Studies in Cola History and Administration c12.25

c12.25

It is not contended that village administration was always pure, or that dishonesty and embezzlement were unknown to the rural patriots of ancient times; cases of spoliation of temple funds and breaches of trust are common enough in our records; and the provision in ‘B’ just noticed is in itself evidence that such offences had to be thought of and carefully guarded against. The substance of my difference with Venkayya is simply this. There seems to me to be no evidence whatever in these two records from Uttaramerūr that the administration of this village was in a bad way in the years preceding the reform, or that such maladministration furnished the occasion for the reform itself. These records were unique when Venkayya studied them, and in his enthusiasm to explain their importance, he appears to have given rein to his imagination and read into the records much that was in his own mind. This may account for his view of the relation in which the two records stand to each other. He suggests that the rule of exclusion as stated in ‘A’ unduly restricted the field of choice for election to the committees and that the assembly, after the experience of two years, went back on its own rule and as a result, “the prohibition was restricted only to defaulting committee members and their relations.” If by this, Venkayya means that there was no sort of restriction on members of committees who had served a term without being in default, this statement is not correct; for ‘B’ repeats * in identical words the rule from ‘A’ excluding from re-election to committees persons who had served on