Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Administration and Social Life under Vijayanagar c11: Chapter VII

Administration and Social Life under Vijayanagar c11

Language
English

Contents

Chapter VII

c11.1

The Sabhā

c11.2

In India the one political institution that has survived revolutions, changes of empires, ravages of time and the influence of alien domination is local government. The village institutions retained their vitality till almost the commencement of the British rule in India. About the services rendered by these village republics in India Elphinstone observes: "Though probably not compatible with a very good form of government they are an excellent remedy for the imperfections of a bad one. They prevent the bad effects of negligence and weakness and even present some barrier against its tyranny and rapacity. Again, these communities contain in miniature all the materials of a state within themselves, and are almost sufficient to protect their members if all other government were withdrawn. In the stability and continuity of Indian village life and organisation is to be sought the secret of the good things achieved by India in the past."¹

c11.3

¹ See K. A. Nilakanta Śāstri, Studies in Cola History and Administration, p. 73.

c11.4

An important feature about the administration of local areas in ancient India was the active functioning of what we may call local assemblies which carried on the administration of the local areas. Two types of such rural organisation can be distinguished. (1) The first was the village sabhā with its counterpart ūr. (2) The second was the nāḍu, the assembly of a larger rural division. Besides these there were associations of a corporate character which, though not completely political bodies, still discharged certain political functions. Among them mention can be made of the professional guilds and mercantile corporations and the temple which, besides being the house of god, was also an important centre of political and economic life in the local areas.

c11.5

The origin of the village sabhā is shrouded in mystery. But it can be assumed that the term sabhai is the Tamilised form of the Sanskrit word *sabhā* which means an assembly, and this term was used to denote an assembly even in the days of the Vedas. But it appears that the assembly of some villages only was called the *sabhai*, and such villages were those granted to Brahmans (*brahmadēya* villages). Side by side with the assembly of the *brahmadēya* villages was the assembly of the *ūr*, and it was called the *ūr*. There seems to have been a good deal of difference between a *sabhai* and an *ūr*. While the one was purely a Brahman concern and obtained only in *brahmadēya* villages, the other was an assembly of persons in a non-*brahmadēya* village or a village in which the proprietors of the soil were not exclusively Brahmans. Though we find some reference to the *ūr* in the inscriptions yet the knowledge we have of it is very limited. But about the constitution and working of the *sabhā* in the *brahmadēya* villages we have much information. However the epigraphs that describe the working of these *sabhās* belong to the Cōḷa period, and are far anterior to the Vijayanagar days. But inasmuch as we get references to the *sabhās* as doing almost what the Cōḷa *sabhās* did, it may be assumed that in the Vijayanagar days also the *sabhās* continued to work on the old lines and discharged their old functions regularly.

c11.6

In certain places the body of the *mahāsabhā* or *sabhā* was called the *mahājanas*. The assembly of Agaramputtūr alias Mādhavacaturvēdimaṅgalam was called the *mahājana*. Every caturvēdimaṅgalam (*brahmadēya* village) consisted of a central village to which was attached a large number of small ones. The village was divided into a number of wards. Each caturvēdimaṅgalam had an assembly of a certain number of members. A high standard of qualification was expected of them. They were expected to have studied the four Vedas; a few of them were required to have a good knowledge of the Ṣaḍaṅgas as well; otherwise they were expected to have acquired a good knowledge relating to the conduct of sacrifices and performed them. They were also expected to have besides these cultural attainments a good physique and a strong constitution to bear the fatigue of their work.²

c11.7

² See K. V. Subrahmanya Ayyar, *Historical Sketches of Ancient Dekhan*, pp. 318 ff.

c11.8

From the inscriptions we get some idea of the strength of the village assemblies in the Vijayanagar days. An epigraph at Tiruvāṇḍārkōyil in the Pondicherry territory records that Tribhuvana-mahādēvi caturvēdimaṅgalam had an assembly consisting of 4000 men.³ It must have been too unwieldy to transact any business successfully. These assemblies generally met in a temple hall, failing which they seem to have gathered at some other public place. According to an inscription at Virāccilai in the Puduk-kōṭṭai State a great assembly met in a flower garden (nandavanam).⁴ The corporate character and the large size of these assemblies are indicated by the terms ūrāga īsainda ūrōm, or nāḍāga īsainda nāṭṭavarōm and kuraivara kūḍi, niraivara niraindu, etc. Though these assemblies seem to have been large it is reasonable to assume that their deliberations were conducted only by a few residents who were the leading citizens of the locality. Some of these assemblies were at times called mahāsabhās. Thus Kāvēripākkam in the North Arcot district is said to have had a mahāsabhā in A.D. 1459-60.⁵

c11.9

³ 217 of 1917; Rep., 1918, para 67.

c11.10

⁴ I.P.S., 705.

c11.11

⁵ 392 of 1905.

c11.12

The village assemblies possessed the right of disposing of or acquiring lands or other kinds of property in the name and on behalf of the village. Thus the assembly of Ukkal alias Vikramābharaṇa-caturvēdimaṅgalam sold the village of Araśāṇipālai for six hundred kāśus to an individual of Śērrūr in Teṅkarai Uyyakoṇḍanvaḷa nāḍu, a subdivision of the Cōḷamaṇḍalam;⁶ the same assembly a few years later sold the village of Iṭṭigaipaṭṭu for 400 paṇams to certain individuals.⁷ According to a record at Āvaḍaiyārkōyil in the Tanjore district the assembly of the village of Tirupperundurai made a gift of two pieces of land as tirunāmattukkāṇi to the temple of Śōḷapāṇḍya Viṇṇagar Emberumāṉār in the same village.⁸

c11.13

⁶ 389 of 1923.

c11.14

⁷ 358 of 1923.

c11.15

⁸ 509 of 1925.

c11.16

It is hard to explain the right of these village assemblies to sell away or make gift of the lands in the villages under their jurisdiction unless we associate the institution of the sabhā and its inherent proprietory right on the lands under its jurisdiction with the question of land tenures. As we said earlier every brahmadēya village had a sabhā which was its representative body, and as such was vested with the right of acting on behalf of the villagers. Further it is as a joint body that the assembly made the grants, and this right of acting as the joint body representing the villagers was acquired by it by reason of the joint tenure under which the villagers held the land. In such villages the proprietors held the lands jointly and could sell or make gifts of their lands only jointly and not individually. Here the terms gaṇabhōgam and ēkabhōgam deserve some examination. Gaṇabhōgam indicates that lands held under that system were jointly held by the people, and hence under a joint tenure. But under the ēkabhōgam system the lands seem to have been held by only one person, and hence he had absolute and unlimited right over the soil. In some other cases the village granted was divided into a number of vṛttis each of which or a certain number of which was granted to a particular individual. According to a copper-plate record of Harihara II for instance a grant of twenty-two villages was made by the king on Agrahāra terms to a few Brahmans to be held by them jointly (gaṇabhōgam).⁹ This would indicate that the villages were to be joint villages, and hence any sale or gift of the lands in the said twenty-two villages was to be made only jointy by the donees. No single member among them could deal with the property independently of the others. But the case of an ēkabhōgam village was quite different, for the donee in this case was not bound to act jointly with others in regard to the sale or gift of the property of which he was in full and unlimited possession. In Ś. 1451 Acyuta Rāya made a grant of the village of Kaḍalāḍi in the Paḍaiviḍu mahārājya to one Rāmacandra Dīkṣita as a sarvamānya to be enjoyed by him and his descendants on ēkabhōgam tenure, which implies the exclusive ownership of the property and the rights over it by a single individual. When however a sarvamānya village held under such ēkabhōgam tenure was distributed among a number of persons, it simply meant that they were granted the right of enjoyment of the income from the village unless it was clearly stated by the donor that he was making a sarvamānya grant of the lands in question. In the absence of such a specific statement we have to understand that the donor reserved the right to the property to himself, but granted only the right of enjoyment to the persons in question. According to the inscriptions under reference Rāmacandra Dīkṣita, the original donee of the sarvamānya grant, appears to have reserved to himself the right of ownership and granted only the right of enjoyment to the Brahmans of his sect.¹⁰

c11.17

⁹ J.B.B.R.A.S., XII, p. 357. 1. 120.

c11.18

¹⁰ E.I., XIV, Kaḍalāḍi Plates of Acyuta Rāya, Text, v. 49 and p. 313.

c11.19

A few types of joint ownership can be distinguished: (1) The first is a complete and unlimited ownership and hence implies the right of the whole community in the soil. In this case in the particular village in which this system prevails the joint owners cultivate the lands in common and reap the profits in common in proportion to the number of *vṛttis* each has in the said village. Thus if a village is divided into 120 *vṛttis* among a few people, each such *vṛttidār*, owning say from two to five *vṛttis*, contributes labour in proportion to the number of *vṛttis* he holds, and his share of the produce is also in the same proportion. (2) The second type is one in which a particular portion of the village is held in common by the villagers, while they have their own plots other than those held in common by them. They generally cultivate their own lands in their own way independently of the others, but in the case of the common lands in the village all the co-sharers contribute their labour in common, and enjoy the profits in common each having a share of it according to a fixed proportion settled by the community in proportion to the amount of land held by each. In this case the community is the joint owner of only a part of the village, while the individual villager has his own lands, and his use of those lands is not controlled by the joint community of which he is also a member. (3) Another type of village is the one in which the joint community is the owner of all the lands in the village, but it does not cultivate the lands jointly or enjoy in common the fruits of the labour spent on them. The lands in the village in this case are divided into three classes, best, middling and bad, and every individual member of the joint community is given a portion of each of these three classes of lands; he is not to be in permanent possession of the allotted lands, but is required to part with them after a particular time in return for other plots in each of these three classes. Thus there is a periodical redistribution of the lands held by the joint community among its members who could enjoy their share during the period in which they are under them. This system is known as the *karaiyiḍu* in the Tanjore district.¹¹ Thus in the first case ownership rests with the joint community where the individual has no right over the property except as a member of the joint community; in the second case the joint community has only a limited right over the village, for it holds in common only a part of the village, and hence controls only that portion of the village, while the individual has proprietory right over certain lands in the village which he enjoys by his own right uninterfered by the joint community; and in the third case the joint community is the proprietor of the whole, but it distributes the lands among the co-sharers to be enjoyed by them until the next redistribution.

c11.20

¹¹ *Ind. Ant.*, III, pp. 65-69.

c11.21

An important feature of the villages in which part of the lands was held in common by the community was that outsiders were not allowed to get any right or share by purchase or by grant. The community was anxious that no outsider should get any benefit by the purchase of such lands. According to an inscription at Māṅgāḍu in the Chingleput district the residents of the village made an agreement among themselves “that any owner of land (in the village of Māṅgāḍu) (desirous of) selling (his land) must sell it to a landowner within that village and not to any outsider, nor could he give even as dowry (strīdhana) lands in the village to an outsider.”¹² An inscription in the Malavaḷḷi taluk in the Mysore district registers an agreement among the people that if any among the shareholders (who were evidently Brahmans) mortgaged or sold his share to Śūdras, he must be put out of the Brahman community and such share should not belong to that place.¹³ If outsiders wished to cultivate lands in a particular village certain disabilities were placed in their way. Thus for instance by order of Rāma Rāja Viṭṭhala, Rājayya Bācarasayya of Haḍināḍ and Cāmarasa Gauḍa made the following rule for the cultivation of the rice lands in Hoṅganūr : “If, in addition to the resident ryots, any important resident in the neighbourhood plough (there), he may do so in accordance with the paṭṭe granted by the Māsanikāra, Pārupatyagāra, Gauḍa, and Sēnabōva; not according to the same rule as the resident ryots. If any one setting at naught this order is not prevented at the time by the Karaṇika of the Cāvaḍi and the Gauḍa and Sēnebōva, they will incur the guilt of slaughtering cows, etc.........”14 Thus these villages were very anxious to prevent outsiders from getting into their villages, even for purposes of cultivation.

c11.22

¹² 354 of 1908; Rep., 1909, para 67.

c11.23

¹³ E.C., III, Ml. 121.

c11.24

Now to return to the village sabhā. It seems to have functioned in the gaṇabhōga or samudāyam villages where it acted in the name and on behalf of the village community as a whole. Thus it would appear that these sabhās had their origin in the communal character of the villages, and they exercised full authority over the sale and purchase of lands on behalf of the community. Then the question arises if the individual co-sharer in the village community had any right to sell or dispose of his share of the communal property independently of the sabhā. He does not seem to have had any right to deal with the property except as a co-sharer and hence through the sabhā. However this applies only to a village the whole of which is held in common by the people and where the individual has no independent right of possession of any piece of land in the village. But in a village where only a part of it is held in common by the joint community and side by side with it the individual ryot has got some plots of land of which he is the sole proprietor, he can sell his private lands independently of the sabhā though he may be precluded from disposing of the lands held by the sabhā in the name of the joint community of which he may be a member and hence is bound to contribute to the cost of production and entitled to a particular share of the income from that portion of the village. Thus according to an inscription of A.D. 1370 at Paḷani in the Madura district, one Periya Perumāḷ Nambi, a member of the sabhā of Kalaiyaṇputtūr, made a grant.¹⁵ Here it would appear that part of the lands in the said village of Kalaiyaṇputtūr, was held jointly by the village community while some other lands were held individually by the people, who as members of the joint community had also a place in the village sabhā. Hence it is that Periya Nambi was able to make a grant without any reference to the sabhā; and it has to be inferred that he made the grant only from the property he held individually.

c11.25

¹⁵ 609 of 1893; S.I.I., V, No. 285.

c11.26

The next important function of the village sabhā was that of tax collection. The collection of taxes payable to the imperial government was at times entrusted to the village sabhās or the ūravar. Where the local bodies collected the taxes due to the imperial government, these local tax collecting agents had to be informed by the authorities of any remissions in the taxes or new impositions if levied, and they made the necessary entries in their account books and carried out the order. Thus for instance when one Tirumēni Aḷagiyār alias Śeṇpakarāya, Viśaiyāladeva of Śūraikkuḍi set apart the amount of one hundred and fifty vāḷāl vali tiraṇdāṇ kuḷiśaipaṇams due annually as paccai paṇam from the temple for offerings to God at the service called after his name, the nāṭṭavar (district assembly) subsequently deducted the above amount both from the tax-register and (village) accounts.¹⁶ Then again an epigraph at Tirumakkōṭṭai in the Tanjore district registers an order to the *Mahājanas* of Pālaiyūr alias Bhupatirāya-samudram that the old method of levying taxes in grain for the protection of the country must be revived instead of the then prevailing custom of collecting both in grain and money.¹⁷ It is evident that because the *Mahājanas* were the agents of the imperial government for the collection of the state revenues the order was communicated to them.

c11.27

¹⁶ I.P.S., 699.

c11.28

¹⁷ 259 of 1917.
18. 211 of 1928-29.
19. 178 of 1926.
20. 384 of 1914.

c11.29

Besides being the agents of the government for the collection of the state revenues, these rural assemblies had certain inherent rights for the levy of fresh taxes and the remission of old ones. Thus according to an inscription at Tiruvaḍatturai in the South Arcot district the assembly and *Tantrimār* of Karippōkku nāḍu made a gift of the taxes on land.18 The assembly of Śiruvayal decided to exclude *sarvamānya* lands belonging to a certain deity and to include others for purposes of taxation.19 Again the people of Kūlaikuḷattūr gave away the right of levying certain taxes to goldsmiths.20 But the remissions made on the initiative of the local bodies concerned only the local cesses collected by the assembly for local purposes and had nothing to do with their contribution to the imperial exchequer; or if the taxes were imperial ones they had been farmed out to the local bodies. It would appear that if the local body which at times was the agent of the government for the collection of the state revenues, remitted the imperial revenues without the sanction of the government authority then it must have done so only at its own cost, for the government would not have been prepared to accept any amount less than that which they were obliged to take under the terms of the contract into which they had entered with the assembly.

c11.30

But these local bodies had great influence over the revenue policy of the government. In places where these assemblies existed the government could not impose new taxes or remit old ones without their consent since they carefully guarded the interests of the community. Thus Abbarāja Tirumalarāja granted for instance the *mūlaviśa* of certain villages for the offerings to the God Tiruveṅgaḷanātha with the consent of the *Mahānāḍu* (general assembly).21

c11.31

On a few occasions the ūravar acted as the lease holders of the lands of the rulers. Thus Vaṇṇiyanār Aḍaikkalaṅgāttār alias Nāḍumaditta Viśaiyālaiyadēva gave a piece of land which was a kuḍinīṅgādēvadānam to the ūravar of Tulaiyānilai and Paraḷi. They were required to pay in the dues of the nāḍu, but were exempted from the payment of certain taxes.²²

c11.32

²² I.P.S., 720.

c11.33

These assemblies had certain judicial powers. They could try certain cases and inflict punishment on the offenders. We have seen for instance in an earlier section how the Mahājanas of the agrahāras of Kuḷattūr, Ālambaḷam, Śaḍaiyaṉpaṭṭu and Muṭṭiyā-kuricci decided a case of dispute between two priests and the managers of the temple of Kāmēśvaram Uḍaiya Nāyaṉar at Āragaḷūr in the Salem district about the privilege of worshipping the God all the thirty days in the month, as also how that decision was given effect to by the temple authorities concerned.²³ They had also the right to confiscate the lands of guilty persons. The village assembly of Tirupperundurai in the Tanjore district for instance gave as tirunāmattukkāṇi in Ś. 1308 (1386-7) to the local temple of Śōḷapāṇḍya Viṇṇagar Emberumāṉār, land which it had confiscated from a certain Āṇḍāṉ Piḷḷai of Tiruppattūr on account of some fault (kurai) committed by him.²⁴

c11.34

²³ See ante, pp. 119-21.

c11.35

²⁴ 509 of 1925.

c11.36

But in the later period of Vijayanagar history these villages do not appear to have enjoyed such wide powers. They had to get the sanction of the imperial officer in the locality before they could dispose of the lands of certain individuals. Thus at Śērmādēvi in the Tinnevelly district we find that in A.D. 1544 Rāmappa Nāyuḍu along with a few others and the learned men of Cēramahādēvi, Ēlāpuram and Narasāpuram met together and assigned the lands and house of a certain Yeruvadi Timmayya, an outcaste of the Brahman community, to the temple of Tiruveṅgaḷanātha.²⁵

c11.37

²⁵ 718 of 1917.

c11.38

The village assemblies exercised some control over the temples as well. The assembly of Aṉaimēlagaram in the present Tanjore district confirmed the right of the temple at Mūvalūr over the lands that already belonged to it, the lands that had been gradually added on and the lands that once belonged to the God Kālakūttar whose temple had been destroyed by fire.²⁶ Sometimes it shared in common with the temple the right of controlling certain public places like the village tank. Thus an inscription at Nāṅgunēri in the Tinnevelly district records the grant by the temple authorities and the assemblies of Śīvaramaṅgai and a few other places of the right of fishing in the tank in return for clearing the silt of the tank every year.27

c11.39

²⁶ 21 of 1925.
27. 262 of 1927-8.

c11.40

The village assembly enjoyed also the right of conferring honours on certain individuals for certain services rendered. The ūravar of the villages of Kūḍalūr and Kulamaṅgalam for instance made a grant of the title of Kalaṅgāda kaṇḍan kōn with certain temple honours to a cowherd Poṇṇaṇ Kōn Eḷumbaṇ by name for supplying kids to the temple during the festivals of Kōṇāṭṭu nācciyār.²⁸

c11.41

²⁸ I.P.S., 692.
29. 470 of 1925.
30. 469 of 1925.

c11.42

The village assemblies acted sometimes as guardians of the public endowments and charities, and administered trusts, the expenses of which were to be met by the income from a particular landed property or money deposit placed in charge of these village assemblies. Thus according to an inscription at Paḷḷikoṇḍa in the North Arcot district, the assembly of Nandikampacaturvēdimaṅgalam made an agreement with a certain Vaṇakkaṇ Poṇṇāli Nambi, a merchant of Mērpādi, who endowed as dānapuram 2,000 kuli of land in the village of Vaippūr for feeding daily a specified number of persons versed in the Vedas.29 According to another epigraph at the same place the same assembly agreed to feed certain ascetics daily in return for a grant of 400 kuli of tax free land made as dānapuram by a lady named Umaiyāḷ Ammaiyāḷ.30 Similarly when one Rācappa, the son of a merchant Ciṇṇappa, made a grant of a dry field of the sowing capacity of 10 kōḷagas for the service of God Kalledēva during the reign of Bukka II, the field was placed in charge of the Mahājanas of the village.31

c11.43

The nāḍu was a larger political unit than a village. It had also an assembly which went by the name of nāḍu, the members of which were called the nāṭṭavar. The nāḍu enjoyed similar powers as the village assembly but its jurisdiction extended over a wider area. For instance the nāṭṭavar of the Kāṉanāḍu alias Virudarājabhayaṅkara vaḷanāḍu sold a piece of land to Tirumēṉi Alagiyār alias Nayiṉār Viśaiyālayadēva of Śūraikkuḍi.³² According to a record at Peṇṇāḍam in the South Arcot district the nāṭṭār and Tantrimār of Karippōkkunāḍu made a sarvamānya gift of land.³³ Similarly the nāṭṭavar of Karigayanāḍu made a grant of six *poṉ* which was the income from a particular village. Again the residents of Teṅkaraināḍu in Jayaśiṅakulakālavaḷanāḍu made a gift of land to the temple of Tirukkōkaṇṇamuḍaiya Nāyaṉār.³⁴ Thus the nāḍu and the sabhā were quasi-independent republics in the local areas managing local affairs, and bearing the responsibility for the carrying on of certain branches of the administration in the local areas.

c11.44

³² I.P.S., 685.

c11.45

³³ 261 of 1928-29.

c11.46

³⁴ I.P.S., 691.

c11.47

But these local bodies do not seem to have been left uncontrolled by the government, for according to an inscription at Tiruvāmattūr in the South Arcot district, the nāṭṭār of the place gave an undertaking to the official committee of management (*rājakārya bhaṇḍāra*) that they would thenceforth allow certain privileges to the three classes of artisans, viz., blacksmiths, goldsmiths and carpenters of the locality in accordance with the practice obtaining in a few other places and that if ever they should violate their promise they would pay a fine of 12 *poṉ* and suffer the twelve ‘disgraces,’ *kurrams*, in consequence.³⁵

c11.48

³⁵ 65 of 1922 ; Rep., 1922, para 54 ; see also 378 of 1921 ; Rep., para 54.

c11.49

But these republics slowly but steadily decayed in the course of the Vijayanagar period. Venkoba Rao while commenting upon a particular inscription of A.D. 1382 remarks: “These village assemblies which were powerful local institutions during the Cōḷa period seem to have gradually died out after the decline of the Cōḷa empire. The few transactions noticed in the above inscriptions were probably among the very last transactions of the assemblies before their total disappearance.”³⁶ In another place while commenting upon an inscription of A.D. 1386 he observes: “The transaction recorded in the present inscription is another late instance of the vestiges of power wielded by the village assembly.”³⁷

c11.50

³⁶ M.E.R., 1923-24, para 40.

c11.51

³⁷ Ibid., 1925-26, para 35.

c11.52

K. V. Subrahmanya Ayyar also thinks that these assemblies slowly lost their vitality in the Vijayanagar period. He says: "Under the kings of the last Vijayanagar dynasty and in the dark days of what is generally called the memorable invasion of Malik Kafur as well as during the period of rule of the kings of the Bahmani line, the political and social institutions together with the official machinery of Southern India which were in existence from the earliest times had been shaken root and branch."38 Saletore, however, believes that the village assemblies continued to function as local republics till a very late period, and questions Venkoba Rao's conclusions.³⁹ He bases his view on the fact that the Vijayanagar emperors respected the *pūrvamaryāda* of the people to a very great extent. He says: "We believe that the Vijayanagara monarchs did not introduce measures by which the powers of the local bodies lapsed to the central authority. On the other hand we may be permitted to repeat, that as promoters of the *pūrvadamaryāde* (ancient constitutional usage) it was their endeavour to preserve the old order of things and to allow the ancient officers to continue under the new government, although......they showed their discretion by placing over the local bodies officers of the central government." 40 But such respect for the *pūrvamaryāda* was confined only to certain customary rights which certain individuals or groups of persons enjoyed for a long time past. It does not appear to have had anything to do with the fostering of the village republics. The centralised machinery of the Vijayanagar administration could not have fostered the healthy growth of the village communal institutions. The kings themselves did not aim at the destruction of the village republics, yet the way in which they controlled even the distant parts of their empire could not have encouraged the active and judicious functioning of these village institutions. Further the appointment of the *Āyagārs* by the government stifled the free life of the village republics.

c11.53

³⁹ *Soc. and Pol. Life*, I. p. 342.

c11.54

The *Āyagār* System

c11.55

An important feature of the village organisation was the *Āyagār* system. According to it every village was a separate unit and its affairs were conducted by a body of twelve functionaries who were collectively known as the Āyagārs. Col. Wilks describes the functions of these Āyagārs in the following terms: “Every Indian village is, and appears always to have been, in fact, a separate community or republic; the gouḍ or potail is the judge and magistrate; the karaṇam or shanbhog is the registrar. The taliary or sthulwār and the toti are generally the watchmen of the village and of the crops; the neergaṇṭee distributes the water of the streams or reservoirs in just proportion to the several fields; the jotishee, joshee or astrologer performs the essential service of announcing the seasons of seed time and harvest, and the imaginary benefit of unfolding the ‘lucky and unlucky’ days and hours for all the operations of farming; the smith and carpenter, frame the rude instruments of husbandry, and the ruder dwelling of the farmer; the potter fabricates the only utensils of the village; the washerman keeps clean the few garments which are spun and sometimes woven in the family of the farmer, or purchased at the nearest market; the barber contributes to the cleanliness and assists in the toilet of the villagers; the goldsmith marking the approach of luxury, manufactures the simple ornaments with which they like to bedeck their wives and daughters; and these twelve officers styled the Barabullowuttee or Ayangadi, as requisite members of the community, receive the compensation of their labour either in allotments of land from the corporate stock or in fees consisting of fixed proportions of the crop of every farmer in the village.”⁴¹ Almost every British Indian administrator in the early nineteenth century was struck by the vitality and usefulness of the Āyagār system.

c11.56

³⁸ *Historical Sketches of Ancient Dekhan*, p. 313.

c11.57

⁴¹ Hist. Sketches of Mysore, I. p. 73. See also Firminger, Fifth Report, Madras, p. 13, for a description of the working of the Āyagār system.

c11.58

These village functionaries were generally appointed by the government. An inscription at Rāvulaceruvu in the Anantapur district registers the conferment of the reḍḍirikam right over Dharmāvaram in equal shares on two families during the regime of Samprati Tipparājayya over Pennamāgāṇi in Guṭṭi rājya. It also specifies several individuals as the holders of different offices in the village and the extent of land allotted to them.⁴² A copperplate grant said to be of the time of Śrī Raṅga II states that the Yalahaṅka nāḍu Prabhu Immaḍi Kempe Gauḍa granted the right of reading the pañcāṅga or almanac in a few villages to one Avubaḷa Narasimha Bhaṭṭa, and provided that the fees attached to the office of reading the pañcāṅga in those villages were to be enjoyed by him and his descendants.⁴³ Once granted to them these Āyagārs had a hereditary right over their offices, and whenever disputes arose as to who had the right to a particular office, the government took great care to find out to whom it belonged by custom and long usage and decided such cases. Thus according to an inscription of A.D. 1565, when a few persons complained to the agent of Rāmadēva Mahārāya that the offices of Sēnabōva and Jyōtiṣa, which they had been enjoying since the days of their ancestors, had been brought under the sist and requested that they must be granted to them, he instituted an enquiry into the matter and declared: "The former residents affirming that the offices of Sēnabōva, Jyōtiṣa, Purohita and others belonging to the Sante-Bennūr-śīme in the Uccange veṇṭhe were held by you—we therefore grant them to you, as a gift to Rāma, to be enjoyed by you, your sons, grandsons, and posterity in regular succession, and you may take possession of the dues and rights (specified) belonging thereto in the Sante-Bennūr śīme."⁴⁴

c11.59

⁴² M.E.R., Cp. 15 of 1925-26

c11.60

⁴³ M.A.R., 1916, para 105; The inscription, however, is dated A.D. 1631.

c11.61

⁴⁴ E.C., VII, Ci. 62.

c11.62

The Āyagārs had the right to sell or mortgage their offices.⁴⁵ They were granted tax free lands (mānyams) which they were to enjoy in perpetuity for their services. During the time of Vīra Śrī Raṅgarāyadēva Mahārāya, one Mahānāyakācārya Rāmappa for instance made a grant of certain lands in a few villages to one Nārāyaṇappa as karaṇikamānya. In addition to this the donee was also granted the right of collecting certain dues on all the lands, dry or wet, areca nut gardens, irrigation wells, etc., situated in all the villages of the hobḷi as remuneration for his service.⁴⁶

c11.63

⁴⁵ Rice, Mus. Gaz., I, p. 581.

c11.64

⁴⁶ M.A.R., 1924, No. 105, para 92.

c11.65

These Āyagārs had onerous responsibilities within their locality. They were the guardians of the peace within their jurisdiction. No transfer of property could be effected or grant made without the knowledge and consent of these village functionaries. According to a damaged record at Guṇḍala in the Kurnool district for instance, when Doḍḷa Veṅkaṭanāyaniṅgāru died, his son appointed an agent to supervise the Doḍḷa charities, viz., the Prākāra wall, pavilions, flower gardens, ponds and others in the temple of Cannakēśavaperumāḷ at Guṇḍal in Dhōni sīma and gave him some land in Tāḍūru with the consent of the Reḍḍi, Karaṇam, and the Talāri of the village.⁴⁷ Sales of land had to be made only with the knowledge of these officers and invariably the Karaṇika or the accountant was the writer of the sale deed, as he still continues to be in the villages.

c11.66

⁴⁷ 138 of 1913.

c11.67

Professional Associations and Guilds

c11.68

Side by side with these political and corporate bodies we see certain professional associations, guilds and mercantile corporations discharging some duties similar to those transacted by the first type of local republics. Their constitutional status in relation to the central government was considerable, and they enjoyed a share in the management of the local administration. But it is difficult to say exactly if they enjoyed their powers independently of the sabhā or the nāḍu of the locality. In the light of the available evidence with regard to their power, it is reasonable to assume that they enjoyed certain concurrent powers with the sabhā and the nāḍu, and in a majority of cases co-operated with them in the transaction of their business.

c11.69

Thus during the time of Virūpaṇṇa Uḍaiyār the smaller assemblies of Tiruvaraṅgam, Tirupati, Tiruvāṇaikkāval and a few other places, the three kinds of paḷḷis, the four or six kinds of professionals of artisans (rathakāras) all met together for the purpose of assigning duties to the kaḷḷa vēlaikkārar who sought refuge there, and for fixing their contribution for the temple for protecting them from all dangers.⁴⁸ Then again in A.D. 1406 the trustees of the temples of Uttamatāṇīśvaram Uḍaiya Nāyanār, the Kaikkōḷa Mudalis and the ūravar of Kiraṇūr made a grant of suvandiram to a few goldsmiths of the village.⁴⁹ Here we do not know if the temple trustees and the Kaikkōḷa Mudalis enjoyed the same rights with regard to these grants as the village assembly which must have been a better knit and a more organised political body. But these communal bodies which had a quasi-political character seem to have however enjoyed the right of co-operating with the assembly in some matters.

c11.70

⁴⁸ I.P.S.. 689; also 368 of 1914, Rep., 1915, para 42.

c11.71

⁴⁹ Ibid., 690.

c11.72

Another body of persons that constituted a political group and at times co-operated with the local assemblies is what were known as the Valangai and Idangai ninety-eight sects. Though they were essentially social groups with differences and frequent quarrels among themselves yet in their relations with the government they acted as an organised constitutional body. Thus according to a record at Tiruvaigāvūr in the Tanjore district the Valangai 98 sects and the Idangai 98 sects along with the assembled residents of Parāntakanāḍu met together and arrived at a decision regarding the amount under the various items of taxation payable to the government (rājagaram irai muraimai ) or to the temple.⁵⁰ Similarly according to an unfinished and damaged record of A.D. 1429 at Vṛddhācalam already referred to, the Valangai sects entered into an agreement among themselves that they would inflict corporal punishment on those who helped the tax-collectors of the king in the collection of taxes by coercive measures and who consented to write accounts.⁵¹

c11.73

⁵⁰ 59 of 1914; See Rep., 1915, para 44.

c11.74

⁵¹ 92 of 1918; Rep., 1918, para 68.

c11.75

Side by side with these were a few communal associations made up of certain professional people. These constituted a political body by themselves and their consent either implied or explicit was sought by the government. They helped to a large extent the local rulers in the administration of the local areas. Thus Mudda Heggade was administering the chief town of Kāp with the help of the assembly, communal and professional associations and subordinate officers.⁵² The terms used to denote them are the gaṇa and paṇa. Gaṇa "is an aggregate of kulas".⁵³ Paṇa is however a sectarian division. An inscription of the 17th century refers to eighteen such paṇas. They are the Vyāvahārikas, Pāñcālas (five sects of smiths), Kumbhālikas (potters), Tantuvāyins (weavers), Vastra-bhedakas (cloth dyers?), Tilaghātakas (oil millers), Kuranṭakas (Kuratakas?—shoe-makers), Vastra-rakṣakas (tailors), Devāngas, Parikeliti (Parikelette vāru?—keepers of pack bulls)

c11.76

⁵² E.I., XX, p. 90.

c11.77

⁵³ Kulānāṁ hi samūhas tu gaṇaḥ samprakīrtitaḥ (Kātyāyana, Vīra Mitrodaya, p. 426) quoted by Dr. Pran Nath in his Economic Conditions in Ancient India, p. 54.

c11.78

Go-rakṣakas (cowherds), Kirātas (hunters), Rajakas (washermen) and Kṣaurakas (barbers). These seem to have formed a recognised part of the local assemblies.⁵⁴ They appear to be the eighteen castes, Padineṇ bhūmi śamayattār, of the Kuṇṇāṇḍār kōyil inscription above referred to. Saletore doubts if these were not merely “conventional divisions”.⁵⁵ But the division of society according to profession need not be conventional.

c11.79

⁵⁴ E.I., XX, p. 90. fn. 2, M.E.R., 1918. paras 84 and 85. See in this connection K. R. R. Sastry, South Indian Guilds. pp. 6-32.

c11.80

⁵⁵ Soc. and Pol. Life, II, p. 26, fn.
56. 406 of 1927-8; Rep., para 36.

c11.81

Mention may be made here of some of the more important professional guilds or craft guilds. The most important of them was the Hañjamanedavāru (community). It is difficult to say exactly who they were. “Some scholars derive the term from the foreign word añjumān while others have taken it to refer to the Jewish and early Christian merchants who had settled in the west coast. But such an identification is precluded by the occurrence of the expression Añjuvaṇṇattār-teru in an inscription at Kṛṣṇapaṭṇam (No. 8) in the Nellore district where there is no tradition of any Syrian settlement. The Tamil term Añjuvaṇṇam meaning the ‘five artisan castes’ can with greater probability be equalled with this expression Hañjamana of which it appears to be merely a modification. It seems to refer to the same community that is called Pañcahānamvāru of Pañcālamvāru in Telugu and Pañcāḷattār in the Tamil inscriptions. These artisan classes should have had a corporate existence in the early period as they were taxed collectively and made grants under the direction of the rulers in their corporate capacity.” 56 Another such community was the Vaiśyavāṇiya nagarattār who, according to a record at Danāyakankōṭṭai in the Coimbatore district, agreed to contribute a fixed amount for the benefit of the local temple on certain articles of merchandise such as female cloths, pepper, areca nuts, thread, salt, grains and horses.57

c11.82

Besides these there were certain mercantile corporations which were recognised to be quasi-political bodies within the empire. In the same way as almost every village had an assembly, every town appears to have had a mercantile association or guild. In fact the true difference between a village and a town lay in the fact that while the former had no such guild, almost every town had one known as the *nagarattār*. Secondly every town had generally a weekly fair (*śantai*) while that was not the mark of all villages.

c11.83

About the existence of such guilds Abdur Razāk says: "The tradesmen of each separate guild or craft have their shops close to one another. The jewellers sell their rubies and pearls and diamonds and emeralds openly in the bazaar."⁵⁸ Paes also says: "There are temples in every street, for these appertain to institutions like the confraternities you know of in our parts, of all the craftsmen and merchants."⁵⁹

c11.84

⁵⁸ Elliot, op. cit., IV, p. 107.

c11.85

⁵⁹ Sewell, op. cit., p. 256.

c11.86

The guilds were known as *nagarattārs* or *śeṭṭis* in the inscriptions. These mercantile corporations had certain common features which strike a student of mediaeval institutions. It was only a community of interest that brought into existence these guilds, and it was their common endeavour to promote their interest. They were local associations and hence the constitution and working of a guild must have differed from place to place and from time to time. Every guild had a leader who exercised some control over the working of the organisation and acted as its accredited representative in its dealings with the government. He was known in the Kanarese and Telugu districts as the *Paṭṭaṇasvāmi* or *Śeṭṭi*. He was also probably the head of all the mercantile corporations in a given place. Finally another striking feature about the mediaeval guilds in India was that they belonged to a religious sect. It is this adherence to a particular religious faith that was a great unifying factor in the mediaeval guilds.

c11.87

These guilds were usually consulted by the government when the taxes due from them were the subject of a gift. According to an epigraph at Hospet in the Bellary district Abbarāja Timmappa, the agent of Pradhāna Tirumalarāja, granted the *mūlaviśa* of certain villages for the offerings of God Tiruveṅgaḷanātha with the consent of the *śeṭṭi paṭṭaṇasvāmis* (presiding merchants) of the villages and the *mahānāḍu* (general assembly).⁶⁰ Similarly one Kampadēva Aṇṇa, an officer of Acyuta Rāya, is said to have made a gift of some duties on crops and of the fee on marriages with the consent of the nānādēśi merchants.⁶¹ They also levied certain customs and taxes of a local character. They levied tolls on markets for instance, and granted them to temples. According to an inscription of A.D. 1534 the local merchants collected tolls at the market held every Sunday in the hamlet of Viśvēśvaradēvapura belonging to Lepākṣi and in the Haruṇāḍu and Hōsūrunāḍu and a few other customs which they granted to a temple.62

c11.88

⁶⁰ 681 of 1922; Rep., 1923, para 83.

c11.89

⁶¹ 679 of 1922; Rep., 1923, para 83.
62. 570 of 1912; see also No. 1 of Sewell’s list.

c11.90

These guilds had the right to confer certain honours on some highly placed officials. For example the members of the nakara parivāra and mummuriḍaṇḍa “together with their three hundred Billa dependents and with the collection of the Holeyas of Vijayanagar having placed the diamond vaisaṇige in the presence of the holy lotus feet of the God Virūpākṣa, and sitting down, having agreed among themselves, conferred the mayoralty of the earth (Pṛthviśeṭṭitana) on Muddayya Daṇṇāyaka, who was the officer for superintendence of the customs of our fifty-six countries.” 63

c11.91

The guilds enjoyed the right to make certain regulations even of a social and religious character for their members. According to an inscription in the Tiptūr taluk of the Tumkūr district for instance a number of Śeṭṭis from Bāgūr made some regulations in A.D. 1449 (?) regarding women who lapsed from marriage.⁶⁴ But unfortunately the inscription is incomplete and we are not able to make anything out of this interesting fragment.

c11.92

⁶⁴ E.C., XII, Tp. 86.

c11.93

They also exercised great influence over the policy of the government. They at times made petition to the government to do a particular thing which was done. Thus when the great Vaḍḍebya-vahāri, chief of (both sects) Nānādēśis Arjju bhaṭṭayya’s son Mahādēvaṇa made petition to Bukkaṇṇa Voḍeyār saying “Make Lakṣmīpura……in Caṅgaṇāḍ,” the king issued an order to his chief minister Sōvappa who executed the order with the help of the farmers of Navile, Haṇḍaraṅge, Pōsanāḍ, Allāḷapaṭṭaṇa and other places.⁶⁵

c11.94

⁶³ E.C., V, Bl. 75.

c11.95

⁶⁵ E.C., V, Ak. 68.

c11.96

The Temple

c11.97

Another institution that played an important part in the local administration was the temple. Besides being the centre of religious life and practices, the mediaeval temple had certain economic and political functions. It was a landlord and employer. The temple authorities were at times judges in certain cases. The temple treasury was a bank which lent money to the people in times of need. The temples were promoters of rural industries and handicrafts. In all these directions the mediaeval South Indian temple contributed much for the social good.

c11.98

The temples were maintained both by royal benefaction and public patronage. The kings constructed the temples and endowed lands for their maintenance, and such lands were called *devadāna* and at times *devadāya* lands. The royal patronage took the form of either grant of lands as a *sarvamānya* to be enjoyed by the temples in perpetuity or gift of specified taxes payable to the government by the people of the locality, which the temple authorities were permitted to collect for the support of their temples. Thus under the orders of Kampaṇa his minister Viṭṭappar made a grant of Māḍambākkam to the temple of Śērvai Aḷuḍaiya Nāyanār. The inscription states: "This village, the whole village, which is the sacred holding of this God, limited by its four boundaries, including the village waste, wet lands, and garden lands with all its limitations of communal obligations, fees on cotton looms, obligations for maintaining oil mills, etc., fees for maintaining village servants and other similar obligations new or old, which may hereafter become due from each tenant, we have given for worship and repairs as *sarvamānya* grant to the temple in order that it may last till the Sun and Moon exist."⁶⁶ Kṛṣṇadēva remitted 10,000 *varāhas* being the income from the *jōḍi*, *araśupēru* and *śūlavari* in favour of the Śiva and Viṣṇu temples in the Cōḷamaṇḍalam.⁶⁷ The temples themselves collected these taxes. Here as in the case of the village assemblies, a distinction has to be drawn between the taxes levied and collected by the temple authorities in certain villages independently of the central authority and the taxes and other income collected by them with the sanction or under instructions from the government. In the former case the taxes collected were in the nature of customary dues payable to the landlord by the tenant, while in the latter case the right of collecting certain taxes and dues payable by the people to the government was made over to the temple for its benefit. Thus Dēva Rāya II issued for instance a nirūpa or order to Śrīgirinātha of Candragiri asking him to remit the jōḍi of 131 poṇs and 6¼ paṇams or 13,16¼ paṇams at 10 paṇams per poṇ due to the Candragiri rājya from Tiruppukkuḷi in order that that amount might be utilised for the temple of Porēṟruperumāḷ of that place.⁶⁸ Kṛṣṇadēva Rāya’s remission of certain taxes in favour of the Śiva and Viṣṇu temples in the Cōḷamaṇḍalam was also of this type.⁶⁹

c11.99

⁶⁶ 324 of 1911; Rep., 1912, para 49.

c11.100

⁶⁷ 74 of 1903; 125 of 1904; 511 of 1905; 355 of 1907; 167 of 1925; 184 of 1925; 226 of 1925; 214 of 1926; etc.

c11.101

⁶⁸ M.E.R., 1916, Rep., para 60.

c11.102

⁶⁹ 74 of 1903.

c11.103

Sometimes the temple authorities acted as protectors of the interests of the temple tenants, and it was through them that the temple tenants and other people in the locality represented their grievances to the government when the government officers pursued an oppressive policy. According to an inscription of the time of Dēva Rāya II at Tiruvorriyūr, the Māhēśvaras of the temple complained to the king that the tenants, servants, and other residents of the village owned by the temple had been much distressed by the imposition of taxes such as jōḍi, mugampārvai, aṅgaśālai, sambādam and viśeṣadāyam, and also by the lease system introduced by government officers for adoption by the trustees. Thereupon it was ordered by the king that the above taxes together with the ariśikāṇam, good bull, good cow, veṭṭi and kaṭṭāyam should thereafter be collected by the Māhēśvaras of the temple, and that the leased lands already paid for be redeemed by money received from the royal treasurer.⁷⁰

c11.104

⁷⁰ 226 of 1913; Rep., 1913, para 54.

c11.105

The temple authorities like the village assembly had the right to sell the temple lands and purchase new lands under certain circumstances. According to an inscription dated A.D. 1442 the temple priests (sthānikas) of the Kurundamale temple in the Mālūr taluk of the Kōlār district granted to one Timmaṇṇa a dharma śāsana or a deed of sale in connection with the construction of a virgin tank named Siddasamudra in Kurundamale śīme for fifty honnu.⁷¹ An epigraph at Tiruppanangāḍu in the North Arcot district records that the temple authorities of the place sold some of the temple lands in order to repair breaches of the village tank because they had no funds, and because the lands under it remained uncultivated for a long time.⁷² Similarly the treasury of Tirumaliśai Ālvār purchased as uḷavukāṇi two pieces of land which belonged to the temple in Paḍaiparru alias Tēperumāḷnallūr and which remained uncultivated on account of its non-irrigable high level; the lands were reclaimed and brought under cultivation and were leased out for 200 paṇams per year by the temple.73

c11.106

⁷¹ E.C., X, Mb. 259.

c11.107

⁷² 251 of 1906.
73. 258 of 1919
74. 408 of 1922.

c11.108

The temple authorities made regulations regarding the mortgage of the temple lands. Thus a record at Cintāmaṇi in the South Arcot district registers an agreement between Kōnēṭi Ayyan, the agent of Ubhayavēdāntācārya Eṭṭūr Tirumalai Kumāra Tātācārya, the great men of Madurāntakam, and the temple treasurers that the devadāna lands which had recently been released from mortgage during the regime of Kōnēṭi Ayyangār, must not be mortgaged again under any circumstance.74

First 108 of 179 passages. Read on

Linked texts (9)