The Colas c29.10
The Cōḷas c29.10
- Language
- English
c29.10.1
The term *veḷḷān-vagai* comprises two words of which the first clearly means 'cultivator'. Of the second word *vagai*, the meanings suited to the present context are 'class' or 'manner.' That *vagai* is used in the epigraphs in the sense of classification according to tenure will become clear from our recalling the phrase *nāḍu-vagai-śeyyira* applied to revenue officials employed in the settlement of land-revenue; the process of settlement (*vagai-śeydal*) involved the registration of titles and tenures including those of the ordinary cultivators (*veḷḷān*). It may be observed, in passing, that the classification of land in the order of fertility of the soil was called *taram-iḍudal*, grading. *Veḷḷān-vagai* is clearly contrasted with other forms of tenure in the inscriptions. Karuppūr was one of many villages appointed by Rājarāja to supply fixed quantities of grain to the Tanjore temple; only such of its cultivable land as was classed as *veḷḷān-vagai*, the *dēvadānas* and *śālābhōgas* being excluded, was taken into account to fix its quota of the supply to the Tanjore temple.¹¹ Again, in the Tiruvālangāḍu plates we are told in the most casual manner that the normal type of a tax-paying village was the *veḷḷān-vagai*. The village of Paḷaiyanūr, a *brahmadēya* in the possession of the *sabhā* of Śiṅgaḷāntaka-caturvēdimangalam, was converted into a *veḷḷān-vagai* village, the *sabhā* getting other land in exchange (*talai-māṟu*).
c29.10.2
After this conversion to *veḷḷān-vagai*, Paḷaiyanūr was made a *dēvadāna* of the Tiruvālangāḍu temple. The difference between this village and others of the *veḷḷān-vagai* is clearly stated in the following terms: ¹² 'This *ūr* is to be exempted from paying *iṟai* like other villages (held) by *veḷḷān-vagai*; for every year from the sixth, it is to pay a permanent *iṟai* (*ninṟiṟai*) of three thousand two hundred and eighty-eight *kalams*, seven *kuṟuṇis* and five *nēlis* of paddy and one hundred and ninety-three *kalañjus*, (one) *mañjāḍi*, and one *mā* of gold as paid before including *paḍi* and *paḷḷi*;¹³ it is to be assessed accordingly and (the assessment) entered in the accounts.' Now, these words of king's order provide a peep-hole into some important aspects of the land system under Cōḷa rule. The ordinary ryotwari village as we now call it was the *veḷḷān-vagai*, having direct relations with the government and paying a land-tax liable to revision from time to time. Whether the settlement was with the individual cultivator as at present, or, as seems more likely from the strength of communal organisations and life, with the village as a whole, is not certain. The statement that Paḻaiyanūr while it was a *brahmadēya* under the *sabhā* paid an *iṟai* of a large amount to the state is proof that a *brahmadēya* was usually subject to certain imposts payable in a lump sum of gold¹⁴ to the central government.
c29.10.3
A *brahmadēya* could also be resumed on the holders being compensated by the grant of other land in exchange, and the land so resumed could be put to some other use, in this instance converted into a *dēvadāna*. Quite obviously, Paḻaiyanūr was granted to the temple not as an ordinary *dēvadāna*, but as a *veḷḷān-vagai* with a permanently settled assessment of taxes which it paid to the temple instead of to government. The reason underlying this roundabout arrangement is not stated; but one may guess that the intention was to leave the actual cultivators of the land in *status quo*. When the land was *brahmadēya* they were remitting in all 3288 *kalams*, 7 *kuruṇis* and 5 *nāḷis* of paddy and 193 *kalañjus*, 1 *mañjāḍi* and 1 *mā* of gold as the landlord's share, and they were required to continue making the same payment to the temple instead of to their former landlords.¹⁵ Though in consideration of existing conditions a permanent settlement of the dues from the village to the temple was ordered, all that it meant was that the assessment was not to be altered as often as in the ordinary *veḷḷān-vagai* villages; for though almost every order or resolution was said to be perpetual at the time it was issued, there was no lack of readiness to reconsider it as fresh circumstances arose.
c29.10.4
And the language of this order which contrasts the payment by the ordinary *veḷḷān-vagai* villages with the fixed annual assessment of Paḻaiyanūr also suggests the possibility that in *veḷḷān-vagai* tenure the state's share was in some manner directly dependent on the annual yield. But of this we cannot be sure. Another example of a similar conversion of *brahmadēya* to a *veḷḷān-vagai dēvadāna* is found in an inscription of the sixteenth year of the Cōḷa-Pāṇḍya Viceroy Sundara by which five *vēlis* of land, originally *brahmadēya*, were made over to the Tiruvālīśvaram temple as *veḷḷān-vagai* with an annual assessment of 642 *kalams*, 6 *kuruṇis*, 2 *nāḷis*, 3 *uḷakkus*, and 2½ *śeviḍus* by the *nārāyam* measuring five *nāḷis*, and 40 *kalañjus* and 3 *kāṇis* of gold, of which five *kāśus* represented *kāṭci-erudu-kāśu* and the rest *uruvukōl-nilan-kāśu*.¹⁶ These instances make it clear that the *veḷḷān-vagai* villages fell, in the reign of Rājēndra I, into at least two broad classes—one directly remitting a variable annual revenue to the state and the other paying dues of a more or less fixed and standardised character to the public institutions like temples to which they were assigned. Which of these benefited the cultivator more, if at all, we lack the means of determining.