Studies in Cola History and Administration c12.84

c12.84

But why exactly, both in ‘A’ and ‘B’, two elections of a like nature are contemplated, one for the election of the annual, garden and tank committees, and the second for the *pañcavāra* and gold committees, does not seem to be easy of explanation. It looks as if this feature in ‘B’ was the relic of the attempt made in ‘A’ to secure the equal representation of the twelve *śēris* thrice over—once on the annual committee, a second time on the garden committee, and lastly, on the *pañcavāra* and gold committees together. And it would appear that ‘A’ contemplated not two but three separate elections, though this, like so much else in ‘A,’ is far from clear. But the system broke down on account of its clumsiness, and the attempt to treat the *śēri* as a political unit of equal importance with the *kuḍumbu* had to be given up. The result is seen in the system of ‘B’ which linked the *kuḍumbu* directly with the committees. The number of members of the committees fixed by the original system was, however, retained; this necessitated the election in all of 42 persons for five committees (12, plus 12, plus 6, plus 6, plus 6), and there were only thirty *kuḍumbus*. Given the conditions of the problem, thirty *kuḍumbus* to form the constituencies, forty-two members to be chosen, and equality of representation to be attained, it seems hardly possible to improve upon the device of the double-election combined with the automatic retirement, by rotation, of some *kuḍumbus* every year from the second election.