The Colas c29.25
The Cōḷas c29.25
- Language
- English
c29.25.1
*Dēvadāna* lands were often marked off, as just noticed, by means of boundary stones bearing the emblems of the deity to whom they belonged.⁵³ The rights and exemptions enumerated in *dēvadānas* have a family likeness to those of the *brahmadēyas*, as already noticed. *Dēvadāna* lands were managed by the authorities of the temple subject to supervision and control of the village assembly on the one side and the central government on the other. It was open to the authorities of the temple acting in concert with the local assemblies to award *jīvitas* or *kāṇis* to the servants of the temple as remuneration for the performance of services or the supply of articles required for use in the temple. Such assignments are sometimes made by the assembly acting by itself; for instance, the *ūr* of Neṟkuppai received as *dēvadāna* to Tiru-mudu-kunṟam-uḍaiyār some wet land and a house from Uttama Cōḷa; these they gave over as *kāṇi* in the third year of Rājarāja I to a person who was to supply to the temple half *palam* of sandal paste and quarter *palam* of bdellium, besides bathing materials on the days of the *ayana-sankrānti*.⁵⁴ The temple often came by land of low fertility or even waste land which was sometimes dumped on it by village assemblies which found themselves under the necessity of raising money urgently for some public purpose.
c29.25.2
Such inferior land had a much better chance under temples of being improved and fertilised by persons who were ready to undertake the task as a labour of love; when improved in this manner the land usually yielded a better income to the temple than before.⁵⁵ In the reign of Rājarāja I the lands in a *dēvadāna* village belonging to the temple of Sucīndram were divided into two categories, on one of which the rental due from the tenants (*kāṇik-kaḍan*) was raised from 3 *kalams* per *mā* to 3 *kalams* and a *tūṇi*, while the other which could not pay such a rental was to be directly managed by the officers of the temple (*dēvakanmigaḷ*).⁵⁶ On the other hand, in some instances the tenants occupying temple lands seem to have held them on more favourable terms than others, or, at any rate, to have had better opportunities of getting the terms of their lease revised when necessary. Thus the *kāṇik-kaḍan* due from Mānābharaṇa-caturvēdimangalam to the Viṣṇu temple called after Rājēndracōḷa in Mannārkōyil was fixed at 3840 *kalams* and odd; this was found to be too high, and in consequence the Cēra Rājarāja-dēva added ten *vēlis* of land to the original extent, and fixed 2600 *kalams* as the annual rental on the whole village so extended.⁵⁷ Instances like this show clearly that a number of extra-economic considerations entered into the management of temple lands.
c29.25.3
The desire of the donor to secure the maximum benefit to the temple or its tenants from his gift, the readiness of tenants to squeeze themselves to help in the attainment of this object, or, what was at least quite as common, their readiness to make an honest penny at the expense of a public institution if it could be done without a scandal, such were some of the forces that exerted a real influence on the terms of the lease. At any rate there was little chance that the relative economic conditions of the tenants holding of the temples exhibited any tendency to equality, such as custom and the methods of production and sharing were apt to produce among other classes of tenants. A curious inscription of the reign of Āditya II shows the value of the periodical audit of temple accounts by the officers of the central government; this is a record which details the detection of what looks very much like a deliberate fraud by which the temple of Tiruviḍaimarudil was despoiled of 96 *kalams* of paddy every year by its tenants, who remitted only 160 *kalams* as *pañcavāram* where 256 *kalams* were due by agreement; the defence set up in the course of the enquiry was that the tenure was *kuḍinīkkā-dēvadānam*, i.e. one in which occupancy rights still held good; but this turned out to be a false statement on a reference to the original deed recording the *dēvadāna*, and the tenants were thereupon ordered to remit the higher rate of *pañcavāram*.⁵⁸