8.1. Vedic studies in Early Tamiḻnāḍu From the time of known history the Vedas have contributed to the integrated development of society, recognizing the individuality and growth of customs and manners of each group and clans and at the same time striving to integrate all into a homogenous society. The study of the Vedas was never confined to Brāhmins but was available to all dvijas which included Brāhmaṇas, Kṣatriyas, Vaiśyas and honoured Veḷḷāḷars according to medieval commentators. Thus, a major part of the society was learning the Vedas in one form or another. The study of the Vedas was made compulsory for Vedic Brāhmaṇas. This study was not restricted to only the Vedic hymns called samhitas, but included the ṣadaṅgas (Gaṇita: Mathematics, Jyotiṣha: Astronomy, Kalpa: Rituals, Vyākaraṇam: Grammar, Nirukta: Etymology and Chandas: Poetry), and Mīmāṁsā (critical investigation). In addition, they were expected to master the law books (Dharma Śāstras), the epics, and the Purāṇas. In Tamiḻnāḍu they were also expected to study Tamiḻ grammar, and the Tamiḻ version of the epics. In some cases, they also studied yoga of Patañjali, and administrative systems. The medieval commentators also tell us they were performing various yāgas and helped others to do the same.
The earliest Tamiḻ grammar is Tolkāppiyam by Tolkāppiyar who showed his work to a great scholar in the court of the Pāṇḍya, Ataṅkoṭṭu Ācāṉ, who was a Caturvedin, and an exponent of dharma in the court (aram karai nāviṉ nāṉmaṟai muṟṟiya ataṅkoṭṭu ācāṉaril tapat-terintu), says the colophon to Tolkāppiyam.
8.2. Vedic Sacrifices
The earliest period so far as Tamiḻnāḍu is concerned is the Saṅgam age, which as we have seen witnessed great patronage extended by the three dynasties - Cēra, Cōḻa, and Pāṇḍya - to Vedic studies, Vedic yāgas and yajñas. The anthology Patiṟṟup-pattu mentions ten successive Cēra rulers presenting lands and villages to their Brāhmin ministers as Brahmadāyas for their knowledge and services to the state. They were presented tens of thousands of coins by the kings. One Cēra king went to the extent of presenting his whole kingdom which his teacher politely turned down. Avvaiyār, one of the greatest poets of the Saṅgam age, praises all the three kings of the Tamiḻs for participating in Vedic sacrifices in one of her poems of Puṟanāṉuṟu collections. A historic poem found in the Saṅgam anthology composed by this famous poetess gives a graphic description of a Rājasūya-yāga by the Cōḻa king Perunar Kiḷḷi who was called “Perunar Kiḷḷī, who performed the Rājasūya”. The poem is included as no. 367 of Puṟam anthology of 400 poems. The Cōḻa king invited the Cēra and the Pāṇḍya kings with all other chieftains to participate in this yāga. The Cēra ruler of that time was one Māri-Veṇko and the Pāṇḍya was Ugrap-peruvaḻuti who conquered the place Kānap-pēreyil. Both accepted the invitation and attended the Yāga. The Pāṇḍya Ugrap-peruvaḻuti was one of the earliest kings who ruled at the very beginning of Tamiḻnāḍu history and so was Avvaiyār, one of the early poets. Evidently, the poem gives us a glimpse of the life of the Tamiḻs in a very early period.
We have seen earlier that Avvaiyār who saw the three crowned kings together was naturally elated and composed this poem. She says, “You kings, you have made this whole world look like the Dēvalōkam, divided into parts and made them the property of Brāhmaṇas by placing gold and flowers in their hands and pouring water as the act of gift. Having made the gifts to them you have also made limitless gifts to others (the chieftains and soldiers) who were celebrating the great victories as result of their valour in battles. Remember this was possible because of your good deeds (puṇya - nal viṉai), for you are witnessing daily the morning Vedic sacrifices of mut-tī (āhavanīyam, gārhapatya and dakṣiṇāgni) performed by the good Brāhmaṇas as enjoined in the Vedas.”
In the verse number 15 - included in the Puṟam anthology the poet Neṭṭimaiyār praises the Pāṇḍya ruler Palyāgasālai Mudukudumi Peruvaḻuti. The poem praises the king for his conquests and the destructions he caused to the enemy country, and then deals with the innumerable Vedic sacrifices he performed as prescribed in the four Vedas, in lines 17 to 22.
There are innumerable passages in the Saṅgam works about the Vedas, Vedic Scholars and their sixfold lifestyle (adhyāpanam: teaching the Vedas, adhyayanam: learning the Vedas, yajanam: performing yajñas/Yāgas, yājanam: have these performed for others, dānam: donating and pratigraham: accepting alms). There were many great Tamiḻ poets in the Saṅgam age that bore the names of Vedic Ṛṣis such as Gautama, Kāśyapa, Kōcika, Bharadvājas, Vālmiki, Ātrēyaṉ, Hāritaṉ, Mādalaṉ, Brahmachāri, Mārkaṇḍēyaṉ, Agastyaṉ and others which were obviously gotra names.
8.3. Brahmadēyam-Vedic villages Vedic scholars lived in individual dwellings in colonies separate from other groups. The gifts of land made to them were called Brahmadāyas in early times, but later came to be called Brahmadēsas. Brāhmin settlements in later periods were called Pārppanac-cēri, Brahmadēyam, Ekabhoga Brahmadēyam, Agaram, Agrahāram, Maṅgalams, or Caturvedi-maṅgalam. When a single Brāhmaṇa was given an individual dwelling with a backyard, cultivable lands with appurtenances, with necessary services, and a separate revenue identity as a village, it was called Ekabhoga Brahmadēya. When a separate colony was established as a single street, it was an Agrahāram and when a colony of multiple streets was formed it was an Agaram. When a whole village with several cēris was gifted to a number of Brāhmins families, each with specified shares (paṅgu) it was called Maṅgalam. When such colonies included masters of one or more Vedas it came to be called a Caturvedi-maṅgalam. The last two categories were mostly gifted by kings either in their own names or their queens or other members of royalty, as a part of what is called Mahādāna (great gifts) suited to their personality. As these were spiritual gifts, the land had to be the property of the donor either by purchase or won by conquests or inheritance (such Caturvedi-maṅgalams exist all over Tamiḻnāḍu in the hundreds, gifted especially between the 4th and 14th centuries CE for over a thousand years).
The word Brahmadēyam appearing frequently in inscriptions is understood as land gifted to Brāhamaṇas in a very general way. But it is a complex word which should be understood in context as its import is misunderstood. There was faith that Brāhmaṇas who had studied the Vedas and Dharma Śāstras, helped in maintaining dharma by their responsible and objective learning. The king was the maintainer of dharma by his daṇḍa –power - which was a precept called daṇḍanīti. To carry out his duties he sought the advice of Brāhmaṇas. One who had to settle disputes could not himself be the ruler or administrator. Thus, the Brāhmaṇas were not allowed to be the rulers, or in other words the law makers could not themselves be law enforcers. Besides the Jñānapādas, the Vedas were considered embodiment of dharma. By rewarding a Brāhmaṇa it was believed the donor king would acquire benefit for his rule and spiritual merit.
Many land gifts to Brāhmaṇas recorded in copper plates mention specifically that the gifts were made by the king for his long life, physical and royal strength, progress, victories, and fame. “asmad āyur, bala, vriddhi, vijaya, and yasas”. Sometimes there is also a mention that the gift was made to Brāhmaṇas by the king “for the wellbeing of his family”.
As in modern times, the people of the country agreed to entrust its rule in the hands of an elected or selected person and provide him with necessary powers to administer that power, or with a family of rulers whose duty it was to protect the people from external and internal dangers and punish those who contravened the law. So, also, the king had to protect and enforce laws but he himself could not enact the law.
It is decreed in our ancient law books that anyone who wants to gift anything must have legal ownership over it, be it the land or wealth. The ancient law books further state that wealth or land obtained by illegal means cannot be gifted. So, in many instances we find the king, or his family members purchased lands from individual owners and made a gift of them. Thus, the king had no right to gift anything without legally ownening it. Honest people would reject accepting illegal wealth. These provisions were made in ancient law “Dharma Śāstra” to protect individual rights. Our ancestors anticipated the misuse of power to gift anything and so ensured its absolute legality. The restrictions applied to the king as well.
A symbolic way of gift is embedded in what is known as relinquishing ones right by ritually and publicly declaring that the donor has relinquished his right over the wealth. In ancient times the ritual followed was that the donor poured water into his hand and allowed it to fall on the hand of the receiver. In all cases of gifts mentioned in inscriptions, there is a sentence which states (nīroḍu attik-koḍuttāṉ), meaning offering gifts by pouring water in the receiver’s hand. In the Saṅgam age, at the beginning of the Comman Era, such gifts were made in the hand of the recipient if he was a human being. A problem arose when one of the parties to the proceedings was a temple of the Supreme God which needed a representative to receive or give away anything belonging to the temple, a worldly transaction. So, this legal right was fulfilled by recognizing a subordinate deity to the Supreme. In the case of Śiva temples Caṇḍikeśvara was recognized as the legal authority to act as the guardian of the properties of Śiva temples and in the case of Viṣṇu temples, Viṣvaksēna was the legal administrator. Similarly, there are secondary gods in the case of temples of Devi and Muruga and others. One always finds a small shrine for such a diety by the side of the main Vimāna in all temples. In the case of gifts to temples water would be poured over the hand of the designated image, such as that of Caṇḍeśvara in Śiva temples. Such land gifts are called tēvatāna (devasthāna) lands. This word is used in two senses. tēvatāna means land or place belonging to the temples. The second point is that dēvatāna, sometime written as dēvadāna has the meaning of “gift to the temple”. In the former case the word tāna is derived from the Sanskrit word sthāna meaning a place, while in the second, it is also derived from Sanskrit but as dāna meaning gift. So, the word devatāna used in inscription may either mean the temple land itself or land gifts to temples.
Similarly, the word “Brahmadēya” used in inscriptions literally means land gifted to Brāhmaṇas. In ancient times they were always referred to as Brahmadāya. In the Saṅgam age we have several references to kings making gifts as “Brahmadāya” but in later times the word “Brahmadēya” came to be used. Here also the distinction should be made clear dāya refers to the act of gift while dēya stands for the place (dēsa-dēya).
There are many royal copper plates found in Tamiḻnāḍu recording gifts of lands by kings of Cēra, Cōḻa, Pāṇḍya, Pallava, Gaṅga and other dynasties. It means that lands gifted by the kings were those of which they had legal rights. So, when they gifted a whole village, they could not gift all the lands of the village. The copper plates had a prescribed draft introduced to exclude (nīkki) the land which the kings could not gift. Such exclusions were temples, temple yards, village tank, residential areas, the yards attached to residences, village common lands grazing grounds for cattle, pathways, channels, cemetery, the passage through which dead bodies were carried, the residential area of Paraihas, Craftsmen etc. The drafts also mention who the actual tillers of the land were and that they could not be evicted (Kuḍi nīkki). In some places there could be Jain or Buddhist settlements which were also excluded from the gift. A study of the royal copper plates shows these provisions are invariably mentioned and the wording repeated in all, suggesting this was a prescribed formula available in all the royal administrative setup. Evidently, this draft is from the Dharma Śāstra. It also means that from the days of the Dharma Śāstra, each village was expected to maintain accurate records of their village land holdings so that specific mention could be made while documenting in the village records.
The ancient royal plates also mention exemption from paying taxes (iṟai ili) for lands belonging to temples and that of the weaker sections of the society. The plates then proceed to mention that the land gifted was divided into a number of shares and each one of the recipients was given one, two or more shares amounting to a certain amount of paddy, generally one hundred kalams of paddy per annum. This was the tax the king was entitled to receive into the royal treasury and by declaring that he was gifting the land he meant he was foregoing the royal tax in favour of the recipients. The donee Brāhmaṇas would receive this grain per annum and their descendants would receive this in perpetuity. In many cases it is evident the king was only relinquishing his right in favour of the recipient of the gift. This however did not affect the ownership of tillers and of private owners. The term Kuḍi nīkki especially explains that the original owners and tillers were not disturbed, for the king had no right to usurp their ownership rights. It is important to note that some novices not understanding the meaning, postulate imaginary class conflict from these gifts. Whenever ownership was changed it had to be done legally and not arbitrarily. The king would then mention specifically that the recipient will have the right to sell or mortgage the property according to his wish. In this case the king should have had the property registered in his name first as otherwise he would not have right the to transfer the same to another. It is the dharma or law of the land.
In some cases, we find what is called an “Ekabhoga Brahmadēya”. In this case the land or village gifted belonged to one individual and he had the right to receive the amount of tax of the village.
8.4. Brahmadāyas Attached to Temples The Devatāna-Brahmadēśas were colonies dependent on the temples to which they were attached. Brāhmins who were given such lands had to do service in the temple by reciting the appropriate Vedas during daily worship and festivals. Being royal gifts, the streets and houses in the colony were arranged in a straight and neat layout with uniform facades and interiors as specified in Vāstu śāstras. Individuals were not permitted to change the plan or elevation etc., and had to maintain them as they were. We see an extraordinary beauty in these layouts. 8.5. Elected system of administration These Vedic villages maintained an efficient local assembly administrative system which helped them prosper, especially under the Cōḻa rulers. First, the villages had a vibrant electoral system, which demanded a certain basic educational refinement for a person to be elected. Secondly, once elected neither he nor his relatives could stand again for election for the next three terms. One could stand for only three elections in their lifetime, unlike the present when one can boast of having won elections for 12 or 13 terms. Further, no member of the family or the close relatives of an elected member could stand for election, which gave other members of the community a chance to participate in the elections. Corruption or other heinous crimes were severly punished. especially convicted criminals and their benamis could not aspire to wield any influence. Unlike the modern system in which the democracy is gradually shifting towards a feudal system, this was a dynamic system especially because of its emphasis on educated participation. 8.6. Contribution of the Pallavas The Pallava king Nandivarman II had a minister, Brahma Śrīrāja by name, whose qualifications listed in his royal order are important to show the state of Vedic scholars in the Northern part of Tamiḻnāḍu in the 8th century. He is said to have crossed the ocean of the Vedas. He was a master of reciting Sāmaveda with sweet and accurate svara. He was adept in the six aṅgas of the Vedas namely, Chandas, Kalpa, Vyākaraṇa, Jyotiṣa, Nirukta and Chando vicchitti and supported by these texts, regularly recited Vedic texts. He was a master of the usage of words, sentences, and their meanings. He had excellent command over Śruti and Smṛti, he was fluent in Karma-kāṇḍa, (ritual) and Jñāna-kāṇḍa (Philosophy), was able in worldly transactions and various arts, and outstanding in kāvya and Nāṭaka (poetry and drama) storytelling, Itihāsas and Purāṇa. Last, but not the least, he was the culmination of all knowledge and the sciences (Jñāna vijñāna niṣṇātāya). There are many other personages we may cite but it is sufficient to say there were great Vedic scholars throughout Tamiḻnāḍu who have enriched this region through history. There are many accounts of Vedic colleges spread out mainly during the Pallava and Cōḻa age. Bāhūr The village of Bāhūr near Pondicherry was a great university of Vedic learning to which many eminent scholars thronged from different parts of the country. According to Pallava royal records of the 9th century, issued by king Nṛpatuṅgavarmaṉ, the village was called a Vidyā-sthāna (place of knowledge). As a River of knowledge “Vidyā nadi” resembling the great river Gaṅgā that flowed with many tributaries joining it, Bāhūr drew innumerable scholars to come and stay there for further learning. The king Nṛpatuṅgavarmaṉ gifted three villages clubbed together as a Brahmadēya to the residents of Bāhūr for maintaining that Vidyā-sthāna1. Ānūr In the 10th century, the Cōḻa ruler Rājarāja Cōḻa I made a gift to the Vedic institution at Ānur in Chinglepet district, where the Vedas, the grammar of Pāṇini, the Aṣhṭādhyāyi, Alamkāras and twenty chapters of Mīmāṁsā were taught. The 20 chapters of Mīmāṁsā consisted of 16 chapters of Pūrva-Mīmāṁsā and four of Uttara-Mīmāṁsā (Vedānta)2. Eṇṇāyiram With the advent of Rājarāja I, and his son Rājēndra Cōḻa I there was very great impetus for Vedic studies. Rājarāja himself took personal interest in encouraging institues of learning. The best illustration comes from Eṇṇāyiram near Viḻuppuram where he established a very great Caturvedi-maṅgalam called Rājarāja-caturvedi-maṅgalam in which a great Vedic University was established teaching the four Vedas and other subjects. Judging from the population this was a very great institution with 270 junior students and 70 senior students and 14 teachers (ARE 333/1917). 8.7. Land Transactions in Temples An outline of land transactions up to the end of 16th century may be noted for the proper understanding of rights and individual and communal responsibility. Every village, territorial assembly and the government maintained accurate land records giving details of the area, boundaries, mode of irrigation, class of the land depending on the fertility, merchant guild, the ownership and taxes levied on the lands. There were individual owners in the village’s common lands, and charitable lands. Two levels of taxes are witnessed on these lands – lands paying taxes to the royal government and taxes levied by the local assemblies such as the villages. The royal taxes were periodically assessed and entered in the registers, examined, and collected by the royal officers. But it was the duty of the village assemblies to collect the royal dues and pay when the royal officers visited the villages. Such taxes were called “Iṟai”. In general, the quantum of “Iṟai” or exemptions of such taxes could be decided by the king through an oral order (thiruvā moḻindhu aruḷi). This oral order was received by a high-ranking officer called Tiruvaykēḷvi. He would commit the orders to proper drafts, mentioning all details after due verification by several subordinate officers. These drafts were scrutinized by another set of officers and entered in the royal registers. The order relating to transactions would then be sent to the concerned villages where the village assemblies received the orders and entered them in proper form in the village.
The payment of tax to the king, was made for protection given by him to the individual and institutions. This payment gave the payer the right to be officially the subject of the king – “kuḍi”. He was assured of protection and the freedom to live within the limits of the kingdom. The king had the right to waive the tax on individuals or institutions and such exempted tax was called tax free – “iṟai-ili” or “vari-ili”. In general, land tax was called “Iṟai” and tax on individuals called “vari”.
Besides the royal tax, each village was empowered to levy some local taxes which were called “Uḷvari” - antarāyam”. This was determined by the elected village assembly by a meeting and the resolution recorded. We have several types of village assemblies like “Ūr” consisting of a settlement with all castes living together. Nallūr was a colony where mainly the land-owning agricultural cultivators lived. Brahmadēyas or Brāhmins colony was where Brāhmins were the main inhabitants and Nagaram were colonies of merchants. By and large other service personnel like potters, barbers, physicians, paraiahs lived separately in their own colonies but were attached to one or the other village settlement mentioned above. The Paraic-cēris (colonies of the Paraiahs) and colonies of craftsmen were always exempted from paying taxes. There were territorial assemblies called “Nāḍu” who were essentially a federation of agricultural villages.
The occupants of these colonies were free to make and transact their own acts of mutual interest. They had the right of living freely, of levying local taxes partially or fully and had the power to exempt such payment. All transactions were to be committed to written registers and “Olai”. Each village had the right to elect their own representatives the method of pot ticket (Kuda Olai) within the overall regulations of the country. 8.8. Mūla Paruṣai In the evolution of the “Brāhminical Sabhā”, we may site an interesting inscription from Kumbakōṇam, dated in the reign of Āditya Cōḻa II, elder brother of Rājarāja Cōḻa I, dated 963. The village, Kumbakōṇam was attached to the temple village of the Nagēśwara swami and was under the administrative Committee “Mūla paruḍai” of Kumbakōṇam3.
The Cōḻa ruler Āditya II was crowned probably after his conquest of the Pāṇḍya and on that occasion he gifted 24 vēlis of land as “abhiṣeka dakṣiṇā” (coronation allowance) in the hands of the Mūla pariṣad. A certain Parāntaka Mūvēndavēlāṉ, a high officer of an agriculturist family, purchased 2 mā of land from the Mūla Pariṣad, out of those 24 vēlis, and gifted it to the same Pariṣaḍ, to utilize the proceeds for expounding Mīmāṁsa śāstra of Prābhākara-bhaṭṭa in the village. This Mīmāṁsā was known as Prābhākaram. The point of interest is that a certain Mūla pariṣad is mentioned in the record. What is this Mūla pariṣad?
Pariṣad is an assembly of ten or at least five Scholars, who are well versed in the Vedas, one Mīmāṁsā, the six aṅgas of Vedās such as Vyākaraṇa, Sikṣā, Chandas, Jyotiṣa, Kalpa and Nirukta, and also learned in two Dharma Śāstras. The learned people would sit together and decide the legal aspects (ref. Bodhāyana dharma śāstra) of the land transactions. The main Pariṣad of Kumbakōṇam examined the transaction. चातुर् वॅदयी विकल्पीच अङ्गवित्धर्मपाठक: आश्र्मस्थॉत्रयॉबिप्रा: पर्षद्एषा दशावरा: The three Āśramasthas of Brahmahcāri (bachelor), Grahasta (householder), and Sanyāsin (recluses) were eligible for the Pariṣad. Generally, it would be the sabhā members (assembly) that would figure in such transactions. But it seems Kumbakōṇam was a very ancient settlement of Brāhmins who were Vedic Scholars and it had retained this old system. Secondly, the gift is mentioned as “Bhaṭṭa-vritti” meant it was towards the emoluments of a person who would regularly expound the Śāstra of Prābākara-Mīmāṁsā. There were two Mīmāṁsā-śāstras popular in Tamiḻnāḍu. One Kumarila Bhaṭṭa's Mīmāṁsā called “Bhaṭṭa-Mīmāṁsā” and the other was “Prābākara-Mīmāṁsā” called “Prābākaram”. The latter one was more popular in Tamiḻnāḍu. However, we shall see in sequence that provisions were made for the study of both the schools in Vedic colleges established by the Cōḻa emperors.
The third point of interest is the concluding part of this document which says this gift should be protected by 1000 “Tiruvaḍigaḷ”. It is possible that it was the Sāmaveda that was prevalent at Kumbakōṇam at that time which had a branch called “Sahaśra śākhā”.
It shows that in the early period the Vedic Pariṣad influenced the setting up of the village Sabhā of Caturvedi-maṅgalams. The regional assembly system seems to have been inspired by the age long Pariṣad system of the Vedic Brāhmaṇas. 8.9. Nāḍu as an administrative unit We have seen that “Ūr” is an agricultural village which was essentially a colony, and they had their own village assembly which met and took decision on matters of common concerns. Other service holders like potters, barbers, carpenters, and others who were inhabitants of that village also sometimes participated and signed the documents, along with other cultivators of that village. In some instances we also notice a few Brāhmin inhabitants signed the documents.
Similarly, the Brāhmin villages had their Sabhās (village assemblies) which met. The participating Brāhmins alone signed the documents but in some instances, we find members of other castes who were inhabitants of the village also signed, indicating that all sections had a say in the affairs of the village.
A third category of assemblies is one in which two villages jointly took decisions and signed the documents as (ūrāy isainta ūrom). In some instances, we do see that when Peasant villages and Brāhmin colonies came together to take a decision, both communities have signed the document. There were some instances when all the peasant villages which were under one territorial division came together, deliberated and took decisions as a Nāḍu. Thus, the decisions of the nāṭṭār which goes beyond a single caste. We have a good example of this from Tiruttuṟaipūṇḍi tāluk of Tañjāvūr district. 8.10. Nallūr The great historian, Prof. Nīlakaṇṭa Śāstri, writing about the village assembly in his book “The Chōḻas” (Page-492), says “Of the village assembly proper, we noticed two types distinguished by the names Ūr and Sabhā. The third kind of local assembly was Nagaram confined to merchants. All of them were primary assemblies of the members of the localities concerned and generally speaking regulated all the common concerns. They were subject to general supervision, in particular a periodical audit of their financial transactions by the officials of the king’s government. Otherwise, they were left to themselves.
The Ūr was the simplest type of this assembly. This word means village or town. It is employed also in the sense of the assembly of the Ūr. This becomes clear from the phrase “ūrāl isainda ūrom” – meaning residents of the village meant as Ūr - which occurs in some records as by the order of the Ūr or Sabhā, regarding the drafting and engraving of records by its agents. The Ūr functioned in several places alongside of the Sabhā sitting by itself or jointly with the Sabhā as required by the business on hand. On the other hand, the Ūr was the only assembly in other places.
The Sabhā and the Ūr co-existed in places where a new settlement of Brāhmins was superimposed on a more ancient community by the constitution of a maṅgalam”.
It is clear from the recently discovered “Indaḷūr copper plates” of Rājēndra Cōḻa II that a new colony established for Brāhmaṇas under the name “Caturvedi-maṅgalam” also included other castes required for essential services. Thus, it is evident the gifts to the Brāhmins were not confined only to them but included essential servicemen like Kusavaṉ (potter), Ambaṭṭaṉ/Nāvithaṉ (barber), Vaṇṇnāṉ (Washerman), Vaitiyaṉ (physician), Jyothiṣaṉ (astronomer), Uvachhaṉ (drummer) Pārasavaṉ (priest of the Village Goddess), fishermen, goldsmith, oil monger, tailor, blacksmith (Kollaṉ), carpenter, news announcer (Pariaṉ) and others. It must be emphasized that each one of these service holders were given one share like most of the other Brāhmin settlers. It is interesting to note that in some cases some Brāhmins were paid half a share while other service holders were allotted one share – double that of some Brāhmins which shows that they were treated on par with Brāhmins, and no distinction as higher or lower category of residents was made in a Brāhmin settlement. Therefore, the village assembly of the Brāhmins’ colony met under the term “Peruṅguri-mahāsabā” (the great village assembly); members of the assembly included other castes with the Brāhmins. This is contrary to the belief that Caturvedi-maṅgalam were exclusively Brāhmins colonies.
It is also known that Brāhmins as land holders generally did not enter the fields for ploughing, harvesting, threshing, etc., which were done by professional cultivators. Either they directly supervised the cultivation and worked with the agricultural labourers, or they entrusted the land to be cultivated on a tenancy basis receiving what was called “Mēlvāram”- (ownership share of the produce with a share given to the tenant) which seems to have been generally at the rate of 60/40 percent of the produce respectively. It, therefore, required a large number of agricultural labourers to take care of the Brāhmin lands. They were the Veḷḷārars who performed these duties for others.
The Veḷḷāḷar or Vēlār (Śūdras) also had the right to own lands and be landowners. When the land was a sufficiently big holding, they sometimes even employed agricultural labourers for their operations. Naturally the land owning Śūdras claimed a higher status in society because of their wealth. There always remained a small section of the Veḷḷāḷars earning their livelihood by daily labour. However, like the Brāhmins’ assembly of Sabhās the land owning Veḷḷāḷar also had their own village assembly, and all administrative and communal works were decided by them in the village assembly which was called “Ūr”.
A number of inscriptions illustrates such representative members of the Veḷḷāḷar signing documents, approving the sale of lands, and exempting payment of taxes on the produce within the agricultural villages. We therefore get a large number of village assemblies which were called “Nallūr”. A careful study of the constitution of Nallūr shows it was the settlement of the Veḷḷāḷars similar to the Caturvedi-maṅgalam were the colonies of the Brāhmins. Also, it is seen the members of the Nallūr agricultural Veḷḷāḷars had the same rights and privileges similar to the Brāhmins with reference to their own settlement. Such settlements were more in number than the Brāhmins’ colonies particularly in the delta like the Cōḻa region. The record shows the large number of independent Nallūr village assemblies which met and attested their signatures in documents after delibrations. There are many such exclusive assemblies noticed with signatures of only Veḷḷāḷars and no signatures of other castes. Wherever the term Nallūr occurs it refers to a settlement of agricultural cultivators. We saw earlier that many Caturvedi-maṅgalams of Brāhmins mentioned as “colonies dependent on temples” – Devatāna-brahmadēya. These were expected to serve the local temple in some capacity and were not totally independent. Such dependence is called “Śāsana-baddha” - bound by the gift deed. Similarly, we have a good number of Nallūr agricultural cultivators’ settlement attached local temples to serve in some capacity. Such colonies were called Devatāna-ūr. Occasionally in some villages both the Brāhmin and the cultivator colonies co-existed and took joint decisions on matters of common interest. There were also small suburbs attached to bigger colonies of cultivators’ which participated in the proceedings of the bigger colony and accepted the decision which is mentioned as “Ūrāi Isainda Ūrōm”. These would be what is called as “village unions” in modern parlance. There are enough examples to show agricultural cultivators were not considered socially backward classes who were denied their rights, as is projected by some self-styled social reformers. Hundreds of records are available throughout Tamiḻnāḍu to show the Veḷḷāḷars had the same right as ownership, assembly, decision making and the right to sell their property. Such land-owning rich Veḷḷāḷars were also conferred the royal title “Mūvēndavēlār”, and they were employed throughout in very high positions by the king. Most of the high officials under the Cōḻas and the Pāṇḍyas were the cultivating Vēlārs. There are some specific instances mentioned in the records showing Veḷḷāḷar called as “Vēlār”. It clearly shows that there were two classes of Śūdras (1) Land owning Vēlārs and (2) daily labour class. These rich Veḷḷāḷar were also conferred several royal titles, whose girls were married to the royalty were considered on par with Kṣatriyas and were empowered to wear Upavīta and study Vedas. It is such a division that the medieval commentator Nacciṉārkkiṉiyar mentions in his commentary on chapter “Poruḷ-adhikāram” (the chapter on meaning of a word in the earliest Tamiḻ grammatical work – Tolkappiyam). It is evident that from the earliest known history of the Tamiḻs the Veḷḷāḷars had equal rights and privileges in their social status and were never excluded as backward classes. There was enough scope for upward movement in the social hierarchy of the Tamiḻs. We will be examining a few illustrations from the inscriptions found in different parts of the country. The land owning Veḷḷāḷar could not be evicted from their landed property or even tenancy rights without being paid due price as was paid to any other owners of property. So, whenever a village is gifted to Brāhmins there was a provision which always says, “excluding the existing landowners or cultivators”. The ownership rights were absolute with reference to all classes.
8.11. Ūr A large number of inscriptions especially in the Cōḻa country mention agricultural villages where cultivators appear as landowners and members of the village assembly are as “Ūr”. For example, a village named “Tiruppanayūr” in Naṉṉilam tāluk of Tañjāvūr district has yielded altogether 22 inscriptions. A considerable number are in a damaged and fragmentary condition; yet it is seen that they specifically mention they are about the elected representatives of the cultivated village “Ūrom”. Attesting the signature at the end of each document the representatives give their names which indicates they were cultivators. For example, the following names of cultivators as representatives of the villages are seen in inscription No.198 of 1978 – (Village Inscription No.3 Part II of Naṉṉilam inscriptions). 1. Gaṅgaikonḍa Cōḻa Panaiyūr Kiḻavaṉ 2. Panaiyūr Kiḻavaṉ Eḍutta Pādam Another inscription gives the following names: 1. Panaiyūr Kiḻavaṉ 2. Eduttta Pādam Kūttāḍi āna Gaṅgai Koṇḍa Cōḻa Panaiyūr Uḍaiyān Veḷāṉ 3. Panaiyur Kiḻavaṉ Veḷāṉ Gaṇapura devaṉ 4. Panaiyūr Kiḻavaṉ Veḷāṉ Jananātaṉ 5. Panaiyūr Kiḻavaṉ---------- Koṇḍān Eḍutta Pādam The above representatives call themselves the village assembly of Tiruppanaiyūr (uḷḷiṭṭa Sabhāiyom). Another inscription from the village dated in the regnal year of Kulōttuṅga Cōḻa I lists the members of the village assembly as follows: 1. Tiruppanaiyūr uḍaiyāṉ Veḷāṉ Tirukkadavūr udaiyāṉ alias Rājēndra Cōḻa Panaiyūr Nāṭṭu Mūvēnda Veḷāṉ 2. Panaiyūr Kiḻavaṉ Cōḻan Eswaraṉ 3. Panaiyūr Kiḻavaṉ Velāṉ Jananātaṉ 4. Panaiyūr Kiḻavaṉ Velāṉ Kulamāṇickam 5. Maruthuvakkudiyāṉ Tiruvayāru Uḍaiyāṉ āna Tiruveṅgadu uḍaiyāṉ They are mentioned as the constituted village assembly. The record states that they met for a land transaction. In the course of this transaction they sold certain parcels of land making them tax free. This indicates that the members had the right not only to own but also to sell the landed properties, act as members of the village assembly and had the right to exempt local levy on these lands, which they refer as “innilam arai (vēli) irai-ili seidu kuduthom”. These examples show that the land owning and cultivating Vēlār (Śūdras) had the same right as the Brāhmins who held lands in Caturvedi-maṅgalam mentioned as “Brahmadēyam”. All the inscriptions in Tiruppanaiyūr indicate that it was the Ūrōm represented by the Vēlār alias Veḷḷāḷar in the assembly who prominently figured, approved, and exempted lands from paying local taxes. Though this village Tiruppanaiyūr was predominantly a peasant village, other community members also represented the assembly as required, which included the following members: (Inscription No.215 of 1978. Village Inscription No.18) 1. Kottūruḍayāṉ 2. Panaiyūr Kiḻavaṉ Kavaca-devaṉ 3. Tiruthoṇḍa tokai Arulāla Perumāḷ 4. Brahmarāyaṉ Eḻuttu 5. Tirupalli Mukkudayāna Thalhuvak kuzhanthān Bhaṭṭaṉ 6. Uḍayāṉ Alakoṇḍāṉ Eḻuttu 7. Panaiyūr Nāṭṭu Mūvēnder Veḷāṉ alias Keḻutamaṉ Tiruchiṟṟambalam udyāṉ ana Ālāla Sundara Bhaṭṭaṉ 8. Panaiūr Udyān Vēlāṉ Tirukadavūr Udyāṉ āna Panaiyūr Nāṭṭu Mūvēnda Veḷāṉ 9. Panaiur Udyāṉ Veḷāṉ Katir āyiram Uḍayāṉ 10. Panaiur KiḻavanKon kulamāṇicka Veḷāṉ āna Gangai koṇḍa Cōḻan Eḻuttu 11. Ālavandāṉ 12. Mīnavaṉ Viḷupparaigaṉ 13. Kīḻamangalavaṉ Aḻagiya Nāyaṉ 14. Tiruchitramabla Udaiyāṉ 15. Kanakudyāṉ Tillaikku Iraivaṉ 16. Abhaya Nārāyan Brahma Mārāyaṉ 17. Angirundu uraivān āna Thaḍuttu aṭkoṇdān Bhaṭṭan eḻuttu 18. Aḻzagiya devan eḻuttu 19. Tiru Māṇicka Eṭṭi āna Tirujñāna Sambanda Bhaṭṭaṉ In this list, all the members listed have signed the document with the phrase “eḻuttu” as in “Jñāna-sambanda Bhaṭṭaṉ Eḻuttu”. Further we find also Veḷḷāḷar, Brāhmaṇa and even dignitaries who had the title “Brahma-mārāyaṉ” participating in the transaction. This right is also found for services like “Āṇḍār”, (Inscription No.217 Village Inscription No.20) which refers to the agreement among the villagers who issued a document as legal record with the signatures of many participants to the transaction. The list is as follows: 1. Panaiyūr Udayāṉ Veḷāṉ Tirukadavūr Udayāṉ āna Panaiyūr Nāṭṭu Mūvenda Veḷāṉ 2. Aviyūr Kiḻavaṉ Kōṉ Tirujñāna Sambandaṉ eḻuttu (propbably a Shepard) 3. Nallūr Udayāṉ Āṇḍārgaḷil Attūr Udaiyāṉ Ulavākiḻi Petrāṉ Tantai Pavanaṉ eḻuttu 4. Further it also included Śiva Brāhmaṇas 5. Aḻagiya Nāyaka Bhaṭṭaṉ eḻuttu This shows the temple priest Śiva Brāhmaṇas, Āṇḍār (Āṇḍi) of the local temple and a number of cultivators signed the document indicating they all had equal rights.
Another village named “Narimaṇam”, Naṉṉilam tāluk in Tañjāvūr district was also an agricultural peasant village represented in the village assembly by people of cultivator caste. It is mentioned in a record which exempted land was gifted to the temple as tax free land (Iṟai-ili nilam). Narimaṇam is recorded here as Dēvatāna-ūr meaning that it was a predominantly cultivators’ village attached to the local temple. This is similar to several other records where the Brāhmins colony is mentioned as attached to the local temple (Dēvatāna-brahmadēyam). The Brāhmins who were provided house sites and cultivable lands in these Dēvatāna-brahamadēyam villages were to perform services including recitation of Vedas in the temple. Similarly, the cultivators living in Dēvatāna-ūr were also expected to do some service to the local temple for which the land had been given to them as seen by the term “dēvatāna ūr kiḻ irai-ili āha kuḍuttom”. Another inscription from Narimaṇam (No.222 of 1978) lists the following signatories to a document: 1. Alavandāṉ eḻuttu 2. Panāṅgudiyāṉ Chandrasekaraṉ eḻuttu 3. Vedavana Perumāḷ eḻuttu 4. Āttūr udyāṉ Kūttaṉ Tiruchiṟṟambalam Uḍayāṉ Vayakkāmaṅgalam Udāyāṉ eḻuttu 5. Periān Siṅgaṉ eḻuttu 6. Virkuḍi Kiḻāṉ Tiruvallam āna Tirunattamāḍi Kuḍigal Vināyakaṉ eḻuttu 7. Nādudyāṉ āna sevaḍi en talaimel udayāṉ thirvambala perumāṉ eḻuttu 8. Arayaṉ Tirumaḻapāḍi udayāṉ eḻuttu 9. Thirruchiṟṟambala Udayāṉ eḻuttu All these persons were representatives who had the right to sign the document and were Kuḍi or subjects of the kingdom. 1. Another inscription from Narimaṇam also from the cultivators’ land, mentions: 2. Piḍāra Parāntaka Nallūr 3. Kuṟṟālam alias Nandikēśava Nallūr 4. Veḷḷāipakkam separated from Kūṟṟiḍam koṇḍa Nallūr All these constituted cultivators’ village. Several such Nallūrs mentioned in inscriptions indicate that they formed a separate type of village known as “Dēvatāna Brahmatēyam”. An important inscription is from Kīranūr from Naṉṉilam tāluk dated in the reign of Rājarāja Cōḻa I of 992 CE – (inscription No.254 of Village inscription). It refers to the tenure for a number of services in the temple of Śivalōkanāthaswami at Kīranūr. The order specified each grant given during the reign of earlier kings. Also, the following payments were approved for different services in the temple: The Brāhmaṇa performing worship in the temple was allotted four “Mā Kāṇi” for payment of One Patakku of Paddy daily, clothing allowance and annual cash allowance. 1. Temple servant (Paricārakam Seivāṉ) was given four “Mā Kāṇi” for his payment 2. Two flower gardeners service (Nandavanam Eraippān) – Three Mā land 3. Conch Blower – Three Mā land each 4. Servant Maid – Two Mā land each. 5. Supplier of santanam and other ingredients for abhiṣheka– Six Mā land 6. Kālam ūdūvar – Two Mā land 7. Māthāpathyam Seivāṉ – Two Mā land Other services are listed, but the reference to the lands allotted is missing. The famous village named Tirupugalūr of Naṉṉilam tāluk where the Śaiva saint Appar is said to have merged with Śiva was also an agricultural village. An inscription from Koyil-dēvarāyaṉ-pēṭṭai in Pāpanāsam tāluk of Tañjāvūr district dated around 1251 CE (Fifth regnal year) relates to a sale of land to the temple sum of 4000 kāsu by a certain Maṭhādhipati who was stationed at Tiruvalañcuḻi named Tirujñāna-sambandhar son of Sundara Perumāḷ. This sale was intended for consecrating an image of Saint Tirunāvukkarasar. Four signatories are mentioned in the record who agreed to exempt local taxes on this land, and they are 1. Nagarīśvara Bhaṭṭaṉ devakarmi (Brāhmin) 2. Tiruchēlur Piccaṉ (an Āṇḍār who was a Madādhipati) 3. Gaṅgaikoṇḍa Cōḻa Mūvēnda Veḷāṉ who was an Administrative Officer of the Temple (Śrīkāryam) 4. Saivasikhāmaṇi Bhaṭṭaṉ (The Śaivācārya of the temple) (Ref No.1 of 1996 published in Pāpanāsam District inscriptions – date of publication: 2004) It is clear from this record that persons belonging to four different castes signed the document, indicating that all castes were represented in such transactions, and they had equal rights in the administration. 1. One Bhaṭṭaṉ 2. An Āṇḍār 3. A Mūvēnda Vēḷāṉ – cultivator 4. A Śaivācārya 8.12. Respect for Brāhmins The respect for Vedic Brāhmaṇas is also evident from an inscription assigned to 894 CE of Rājakēsarivarmaṉ Āditya Cōḻa in the temple of Viṣṇu at Ukkal near Kāñchipuram. A certain Cediya Rāyaṉ had given 200 Kalañju gold to the temple of Viṣṇu of Ukkal then known as Aparājita-caturvedi-maṅgalam alias Śiva-cūḍāmaṇi-maṅgalam. The interest from this deposit was to be utilized for ritual feeding of 12 Vedic Brāhmaṇas immediately before offering the mid-day meal to Lord Viṣṇu of the temple. This temple was called Bhuvana Māṇicka Viṣṇugraham and the village God Tirubhaṭṭārar. Such feedings were called Uttamāgram in early inscriptions. The Brāhmaṇas were to be fed with one āḻākku of ghee (melted butter), four vegetables, two betel leaves and an equal number of betel nuts until they were completely satisfied. If there was a failure that amount was to be returned to the donor Brahmādhirāja. This gift is called Iṣṭāpūrtham in the record (SII3/1). The donors name is given “Tiruvikrama Bhaṭṭtar Brahmādhi Rājaṉ”. He was a member of the administrative committee of Uttaramērūr. This was agreed to by the village Sabhā (Assembly) of Ukkal (Aparājita-caturvedi-maṅgalam). This right of feeding Brāhmaṇas is a Vedic tradition observed to this day by Brāhmins in the Śrāddha rite for their ancestors. This Uttamāgram feeding in the temple is followed in the temples of Kerala even today which is called “ūṭṭutal”.
The earliest reference to the exposition of Mahābhārata under the early Cōḻas appears in the reign of Āditya Cōḻa CE 880. (SII/Vol.vi12). This appears in Sentalai village near Tiruvaiyāru. It is clear from the record that Chandralēkhai-caturvedi-maṅgalam had a number of donees each with a share. One Nāganandi was a member of 52 Kuḍumbus who sold his share to finance the daily expounding of the Mahābhārata in the central maṇḍapam in this village and this was approved by the Village Sabhā. The exposition was to be held in the Ambalam of the maṇḍapam erected by one Vairamēgabhaṭṭaṉ. The Sabha assigned Simha Nandisvarupa Bhatṭaṉ belonging to the to Ātrēya gōtram and Vaikhānasa-sūtrā. It was as a tax-free gift. The record also stipulated that those who expounded the Mahābhārata should alone enjoy the proceeds of this share. Evidently, the share was sold back to the Sabhā which alone had the right to exempt taxes on this land. It appears that when such a gift of the village was divided into shares and gifted to many, it required the approval of the Sabhā which may buy the share and assign it to others and exempt taxes on the shares. Though the shares were gifted originally to an individual with the rights to sell, pledge or gift, it could be gifted only upon the approval of the Sabhā. Therefore, it is a communal gift. Evidently, when the village Sentalai was gifted, it was shared by a number of Brāhmaṇas. The recipient was bound by the gift deed and could not dispose it without the approval of the Sabhā, that had the homogeneity of the group. The owner could not sell it outside his caste. We have many Agrahāram – Brāhmins settlements which retained the system till India’s independence after which sale to other communities has become common and the descendants of donees consider themselves not bound by the sāsanas. It is therefore necessary to know that exposition of the Mahabhārata in the brahma-sthāna of the village – central part of the village - was a pre-condition and that the Mahābhāratha was a part of Vedic life and not mere entertainment. It is important to note that the new recipient Simhanandi was a follower of Vaikānasa Sūtrā4.
8.13. Śrīraṅgam An important inscription from Śri Raṅganātha temple, Śrīraṅgam throws valuable light on the formation of the Vedic Brāhmanical village, the rights, and privileges of the donees and incidentally the right of the temple administration and village assembly. The record is dated in the time of Vīrapāṇḍya in the beginning of the 14th Century. It relates to the establishment of a new colony of Vedic Brāhmaṇas by purchasing dry and wetlands from another Brāhmin colony nearby paying due price and constituting the new Brāhmins’ colony in the name of ruling the king Vīrapāṇḍya. The gift was made by an officer of the king who hailed from the Pāṇḍya country and was apparently a high officer. He was named Kāliṅgarāyaṉ and the new colony after the king’s title was called “Kaliyugarāma-caturvedi-maṅgalam”. The sale price was mentioned as “kraya dravyam”. The land so purchased included dry land, gardens, etc., which are called Vāstu ṣēṣam totaling eight hundred and seventy kuḻi and fruit bearing trees, standing in the purchased land. The sale price was determined as six hundred and thirteen paṇam.
This has to be read with the earlier order which gives the proposal by Kāliṅgarāyaṉ who had the title “Valai-vīsuvāṉ” (SII XXIV, No. 212). The record says this land was acquired for building 32 houses for Brāhmaṇas and for constructing the building (manaikaḷ eḍukkuvam), other required lands like pathway leading to the river Kāvēri and the highway passing through the village some of which had to be obtained by exchange of land from the earlier Brāhmin colony named Vikrama-chōḻa-caturvedi-maṅgalam. Further, permission was also obtained to provide a backyard for each house site to grow fruit bearing trees like coconut, mango, jackfruit and vegetables and flowers. The boundaries of the new colony were demarcated and approval obtained from the different service committees of the Śrī Raṅganātha temple, Śrīraṅgam which included the head of the Śrī Raṅgarāmānuja maṭham, worshipping priest and other services called “Kottus”. One of the Kottus included was mentioned as “Rāmānujaṉ Kottu” obviously looking after the sub shrine of Rāmānuja. The record also goes on to say that he, Kāliṅgarāyaṉ built the 32 houses and gifted them to 32 Bhaṭṭars who were exponents of Śāstras, as service tenures. The taxes for occupying the houses and the backyard were to be paid to the temple. Though the gift was made in perpetuity it was called “Kāṇi” (service) and it was bound with the service to the temple. The Brāhmins had the hereditary right to perform the service and enjoy the residences and proceeds. It is clear that the Agrahāram so built was centrally planned and laid out and presented to the Brāhmaṇas after being completely built. Thus, the Agrahārams were royal foundations and not haphazard individual construction. They had the same sanctity as the king or his officers building a hall or sub-shrine within the temple. Therefore, uniformity was maintained in planning, layouts, and regulations with reference to alterations or additions to the buildings. We have a few Agrahāram still in existence without alteration. This also shows that town planning in ancient Tamiḻnāḍu over 1000 years ago was at its height and was enforced by both religious and governmental regulations.
A certain Perumpārkaḍal Bhaṭṭar belonging to Rājakēsari-caturvedi-maṅgalam gifted large parcels of land in different places and house sites to Aḻagiya maṇavāḷa Perumāḷ of Śrī Raṅganātha temple at the time of his death (antima tasai), after making provisions for his wife. He calls this gift igraha, kṣetra and ārāmas. The list of places he gifted shows that he owned a large, landed property. The name of the village Rājakēsari-caturvedi-maṅgalam points that it was a Cōḻa foundation.
One Periaperumāḷ Kāliṅgarājā purchased dry land from Nārāyaṇa Bhaṭṭtar and his brother residents of Vikrama-chōḻa-caturvedi-maṅgalam for six hundred and thirteen paṇams. The land measuring eight hundred and seventy kuḻis was constituted into a new Brāhmin colony after the title of his king, Vīrapāṇḍya as “Kaliyugarāma-caturvedi-maṅgalam”. The Chief is said to have built the houses and laid the backyards. The Bhaṭṭars were to get these houses with backyard as “Kāṇi” as requested by 1. Raṅganārāyaṇa dāsa 2. Periyaperumāḷdāsa 3. The kovaṇavars of the temple 4. Kuḍavars 5. Singers 6. Thaḻaieduppār 7. Those incharge of Rāmānujar Samadhi (Rāmānujaṉ Udayārkaḷ) All other representatives of Kottus. Besides the land, the chief obtained additional land from the village assembly of Vikrama-chōḻa-caturvedi-maṅgalam. This was for constructing a highway to the river from the colony. He entered the details mentioned in the document and settled the Brāhmaṇas in the colony. The Brāhmaṇas who received these houses and sites were exempted from paying “Kuḍimai” tax for the houses but were to pay a tax of four nāḻi of ghee per annum to the temple treasury. It was also stipulated that in the event of sale of these houses with their yards, the buyer should be a Bhāgavata, a follower of this subsect and not any other outsider. The names of the representatives of the temple were also recorded in the document.
Another record dated in the reign of Sundara Pāṇḍya II, who ruled after Vīrapāṇḍya, refers to another new Brāhmin colony. This new colony accommodated hundred and twenty Brāhmaṇas for whom the land was purchased on the passage to the river Kāvērī. During the construction the new houses, there were some old houses under occupation of the earlier service holders, and some in a dilapidated condition. These old houses were purchased by paying prescribed price and the necessary documents were obtained from the owners of these old houses before constructing the new houses. In the new colony, new houses were built and handed over to Brāhmaṇas under the new name “Kodaṇḍarāma-caturvedi-maṅgalam”. The names relating to the purchase of the lands found in the same region show the detailed nature of the transactions.
These two instances confirm that when new colonies were laid and gifted to Brāhmaṇas, they were centrally planned and executed with the name of the donor associated with the foundation as Caturvedi-maṅgalam. Thus, when more than one Agrahāram were laid particularly during the history of the Cōḻas we find two traditions of naming the streets.
They were named after Gods and Goddesses, particularly of Viṣṇu whose dvādaśa nāmās (12 names), Kēsava, Nārāyaṇa, Mādhava, Gōvinda, Viṣṇu, Madhusūdhana, Trivikrama, Vāmana, Śrīdhara, Ṛṣikēśa, Padmanābha and Damōdhara were included as Kēsavacceri, Narayaṇacēri, Mādhavaccēri, etc. If two or three of the twelve names of Viṣṇu are recorded in the inscriptions, we may be sure that originally the village had twelve such Cēris.
In the case of great kings, the Cērīs were named after several titles of the ruling king, his queens, and his relatives. It is not unlikely that the king or his representatives were present personally and ritually handed over the colony to the Bhaṭṭar recipients by pouring water into their hands along with some piece of gold. It may also be noted that the recipients could sell the house, but only to a person belonging to the same faith and caste and not to others.
Among the Brāhmaṇas who received the house and the share, one is mentioned as “Kandāḍai Bhagavat Rāmānuja Bhaṭṭar” who got fifteen shares while most of the others got only one share.
We have seen that in Nallūr, an agricultural village, the members of the assembly had equal rights in deciding matters relating to their village. We have also seen that a number of agricultural village assemblies united and were collectively alled Nāḍu and their members were called Nāṭṭārs. The Nagaram was a commercial guild. These three assemblies were the backbones of rural institutions in medieval Tamiḻnāḍu, through which the kings administered their kingdom. It is seen that all these three regional assemblies wielded the same rights as the Vedic Sabhās. We also have specific instances when all the three came together to decide on matters of common interest and there was no question of any assuming a superior status. A few inscriptions from Nāmakkal village in Salem district illustrate this position.
One inscription of Jaṭāvarman Sundara Pāṇḍya in a Viṣṇu temple in this village located on top of a hill, refers to a gift of one Kāṇi each from three assemblies of a number of villages. These assemblie were Sabhās, Nāṭṭārs, and Nagarattār located in the Eḻūr nāḍu who gifted for food offerings and burning perpetual lamps in the temple. These gifts were made through a priest who was performing worship in the temple. It is seen that eleven villages jointly gifted wetlands. Some of the villages which joined together were: 1. Kūṟṟūr 2. Kamaṉ 3. Eḻūr 4. Pavitramāṇikka Puram (a Nagaram) 5. Sēnda Maṅgalam 6. Vānavaṉ Mādevi 7. Vīrattā Maṅgalam 8. Kalyāṇi 9. Tāḻampāḍi The signatories to the document included a Brahmadēya, temple priests, Nambis, Cakravartikaḷ, Silaicceṭṭi (merchant) Sembiyataraiyaṉ Piḷḷai, Vēlār (farmer), Visānam and others. Interestingly some members were hill people who were also members, but as they were illiterate another has been authorized to sign on their behalf (ivarkaḷ kai māṭṭāṅgu ānamaikku kuṟumbaṉ kuṟucciyil kūttadum dēvaṉ eḻuttu). Kuṟucci is a village near hillocks. Some more members were also illiterate and so some others have signed on their behalf (SII vol II, no 5; ARE No 5 of 1906). 8.15. Brahmadēya converted into Nallūr It is not necessary that Ūr or cultivators’ villages alone were converted into Brahmadēya (Brahmanical) colony. There are instances when Brahmadēyas were also converted into peasants’ villages. An inscription from Vaḍakāḍu kōyilūr in Tiruttuṟaipūṇḍi tāluk, Tañjāvūr district dated in the reign of Vikrama Cōḻa, 1128 CE, mentions that one Brahmadēya village which was a tax free dēvatāna village named Kēraḷa-kulāsani-caturvedi-maṅgalam was bifurcated into two villages and one separate new village was named Vikrama-Cōḻa-Nallūr, consisting of 18 vēlis of Puravu vari kāṇi. However it was classified as kācukoḷḷā irai-yili (exempted from paying tax in cash) and made over as a property in the name of the god of this village after observing all the executive actions like demarcation of boundaries etc. (no. 183/1976 of Tiruttuṟaipūṇḍi inscriptions, Ed. Nagaswamy) 8.16. For a village doctor There are similar gifts to village doctors made by the king and also the three great assemblies Sabhās, Nāḍu and Nagaram. This example also comes from the village Nāmakkal, in Salem district of Tamiḻnāḍu (SII vol XXII; ARE no 13 of 1906). The gift is dated in the 8th year of Jaṭāvarman Sundara Pāṇḍya, and is found in the Muniyappaṉ temple, of Nāmakkal. This order is in two parts. The first is a direct order of the king making the gift. The second is the order of the Sabhā, Nāḍu and Nagaram, confirming what has been ordered by the king. Sundara Pāṇḍiyaṉ gifted a village Vānavaṉ-Mādevi, in Eḻūr Nāḍu of Vada Koṅgu, to a doctor Vaidya Sundara, whose name was Pārāsariyaṉ Āditta-dēvaṉ Tiruvambala-perumāḷ. He seems to have been conferred the title “Vaidya Sundaraṉ”. The gifted village included wetlands, dry lands, nattams, adjuncts of nattam (நத்தம்), Vāstu, vāstuseṣam (adjuncts of Vāstu), tank and its adjuncts, gardens, canals from the river, taravu (தரவு), forest regions, hillock, and all other parts of the village. Exempted from this gift were old temple lands, Tiruvidaitāṭṭams (for the temples), Paḷḷicchandams gifts made to Jaina temples, and lands gifted to Bhaṭṭas as tax free lands. All other tax dues on this village were not to be paid to the royal treasury but instead were to be paid to the doctor. The list of taxes paid to the doctor is staggering. 1. Kaḍamai 2. Tax on gold, 3. karpūraviniyogam, 4. māv-aḍai, (tax per mā of land) 5. dry crop, 6. Tax on looms, 7. Tax on Oil press 8. Taṭṭoli (tax on drumming) 9. Tattār pIāttam (tax on smiths) 10. Tax on plough 11. Inavari (tax on castes) 12. Iḍaivari (tax on Sheperds) 13. Ēri mīnpāṭṭam (tax on fishing in tanks) 14. Kāṇikkai (levy on ritual offering) 15. Kārtikai paccai (tax on graneries) 16. Nallerudu (tax on Bulls) 17. Nallā (tax on Cows) 18. Pañcupīli (tax on cotton) 19. Olai eḻuttu (levy on documents) 20. Viniyōgam (Postal tax) 21. Vācak pēru (palace duty) 22. Iāncanai pēru (levy for royal seal) 23. Veṭtṭiāḷ tevai (compulsory labour) 24. Taccuttevai (tax on carpentry) 25. Ānaiccālai (elephant shed) 26. Kutiraippanti (horse stable) 27. and other taxes This is a detailed list of taxes levied by the royal government on villages. The king had the right to exempt payment of any or all of these taxes. It could be a total cancellation, or the king could transfer this right in favour of anybody. We find many such gifts in favour of temples, religious institutions, Brāhmaṇas, or as in this case of any individual for his services to the people. In this case the king had transferred all royal taxes in favour of a medical practitioner. And so, the benefits conferred on Vedic Brāhmins were also bestowed on others as well. This record is from the end of the 12th century. The king conferred on this donee the right to sell pledge or gift these lands to anybody at his will. The document was signed by a royal officer Sundara Pāṇḍya Pallavarāiyaṉ.
There is another record in continuation of this inscription which says that three great assemblies, the Mahāsabhās, Nāḍus, and Nagarattārs of the Ēḻūr Nāḍu gifted the village Vānavaṉ-Mādevi to the same Vaidya Sundarar, with all the taxes as ordered by the king. One may wonder why, after the king had given the village to the doctor, the village assemblies also made a similar gift! Every village had to keep a register of royal taxes to be collected from the village. When the king gifted these taxes, they had to be removed from the local tax register. Secondly, in addition to the royal taxes, each village or territory could also levy some local taxes. All the local taxes thus levied from the villagers were also gifted to this donee. This record was signed by an accountant of the territory (Nāḍu).
These two records illustrate that the benefits extended to Vedic Brāhmaṇas were equally available to others, with the exception that the number of gifts made to Vedic Brāhmaṇas were far more than the others.
8.17. Kīranūr Inscriptions
Three inscriptions at Kīranūr, though fragmentary in nature, are of interest. One inscription begins with the meykīrti of Rājēndra Cōḻa I and the other fragments seem to be related to it. Kalyāṇamahādevi, a queen of Rājēndra made a gift of money with which some lands were brought in villages in and around Kīranūr and endowed to the local temple for some services. She instituted two festivals, one on the day of Tiruvādirai and another on the day of Uttaram star of every month. Tiruvadirai is the natal star of Emperor Rājēndra and Uttaram, most likely that of Kalyāṇamahādevi. Evidently, she wanted that star birthdays of both herlsef and her husband to be celebrated as festivals and made the endowments for that purpose. The village assembly of Ciru Puliyūr, adjacent to Kīranūr, which was called as Sabhā (Brāhmins’ Colony) accepted the gift free of tax and exempted the land purchased for the festival. It may be noted the village assembly had the rights to exempt the land from tax even for the queen's gift. The queen or the emperor himself could have made the land tax free, but the Cōḻas respected the rights of villages under their rule.
Another fragment must also relate to the gift of the same queen. It refers to the enactment of “Cākkiyār kūttu” in five parts (Aṅkas) in the festivals. One canal in the region was named after a “Bāṇan”. Bāṇans are Cākkiyārs, the dramatic actors following Bharata's Nāṭya Śāstra. I have shown that Cākkiyars used both bhāṣā (regional language) and Sanskrit in their plays. It is also known that Aṅkas are part of Rūpakas (representation related to dramatic works) according to the Nāṭya Śāstra. They were very popular in Tamiḻnāḍu during Cōḻa times.
Another record of significance refers to a gift of land to one Tiruveṅkaṭavaṉ, Viṣṇu Bhaṭṭaṉ, a Vaikhānasa, Vaiṣṇava who worshipped Durgā. Another record in the same village points out that houses were provided free for Kavari pinākkaḷ (female attendants) uvaccas (drummers) and maṭhas. The temple and the village assembly exempted them from paying taxes. This illustrates that those who provided services at the temple were provided houses for free irrespective of caste or nature of the service. 8.18. Kūttāṭṭu Kāṇi at Tiru Nallūr Tiru Nallūr in Pāpanāsam tāluk of Tañjāvūr district is a cultivators’ village from a very early period and so called Nallūr. There is the famous Śiva Kṣetra at Nallūr associated with the sthala Purāṇa mentioned from early times. Later a part of this village was separated and reconstituted as a Vedic Brāhmins colony, named Pañchavan-Mahādevī-caturvedi-maṅgalam probably in the time of Rājarāja Cōḻa I in the 11th century. A Viṣṇu temple dedicated to Kēṣava perumāḷ was built in that newly constituted caturvedi-maṅgalam. It is known that new Brāhmin colonies were provided with a Viṣṇu temple and many of them still exist in the middle of the Agrāhārāms. The Śiva temple was in the Nallūr area and the Viṣṇu temple was in the caturvedi-maṅgalam. In the time of Rājarāja III, that is about one hundred years later than the formation of the new colony, the villagers living in the two parts of Nallūr met and decided to realign their boundaries for the sake of convenient administration by and exchange of lands. Such exchanges of lands were called pari-vartanai. The record dealing with this exchange is found in the Śiva temple even today. It gives the details of the transaction in the assembly meeting where the villagers decided that about 32 Kuḻi of land belonging to the Śiva temple should be handed over to the Viṣṇu temple and in return another piece of land of the same area from their holding to be handed over to the Śiva temple.
According to the record, the two parts of the village remained together as the Śiva temple of Nallūr and the Viṣṇu Kēṣava temple of Nallūr alias Pañcavaṉ-Mahādevī-caturvedi-maṅgalam. Both temples belonged to Nallūr but the Kēṣava temple was in that part of Nallūr which had another name. So, administratively both were under two different bodies. The village assembly of Nallūr and the Sabhā of Pañcavaṉ-Mahādevī-caturvedi-maṅgalam were the legal administrators. The land given to the Viṣṇu temple was called Tiruvidaiyāṭṭam and the one of the Śiva temple was called Tiru-nāmattuk-kāṇi. The Nallūr authorities signed as “Ūrōm” and Viṣṇu temple authorities as Sabhāiyōm. Kūttāṭṭuk Kāṇi: Taking the opportunity, the thiru Nallūr Urār made one more decision which was also included in this record. They purchased additional land of about two Mā’s of land and gifted it to one Gautamaṉ Tiruvaiyāruḍaiyāṉ, as service land for dance/dramatic performances.
This service was called “Kūttāṭṭuk-kāṇi – Drama Service”. He was given this as a hereditary service tenure and he was asked to perform the drama (Kōvaṇa Nāṭakam) in the festival of the Lord Śiva of the village. The record also confers the right for his descendants to perform the same after his demise. In the event he was unable to perform for some reason, he was given the freedom to have the drama performed by another actor. The land was to be used only for enacting this drama (and not for any other purpose) and was given tax free (irai-ili). This gift was placed under the protection of Caṇḍeśvara of the temple. (Pāpanasam district inscriptions, no. 32 of 1995)
There is another inscription dated around 25 years earlier in the time of Rajādhirāja Cōḻa II, which refers to a dancing girl, named Neṟṟik kaṇ naṅgai who enacted the Kōvaṇa Nāṭakam with the actor Manantai Bhaṭṭālakaṉ, alias Uḍaiyapillai, who was a Vaḍugaṉ (Telugu). This land was gifted as “Kōvaṇa Nāṭakap puram”. The gift was made by the great Assembly of Tiru Nallūr alias Pañcavan-Mahādevī-caturvedi-maṅgalam, which means both the Śiva and Vaiṣnava parts of the village had jointly gifted it (Papanasam district inscriptions no 34/ 1995). This gift of tax-free land was made for the service of performing the dance/drama and was not based on caste system. Endnotes and References 1. The Epigraphia Indica, Vol. IV., Eugene Hultzsch, pg.180,181. 2. South Indian Inscriptions, Vol XII, No. 109., (A. R. No. 82 of 1932-33), Ānūr, Chingleput Tālūk and District, on the south wall of the mandapa in front of the central shrine in the Astrapurīśvara temple. 3. South Indian Inscriptions, Vol III, No. 200., on the north wall of the central shrine in the Nāgēśvarasvāmin temple at Kumbakōṇam. 1 𑌸𑍍𑌵𑌸𑍍தி ஸ்ரீ பாண்டியன் றலை கொண்ட கொப்பர- 2 [கெச)ரி𑌵𑌰𑍍𑌮ற்க்கு யாண்டு ௩ ஆவது வடகரைப்பாம்பூர்நாட்டு 3 தெயதாநம் திருக்கடமுக்கில் முலபறடைப்பெருமக்(க)- 4 ளொம் இங்கணாட்டுச் சிற்றிங்கண் சிற்றிங்கணு(டை)- 5 யாக் கொவில்மயிலையாக பராந்தகமுவெந்த-ெ 6 வனாருக்கு இன் நம்பர்க் காட்டு மெற்காவிரி நாங்கள் உ [டை] 7 டயாரிடை அ𑌭𑌿ஷெக𑌦க்ஷி[ணை] பெற்றுடைய நிலம் 8 𑌉𑌧ச வெளியிதும் 𑌪𑍍𑌰𑌭𑌾கர𑌮𑍍 வக்காணிப்பார்க்கு [𑌭] 9 𑌟𑍍𑌟𑌵𑍍𑌰த்திடயாக இவ்வூரிலெ விற்றுக்குடுத்த [நிலம்] இரண்(டு) 10 இரண்டுமாவுக்கும் எல்லை கீழ்பாற்[கெல்)லை 𑌶𑌾 [𑌳]- 11 𑌭𑍋𑌗மாக விற்று[க்"]குடுத்த நிலத்து
கு மெற்கும் (தெ)-
12 ன்பாற்கெல்லை மெற்காவிரி நிலத்துக்கு வ(ட)- 13 க்கும் மெல்பாற்கெல்லை விற்றென்கள் நிய 14 வத்துக்கு கிழக்கும் வடபாற்கெல்லை வி(ற்*[றொ)- 15 ங்கள் நிலத்துக்கு (தெற்கு]ம் ஆக இவ்விசைத்த (பெ) 16 பருகான்கெல்லையுன் அகப்ப(ட்*]- நிலம் மூ. 17 வபறடையாரிடை விலைகொண்டபரிசெ [𑌚𑌨𑍍𑌦𑍍𑌰𑌾] 18 𑌦𑌿த்தவத் 𑌭𑌟𑍍𑌟 𑌵𑍍𑌰𑌿𑌤𑍍𑌤𑌿யாக வைச்சென் பராந்𑌤𑍍𑌤கமூ[வெ𑌨𑍍𑌤𑍍𑌤]- 19 வௌானென் இது ஆயிரதிருவடியுமுடைய (சர் 𑌰)- 20 𑌕𑍍𑌷𑍈 | 𑌇𑌦𑌮𑍍 𑌪𑌰𑌾𑌨𑍍𑌤𑌕𑍇𑌣 𑌲𑍇𑌖𑌾 4. South Indian Inscription, Volume XII. “ஸ்வஸ்திஸ்ரீ கோராஜகேசரி வர்மர்க்கு யாண்டு 6 ஆவது ஆர்க்காட்டுக் கூற்றத்து பிரம்மதேயம் சந்திரலேகை சதுர்வேதி மங்கலத்து பெருங்குறி சபையோம் இவ்வூர் ஐம்பத்து மூன்றாம் குடும்பில் பாரத பங்குக் கோயிலான் நாகநந்தி விற்ற பங்கு 1 இவ்வொரு பங்கும் இவ்வூர் பிரம்மஸ்தானத்து மீய் செங்கிளி நாட்டு வெண்ணெயில் உடையான் வயிர மேக படாரன் எடுப்பித்த அம்பலத்து இருந்து நிசதியும் ஸ்ரீபாரதம் வாசிக்க பெரும்புலியூர் ஆத்ரேய கோத்திரத்து வைகானச சூத்திரத்து சிங்கி நந்தீஸ்வர பட்டனுக்கு இறையிலியாகக் கொடுத்தோம் சபையோம். இந்நிலம் பின்பு இப்பங்கு உண்பார் இவ்வூர் பிரம்மஸ்தானத்தே இருந்து நிசதியும் ஸ்ரீபாரதம் வாசித்து உண்பதாக” 5. South Indian Inscriptions, Volume III. pg2-10.
