Studies in Cola History and Administration c8: III. Some Aspects of Rural Life and Administration in Cōḷa Times

Studies in Cōḻa History and Administration c8

Language: English

III. Some Aspects of Rural Life and Administration in Cōḷa Times

c8.2

Throughout India the village was the unit of local administration before the advent of British rule. As is seen from numerous reports of the earlier administrators of British India, the vitality of village institutions struck their observers as something very remarkable in the period of the establishment of British rule. Of the village organisation in the Deccan, for instance, this is what Elphinstone wrote: "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materials of a state within themselves, and are almost sufficient to protect their members if all other government were withdrawn.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 in spite of an apparent incapacity to develop political institutions of an advanced character." The study of village institutions constitutes therefore an important part of the task of anyone who seeks to understand at their source the main currents of national life in ancient India.

c8.3

The importance of this study is coming more and more to be felt by students of Indian history. Considerable portions of Mr. R. K. Mookerjee's *Local Government in Ancient India* and Mr. R. C. Majumdar's Corporate Life, as also Mr. A. S. Altekar’s work on Village-Communities in Western India furnish proof of the growing interest in this line of study. But it has not always been recognised that evidence drawn from one period and locality should not be blended with other evidence relating to other times and localities, and discussion has often taken the form of combining stray data from the Smṛtis with those drawn from inscriptions widely separated from one another in space and time, and the publications mentioned above furnish some striking examples of such historical averaging.

c8.4

I propose in what follows to offer a brief review of the evidence bearing on village institutions in the Tamil country with special reference to the period of Cōḷa supremacy, say from the tenth century to the thirteenth.

c8.5

The earliest references of a specific character to village Sabhās in the Tamil land occur in the inscriptions of the close of the 8th century A. D. from the Pāṇḍya and the Pallava countries. The origin and early history of these assemblies is at present very obscure, although their general prevalence over the whole of Southern India including the Cēra, Karṇāṭaka and Telugu countries is widely attested by numerous epigraphs. And the Kēralōtpatti embodies traditions of an organised system of Tarakkūṭṭam, Nāṭṭukkūṭṭam and Peruṅgūṭṭam held in the Kēraḷa from time to time for many centuries till recent times.

c8.6

While editing the Uttaramērūr records of Parāntaka Cōḷa, Mr. Venkayya suggested a northern origin for the typical village assembly, and was inclined to believe that it was an adaptation to South Indian conditions of the system of government by committees described by Megasthenes as obtaining in Pāṭaliputra. Others have followed Mr. Venkayya’s lead and have drawn attention to the use of Sanskrit terms in the records of the village assemblies of South India as an additional argument in support of the thesis.

c8.7

Although the complex organisation of the *Sabhā* with a number of elected committees, like that typified by the Uttaramērūr inscriptions, was unknown in the early centuries of the Christian era in the Tamil country, still the numerous references to *manram* and *podiyil* in the classical literature of the *Saṅgam* period leave little room for doubt that some form of a primitive village assembly was known at the time. The commentator Nacciṉārkkiṉiyar invariably explains *manram* by the words *ūrukku naḍuvāyellāru-mirukkum maraṭṭaḍi*, meaning the open place in the centre of the village where all people meet under the shade of a tree. And some references in the *Puṟam* to the *manram* (Nos. 46 and 220) make it clear that it was the place where justice was administered. In *Puṟam* 46 we have an interesting situation. The Cōḻa king Kiḷḷivaḷavaṉ doomed the sons of his foe Malayamāṉ to be thrown to an elephant. When the sentence is to be executed, a poet intercedes on behalf of the youngsters and appeals to the king’s mercy saying * that a strange fear has taken possession of those tender youths as they stare in bewilderment at the *manṟu*. Here the *manṟu* is the place where public punishments are inflicted. Again, *Puṟam* 220 is a lament of Poṭṭiyār, a close friend of another Cōḻa king, at the sight of the *manram* of ancient Uṟaiyūr bereft of its king who had for some unknown reason given up his life by starvation. † Here we get a clear indication that the king used to go to the *manram*, apparently to administer justice and to do other public business. It must be noticed that in both these instances it is the *manram* of Uraiyūr, the Cōḷa capital of the time, that is mentioned; and except the employment of the same word to describe the open meeting-places belonging to other towns and villages, we have little direct evidence of the existence, nature and working of local assemblies of a popular character in this early period of Tamil history. Nevertheless, popular gatherings of a social and religious nature in the *manram* of every locality are known to have been a regular feature of rural life, and the *manram* was undoubtedly the scene of song, dance and other social amusements. As the modern distinctions between the political and other aspects of social life found no expression in the organisation of a more primitive age, it seems legitimate to infer that matters which we are apt to consider political or economic, like the settlement of a civil dispute, the punishment of crime, or the purchase and sale of land, must have also engaged the attention of such popular gatherings in each locality.

c8.8

It should, however, be observed that nowhere in the formal descriptions of Tamil polity such as we have in the *Kural* do we come across any clear references to the village and its institutions. The *Kural* in fact knows only of the learned *Sabhā* *. The commentator Parimēlaḷagar makes it the king's *Sabhā*; but the word ‘avai’ seems to have a more general application as is seen from some of the couplets in the sections thereon.

c8.9

On the other hand, there are clear and unmistakable traces of the existence and the active functioning of Sabhās in villages in Ṛgvedic India. In a recent study on the economic and political conceptions in the Ṛgveda, the evidence on the matter is summarised as follows:

c8.10

∗ See sections on *avai-yarital* and *avai-yañjamai*.

c8.11

"Each town and each village possessed a building where were held meetings of the tribunal under the presidency of the madhyamāśi who punished crimes and presided also at the meetings of Vedic Indians in their recreations." *

c8.12

The essential duty of the Sabhā was to administer justice. It is worth noting that almost every inscription in Southern India which mentions a village assembly also makes reference to a madhyastha of the village, and that administration of justice formed one of the principal duties of the assembly. It would thus appear that the village assembly of later historical times in the South was, far from being the result of a single line of development, northern or southern, the complex product of the interaction of both southern and northern, Tamil and Sanskrit, influences.

c8.13

Turning now to the evidence from Cōḷa inscriptions, there appear to have been different kinds of village assemblies corresponding to differences in the nature of the villages concerned. The Sabhā strictly so called was the assembly of purely Brahman villages (Brahmadēyas) which usually had names ending in Caturvēdimangalam. We know more of this class of villages and their administration than of others. The other classes may therefore be briefly noticed before we return to a detailed consideration of the Brahmanical Sabhās. Many villages appear to have had an assembly called Ūr. So far, we have not come across any evidence on the details of the organisation of this type of assembly. It appears to have been a kind of primitive gathering of the local people, the descendant of the earlier Tamil manram, in which people met together and managed business somehow without any set rules or formal procedure.

c8.14

∗ H. C. Joshi—Conceptions Economiques et Politiques Dans L'Inde Ancienne D'Apres Le Rigveda p. 79.

c8.15

In some instances the *Ur* existed side by side with the *Sabha* or the *Mahasabha*. Thus, one inscription from Tiruvālangāḍu, Tanjore,* speaks of both the assemblies of the village, namely the *Mahasabha* and the *Ur*, agreeing to a scheme to delimit the extent of lands enjoyed tax-free by the local temple. In like manner, the *Sabha* and the *Ur* of Tiruvaḍandai together accepted two endowments in favour of the local temple.† In one instance, the *Ur* of Tiruvaḍandai alone accepted an endowment without reference to the sister body, the *Sabha*.‡

c8.16

Then we have examples of a group called Nagarattār performing functions very similar to those of the *Sabha* and the *Ur* in other places. The Nagarattār were apparently assemblies of mercantile groups which went by the generic name *Nagaram*. For instance *Eyirkōṭṭattu nagaram Kāñcīpuram*.

c8.17

Then we have the *Nāṭṭār*, people of a *nāḍu*, which, as is well-known, was an administrative division larger than the village but smaller than the *maṇḍalam*. There is a clear reference to the assembly of the Tiruvalundūr *nāḍu* through whom a whole village was granted to a temple by the king.¶

c8.18

∗ 88 of 1926. † S. I. I. Vol. III. Nos. 180 and 186. ‡ 268 of 1910.

c8.19

Lastly we have reference to assemblies of the people of a whole *maṇḍalam*. An inscription from Little Conjeevaram * states that the assembly of the people of Jayaṅgoṇḍa-Cōḻa-maṇḍalam granted a partial remission of taxes on several classes of land in the district under their control.

c8.20

Attention may be drawn here to the striking analogy between two of these terms from the Tamil inscriptions and the words *Paura* and *Jānapada* which have attracted attention after Mr. Jayaswal stated his theory that these were constitutional assemblies intended to limit the sway of autocracy in municipal and provincial administration. The expressions *Nāṭṭār* and *Nagarattār* are strikingly analogous to *Jānapada* and *Paura* respectively; in fact, no better rendering into Tamil of these Sanskrit terms can be imagined. And the evidence of the Tamil inscriptions is conclusive that the *Nāḍu* and the *Nagaram* were corporate organisations of some sort which performed definite duties and enjoyed the privileges of autonomy. There is also literary usage in support of our view of the relation of these Tamil terms to their Sanskrit analogues. Thus what the celebrated annotator Parimēlaḻagar calls *nāṭṭuppaḍai* † will be seen to correspond to what Kauṭilya calls *Śrēṇibalam* and describes as *Jānapadam*. But the analogy between these two sets of terms cannot be pressed far, as there seem to be no terms in the Sanskrit literature on polity corresponding to the other bodies known to Tamil epigraphy.

c8.21

In the *Peruṅgadai*, a Tamil version of Guṇāḍhya’s *Bṛhatkathā*, we have a significant statement that, on the occasion of the birth of Naravāṇa (Naravāhana), among those who took part in the festivities were: "the Sabhā dear (to the king), the five great kuḷus, the Nagaram and the Nāḍu." * As the Sabhā of the king is here distinguished from the Nagaram, we may conclude that the latter was more likely a professional corporation of merchants than an urban assembly for general administration. It may also be noted in passing that the "five great kuḷus," which some writers hold to have been a popular council of representatives, are best understood in the present context as ceremonial groups in personal attendance on the king on important occasions. †

c8.22

∗ 556 of 1919. † Note on *Kuṟaḷ* 762; cf. Kauṭilya ed. Shama Sastri (1924) pp. 342 and 345.

c8.23

We may also note that in the Pallava charters we get some clear information about the Nāḍu and its role in the general administration. The Kaśākuḍi plates of Nandivarman Pallavamalla have at the beginning of the Tamil part "Kōn-ōlai, yāṇḍirupattiraṇḍāvadu, ūṟrukkāṭṭuk-kōṭṭattu nāṭṭaruṅgāṇka,"—"Royal order, year 22nd, may the nāṭṭār of the Ūṟrukkāṭṭu-kkōṭṭam also see." A few lines further on, we have a clear statement ‡ that the members of the Nāḍu (nāṭṭōm) saw the royal order and assigned lands in accordance with the wishes of the Nāṭṭu-viyavan who may have been either the headman of the Nāḍu (assembly) as Hultzsch understands it, or possibly a royal official placed over the administrative divison. That the Nāḍu was an organised assembly of a more or less popular character is strikingly indicated by the phrase Nāṭṭai-kkūṭṭi-nila-naḍappittu etc., of the Udayēndiram plates of Hastimalla. ¶

c8.24

∗ ll. 37-8 of V 6. "ahaṇamaravaiyum - aimperuṅkuḷuvum, nagaramum nāḍum - togaikoṇḍiṇḍa" † See my Pāṇḍyan Kingdom pp. 32-3 ‡ S. I. I. II, No. 73, ll 109-11. ¶ S. I. I. II. No 76, ll 96-7.

c8.25

In the present state of our knowledge it is very difficult to say what the constitution of these different assemblies was like, what (specially with reference to the assemblies of the *nāḍu* and of the *maṇḍalam*) the exact sphere of their duties was, or what procedure was adopted at their meetings. One thing, however, is clear, that the assemblies other than *Sabhās* do not seem to have amounted to anything other than general meetings of the people concerned. This does not apply, of course, to non-territorial bodies of the nature of guilds and military clubs of which we say nothing here and to which admission was regulated by considerations of a different character. The general assemblies which played a more or less prominent part in the administration of the country appear to have included all the classes of the people without distinction of caste, except in *Brahmadēya* villages. Mr. Altekar is obviously wrong in assuming that all village assemblies in South India were governed by rules similar to those laid down by the *Sabhā* of Uttaramerūr. It may also be noted in passing that sometimes the assemblies of different places and of different types appear to have come together for the transaction of business. Thus the *Sabhā* of Tiraimūr and the *Nagaram* of Tiruviḍaimarudūr met together with some other authorities of the temple of Tiruviḍaimarudūr to make arrangements for the preservation of ancient endowments to the temple engraved on its old walls which were to be pulled down to renovate the central shrine. †

c8.26

To return to the *Sabhās* and *Brahmadēya* villages where they obtained. The earliest instance so far known of the constitution of a *Sabhā* is that contained in an inscription of the 35th year of Māraṇ Śaḍaiyaṇ, Circa A. D. 800, which records the settlement (vyavasthai) arrived at by the Mahāsabhā and introduced by the following words: Kaḷakkuḍi-nāṭṭu brahmadēyam-mānanilainallūr mahāsabhaiyōm-perunguṛi-śarṛi śrī gōvardhanattu-kkuḍiyirundu ivvūr mahāsabhaiyōm kūḍi manṛāḍuvadaṇukku-cceyda vyavasthaiyāvadu—

c8.27

∗ See his *Village Communities in Western India*, p. 123.

c8.28

“We, the (members of the) Mahāsabhā of Mānanilainallūr, a Brahmadēya in Kaḷakkuḍi-nāḍu, summoned the great assembly by beat of drum, * met at Śrī Gōvardhana, and made the following settlement (of procedure) for the transaction of business at the meetings of the Mahāsabhā of this place.”

c8.29

From this it is clear that the Mahāsabhā of this place had been in existence before the new settlement was arrived at, and what is even more remarkable, that the new rules and restrictions introduced for the working of the Sabhā were made entirely at the initiative of the Sabhā itself. There is at any rate no evidence of royal initiative or sanction for the constitution so adopted. Another noteworthy feature of this inscription is that it contains the earliest reference to vāriyam in the words: “muḷuc-cirāvaṇai-illādārai evvākaippaṭṭa vāriyamum ēṛaṇḍappeṛādār-āgavum,” meaning, “those who do not have full shares (cirāvaṇai) shall not be put in charge of any kind of vāriyam.” † The passage is not easy but it appears as if the vāriyam in this inscription was some kind of duty to be performed by a single individual rather than by a committee. This view receives support from an inscription from Sucīndram of the 15th year of Rājarāja I (999 A. D.) which has:

c8.30

∗ Śarṛal is to proclaim by beat of drum. Kuṛi and Perunguṛi often occur in inscriptions, and are usually understood as ‘assembly’ and ‘great assembly’, that is as Tamil terms corresponding to Sabhā and Mahāsabhā.

c8.31

† Cf. pottakattilum ēṛaṭṭu variyilum iṭṭu, l. 8 of No. 68 of 1898.

c8.32

“ *Sabhaiyōm vaicca vāriyar iruvarum karaṇattāṇum kūḍi dēvakāriyam seyvadākavum* ” i.e., “The two *vāriyar* appointed by the members of the *Sabhā* and the *Karaṇattāṇ* shall together look after the temple affairs.”

c8.33

The next instance of a detailed constitution of the *Sabhā* known to us is contained in the celebrated Uttaramallūr inscriptions. It is doubtful if the constitution of Uttaramērūr, to use the more ancient name of the place, was adopted at the instance of the king or had his approval. The only thing that is certain is that a royal officer was present in the assembly on both the occasions when it discussed and settled its own constitution. Later Cōḷa inscriptions contain specific examples of royal orders communicating certain rules to regulate the qualifications of the members and the conduct of the meeting of the *Sabhā*.* But all these instances establish one point beyond doubt, that each village had its own separate constitution. Though the type was more or less the same, the details varied considerably, and the assemblies often changed their constitutions in the light of experience.

c8.34

Uttaramērūr for instance would appear to have had a much less elaborate constitution in the Pallava period† than it adopted under the Cōḷa ruler Parāntaka I. As is well known, in the reign of this Cōḷa king, the rules of the assembly underwent two revisions in the course of two years. We may, therefore, conclude that although the type of constitution was to some extent fixed for the *Sabhās* of the Brahmadēyas, still in details such as the age and qualification of the members, the number of committees into which the *Sabhā* was resolved and the method of choice to these committees, there must have been differences from village to village. In the reign of Rājarāja the Sabhā of Tennēri (Chingleput) for instance laid down * that a knowledge of the mantras was essential not only for service in the village-committees but for Sabhā-mārrañjollutal which seems to mean taking part in the deliberations of the assembly, † a requirement very similar to that contained in the Mānūr record of Māraṇ Śaḍaiyaṇ.

Linked texts (7)

Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra — Kauṭilya, Sanskrit
Tirukkuṟaḷ — Tiruvaḷḷuvar, Tamil
Ἰνδική — Λούκιος Φλάουιος Ἀρριανός, Ancient Greek
Puṟanāṉūṟu — Kapilar & Auvaiyār (Caṅkam), Tamil
Ṛgvedasaṃhitā — Sanskrit
Bṛhatkathā
South Indian Inscriptions