Studies in Cola History and Administration c12.21

c12.21

It is in the interpretation that we find it utterly impossible to follow Venkayya. There seems to be no evidence in the texts of the records that can sustain his somewhat lurid view of the occasion for the reform undertaken by the assembly of Uttaramērūr. He says:* “One point that is common in both (A & B) is the implied indignation against the committee members who had just then vacated office and who appear to have brought the administration of the village into disrepute. They must have embezzled communal funds and would not submit themselves to any sort of scrutiny. The wholesale condemnation in ‘A’ of committee members who held office at the time the rules were made, is sufficient evidence on the point. This clause must have operated harshly during the second year of its introduction and must have restricted the choice within a smaller number, who might not possess all the requisite qualifications. In view of this difficulty better counsel prevailed in A. D. 920-21, and the prohibition was restricted only to defaulting committee members and their relations.”