Studies in Cola History and Administration c12.28

c12.28

In fact, if we put aside the ideas suggested by Venkayya’s comments and his emendations of the text in his translation, and if we concentrate attention on the words employed in the text of which a more literal rendering than Venkayya’s has been furnished above, we can recognise only two conditions stated in it; (1) persons nominated for election to the committees should not have served on them during the three years preceding the date of election, and (2) they should not be close relations of those that had so served. We have shown that condition (1) is retained intact in the later record; condition (2) is indeed modified. We shall discuss the modifications and the reasons therefor later in dealing with ‘B’. But the main point is that in the language employed in ‘A’, there is no evidence of any dissatisfaction felt towards any persons for abusing their position and power, and not a trace that the rule of exclusion is based on the past conduct of malefactors. It is the dry and neutral language of a legal document laying down a rule of procedure for future observance. The reason underlying the main rule forbidding re-elections within three years is not hard to seek; it is to make offices go round. Venkayya himself once recognised this* when he pointed out that the annual change of office-bearers and re-election to new committees after intervals of three years must have stimulated a sustained civic interest. The motive for the exclusion of the ‘ close relations ’ (aṇiya bandukkaḷ) must have been similar; in a country where the joint family has been so important a social factor, one can understand a rule based on the feeling that a person may be taken to represent his family circle.