Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of Agriculture in India v1.c38: Chapter 33. Villages of South India During the Chola Rule

A History of Agriculture in India v1.c38

Language
English

Contents

Chapter 33. Villages of South India During the Chola Rule

v1.c38.2

TENTH CENTURY TO TWELFTH CENTURY

v1.c38.3

TENURE, LAND REVENUE AND RENT

v1.c38.4

ECONOMIC CONDITION OF THE RURAL PEOPLE

v1.c38.5

THE villages of South India were known under different names according to their character. Thus a rescript from king Uttama-Choladeva, of the early twelfth century is addressed to the inhabitants of the Brahmadeya villages, i.e. the villages granted to the Brahmanas; the Devadana villages, i.e. the villages attached to some gods or goddesses or temples; Pallichchhanda villages, i.e. the villages attached to Jaina religious foundation; Kani (or Gani) murruttu villages, i.e. the villages meant for the support of astrologers; and Vettapperru villages, probably villages connected in some way with the supply of labour, i.e. service-tenure villages. Again, a village tenanted by Brahmanas only, or rather the proprietary right of which belongs to the Brahmanas only, was known as an agrahara or mangalam, as distinguished from kudi (an ordinary village) or ur or Vellalan (i.e. Sudra) village. An ordinary village (kudi) when made over to a Brahmana as a gift underwent a change in name as well as in other respects.

v1.c38.6

A Brahmadeya was sometimes changed into a Vellan-Vagai village, i.e. into an ordinary cultivators' village. Thus an inscription of the reign of Rajendra Choladeva I records that Palaiyanur, a Brahmadeya village of the assembly of Singalantaka-Chaturvedimangalam, is to be withdrawn from the latter and become Vellan-Vagai village, but, unlike the other Vellan-Vagais, should pay a standing fixed tax in money and kind, and become a Devadana of the temple of Palaiyanur-Tiruvalangadu.

v1.c38.7

A system of naming the villages according to the caste of their inhabitants was in vogue in later times. Thus in the Madura District, a village inhabited by the Telugu and Kanarese people was called an ur; a small Kalla village, patti or kurichi; a fortified village, kottei (kottai); a Brahmana village, mangalam or agraharam; and an oridinary village, kudi. In Chingleput the villages were known as nattams, a name subsequently applied to Sudra villages.

Villages on Samudayam, Palabhogam and Ekabhogam Tenures

v1.c38.s1.1.1

The threefold classification of the villages according to the forms of the privileges enjoyed by the inhabitants, and which were believed to have existed from time immemorial, is as follows: These three modes of enjoyment of privileges were known as samudayam (lit. common propery) or pasungarai or sumohi, palabhogam or achandrarkam (lit. permanent property) or arudik-karai, and ekabhogam or ejaman or yajaman gramam (lit. sole enjoyment villages). Samudayam is regarded as the earliest form of enjoyment. It was of two kinds, namely the absolute samudaya and karaiyidu. Under the former, the whole of the cultivated area of a village, together with the common wasteland and the common fallow land, belonged to the whole body of the mirasidars or owners. The lands were cultivated either by the whole body jointly or separately by each member, but the entire produce in both cases was shared by the members of the community according to their respective shares. The ownership was communal, so far as the arable and wastelands were concerned. The house-sites (nattam), along with the gardens or backyards only, belonged to the members severally. In this form, thus, there was no separate allotment of land to individuals; and the property was a right to a certain share or pangu or a number of shares in the produce. Each member of the community contributed his share of labour. Under the form known as karaiyidu (lit.

v1.c38.s1.1.2

field-division), ‘lands were temporarily in separate shares by the co-sharers forming the members of the community and were subject to redistribution at stated intervals.’ These intervals were of 8, 12, 27 or 30 years. In both the samudaya forms, there was the joint liability of the co-sharers for the government revenue. The share of the government called the melvaram as well as the local dues and cesses were deducted from the gross produce before distribution. The co-sharers could alienate their shares by way of mortgage, sale or otherwise. In the absolute samudaya form, sale or mortgage meant the sale of the right to an undivided share in the common enjoyment: in the karaiyidu form the land was liable to redistribution at the end of the stated interval. In the case of sales, the members of the community had a right of pre-emption, the owners of the neighbouring lands having the first claim. Under the palabhoga tenure, all the cultivated lands, warapat (i.e. lands yielding a share of the produce) and tirwapat (i.e. lands paying a fixed money-tax), were permanently distributed, but all the other rights and privileges were held in common as also the wastelands reclaimed since the general division. The cultivated lands were held in severalty with individual ownership and individual liability for the payment of the government revenue.

v1.c38.s1.1.3

The ekabhogam or yajamana-gramam system differed from the other joint village types chiefly in that the proprietor distributed the cultivable lands among a number of joint-holders farming in common and levied cesses on their produce. He usually held a manyam or tax-free estate and conducted the village assembly. He was not a public officer like the headman of the villages of North India, and he could alienate his land and the attached privileges at his will. No sales could be made without his permission, nor any stranger could settle in the village without his permission. The possession of shares in the samudaya form of villages in Arcot and Chingleput carried with it peculiar hereditary rights in the village lands and waste and their produce. The owners took cesses in kind, such as the *kani-merai* collected by their labourers before threshing the gross produce of paddy, the *kuppattum* taken by them after threshing, and the *svamibhogam* or *tunduvaram* levied only on their tenant's produce. They often received, in addition to these shares, *manyams* or honorary estates which they held either wholly or in part free of taxes together with the right to the services of the Paraiyans or serfs living either in the suburb attached to each joint-village or scattered over the wastelands.

v1.c38.s1.2

An *ekabhoga* is defined as ‘a plot of land granted to a single Brahman for his sole enjoyment and having on it his mansion and the houses of his dependents and farmers.’ A Chola inscription tells us that queen Tribhuvana-Mahadeviyar made a *devadana* grant of a piece of land belonging to a Brahman village, after paying the *purvacharam* (lit. former usage) to the Brahman owners.

v1.c38.s1.3

Some of the inscriptions refer to committees of the village assembly, which were elected for arranging distribution of lands in the village. This system shows that it was on account of the existence of the *karaiyidu* tenure that such distribution of the village lands was needed. An inscription of about the twelfth century records that Tondaimanar Samantanarayana, having purchased a village, divided it into 108 shares, out of which he gave 106 to the Brahmans and two shares to a temple.

The Different Parts of a Village

v1.c38.s2.1

The lands attached to a village were carefully classified for the purpose of taxation, and every detail was entered into the village register (*pottagam*).

v1.c38.s2.2

All land was carefully surveyed and classified into the tax-bearing and non-taxable lands. The taxable lands were graded according to their natural fertility and the nature of the crops raised. Immunities in favour of the individuals and institutions were common and carefully recorded. The village was assessed as a whole for the land tax, and the work of collection sometimes involved harsh processes. The right of cultivating the lands of defaulters of revenue was sold by the village assemblies to realize the arrears payable to the State. The people made a common cause in resisting arbitrary and unusual imposts. Revenue was payable in cash or in kind.

v1.c38.s2.3

The most remarkable feature of the administration of the time was the self-government of the villagers. The village assemblies were autonomous institutions which functioned with unexampled vigour and efficiency. A highly developed committee system (*variyams*) for the executive of the assemblies came into existence. The *sabha* of Uttaramerur is a good example of a large number of similar attempts throughout South India to evolve arrangements suited to local conditions in the light of experience. Justice was administered by the village courts, caste *panchayats*, and the king's courts (dharmasanas). For the purpose of revenue administration, the village was divided into four parts—cultivated lands yielding a share of the produce; lands paying a fixed money tax; waste or uncultivated lands, which were divided into cultivable waste, and immemorial waste; and poramboke, viz. lands set apart for various communal purposes, e.g. village-site, temple-site and crematorium. The cultivated land was classified into wetlands and drylands.

The Constitution of Villages

v1.c38.s3.1

Broadly speaking, we come across the following types of villages in the South in accordance with the inscriptions in southern India: the joint villages, in which the controlling power was exercised by the community of the Brahmanas, besides whom there were people of the lower castes mostly Vellalans; joint villages belonging to Vellalan or farmers with subordinates of the same or lower castes; and villages assigned to single individuals. So far as local affairs, and especially transactions relating to land, were concerned, these villages acted on most republican lines through the assemblies known as Sabhai, Maha-sabhai, Perunguri-sabhai, Parudai or Paradai or Mula-parudai in the case of the Brahmana villages, and ur in the case of the Vellalan villages. Though the king occasionally interfered in the affairs of the villages, they seem to have had no headman of the type familiar in North India who acted as an intermediary between the community of the village and the government. Some of the inscriptions speak of a kilan or kilavan, who appears like a headman, but who really seems to be a senior burgess of a Brahmadeya. His functions are not like those of the village headman of the North. A record of Kaviripakkam mentions a gentleman, named Arumbakilan, who was a kangani or government supervisor, along with the so-called ‘administrator of the town’ (Ur-alkinra), acting jointly with the executive committee of the township in affairs which affected the interests of both the crown and the burgesses.

v1.c38.s3.2

Besides these officials, the village body politic, according to the South Indian inscriptions, contained an astrologer, a vetti who swept public buildings and kept them in order, a constable, a potter, a smith, a carpenter, a tanner and, sometimes, a physician. The assemblies and their executive committees, called the variyam, were intimately connected with the land-system.

Cultivation of Land Conducted Under the Supervision of the Village Assemblies

v1.c38.s4.1

In the villages, where the ownership of the cultivated land was joint, cultivation was looked after by the assemblies. The share of the assembly as landlords was two-thirds of the produce and that of the tillers of the soil one-third (cf. Brihaspati). A record of the reign of Parantaka I, dated the early part of the tenth century, tells us that the assembly had a piece of land ‘cultivated on the terms of two to one obtaining in this village’, that is, on ‘a system of contract by which two shares of the produce were assigned to the landlord and one to the cultivator or vice versa. Probably, this division of the produce was effected after the deduction of the melvaram or the government revenue. This inscription indicates that there was no hard-and-fast rule about the exact sharing of the produce. It depended on the local customs as well as on the fertility of the soil. On the evidence of a record of the time of the Ganga-Pallava King Dantivikramavarman (c. ninth century), we learn that the assembly used to resume the land when the cultivators failed to pay the due taxes. From an inscription of Rajendra Chola I it appears that the assembly sometimes made over the right of collecting the taxes from the cultivators to private individuals. With regard to the temple lands, the village assembly looked after them in return for a sum of money. Thus in return for an annual payment of 18 Ilakkasu by the local temple, the village assembly of Narasimhamangalam agreed to look after the temple lands and to discharge certain other functions.

Melvaram (Land Revenue)

v1.c38.s5.1

When the temple lands were under the direct management of the Devakanmis or temple trustees, they used to fix the rate of melvaram that the cultivators, or the individual to whom the land was made over, had to pay. Thus a record of the Pandya King Jatavarman Sundara-Pandya (1270-1310) tells us that the Maheshvaras, Shri-rudras, Devakanmis and the temple accountants granted certain temple lands as kanippidipadu to an individual on the condition that he would enjoy them, after repairing the tanks in disuse and bringing under cultivation such of the lands as were covered with jungle, and that, so long as he would enjoy them under these circumstances, he would have to pay a melvaram at the following rate:

v1.c38.s5.2

One-third for Pasan.

v1.c38.s5.3

One-fifth for crops, such as tinai (a kind of grain), yaragu, ellu (gingelly), payaru (a kind of gram), kuruvai (a kind of paddy), karambu (sugarcane), kolundu (a kind of scented leaf), karunai (yams), manjal (saffron), inji (ginger), sengalunir (? red coconut), valai (plantain), valudalai, pusani (pumpkin).

v1.c38.s5.4

One-fifth from trees like mango, jack-fruit, nattai, lime, kulaviruli, nelli and iluppai.

v1.c38.s5.5

One-seventh for coconut and areca palms.

v1.c38.s5.6

One-seventh for dry crops (according to yield).

v1.c38.s5.7

A progressive rate of tax was levied on land brought under cultivation by clearing jungles: one-tenth first year; one-ninth second year; one-eighth third year; one-seventh fourth year; and one-third for the subsequent periods, permanently (cf. Brihaspati). A record of the Pandya King Maravarman-Vira-Pandya (c. 1303) fixes the *melvaram* of a Devadana at one-third for the *pasanam* (harvest?), one-fifth for the garden crops Mavadai and Maravadai, and one-seventh for dry crops. An inscription of the fifteenth century records an agreement arrived at by the temple-manager and the tenants of the temple land as to the *melvaram* on areca, coconut, mangi and other trees grown on the ‘Tiruvidaiyattam’ lands of the temple. It was formerly three-fourths, but it was now reduced to two-thirds, so that one-third now went to the share of the tenants. In the case of sesamum, green-gram and sugarcane, the rates obtaining in the neighbouring villages were adopted, and in cases where betel, plantain and other quick-yielding crops were reared side by side in the newly planted areca and coconut groves, the *melvaram* was fixed at three-fourths of the old rates.

Rent

v1.c38.s6.1

An inscription of the early part of the fourteenth century fixes the following apportionment of the produce of the soil between the landlord and the tenant in an Ekabhoga Brahmadeya village: as to *kadamai* (i.e. taxes paid in kind), in cases of *kar* paddy (paddy in wet fields), for both the crops of the year, the landlord is to get one-twentieth; that the dues, *palli*, *pad-kaval*, *perum-padikaval*, *sudu* (sheaves of corn) given to servants, *araivadai* and *alkuli* should be charged on the whole village in common (i.e. on the whole body of the cultivators) and that the remainder should be distributed in the ratio of 1:4 between the landlord and the tenant; the straw and the green grass (*payaru*), generally sown just before or after the harvest, have to be equally divided between them. As to the *kudimai* right, i.e. payment in money, the rate is as follows: as to *kar*, half a *panam* for the first crop and one-fourth for the second for every plot of land. As to the threshing expenses, which are to be borne equally by the landlord and the tenant, one *tuni* or one *padakku* for the first crop per plot and half of it for the second crop. In the case of dry crops, such as turmeric, castor-seeds, cotton and gingelly, the seed-grain is to be supplied by the landlord, and the yield is to be divided equally. The supply of labour, the storing of grain in the landlord’s granary and the work of repairing ridges in the fields devolved on the landlord exclusively.

Royal Fee for Shifting Cultivation

v1.c38.s7.1

Shifting cultivation was in vogue among the hill tribes of South India. A record of the Chola King Rajendradeva II, dated A.D. 1072 tells us that a cloth (? *pudavari*) was to be given to the government for every 1,500 *kuli* of land on which shifting cultivation was carried on by the hill tribes.¹

v1.c38.s7.2

¹ Gupta, K.M. *The Land System in South India*, pp. 61 to 65 and 208 to 213

Economic Condition of the People

v1.c38.s8.1

C.H. Rao has given an excellent account of the economic condition and village administration in the Chola period, based on the study of inscriptions. He states, ‘the Tanjore inscriptions throw light on the economic condition of the people of the Chola country about the beginning of the 11th century. The land assessment (kanikkadan) was roughly one hundred kalam of paddy for each veli of land. Paddy was sold at the rate of two kalam for each kasu and three ewes could be purchased for one kasu. The rate of interest was apparently 12½ per cent. It was actually ⅛ kasu per year for each kasu of three kuruni of paddy for each kasu per year. For Sivayogins who had to attend the temple on certain festive occasions and who may be taken to represent the average middle-class men of the time, the allotment made for each meal is one kuruni and two nari of paddy. Assuming that a middle-class man took two meals a day, the consumption for each man would be 2¼ kuruni of paddy per day. The parasol-carrier may be taken as the type of the lowest class of manual labourers and each of them got 40 kalam of paddy per year and this would yield 1⅓ kuruni of paddy for each day. It is worthy of note that chillies are not mentioned and coconuts seem to have been unknown at least in the vicinity of Tanjore, if not in the Chola country.

Village Administration

v1.c38.s9.1

The following portions of villages were communal and as such free from assessment: the village site, the village tank and its banks; the portion occupied by the artisans and the pariahs; the burning-ground; the irrigation channels; temples; the shrines of Aiyan, Kadugal, Durgaiyar and Kala-Pidariyar; the temple of Settai (Jyeshtha), the shrines of the Pidaris Tiruvaludaiyal, Kuduraivattam-udaiyal, Punnaitturainangai and Poduvagai-urudaiyal; ponds in the middle of fields; flower-gardens; streams; the portion occupied by toddy-drawers; the portion ocupied by washermen; the water-pond used by pariahs; the portion occupied by the polluting castes; highroads; rivers; the sacred courts (i.e. temples); the cremation-ground of the pariahs, the stone fence (for cattle); the stables (kottagram); the village threshing-floor; grazing-ground for calves; wells and cisterns.

The Village Sabha and Its Committees

v1.c38.s10.1

A large number of villages in the Chola country had sabhas or regularly constituted village corporations which watched jealously over the internal affairs of the village. The Uttaramallur inscriptions of Parantaka I lay down rules for the selection of the members to the village committees, which were apparently controlled by the village assemblies. During the reign of Rajaraja I, certain changes appear to have been introduced in these rules. In the 11th year of his reign (or A.D. 996) it was laid down that only those who were capable of reciting the *Mantrabrahmana* (Hymns of Brahmanas) could be elected members of the Village Supervision Committee (*urvariyam*) and take part in the deliberations of the village assembly. Those who were guilty of misappropriation of property and of other heinous crimes were debarred from election. It was further ruled that anyone chosen in contravention of these rules would be accorded the same punishment as was usually meted out to transgressors of royal orders. An inscription of Rajaraja dated in his 16th year (A.D. 1001) indicates that the members of a village assembly were called together by the blowing of a trumpet, and that the herald was entitled to get a fee (2 *soru*) from the village. The members appear to have met together and transacted business even during night, though in the generality of cases it is found that business was conducted during daytime. We may presume that the same rules were in force in other village *sabhas*. There were also villages where the villagers managed the business of the village without having been constituted into a regular corporation. Wherever the village assemblies existed, their transactions must have been quite lively as there were periodical changes of members on these bodies. They seem to have been entrusted with civil and magisterial powers. In fact, each village seems to have been a self-contained body jealously watching over its own interests as well as over those of its members. The village assemblies generally managed temples and were trustees of public charities. A number of village assemblies are said to have received money on interest from the Rajarajesvara temple at Tanjore. In all probability, the money thus borrowed was used in bringing wastelands under cultivation. From the produce of these lands, the interest on the money borrowed was paid. Village assemblies could alienate lands whenever the liabilities incurred by them could not be otherwise discharged.

Limits on Powers of Taxation of the Village Sabha

v1.c38.s11.1

These village assemblies appear to have been invested with the power of taxation. This is inferable from many inscriptions, a few of which may be referred to here. From an inscription dated, A.D. 996, in the 12th regnal year, we see a *vyavastai* issued which says that the assembly of a village should not levy any tax other than the *siddhaya*, *dandaya* and *panchavara*. They should not levy any *sillirai* (or miscellaneous) taxes not mentioned in the rates already fixed. It would seem as though they could not levy tax which was not included in the royal schedule. In an inscription of his 9th year, the great assembly Uttiramerur was convened to put an end to inequality in taxation. Though the inscription is incomplete, it may be inferred that resentment was felt at some partiality shown to some particular communities in the matter of taxation. Accordingly, the assembly enacted that the employees of the royal house-hold, Brahmans, Merchants and Vellalas (agriculturists) should individually be responsible for the payment of the fines imposed upon their respective classes. From another inscription, we get to know how the defaulters were dealt with. The assembly concerned, apparently, sent out its order to the Adhikari of the place where the defaulters were, and he was requested to execute the order there. The property of the defaulter was, accordingly, sold away for any price it could fetch and the proceeds were credited to the talam (temple treasury) concerned, after obtaining a receipt. If necessary, the Adhikari, in his turn, sent out the order to the sabha of the village or to all the people of the place (ur) in order that they might openly bid for the land. The price for which the latter bid was called urvilai. Where no bidders came forward and it was knocked down to the temple itself, it was called ajnayakrayam (i.e. upset price).

Restrictions on Exactions

v1.c38.s12.1

Well-defined restrictions were evidently laid on any exactions or pretended claims of the members of the different committees. The members of the Annual Tank or Village Supervision were not entitled to any kind of payment in rice or paddy as amanji (without payment or cash). If anyone claimed such payment, he was to be fined 25 kalanju of gold. The fine was to be collected by the Deva Kanmis or managers of the temple. Even after paying this fine, the defaulters were liable to a fine to the Dharmasana (the court of justice). The accountant of the committee who allowed unlawful collection was also asked to pay vetti (a fine). Anybody who said "nay" to this order and anybody who instigated others into saying so were to pay a fine of 15 kalanju to the Dharmasana and they were thereafter to obey the same order. Anybody who ran away without paying the taxes due was pursued to the village or hamlet concerned and there the order was executed. The case of one Kilakkil Avanipa Bhatta is in point. He was thus deprived of bhattsvam in a particular village.

v1.c38.s12.2

Auboyer, J. *Daily Life in Ancient India*, London, 1961 Christy, A.E. (Ed.), *The Asian Legacy and American Life*, New York, 1945 Gode, P.K. *Studies in Indian Cultural History*, Vols I, II, Poona, 1960 Gode, P.K. *Studies in Indian Literary History*, Vol. III, Poona, 1956 Gupta, K.M. *The Land System in South India between c. 800 A.D. to 1200 A.D.*, Lahore, 1933 Jairazbhoy, R.S. *Foreign Influence in Ancient India*, Bombay, 1963 Kosambi, D.D. *The Culture and Civilization of Ancient India in Historical Outline*, London, 1965 Majumdar, R.C. *History and Culture of Indian People, the Classical Age*, Bombay, 1970 Rao, C.H. *Mysore Gazetteer*, Vol. I, Bangalore, 1927 Rao, C.H. *Mysore Gazetteer*, Vol. II, Part II, Bangalore, 1930 Sastri, K.A.N. and Srinivasachari, K. *Advanced History of India*, Bombay, 1970 Sharma, R.S. *Ancient India*, New Delhi, 1977 Sivaramamurti, C. *Indian Sculpture*, New Delhi, 1961

Linked texts (1)