the local temple.³¹ The villages situated on the banks of the Kāvērī and its branches had sometimes to take special measures for keeping the river bund in good repair to avert inundation during the floods; such villages had to levy a special cess towards this purpose. An inscription of the reign of Kulōttunga III from Tiruppāmburam mentions the *Kāvērik-karaiviniyōgam*.³²

c27.18

Land and houses provided the primary subjects of taxation. An accurate survey of land leading to a careful recording of land rights in government books appears to have been undertaken sometime about the middle of Rājarāja I's reign, and from that time, the references to land surveys and measurements as recorded in them become more noticeable.³³ An inscription dated 1184 from Tirumangalam,³⁴ Tanjore district, is of peculiar interest. It records that discrepancies had arisen in course of time between the record of land rights in the village and their actual distribution. The reasons were: first, the natural tendency to be remiss in maintaining the records fully up to date; second, the encroachments on pathways, canal bunds and so on by greedy ryots who had surreptitiously extended their holdings; lastly, the Vikrama-Cōḻappērāṟu had altered its course causing damage to some fields, and the taxes were still being assessed at the old rates without any allowance being made for this damage. A new survey was undertaken and the results recorded in detail in the inscription under reference. The records include the names and boundaries of all the shrines in the villages together with the lands they held. Among the entries made in the register, the following are noteworthy: land set apart for the sacrifice of goats (*kiḍā*) to the *piḍāri*; *kāṇis* for houses for *ambaṭṭar* and *nāvidar*;³⁵ the potter, carpenter, black-smith, goldsmith, washerman, and *paḷḷis* come in for free shares. The site whence earth was dug out for the river bank, and the burning ground are declared *nīṅgal* (excepted). But for the numerous gaps in this long inscription, it would be a most satisfactory and complete account of the distribution of land in the village at the time of the record.

c27.19

Not one of the inscriptions, however, contains a definite statement of the proportion of the produce that formed the normal share of the state. Frequently enough the absolute quantity of paddy or other produce collected in the form of particular taxes from given units of measure is stated; one inscription³⁶ of the time of Rājādhirāja I, for instance, records that the *iṟai* paid to a temple on some lands was 28 *kalams* of paddy per *vēli* while on others it was only 19; it is clear that the rate of assessment differed with the fertility of the soil. The classification of land into different grades, as many as twelve or more grades (*taram*),³⁷ and unclassed lands (*taramili*) being alluded to, also points to the same conclusion. But in no single instance do we seem to have the data for calculating the precise ratio between the tax and the yield. In the circumstances, any effort to compare the incidence of the land-tax under the Cōḷas with that in modern times is bound to be unsuccessful.³⁸ Vague statements to the effect that the king followed the laws of Manu or that he collected one-sixth of the produce of the earth as the tax due to him³⁹ can hardly be accepted at their face value. The standard rate of 100 *kalams* per *vēli*, which figures in the Tanjore inscriptions of the reign of Rājarāja I as the share of the temple on *dēvadāna* lands⁴⁰ may, on the assumption that the fertility of land was then very much what it is now, be found to work out at something like a third of the gross produce. It is possible that this represents the state’s share on these lands made over to the temple; if this conclusion is correct the land tax under the Cōḷas would compare not unfavourably with what it was at other times and in other parts of India. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, Munro calculated that in Anantapur the *sarkar* share was no less than 45¾% of the gross produce from land.⁴¹

c27.20

That the revenue from agricultural lands was periodically reassessed, and the classification of the land revised from time to time in accordance with changes in cropping, fertility and so on, is amply borne out by the inscriptions.⁴² Once more, the regular practice in these matters has to be inferred from the exceptions which are specially recorded. In some instances the *nāṭṭār* or the *sabhā* undertake never to raise the land set apart for a charity from a lower grade to a higher one in any reclassification in future years. In others the tax due from specified areas of land is fixed in perpetuity as a *nilai-iṟai*, a permanent settlement.

c27.21

In the fifteenth year of a Parakēsari, at the instance of Kaṇḍan-Māṟavan, a Cōḷa feudatory, the *nāṭṭār* of Kuṉṟak-kūṟṟam assigned some land to a public servant as his *janma-bhūmi* (same as *jīvita*?), and ordered that he was to pay on the land a fixed tax (*nilai-iṟai*) of 25 *kalañjus* of gold of the treasury standard of fineness (*tāla-ccemmai*).⁴³ From the Tiruvālaṅgāḍu plates, it is seen that Rājēndra I fixed in perpetuity⁴⁴ the dues to be paid to the temple of Mahādēva every year by the *dēvadāna* village of Paḻaiyanūr.

c27.22.1

A brief review of some typical inscriptions will convey a general idea of the nature and number of taxes, cesses and other dues. Though their name is legion, most of them were not general, but occasional and restricted in their incidence. In A.D. 944 the *sabhā* of Ukkal resolved that their executive committees⁴⁵ were to abstain from exacting *Veṭṭi* (forced labour), *Vedilai* and *Vālakkāṇam* from the tenants settled in Śōdiyambākkam, a a hamlet assigned to a Viṣṇu temple in the locality; the temple was moreover granted the right to levy and exact fines (*manṟu-pāḍu*) from the peasants of the village for their faults and sins (*kurṟan-dōṣam*).⁴⁶ The Madras Museum Plates of Uttama Cōḷa record that the older inhabitants of Śōḷāniyamam in Kāñcīpuram, an area belonging to the temple, were excused the payment of all ancient dues;⁴⁷ those residents, however, who had come from other towns and villages and had settled in it, were required to contribute as *iṟai* to the god of Ūragam a quarter measure of oil and two *nāḷis* of rice per household per month; even they were exempt from any other dues levied by the *nagaram*.

c27.22.2

The *kōl-nirai-kūli* and *kāl-aḷavukūli* of Kāñcīpuram which were assigned as income to the temple of Ūragam are explained in the Sanskrit portion of the Museum plates as tolls on articles measured by weight and by capacity.⁴⁸ That this was a very small toll is seen from the rate of half-*nāḷi* per *kalam* recorded in an inscription from Tiruvāmāttur of the time of Rājarāja I;⁴⁹ in this place this *kūli* was given to the *paḷḷis* of the village who measured the paddy due to the temple from its tenants till about A.D. 1010, when as a result of an enquiry into the affairs of the temple, this *kūli* was transferred to the *uvaccar* as remuneration for their services in the temple, including the cost of clothes to be supplied to a *māṇi* (a *brahmacārin*) who officiated at the *śrī-bali* ceremony. Examples of general taxes falling upon the residents of Tiruvallam in the fourth year of Rājēndra I are stated to be: the price of water from wells and tanks and the gold of joyous persons. The latter (*ugappār pon*) seems to be a small payment made by householders on auspicious occasions like marriages.⁵⁰ In the sixth year of Rājēndra I, the Tiruvālangāḍu plates record a formidable list of *parihāras* made over to the temple; all these *parihāras*,—the list is a long one and yet said to be not exhaustive,⁵¹—were thenceforth to be collected by the temple and not by the king. Some years later, in A.D.

c27.22.3

1021, the *sabhā* of Vēmbaṟṟūr received sixty-five *kāśus*⁵² from the Śiva temple of Śrī-Kuḍittiṭṭai, and in lieu of interest thereon, they agreed to forgo the following dues from some temple lands: the *siddhāya-kāśu*, the *pañcavāra*-paddy, gram and dholl, oil and ghee and other *vari* levied by the town (*ūrīḍuvari*), the payment for the tank (*ēri-īvu*) and the forced labour (*vēdanai*) on banks and bunds (*kulai* and *kurambu*) and other smaller dues (*śilvari*). An inscription of Uḍaiyār Sundara Cōḷa-Pāṇḍya from Tiruvālīśvaram⁵³ states that five *vēlis* of land were converted from *brahmadēya* into ryotwari land (*veḷḷān-vagai*) and required thereafter to pay as land-tax (*iraik-kaḍan*) paddy to the amount of 642 *kalams*, 6 *kuriṇis* 2¾ *nāḷis* and 2½ *śeviḍus* as measured by the *nārāyam* equal to five *nāḷis*; besides 35¼ and 3|80 *kāśus* as *uruvu kōl-nilan-kāśu* and 5 *kāśus* as *kāṭci-erudu-kāśu*. Among money-dues (*āyam*) to be collected from some lands in Kīḻūr were: *maramañjāḍi*, *pāḍikāval*, *vēṇḍu-kōl*, *manaik-kāṭci-ppēṟu*, *kūraik-kāśu*, *kiḍāk-kāśu* and others; only these *āyams*, and no other kind of dues, were to be levied from the lands (older *dēvadānas* excepted) set apart by two Malaiyamān chieftains for certain expenses in the temple at Tirukkōyilūr.⁵⁴ Of these cesses *mara-mañjāḍi* seems to have been the levy of one *mañjāḍi* of gold on each useful tree;

c27.22.4

*pāḍi-kāval* was no doubt a payment on account of the village watchman’s fee, and *kiḍāk-kāśu*, a small cess on each head of male cattle; the nature of the other dues is not easily understood. An important record of the reign of Rājādhirāja I from Tribhuvani gives the information⁵⁵ that the annual share of the landlord on 72 *vēlis* of land was 12,000 *kalams* of paddy, giving an average of 166 and ⅔ *kalams* per *vēli*; and that after remitting this amount of paddy, the tenants cultivating these lands were to be held liable only for *ēri-āyam*, *pāḍi-kāval-kūli*, free labour (*amañji*) on the tank, and not for any other customary dues (*marijādi*) of the *piḍāgai* (section of village) such as *veḷḷān-irai*, *uḻavirai*, *āḷ* and *amañji*. In the second year of Vīrarājēndra⁵⁶ the proceeds from the following taxes in several villages named belonging to three *nāḍus* were made over to the temple of Tiruveṇkāḍu towards the expenses on festivals and offerings on the king’s birthdays: all *kīḻ-iraip-pāṭṭam* (smaller taxes) including *ūrk-kalañju*, *kumara-kaccāṇam*, *mīnpāṭṭam*, *āṟṟup-pāṭṭam* and *taṭṭārp-pāṭṭam*; *tarip-puḍavai*, *daśa-vandam*, *vēlik-kāśu*, *śēvakak-kāśu*, *valangai-iḍangai-mahanmai*, *tingaḷ-mōham*, and ten *kāśus* per head on account of the *panmai* and *paṇḍa-veṭṭi* (free supplies?) dues from these villages.

c27.22.5

Another record of the same reign dated three years later gives a very similar list of taxes and dues from places in the Chingleput district made over to the temple of Accarapākam for a like purpose.⁵⁷ In this list the term *antarāyam* is applied to a number of taxes collected by the *sabhā* including *irai-* *yilik-kāśu, panmai, paṇḍa-veṭṭi, ugavaipon, kāval-śēvagam* and so on; and others fall under the heads of *kuḍimai* and *kaḍamai*, though the principle of grouping is by no means easy to infer from the names of the taxes themselves.

c27.23

In A.D. 1100, the dues remitted on some *dēvadāna* lands at Cōḷapuram (South Travancore) included *māḍaik-kūli* and *daśavandam* among the *pāṭṭams*, and *antarāyam* and *śilkuḍimai*.⁵⁸ An inscription from Tennēri (Chingleput), dated 1116, exempts the people residing on some lands from the payment of *vāśaltiramam* (door-tax) and the provision of *manai-yiraiśōru* and *veṭṭi-muṭṭai-yāḷ* (free food and labour on specified occasions); the *mahāsabhā* undertake themselves to pay *nīrvilai-antarāyam* and all *śillirai* on the same land.⁵⁹ Again, a record of 1123 from Tiṇḍivanam mentions that for capitalising the due on a plot of land worth 20 *kāśus*, a donor had to pay down 100 *kāśus*, from the interest on which were to be met dues described as follows: *sennīr-amañji tiruveḷuccik-kuḍimai peruvari śillirai eccoru veṭṭi muṭṭaiyāḷ kōyil vāśalil pōndakuḍimai eppērppaṭṭadum*. The same record also gives the following as due from the *nattakkollai*, residential part, of the village: *uppukkāśu śennīr-amañji tiruveḷuccik-kuḍimai eccoru kūṟrunellu eppērppaṭṭana*. The *sabhā* of Madhurāntakam sell some land from the *gōpracārabhūmi*, grazing common, of the township, and in doing so, they state that they forgo the *kaḍamai* due on areca-trees growing on the land then sold, and in fact, all other taxes (*vari*) including the *manai-irai* (house tax) on the houses built upon it.⁶⁰ The names of other dues mentioned in the inscriptions of the reign of Rājarāja III are: *māp-padakku*, *kaṇkāṇi*, *tari-iṟai* in the *tirumaḍai-viḷāgam* (temple premises), *maganmai* from carpenters and smiths and potters, poll tax (*pērvari*) on *vāṇiyar* (oil mongers), and the *kaḍamai* on oil-mills—mentioned in a record of the thirteenth year from Munnūr, South Arcot;⁶¹ *taniyāṭ-pēṟu* and *kangāṇi mā-nellu* in a record of the fifteenth year from Vāyalūr (Vailur);⁶² *kārttigai-ariśi*, *kārttigai-paccai* and other cash dues (*kāśāyam*), *kaḍai-iṟai* (shop-tax) and *ājīvakak-kāśu*, evidently a tax on Ājīvakas—mentioned in an inscription of the twenty-second year from Poygai near Viriñcipuram;⁶³ *kaṇakka-vari*, *eḍuttukkoṭṭi*, *arimukkai*—three dues collected in the form of paddy, and *veṭṭip-puḍavai*, *mudar-ṟiramam*, *vagaindakāśu*, *paṭṭōlaik-kāśu*, *muḷḷadiśin-* *nam*, *vēlip-payaru*, *tāppadi-ariśi*, *acca-tari*, *śāligait-tari*, *tūśāgat-tari*, *parait-tari*—all apparently small cash dues (*kāśukadamai*) mentioned in a record⁶⁴ of the twenty-eighth year from the same place, with the addition 'and other dues in cash and kind'; and lastly *paṭṭit-teṇḍam*, *māvaḍai*, *maravaḍai* in a record of the thirtieth year from Tiruvaṇṇāmalai.⁶⁵ Most of these terms are still obscure; but they give an idea of the extent of local variations and the senseless multiplication of very minor dues in the tax system, and almost seem to suggest that the number of dues was increasing with the weakness and ineffectiveness of the central government. There can be no doubt that, judged by any standard, the system especially in the later period was complex, confused, vexatious in the extreme and, most probably, relatively unproductive.

c27.24

An inscription⁶⁶ of Adhirājēndra states that the minor dues from the *dēvadāna* villages of the Tiruvallam temple detailed under the heads *kīḻiraippāṭṭam* and *antarāyam*, were collected at the consolidated rate of 25 *kāśus* per 1000 *kalams*. But what are these 1000 *kalams*? Do they represent gross produce, or the temple's share of it? On the former assumption, the minor taxes would constitute a substantial addition to the burden laid on land. As the same inscription states that one *kāśu* was equal to four *kalams* of paddy, the surcharge on account of the minor taxes comes to 10%. If this is a rate calculated on the gross produce, and if the incidence of land revenue calculated above may be presumed to have continued to hold in this reign as well, cultivators had to give up in one way and another something well over 40% of the gross produce; a rate that does not compare unfavourably with what we know of the land tax under the Vijayanagar or the Mughal rulers.

c27.25

The term *pāḍi-kāval* occurring more than once in the lists of taxes and dues deserves more attention than most of the other items mentioned; for it refers to a universally prevalent system of safeguarding property from theft, especially at night. This was the system by which each village maintained its own *kāval-kāran* who, in return for certain regular payments to him, held himself responsible for the security of property in the village to the extent of either recovering lost property or making it good; this system survived in some measure almost till the other day in the Tamil country, and it seems to have been indeed of very ancient origin. A special staff of officials entrusted with this duty, and maintained from the proceeds of a special cess ear-marked for the purpose, the *pāḍi-kāval-kūli* as it is sometimes called, formed a regular feature of the Cōḷa administrative system. In the later Cōḷa days, we find these duties increasingly falling into the hands of the over-grown vassals whose rise was a symptom of the imminent dissolution of the empire. Humbler men in charge of relatively restricted areas also carried on their work more quietly and with less detriment to the well-being of the central administration. An inscription from Talaiccangāḍu (Tanjore district) dated a.d. 1221 states that the *pāḍi-kāppār* were provided with residences in the villages in addition to some allowances as their wages.⁶⁷ Examples of the other type are quite numerous; often an individual is found in possession of the *pāḍi-kāval-kāṇi* of a whole *nāḍu*, if not of a wider area, and such an individual often gave expression to his vanity or piety by remitting the fee due from sacred property belonging to temples, or requiring the temple authorities to burn lights or conduct festivals in the manner specified by him instead of paying the fee. The Vāṇakōvaraiyas, Malaiyamāns, Muttaraiyas, Śāmbuvarāyas and Kāḍavarāyas all furnish instances of the practice sketched above.⁶⁸ The terms *perumbāḍi-kāval*⁶⁹ and *mēr-pāḍi-kāval*⁷⁰ are sometimes employed, and these are perhaps meant to indicate the wider sphere of their police duties, or their higher status as compared to the ordinary *pāḍi-kāval* of the villages.

c27.26

⁶⁷ 205 of 1925.

c27.27

⁶⁸ 74 of 1889; 173 of 1904; 221 of 1905; 422 of 1905; 359 of 1909; 391 of 1909; 444 of 1909; 104 of 1919.

c27.28

⁶⁹ 58 of 1914.

c27.29

⁷⁰ 415 of 1909.

c27.30

The term *iṟaiyili* (tax-free) so often met with in the epigraphy of the period does not appear to have always meant absolute immunity from all taxes and dues. The nature and extent of the immunity granted was apparently defined in each individual case, the use of the term in respect of any land simply meaning that there were some such immunities to be taken account of in the particular case. This is seen not only from the mention in some inscriptions of an impost called *iṟaiyilik-kāśu*, meaning perhaps *kāśu* due from *iṟaiyili*-lands,70a but from an explicit record of the time of Rājarāja I from Tiruppānmalai in the North Arcot district.⁷¹ From this it becomes clear that the village Kūrakam-pāḍi was an *iraiyili-pallic-candam* in the enjoyment (*bhōgam*) of the Jaina temple in Tiruppānmalai. The Ilāḍa chieftains ruling in the area before the eighth year of Rājarāja, the date of the inscription, levied the *karpūravilai* from the temple, and as a result the temple did not have enough for its expenses;⁷² the wife of the Ilāḍa chieftain Vīra Śōḷa drew his attention to this fact when they went together to worship in the temple, and he agreed thenceforth to cease collecting the *karpūra-vilai*, and another cess, called *anniyāya-vāva-daṇḍa-iṟai*, of which the exact nature is by no means certain.⁷³ An inscription of the reign of Rājarāja III from Tirukkaḍaiyūr⁷⁴ furnishes evidence that even *iraiyili* lands had to make periodical payments of lump sums on a lower scale than usual for the renewal of their *iṟaiyili* status—*iṟaiyili variśaippaḍi-iṟai-mudaṟ-kāśu taṇḍakkaḍavadāna-paḍi-tavira*. The lands dealt with in this record are described as *kāśu koḷḷā ūr-kīḻ-iṟaiyili*.

c27.31

70a 165 of 1928, also 215 of 1912.

c27.32

⁷¹ 19 of 1890 (*S.I.I.* i, pp. 131–6). See also *M.E.R.* 1928, II 16.
1. Ferrand—Voyage, p. 138.
2. The Tiruvālangāḍu plates say that Rājēndra I captured the pearls of the Pāṇḍya King in his Southern expedition.
3. Note the use of *manṟa* as a verb in this sense. (*SII.* iii, 27, l. 9).
4. *SII.* iii, 93—*Daṇḍam-uḷḷiṭṭu eppēr-ppaṭṭa manrupāḍum* (ll. 28-30). The preceding syllables *‘ānavāy’* have been read together with *‘daṇḍam’* by Krishna Sastri, who sees a new duty in the phrase *‘ānavāy-daṇḍam.’* I am inclined to think that *‘ānavāy’* means ‘as occasion arises.’ Again Krishna Sastri takes *manṟu-pāḍu* to be a duty levied by the assembly; if the assembly had a part in its levy and collection, it must have exercised its judicial power on such occasions.
5. 255 of 1911.
6. 521 of 1920, ARE. 1921, II 35.
7. *SII.* iii, 142.
8. 194 of 1923.
9. 121 of 1925. Cf. also 388 of 1913; and 140 of 1926 for similar phrases. 147 of 1925 has: *‘peru-vari śil-vari tiru-vāśalil pōnda kuḍimai eppērppaṭṭadum.* See also 149 of 1925.
10. This is one of the most difficult terms. Does it stand for *eccōṟu* after all, ‘any kind of meal’ or ‘a meal on any account’? It will be remembered that the right of some persons to be fed is stipulated for in certain conditions.
11. Sometimes we have only Vāśalil-pōnda Kuḍimai for this class as in 388 of 1913. cf. Rājadvāra in 197 of 1923.
12. *SII.* iii, 93. The phrase used is *‘Kuḍimai-śeyyil’*, if (we) levy *Kuḍimai.* Krishna Sastri translates this into: ‘if we assert our occupancy-rights’. It seems to me to be a promise meant to stop, not the encroachment on the land itself, but on the income from it which was to be devoted to the maintenance of the tank.
13. 109 of 1911 seems to explain the meaning of *Ūr-kīḻ-iraiyili* in the following: *innilaṅgaḷukku ūr viḻukkāṭṭuppaḍi pottagappaḍi parri vanda nilam eṅgaḷ pērgaḷilē ērri irukkak-kaḍavōm āgavum; eṅgaḷ pakkal virrukkonḍārum strī-dhanam perrārum maṟrum perṟu uḍaiyārum*

c27.33

Again, as noticed already, the term *ūr-kīḻ-iṟaiyili* suggests that the *ūr* made itself responsible for the dues thereon; another possibility is that the land so described was free from the payment of local taxes, but had to contribute to the revenues like any other land.

c27.34

The Tanjore inscriptions of the reign of Rājarāja I make it clear that in each village some land was absolutely exempt from all taxes and imposts. Such lands included the sites occupied by the *ūr-nattam* (i.e., the residential part of the village), the temples, tanks, the channels passing through the village, the *paṟaiccēri* (the hamlet of the pariahs), the *kammāṇaccēri* (the artisans' quarters) and the burning ground (*śuḍu-kāḍu*).⁷⁵ The total extent of such areas is stated and subtracted from the gross area of the village in order to ascertain the net area of taxable land. The existence of different grades of *iṟaiyili* lands with varying degrees of immunity enjoyed by them is thus clearly established.

c27.35

A late Cōḷa inscription from Tiruvoṟṟiyūr,⁷⁶ dated A.D. 1223, records the fact that some lands which were treated as *iṟangal* were, on enquiry, found to be only *nīngal* and that, consequently, they had to pay into the treasury of the temple a considerable number of taxes and dues which had so far not been collected. It is clear that the term *iṟangal* means exemption (from taxes) while *nīṅgal* implies only that the taxes were removed from the state revenue registers because they had been transferred to some other agency for its own use.⁷⁷ Again, some cultivable land which was lying unclaimed (*pārrili*) was assigned in 1233 by the *sabhā* of Talaiccangāḍu as *iraiyili dēvadāna* to three Śiva temples of the locality; the gift contained the provision that if the land was not entered as *iraiyili* in the *oḷugu* and *pottagam*, title-deed and register, but only as *tiṟappu*, open (to assessment), the *iṟai* on the land was to be borne by the inhabitants of the village.⁷⁸ Evidently the record was engraved when the status of the land had not been finally decided; the assembly had evidently taken steps to secure *iṟaiyili* status for the land from the central government; but they also provided against the contingency of their efforts proving unsuccessful. Records like this give us a casual glimpse of the relations between local and central authorities.

c27.36

To estimate the incidence of so complex a system of taxes and dues, central and local, compulsory and optional, modified by partial and total remissions of various types would always be a difficult task; and in the actual state of our evidence, utterly impossible. The pressure of taxation in different localities must have varied with the number and rates of the local cesses added by local authorities to the tax system imposed by the central government which may be presumed to have been more or less uniform as between different provinces. Then, the wide-spread practice of assigning revenues to members of the official nobility, to feudatory chieftains, to temples and so on, introduced a new factor; not all of these agencies could have adopted equally rigorous methods of exacting their dues. An appeal to the centre against local excesses, and in the last resort, migration from the locality when it was possible were the only remedies open; and it is hard to believe that the utmost vigilance even of an efficient bureau-

c27.37

cracy could have done much to ensure a uniformity of practice among such diverse agencies of tax-collection. Instances are not altogether lacking of oppressive methods adopted in the process of collecting taxes and other dues; the *sabhā* of *brahmadēyam* Mahēndramangalam have left on record⁷⁹ the fact that in A.D. 1001 the military (*padaiyilār*) subjected them to such torture (*vēdanai*), putting them in water and standing them in the sun, that, unable to bear the treatment, they proceeded to Tāñjāvūr with an escort to lay the matter before Rājarāja-Mahārāja; and that the king remitted the matter again to local officers. Supporting the man on the spot is evidently not so modern a device in administration as we are apt to think; though incomplete, the inscription seems to record the enforcement of the original order without any modification being effected. In the village of Jambai, an officer demanded some tax from a woman in the third year of Rājēndra II;⁸⁰ when she denied her liability the officer did something⁸¹ which forced her to commit suicide by taking poison. The officer had to expiate the crime by endowing a lamp of 32 *kāśus*.

c27.38

While thus, in the early period of imperial Cōḷa rule, the rigour of collection occasionally tended to become oppressive in character, the people were exposed, in later times, to another danger. This arose from the increasing autonomy of local chieftains who were no longer restrained by a powerful central government and often resorted to oppressive fiscal methods. An inscription from Tiruvoṟṟiyūr,⁸² dated A.D. 1213, records in detail a painful episode, possibly typical of several unrecorded occurrences of the period. A Yādavarāya chieftain either imposed a new tax or revised the assessment under an old head of revenue—the name of the tax involved is *pon-vari*—and levied a rate of one-fourth *mādai* on each *vēli* of arable land; he did not allow the usual exemptions in favour of deserted or decadent townships, but insisted on all the villages and townships of the *nāḍu*, whatever their condition, paying the full measure of the dues. The tax-gatherer appointed by the Yādavarāya came round to Punnaivāyil; and after collecting as much of the tax as he could, he caught hold of the members of the local *sabhā* and bound and imprisoned them; the members of the *sabhā* thereupon proceeded to sell away 80 *vēlis* of the cultivable land of the village together with part of its residential area for a sum of two hundred *paḷangāśus* in order to meet the balance of the oppressive impost. It is significant that the man who bought the land at once transferred it to the temple of Tiruvoṟṟiyūr, ear-marking it for certain specified purposes, religious and educational; this was obviously because of a sentimental dislike to use for one's own private benefit property acquired under such distressing conditions. Virtually, therefore, it comes to this: that a generous nobleman came to the rescue of the oppressed *sabhā*, and saw to it that though the village became distinctly poorer on account of the new impost, the loss it sustained was just made tolerable to it, as it led to a definite increase in the social amenities available in the neighbourhood. In the years 1238 and 1239, we have records⁸³ from Mannārguḍi, in the heart of the Tanjore district, stating in unmistakable terms the oppressive and vexatious nature of the imposts levied on the people by all and sundry authorities and the consequent resolution taken by them to abandon all cultivation until conditions improved. The language employed is very clear and furnishes an eloquent testimony to the internal condition of the Cōḷa kingdom in its decay: *palarum kai vandapaḍi taṇḍik-koḷgaiyālē eṅgaḷukkut-taripparudiyālē*, 'as it has become difficult for us to sustain ourselves on account of the arbitrary imposts exacted by several (persons).' These complaints from the people were heard by the *sabhā* of Mannārguḍi met together with the assemblies of five adjacent *nāḍus*, and the meeting resolved to authorise the people to pay only the legitimate dues that were then recorded in detail and to resist all other demands in excess of the standard laid down by that meeting. It should be noted, however, that considering the extent of space and time covered by these inscriptions, the instances of the employment of such oppressive methods are remarkably few indeed.

c27.39

It should also be noted that protests against unusual levies and successful attempts on the part of the people to resist them by codifying the standard of normal fiscal practice are not unknown. An inscription⁸⁴ of the third year of Kulōttunga I from the Mysore territory is very interesting in this connection. The inscription is a record of the *periya-viṣaiyam*, the Great Assemblage. It opens by saying that since the race of Cōḷa rulers began, no tax had been laid on cows and she-buffaloes in all the territory comprising the 78 *nāḍus* of Nigarili-śōḷa-maṇḍala, the 48,000 *būmi* of Jayangoṇḍa-śōḷa-maṇḍalam, the Rājēndra-śōḷap-padineṇbūmi assigned to the Valaṅgai-mahāsēnai of the Great Army, and that consequently, the new levy on cows and she-buffaloes introduced by Adigārigaḷ Śōḻa-mūvēndavēḷār need not be paid. Again the government share (*mēlvāram*) was specified as one-fifth of the produce of forest tracts and dry crop lands, and one-third of that of rice lands under a tank. Further, the rate of tax on the cultivation of hill-tracts by hill-tribes (*vēḍar*) was to be one cloth (*puḍavai*) for 1500 *kulis*; the record also laid down the rates for all other miscellaneous dues and services, concluded by specifying the length of the measuring rod to be employed in land measurements. We have not many recorded instances of such popular attempts to fix the scale of customary taxes and dues to government; and such attempts might not have always restrained a self-willed and autocratic ruler or chieftain; but that they were made, and that in the popular consciousness there was a clear limit to the taxing power of government—these are facts of some significance and must be noted in any account of Cōḷa polity.

c27.40

The methods of collection, however, clearly included distraint and sale of land for arrears in payment; such sales were public in character and called after the king in whose reign they took place. In a Rājēndrapperuvilai, for instance, the assembly of Ariñjigai-caturvēdimangalam came by some land, as the three sons of Nārāyaṇa-kramavittan had migrated elsewhere and not paid the dues on the land for a period of about fifteen years.⁸⁵ Rājarāja's order against the *Kāṇi-uḍaiyār* (service-tenants) of particular classes of villages in the Cōḷa, Pāṇḍya and Toṇḍai countries, which has been discussed above, also sanctions confiscation and sale of land for arrears of *ūr-iḍu-varippāḍu*.

c27.41

The *ūr* of Tirukkāccūr (Chingleput district) suffered from a failure of harvest, and finding it difficult to pay the taxes, they resorted to raising a loan from a nobleman in the neighbourhood; they did not repay the sum, perhaps they could not, but allowed him to bring under cultivation some of the waste land belonging to the village, and then, in lieu of the interest on the loan they undertook to pay the taxes on the land newly brought under the plough.⁸⁶ A similar instance of crop-failure due to scarcity of water in a village in the Tanjore district is met by a reduction of the area under wet crop from A.D. 1160, the local temple being required to convert some land into a betel garden so as to relieve the pressure on the water-resources of the village;⁸⁷ the temple also advanced some money, and got the land in question declared a *kāśu-koḷḷā-iraiyili*.

c27.42

Instances are by no means wanting, from the later Cōḻa period, of land tax being realised, in the last resort, by the sale of the defaulters' lands. Some Brahmin tenants of Vānavanmādēvi-caturvēdimangalam (Tiruccirai) in the Tanjore district, unable to pay the taxes, had abandoned their lands and left the village, and these lands were sold to a neighbouring temple in 1117;⁸⁸ it is not clear whether the inability of the deserters to pay the taxes was due to heavy assessment or irregular collection resulting in an accumulation of heavy arrears; the *sabhā* of the village conducted the sale, and this favours the latter assumption. Two years later, a very similar instance of desertion and sale is recorded in Kōnērirājapuram, also in the Tanjore district;⁸⁹ in this case, it was clearly the tenants who deliberately defaulted; there was no accumulation of arrears, for only the taxes of the forty-ninth regnal year, the year of the record, were involved; and the village assembly was required by a letter from the revenue officers of the king to sell the lands and realise the tax dues. It looks as if an attempt was made to enforce more regular collections.

First 45 of 134 passages. Read on

Linked texts (10)